On Sunday 09 March 2003 18:16, you wrote: > On Sunday 09 March 2003 10:31 am, david wrote: > > Neither you nor anyone else has the right to force me or any > > other individual to subsidize your welfare. > > > > This device, if forced on individuals by a government entity, > > would violate fourth amendment protections against > > self-incrimination. DUI laws requiring breath or blood tests do > > the same thing. > > But you wouldn't mind if insurance companies required the device > in order for you to get a policy (whether or not it called the > police or just the insurance company) ? > > Right ?
- Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police Skulking Rogue
- Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police Major Variola (ret)
- Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police Bill Stewart
- Questionable science and drunk drivers Greg Broiles
- Re: Questionable science and drunk driver... Bill Stewart
- Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police gann
- Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios pol... Pete Capelli
- Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police Major Variola (ret)
- Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police david
- Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police A.Melon
- Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police david
- Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios pol... Kevin S. Van Horn
- Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios pol... Bill Stewart
- Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios... Harmon Seaver
- Re: Fw: Drunk driver detector that radios police david