Here’s a Halloween story for you. The judicial system in Texas has been breeding…

Wait for it…


I’m speaking of the recent development that Texas has adopted a policy of no-refusal every weekend, meaning that you are subject to forced blood test if an officer deems you intoxicated and you refuse a breathalyzer.

This is the ultimate intrusion into personal space and private property that has ever occurred. For refusing a breathalyzer, a needle will forcibly penetrate your skin, which has now become the ultimate line of demarcation between you and The State.

Subjects, your overlords demand that you give involuntary testimony in the form of a blood sample. It’s the ultimate truth serum! Except that it can be manipulated. Who trusts their government anymore? Do they really need this much control? Really? Without proof of a crime being committed a person is to be forced to testify, against his will, against himself! Before even a lawyer can be called? What happened to the Fifth Amendment? Fourth Amendment?

Do you feel like cattle yet?

Not boo, but moo.

The ACLU of Texas in 2009, had this to say:

The ACLU of Texas sees the Austin program as part of a disturbing trend occurring all over the state: Law enforcement use of search warrants to obtain blood from drunken driving suspects.  The Austin Police Department recently announced the first “no refusal” weekend as a pilot program which APD plans to repeat on other holiday weekends such as New Year’s Eve.

“Utilizing officers’ time to transport and force Texas drivers who refuse a Breathalyzer test to get their blood drawn isn’t good use of police resources,” said Russell. “Moreover, it does little to help build the much-needed trust between APD and the community because inevitably there will be stories of physical abuse with implementation of this program,” Russell added.

Police have said the program will work this way: Motorists who fail field sobriety tests will be arrested and taken to a mobile unit equipped to give Breathalyzer exams. If suspects refuse, they will be taken to Travis County Jail where a magistrate will be on duty to issue a warrant for blood tests, administered by force if necessary.

Chemical tests don’t lie, after all [sarc]. The problem is, they can be manipulated, as we’ve seen many times such as in the recent Houston crime lab fiasco, in San Francisco, Detroit, and most recently in North Carolina. to name just a few.

Given these abuses of power, how can we give them more? Do any of us actually think they need more power? Why should they have more cameras, more Matrix? More! More! More! our government screams they  need tools to protect us from ourselves.

Enough, I say. Enough!

If the State is that worried about stopping crime, control the freaking border! Oh, but wait. There’s no money in that, is there? Instead we have a racket of insurance and courts and lawyers with the MADD mothers being useful tools in the erosion of our rights. After all, who isn’t against drunk driving? If you protest the intrusion of the state you must be a law breaker or a kook!

We have met the enemy and it is a Vampire Government unrestrained by the people who gave it power.

Where is my wooden stake?

  • […] has a reminder the Unicef trick or treats for abortion, and he has some fun with pi. Mind Numbed Robot reveals vampirism in Texas. Luckily the ‘bot has no blood. He’s also revealed a great game called, “Spot the […]

  • […] Radical Robot Dude has vampires! Moonbattery has “Night of the Voting […]

  • theCL October 31, 2010 at 4:44 pm

    This may sound “extreme” at first, but if you think about it … We should abolish drunk driving laws.

    First and foremost, they don’t keep drunks off the road. Second, everything a drunk driver might do wrong, is a crime even if you’re sober. If you’re driving recklessly, being sober doesn’t make it better. If you run somebody over, being sober changes nothing. Whatever crime you commit, it is not improved via sobriety.

    As a kid, I got run over by a sober driver and was almost killed. Broke both legs, a bunch of ribs, cracked my skull open and a whole host of other injuries. Missed half a year of school. What difference does it make to me that the guy was sober?


    Regulating what’s in someone’s blood is tyrannical, twisted, and solves nothing. It’s the polar extreme of liberty. Now they’re going to stick a needle in you to boot? Are they gonna store the dna too? What’s next? Where does it end? Cholesterol levels?

    • mnrobot October 31, 2010 at 6:26 pm

      I thought this one would strike a chord with you CL. I could probably be persuaded to agree with you here as well. It’s almost the same as “hate crime.” There is no such thing. Either the crime is malicious or not. I’m sure there are some points on both sides of the issue that I’m missing but for now I’d just like them to stop with the intrusion already. A needle in the arm is by definition an invasion of personal property, that is, unless we don’t own ourselves anymore and I’m afraid that is the next step.

