The breathalyzer laws have been held up in court as constitutional multiple times.
Moreover when the law states that the definition of intoxication is .08% BAC, and the only ways to measure BAC is an invasive blood sample or breathing into a tube (less invasive than fingerprints for that matter), what you're advocating is making the drunken driving laws meaningless. On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:53 AM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > > I don't even agree with breathalyzers or blood draws > On Jun 4, 2013 7:51 AM, "GMoney" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > That's cool. A libertarian on another list had the same viewpoint. I can > > see the argument. > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:43 AM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I do > > > > > > No collection until conviction. > > > On Jun 4, 2013 7:40 AM, "GMoney" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Do you oppose taking fingerprints, or any other type of identifiable > > > data, > > > > from people who have been arrested, but not charged? > > > > > > > > it seems to me like it should be all or nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 7:35 AM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Because you can plant manufactured DNA. > > > > > > > > > > No to mention what markers are they eventually going to be looking > > for? > > > > > On Jun 4, 2013 7:29 AM, "GMoney" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Been discussing this on another list....and i guess my question > is > > > > this: > > > > > > What's different about taking fingerprints and taking DNA? They > > > > > fingerprint > > > > > > arrestees....which gives them identifiable information which can > be > > > > used > > > > > to > > > > > > link them to other crimes. How is taking DNA with an equally > > > > unobtrusive > > > > > > method any different? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 3:29 AM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No room for abuse there at all..... > > > > > > > On Jun 3, 2013 11:41 PM, "Cameron Childress" < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-06/us-supreme-court-rules-dna-testing-legal-search > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Annnnnddd...... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Discuss. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Cameron > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:364142 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
