"No Refusal" Checkpoints - good, bad, or ugly?

[Warren Dew]

Obviously the testing technology employed needs to be suitable, and account would need to be taken of someone who'd, say, just used mouthwash (doesn't that only happen when people are trying to avoid the test?).

I don't know whether mouthwash is a real concern, but ketogenic diets are:

A 59-year-old man undergoing weight loss with very low calorie diets (VLCD) attempted to drive a car, which was fitted with an alcohol ignition interlock device, but the vehicle failed to start. Because the man was a teetotaller, he was surprised and upset by this result. VLCD treatment leads to ketonemia with high concentrations of acetone, acetoacetate and beta-hydroxybutyrate in the blood. The interlock device determines alcohol (ethanol) in breath by electrochemical oxidation, but acetone does not undergo oxidation with this detector. However, under certain circumstances acetone is reduced in the body to isopropanol by hepatic alcohol dehydrogenase (ADH). The ignition interlock device responds to other alcohols (e.g. methanol, n-propanol and isopropanol), which therefore explains the false-positive result. This 'side effect' of ketogenic diets needs further discussion by authorities when people engaged in safety-sensitive work (e.g. bus drivers and airline pilots) submit to random breath-alcohol tests.

http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v31/n ... 3444a.html

In the UK, people can demand a backup blood test. In most states in the U.S., it's not a problem because the policeman has to suspect drunkenness in the first place due to observed erratic driving or behavior, and someone who is on a weight loss diet who hasn't been drinking won't act drunk. It's only a problem at checkpoints as in the original post.

I do wonder in the UK if a blood test involves a lot of extra time going to a station; if they have portable blood test equipment that doesn't require medical personnel, like the pinprick tests for blood sugar, why not use them in the first place, rather than a less reliable breathalyzer test? And of course in the U.S., if the policeman observes erratic driving or other signs of impairment such as drunkenness, I want that driver off the road whether or not it's due to alcohol.

The problems with breathalyzers for people on ketogenic weight loss diets is a significant issue because in the U.S., and I suspect in the UK, there are one or two orders of magnitude more deaths from overweight and obesity related causes than from automobile accidents. It's a bad idea to give overweight people excuses not to lose weight, or even to make them risk inconvenience for it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, it boils down to this, at least in Australia:

* random breath testing stations are common practice, with a "booze bus" in attendance.
* the vast majority of people happily submit to what is a quick and easy test (you don't even have to get out of your car), and the vast majority of those will pass, and be on their way in minutes (I am only occasionally tested, as it is more frequent at night, and I rarely drive at night)

That's what the Rhenquist Supreme Court said - where the intrusion is relatively minor, one can be stopped and searched in this way without any reason needed. So, nationally, there is at present no constitutional problem with these kinds of stops. Some states, one example being Michigan, have interpreted their State Constitutions as prohibiting even minor reasonless searches, though. So, there is some variation in the US on this isse.

As far as the OP goes, I agree that a compulsory blood test after refusing to take a breath test is over the top, and a breach of liberty, and also unecessary if solid penalties for refusal are in place.

I don't get why you would think this. You are fine with major penalties for refusing a breathalyzer. Why would you be against having the breath test refusal constituting probable cause to take a blood test for alcohol? Are you against blood tests for alcohol even if there is probable cause?

And, if refusal to take breath test is not sufficient probable cause to issue a warrant to demand a blood test, then what is sufficient probable cause for a blood test?

I understand Jim as saying this to be an either/or scenario. You have the choice to refuse the breathalyzer, and suffer the penalties associated with it, or you refuse the breathalyzer and submit to the blood test, and not suffer the penalties. To refuse the breathalyzer, and suffer penalties, and be forced to take the blood test on top of that, is what he seems to be objecting to.

Well, if you refuse to take a breathalyzer and they issue a warrant to take your blood, and then you test sober, there won't be any penalties.

The law in FL now is that if you refuse a breathalyzer, you will likely lose your license for a year (but, can take steps to get it back sooner, and get restricted driving privileges), but that is preferable to testing positive. The situation becomes a bit different with these "no refusal" check points, because there is, well, "no refusal" allowed. You WILL take the breathalyzer, or if you do refuse, they have a judge there on the spot who will issue a warrant to have your blood tested. And, if you pass, you're clear, and if you don't pass, well...DUI conviction here we come....

[JimC]

CES wrote:

I don't get why you would think this. You are fine with major penalties for refusing a breathalyzer. Why would you be against having the breath test refusal constituting probable cause to take a blood test for alcohol? Are you against blood tests for alcohol even if there is probable cause?

