North Texas Drivers Stopped at Roadblock Asked for Saliva, Blood

As long as it was truly voluntary, and they weren't getting the results on the spot I don't see the big deal.

People felt pressured, and there was supposedly an LEO presence. Do you think if someone voluntarily blew a .20, they would let him drive away? We both know the answer to that, and we both know that someone that drunk might believe he would just drive away.

The most damning thing about the whole issue is that the study could hardly be valid, mainly because most people who had had anything at all to drink, or were on any recreational drugs would be very reluctant to cooperate. Self-selecting groups aren't useful in this sort of study. So what was the point?

How can it be voluntary when the FORCE you to stop so they can ask you "DO you volunteer"?? They only way this could be voluntary is if they put up signboards along the shoulder that said '

Anyone wishing to volunteer for an impaired driver study can go into the next Rest Area. If you are not interested in participating you DO NOT NEED TO STOP.

Not sure about other countries, but in the USA, driving is a privilege, not a right, and you volunteered to stop, when asked/told to do so, when you accepted your LICENSE to drive.

GW

GW wrote "- show quoted text - Not sure about other countries, but in the USA, driving is a privilege, not a right, and you volunteered to stop, when asked/told to do so, when you accepted your LICENSE to drive.

GW "

That depends on whether you are being ordered to pull over by a cop or by a corporation.

And if you turn around, go the other way. They come gitcha.

For non-commercial driving it is a right. For commercial driving it's a privilege.

Not in Connecticut. This quote from the Governor in the CT Driver's Manual.

"We want to remind all license holders that driving is a privilege and not a right."

Page 2 of

Driving is not a privilege. Government has been telling people that for decades because the perception that it is gives government power. There is nothing about driving or usage of roads that is a privilege. It was a progression that started shortly after there were two automobiles on the road using the new technology as an excuse to grab power.

How do I know driving is not a privilege? A privilege is granted, granted by someone. This is incompatible with the concept of individual rights and a society of equals under the law. Simply put there's nobody then who could grant a privilege. Furthermore the grantor of a privilege can attach any requirements he wants to that grant. How would you like to give government's employees the right to search your home any time they want in exchange for the privilege to drive? How about road side blood draws? A privilege is just that, something granted under terms and those terms are decided by the grantor without limit to what they may demand in exchange for the privilege. Your only option is to not obtain the privilege. This is why government tells us driving is a privilege, so we accept their terms to drive. It's just another scam.

Why do you think government is going to tell you the truth? Government lies all the time. It requires certain perceptions on our part such that those who own, operate, and employed by the government can maintain the lifestyles to which they have become accustomed. It works over long periods of time to convince us of things which it benefits. That's why it took over the schools and has continually acted to centralize them further and further.

Just read where things came from, try to find things that are in publications like a state driver's manual in the law. You'll start seeing that there are divergences between what government says and the plain language of the law. Learning the history of things will also uncover the long term scams.

That's right, in America driving is a right that everybody shares! Just because you're unable to figure out how to use the turn signals, you can't remember to keep to the righthand lane, or you've already been in a dozen accidents is no reason to stop driving! Because America has such poor public transit, Americans are completely dependant on their cars and nobody is willing to take their licenses away just for being incompetent and unsafe on the road. So pull up a six pack and put it in drive, and get out on that great American highway where driving is your right!

--scott

As usual the response to logic is ridicule. Horses are quite dangerous large animals that take training and skill to control, yet licensing is something that came about with the motor vehicle. Furthermore the level of competency testing for using a motor vehicle by government is so incredibly poor it might as well not exist. What does exist of course is often not holding people responsible but instead exploiting an irresponsible minority for gains in political power.

Now, perhaps you would like to address the problem with granting a privilege. That is the grantor's power in doing so. How is that compatible in a society of free people? Why is the grantor given this power in a society of equals? I know these are difficult logical questions to deal with, but try to put the emotional reactions of blood on the highway films aside a moment and attempt to answer them.

The law requiring you to get a license says the state SHALL issue one. Doesn't say the state MAY issue one. SHALL is the term used. That's because other then the minimal knowledge test to make sure you aren't a complete idiot in terms of driving skills, driving is a RIGHT.

You'd think in a country of people who supposedly value their freedom the idea that being able to drive is a mere privilege would provoke outrage yet the sheep not only go along with that notion, they attack those who speak the truth. It's like they are afraid to be released from their chains.

The point I am making is that in the US, state governments (which is to say mostly the court system) seems indeed to consider driving to be a right, because society has made it necessary for survival. As a consequence, we have a lot of people on the roads who have no business driving and who never could have got a license in Europe.

I'm perfectly willing to give up some of my God-given rights to the state in exchange for them keeping incompetent drivers off the road. That's how these things work; you can have absolute freedom or absolute safety and most of the time most people would prefer some point in the middle.

--scott

If your drivers license gets pulled, you might not get it back for at least one year.

Of course, these days equestrians tend to be rich and well connected, so of course they get preferential treatment.

These state governments have attached various non driving conditions to having the grant of privilege. A popular one is being up to date on child support payments. The state governments do indeed push the idea that driving is privilege. Now the courts are interested mostly in revenue and having people beg to retain their government granted privilege. Anyone using a rights based argument will be sure to have the book thrown at him.

What you'll get is neither your rights nor security/safety. The state does not care about your safety. It cares about itself, or rather the power and income of those running it, working for it, and close to it. This is why roads are intentionally mis-engineered from speed limits and signal timing.

So, it seems you don't like governments. Have you considered moving to a place without one?

--scott

I am realistic about what they are instead of emotionally delusional about it. Perhaps you'd like to grow out of childhood fantasy and fairy tales?