      • theCL November 1, 2010 at 5:35 pm

        Well, the opposition comes down to the Office of Precrime. Tough laws will stop a drunk from getting in his car and therefore won’t commit a crime in the first place. But … isn’t there a serious moral question involved with arresting people prior to committing a crime? Besides, the drunk who thinks he can drive is also going to think he can avoid police! “Get tough” laws don’t affect those who are actually the problem. They only keep your mom from having an extra glass of wine.

        It’s just like drug laws. In the end, we’re saying the State has the right to regulate what’s in our blood and stick a needle in our arm to check if they please. You don’t have to drink or smoke to understand the moral implications involved. And if the State can tell you how much alcohol is allowed in your blood or what plants you can smoke, then why can’t they tell us how much broccoli we must eat, how much (if any) meat we can eat, or anything else for that matter?

        Real crime is still a crime whether you’re drunk, high or sober. And there’s no justice if we arrest people in anticipation of a crime. Who has this perfect crystal ball?

        • mnrobot November 1, 2010 at 5:56 pm

          I have to agree with that entire statement. The problem arises when we draw the line of State and Federal law. The State of Texas for example can constitutionally make such a law and we are obligated to obey it. That doesn’t mean that it is morally correct or that I agree with it. I can, however pitch a hissy fit about it and hope others will scream along side me to get that overbearing law overturned. I think the needle thing is a perfect example of going too far. If I/we can get them on that bandwagon of opposition, maybe there is hope to push back even further. I’m not holding much hope with so many progressives in my State Gub-ment tho.

  • theCL November 1, 2010 at 7:39 pm

    The problem arises when we draw the line of State and Federal law. The State of Texas for example can constitutionally make such a law and we are obligated to obey it.

    Setting aside that all government break their constitutional limits, are you saying regulating blood content is within the bounds of the Texas constitution? What about the Bill of Rights? Can Texas ignore the Bill of Rights? Isn’t sticking a needle in your arm “unreasonable search”? I sure think so.

    State government authority is boundless in comparison to federal, but still (supposed to be) limited by the Bill of Rights, individual state constitutions, and natural law. That’s why Chicago can’t just outright ban guns.

    Issues like these are so incredibly important, but they’re hard to touch because the second you bring it up you’re a “drunk!” “pothead!” “loser!” But that’s all surface noise, the real issue is much deeper. It starts with the question: Who owns you? Then, even laws have to make sense. They have to accomplish something and not leave a giant wake of collateral damage in their path.

    • mnrobot November 1, 2010 at 8:40 pm

      “are you saying regulating blood content is within the bounds of the Texas constitution?”
      I’m saying that the Federal Constitution placed no limit on the State to do it. I can’t speak about the Texas Constitution as I haven’t read it lately. The main point, that we both agree on, is that this particular needle business is an invasive procedure that calls into question ones ownership of one’s own person and the protection thereof. Back in the day, there used to be a statute that allowed juries to rule a particular law unjust or unconstitutional. I think this law would be one of those that common sense would prevail. Then again, I could be wrong. Education being what it is today.

      When it comes down to it CL, I agree with you. The problem arises when I would try to convince a trial lawyer or judge that has been immersed in case law so long that the Constitution has been forgotten and put out to pasture. It would be nice to turn this issue into an argument for personal responsibility and personal ownership, which it actually is, but I don’t speak Klingon judicial jargon.

  • […] Need a loaf of FDA approved bread and a twelve pack of pasteurized processed beer to help numb the senses to your lack of liberty? Go right ahead! You’re free to find the nearest convenience store run by immigrants who receive a tax break and subsidy but if you plan on driving that car, you’d better strap on a seat belt for your own safety. We wouldn’t want you killing yourself in an accident making you unable to pay back the insurance companies who apparently rule our lives because we’re too stoopid and incapable to do so ourselves. Not to mention, if a nice helpful revenue assessor officer of the law decides you’ve had one beer too many because the county and state need to fund a few ongoing, never-ending money pits downtown/highway/school beautification or government vote buying entitlement projects (Hey! This one’s got a job!). You’ll likely be forced to give some specimen in a twisted, technological violation of the Fifth or Fourth amendments to be used as evidence against you in a modern-day kangaroo court. (Ever hear of a No Refusal Law?) […]

  • Say it. Don't Spray it!

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.


Subscribe via email
December 2022