And, if refusal to take breath test is not sufficient probable cause to issue a warrant to demand a blood test, then what is sufficient probable cause for a blood test?

Perhaps I am misunderstood here. I think it would be very sensible for anyone to take the breath test, and if it showed failure, allow a blood test which may well show your innocence. I certainly would... In Australia this is usually immediately available, but it is voluntary. If, having failed the breath test, you refuse the free, immediate blood test, you will be convicted on the breath test results.

The only thing I would object to is the Florida insistence on a forceable and compulsory blood test in the event of refusing a breath test first. Firstly, it is a much more serious intrusion into one's liberties than simply having to blow into a bag. Secondly, if the penalties for refusing to take a breath test are the same as the penalties for having a high alcohol reading, and are consistently used, then no law enforcement purposes are served by a compulsory blood test - the guy is going down anyway...

[Warren Dew]

Perhaps I am misunderstood here. I think it would be very sensible for anyone to take the breath test, and if it showed failure, allow a blood test which may well show your innocence. I certainly would... In Australia this is usually immediately available, but it is voluntary. If, having failed the breath test, you refuse the free, immediate blood test, you will be convicted on the breath test results.

Can you refuse the breath test and ask to skip straight to the blood test?

Firstly, it is a much more serious intrusion into one's liberties than simply having to blow into a bag.

I understand why you might feel that way, but I disagree. To me, the breath test more clearly violates our U.S. prohibition against forced self incrimination, a prohibition with which I agree strongly.

[Hermit]

In 2009, 33,808 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in the United States. Nationwide, about one-third (32%) of the total fatalities were in alcohol-impaired-driving crashes. Yet, the libertarians scream their heads off about random - and compulsory - breath testing, while supporting compulsory airport checks of passengers who want to fly. How many deaths have been caused by fundy terrorists using aeroplanes in that year?

Logic? Go figure.

[maiforpeace]

In 2009, 33,808 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in the United States. Nationwide, about one-third (32%) of the total fatalities were in alcohol-impaired-driving crashes. Yet, the libertarians scream their heads off about random - and compulsory - breath testing, while supporting compulsory airport checks of passengers who want to fly. How many deaths have been caused by fundy terrorists using aeroplanes in that year?

Logic? Go figure.

Who cares? As long as it's not YOUR loved ones that died in those alcohol related crashes, eh?

[Tigger]

In 2009, 33,808 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in the United States. Nationwide, about one-third (32%) of the total fatalities were in alcohol-impaired-driving crashes. Yet, the libertarians scream their heads off about random - and compulsory - breath testing, while supporting compulsory airport checks of passengers who want to fly. How many deaths have been caused by fundy terrorists using aeroplanes in that year?

Logic? Go figure.

Who cares? As long as it's not YOUR loved ones that died in those alcohol related crashes, eh?

I nearly missed the wink there!!

[mistermack]

In 2009, 33,808 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in the United States. Nationwide, about one-third (32%) of the total fatalities were in alcohol-impaired-driving crashes. Yet, the libertarians scream their heads off about random - and compulsory - breath testing, while supporting compulsory airport checks of passengers who want to fly. How many deaths have been caused by fundy terrorists using aeroplanes in that year?

Logic? Go figure.

You don't seem to employ much logic. Firstly, using your own figures, 68% of those deaths were caused by sober drivers. Using your own logic, it is being sober that caused these crashes.
If sober people can have accidents that aren't caused by intoxication, so can people who have had a drink.
The figures of deaths due to alcohol are the most dishonest figures out there.
They include accidents where a drunken pedestrian gets killed, or where a person who has had alcohol is the innocent party in a collision.
When we are one day given honest figures, we can finally have an honest debate.
Government agencies and pressure groups constantly give the figure for alcohol-related deaths. Alcohol-related covers just about anything. This is totally unrelated to the subject in question, deaths due to impaired driving.
If sober people have car accidents, so will at least the same proportion of people who have had a drink.
Give us the figures of deaths directly due to drunken driving, and you might get taken seriously.

[Tigger]

Fact: if you drink alcohol there is a deleterious effect on your driving. Any measures that reduce the damage caused by such selfishness is fine by me. Then we can look at the other figures too. The campaign in the OP was to be heavily advertised to reduce the level of drink driving. It's not, as some here seem to think, purely an exercise in infringement of your oh-so-valuable civil liberties. If you feel that strongly, fucking walk or get a bus.

[Feck]

So you make the assumption that one third of the drivers on the road have had a drink ? because according to the police ,Even without random tests IE They are selecting Drivers ,times vehicles etc on suspicion of DUI they don't find anything like that amount . So the figures do seem to add up the small percentage of drink drivers are involved in one third of the fatalities ..

