To blow or not to blow...

Dallas wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:55:37 -0500, Ron Natalie wrote:

The way it works in nearly every state is that alco tests are consented
to as a condition of license issuance.

I could argue that loosing your privilege to drive constitutes a penalty.
Refusing to incriminate yourself by declining an alcohol test results in
the application of this penalty. Therefore, you are being penalized for
exercising your 5th amendment right of non incrimination.

It sounds non constitutional to me.


The problem is as it has been explained to you before in this forum is
that the permission to drive a car on the public roadways is not a
right. It is a privilege that is granted you by the entity that
owns/controls those roads i.e. the state. Part of the contractual
agreement you enter into with the state is that you will consent to a
alcohol test.

It is no different than if when I hire you to go to work for me you
agree to random drug screens with the understanding refusal or failure
will result in termination.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:48:12 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

It is no different than if when I hire you to go to work for me you
agree to random drug screens with the understanding refusal or failure
will result in termination.

Comparing a private enterprise with state and federal government is not
good comparison. A private enterprise has great leeway and can require you
to forgo rights that can't be taken away by the government and the legal
system. For example, the right to free speech on the employer's property
can and usually is taken away by an employer.

I gather you see the issue as one of, "If you don't like this rule, then
you don't have to get a driver's licence."

I think there is an interesting legal argument inside this issue that will
never be argued because of the overwhelming approval by the public for the
system. Hell, even I wouldn't want to see them change it, but on an
intellectual level it bothers me.

--
Dallas

Dallas wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:48:12 -0600, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

It is no different than if when I hire you to go to work for me you
agree to random drug screens with the understanding refusal or failure
will result in termination.

Comparing a private enterprise with state and federal government is not
good comparison. A private enterprise has great leeway and can require you
to forgo rights that can't be taken away by the government and the legal
system. For example, the right to free speech on the employer's property
can and usually is taken away by an employer.

I gather you see the issue as one of, "If you don't like this rule, then
you don't have to get a driver's licence."


You don't and the state doesn't have to give you one. There are a set of
things you must do and agree to or the state is well within their
rights to refuse you a license. Comparing it to free speech proves that
you are still not thinking of the DL as what it is.


I think there is an interesting legal argument inside this issue that will
never be argued because of the overwhelming approval by the public for the
system. Hell, even I wouldn't want to see them change it, but on an
intellectual level it bothers me.


It has been argued probably hundreds of times. The laws still stand.
That ought to tell you something.

WingFlaps writes:

That's OK if it will strop drunk drivers...

Ignoring the Constitution creates a very slippery slope.

Dallas writes:

Comparing a private enterprise with state and federal government is not
good comparison. A private enterprise has great leeway and can require you
to forgo rights that can't be taken away by the government and the legal
system. For example, the right to free speech on the employer's property
can and usually is taken away by an employer.

No. Fundamental rights cannot be suspended by an employer. However, the
right to free speech does not extend to unrestricted speech in certain venues
to begin with (including employer premises, in some contexts), and that's why
employer can impose such restrictions. They are not suspending a right, they
are profiting from the fact that no right applies in a specific case.

I think there is an interesting legal argument inside this issue that will
never be argued because of the overwhelming approval by the public for the
system. Hell, even I wouldn't want to see them change it, but on an
intellectual level it bothers me.

If the public were not so overwhelmingly addicted to drugs to begin with, the
issue would not arise. The fundamental problem is drug abuse.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

WingFlaps writes:

That's OK if it will strop drunk drivers...

Ignoring the Constitution creates a very slippery slope.


So what, you dont drive fly or live in the US anyway.


Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Dallas writes:



If the public were not so overwhelmingly addicted to drugs to begin
with, the issue would not arise. The fundamental problem is drug
abuse.


You are an idiot.

Bertie

Mxsmanic wrote:
Dallas writes:

Comparing a private enterprise with state and federal government is not
good comparison. A private enterprise has great leeway and can require you
to forgo rights that can't be taken away by the government and the legal
system. For example, the right to free speech on the employer's property
can and usually is taken away by an employer.

No. Fundamental rights cannot be suspended by an employer. However, the
right to free speech does not extend to unrestricted speech in certain venues
to begin with (including employer premises, in some contexts), and that's why
employer can impose such restrictions. They are not suspending a right, they
are profiting from the fact that no right applies in a specific case.

Pile of babbling crap.

The "right to free speech" means the GOVERNMENT can't restrict your
speech.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

writes:

The "right to free speech" means the GOVERNMENT can't restrict your
speech.

And so an employer doing so is not removing any of your rights. QED.

Mxsmanic wrote:
writes:

The "right to free speech" means the GOVERNMENT can't restrict your
speech.

And so an employer doing so is not removing any of your rights. QED.

And ice cream has no bones. QED.

Once again you snip context in the futile hope that you will "win" and
achieve adulation from those that read your words.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.