Anyone who would like to claim the figures are made up can But you want to claim that alcohol does not seriously impair driving skills then you are an idiot .I can tell that my driving is impaired after 2 measures ,and I'm a heavy drinker with a correspondingly high tolerance .

[mistermack]

Fact: if you drink alcohol there is a deleterious effect on your driving. Any measures that reduce the damage caused by such selfishness is fine by me. Then we can look at the other figures too. The campaign in the OP was to be heavily advertised to reduce the level of drink driving. It's not, as some here seem to think, purely an exercise in infringement of your oh-so-valuable civil liberties. If you feel that strongly, fucking walk or get a bus.

Using your 'logic', you should ban mobile phones, radios, dogs and children in cars because they all have a deleterious effect on driving.
Personally, I drive more carefully and deliberately concentrate more when I've had anything at all to drink, because I know I would get the blame if some idiot hit me.
So your so-called "fact" is bollocks.

[Feck]

Use of mobile phones is banned . MM Fact: if you drink alcohol there is a deleterious effect on your driving


don't bother us with the 'I drive more carefully when I've had a drink so I'm not unsafe .' BULLSHIT !

[Tigger]

Fact: if you drink alcohol there is a deleterious effect on your driving. Any measures that reduce the damage caused by such selfishness is fine by me. Then we can look at the other figures too. The campaign in the OP was to be heavily advertised to reduce the level of drink driving. It's not, as some here seem to think, purely an exercise in infringement of your oh-so-valuable civil liberties. If you feel that strongly, fucking walk or get a bus.

Using your 'logic', you should ban mobile phones, radios, dogs and children in cars because they all have a deleterious effect on driving.
Personally, I drive more carefully and deliberately concentrate more when I've had anything at all to drink, because I know I would get the blame if some idiot hit me.
So your so-called "fact" is bollocks.

Indeed: Handheld mobile phone use is banned in the UK; children and dogs should be restrained, and in the UK, safety belts are compulsory for all passengers. You sound like the selfish person I'm talking about then, because you are writing like you'll use any excuse to drink and drive. Good luck with that, because you'll need it one day.
Fact: your driving ability is worse if you've had a drink. It's a proven fact.
Another fact then: your driving ability is probably not that hot anyway if you don't think that taking drugs makes much difference.

[mistermack]

So you make the assumption that one third of the drivers on the road have had a drink ? because according to the police ,Even without random tests IE They are selecting Drivers ,times vehicles etc on suspicion of DUI they don't find anything like that amount . So the figures do seem to add up the small percentage of drink drivers are involved in one third of the fatalities ..

Anyone who would like to claim the figures are made up can But you want to claim that alcohol does not seriously impair driving skills then you are an idiot .I can tell that my driving is impaired after 2 measures ,and I'm a heavy drinker with a correspondingly high tolerance .

Quite simply, they put anything down as alcohol-related that they possibly can. If a drunken pedestrian walks in front of your car when you are stone cold sober, its an acohol related road death.
If you banned people from carrying more than one passenger till they are thirty, you would save much more lives. Overloaded cars are the real killer. But it's not even frowned on. You don't even get a slap on the wrist.
And your statement about alcohol seriously impairing driving skills is meaningless.
How come I've never killed anyone, or injured anyone, in nearly 45 years, if I've been seriously impaired all those times? Your definition of seriously impaired is seriously impaired.
.

[Tigger]

So you make the assumption that one third of the drivers on the road have had a drink ? because according to the police ,Even without random tests IE They are selecting Drivers ,times vehicles etc on suspicion of DUI they don't find anything like that amount . So the figures do seem to add up the small percentage of drink drivers are involved in one third of the fatalities ..

Anyone who would like to claim the figures are made up can But you want to claim that alcohol does not seriously impair driving skills then you are an idiot .I can tell that my driving is impaired after 2 measures ,and I'm a heavy drinker with a correspondingly high tolerance .

Quite simply, they put anything down as alcohol-related that they possibly can. If a drunken pedestrian walks in front of your car when you are stone cold sober, its an acohol related road death.
If you banned people from carrying more than one passenger till they are thirty, you would save much more lives. Overloaded cars are the real killer. But it's not even frowned on. You don't even get a slap on the wrist.
And your statement about alcohol seriously impairing driving skills is meaningless.
How come I've never killed anyone, or injured anyone, in nearly 45 years, if I've been seriously impaired all those times? Your definition of seriously impaired is seriously impaired.
.

Maybe you've been lucky. Certainly people you've driven past have.
Seriously, how much do you personally think you can drink and be safe?