This 'legalization' will come back to bite the states that allow free puffing in their clueless asses.

I would not participate in the program, instead taking a civil infraction ticket and fighting it in court. This is the same as DWI roadblocks, which are clearly unconstitutional as is the notion of prior consent for drivers license holders. You cannot give away your rights, you cannot sell or waive rights under duress. I know that the DWI forced testing is loved by the majority, but they are seldom correct or worried about the Constitution.

Well put, and needs repetition.

The pilot counties were chosen based on several criteria, including the number of impaired driving crashes, impaired drivers arrested and trained Drug Recognition Experts (DREs) in the county.

DREs are police officers who have received highly specified training that allows them to identify drivers impaired by drugs. Although the pilot program is being organized and managed by the MSP, DREs employed by county, township and municipal police agencies will also be involved, MSP said.

Under the pilot program, a DRE may require a person to submit to a preliminary oral fluid analysis to detect the presence of a controlled substance in the person’s body if they suspect the driver is impaired by drugs.

“Experts” will determine if they think you LOOK like you might be on drugs. I see no room for abuse here, none whatsoever.  And I trust the state to assure that only the bestest and the brightest are assigned to have the “power” to demand they take a swathe of spit from my mouth because they THINK I might look like I’m on drugs.

So ostensibly, this is not random, but it is. Figuring out if someone might be on drugs is hardly an exact science. A person who is tired looks like they are on drugs. A person who might be extremely happy about something, a person who might be really angry about something, a person who is naturally goofy looks like they might be on drugs.

They are invading your mouth with a swab. They are capturing your DNA. And they are doing so without a warrant, based solely on the subjective evaluation of a cop, a cop who most likely has an IQ under 100 (court Oks barring people with too high an IQ from being cops), a cop who has an incentive to find the violators so he or she can meet their quotas for the month (quotas linger).

They are invading your mouth with a swab. They are capturing your DNA. And they are doing so without a warrant, based solely on the subjective evaluation of a cop, a cop who most likely has an IQ under 100 (court Oks barring people with too high an IQ from being cops), a cop who has an incentive to find the violators so he or she can meet their quotas for the month (quotas linger).

And of course you neglect to mention there is substantial and consistent evidence from research that highly publicized, highly visible, and frequent sobriety checkpoints in the United States reduce impaired driving fatal crashes by 18% to 24%.

Naturally, Cop Hater, you couldn’t stop bashing cops long enough to find that out and publish it….eh?

Drivers in St. Clair County will be among the first in the state who could be required to submit to roadside drug testing.

This is bullshit fishing expeditions. Whoever thought of this should be put on trial for treason. They are waging a war against the constitution.

Your over zealousness sometimes clouds your judgement and makes you support things that are contrary to the constitution.

Have you ever read the fourth amendment? Tell me exactly how this doesn't violate the fourth amendment.

Gatlin (#0) ---- Drivers in St. Clair County will be among the first in the state who could be required to submit to roadside drug testing.¿

This is bullshit fishing expeditions. Whoever thought of this should be put on trial for treason. They are waging a war against the constitution.

Your over zealousness sometimes clouds your judgement and makes you support things that are contrary to the constitution.

Have you ever read the fourth amendment? Tell me exactly how this doesn't violate the fourth amendment.

A K A Stone

Again, well said AKA.. As Deckard noted above, the very concept that some 'expert' could be so empowered by the State. is against every principle of our constitution.

And we all must be careful on how we criticize the major, lest he limit his replies/postings. (That'll be the day)

Again, well said AKA.. As Deckard noted above, the very concept that some 'expert' could be so empowered by the State. is against every principle of our constitution.

‘The Drug Whisperer’ | Drivers arrested while stone cold sober

DREs will be provided handheld devices that the swab will be inserted into.

Provided the swabs are discarded after testing, I don't see how this differs from DUI checkpoints.

Have you ever read the fourth amendment?

Yes, I have read the Fourth Amendment.

Tell me exactly how this doesn't violate the fourth amendment.

I am not an interpreter of the Constitution.

Therefore I will let the United States Supreme Court tell you this doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment.

The Michigan Supreme Court found sobriety roadblocks to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

However, by a 6-3 decision in Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz (1990), the United States Supreme Court found properly conducted sobriety checkpoints to be constitutional.

I am not an interpreter of the Constitution.

Therefore I will let the United States Supreme Court tell you this doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment.

Saturday, November 4, 2017 The role of specialization in progressivism The cultural role of specialization in progressive ideology has become more apparent to me over the years, especially as I learn more about them at the same time I am learning about the Founders. It shouldn't be overlooked any longer.

The progressives, they really enjoy specialization. Man #1, he is a professional organizer. Always has been, always will be. Man #2 is a professional Human Resources coordinator. Man 3# is a professional journalist. Man #4 is a professional teacher. Man #5 is a CEO. Man #6, he is a professional politician.

Wait a second. Professional politician? Go with me here for a second. What were the Founders?

Many of them were lawyers. But actually, they were historians. But actually, they were philosophers. But actually, they were politicians.

Some weren't lawyers, instead they were farmers. But actually, they were authors. But actually, they were theologians. But actually, they were politicians.

You see that? They weren't specialists. They were generalists. They did many things throughout their lives, and did not look at politics as a life-long career and certainly did not go off to college to achieve that one single goal.

This is actually a part of the problem - the old adage "those who don't know their history are doomed to repeat it" - well, what does a specialist know BUT his specialization?(and let's not forget the role of university indoctrination)

How can a specialist in, say, fixing some sort of complex machine possibly know about Article 3, section 2? That's not his specialization, that's for the Constitutional experts to handle.

How can a specialist in, say, nuclear physics, possibly know about the constitutional debates between August 6th to August 18th, 1787? That's for the history experts to handle.

How can a specialist in, say, medicine, possibly know the meaning of God's Law/Natural Law and the Enlightenment? That's for religious experts to handle. Add into the fact that the doctor who works 18 hours a day isn't then going to go home and read the Constitution before bed. Sure, there may be a small handful who will, but not nearly enough to make up the difference.

You see how the weakness is necessarily bred into the mix? I'm referring in all cases to super smart people here. This isn't an issue of lack of intellect. It's a lack of exposure.

Hyper specialists are natural suckers for tyranny. Serfs in the waiting. "Eh, politics? Bah, that's for the politicians to handle. Fake news? Bah, that's not for me. That's for the journalists to handle. History? No, I will leave that to the historians. Economics? I'm not touching that one. Go ask an expert." Specialization breeds large amounts of weakness.

Listen to the wording of this small preface:

In an age of specialization, one's activities are necessarily delimited by the professional interest. However, the great war has affected more than the vocational superstructure of our lives. It has rocked the foundations of civilization, and compelled the revaluation of many standards far more vital and more basic than the vocational. This fact may explain, if it does not justify, this excursion afield of a student of economics. The war has changed many of the conditions of living which demand analyis. Unlike the chemist or physicist, the student of the social sciences cannot vary the conditions of his experiments, but must wait until the processes of history afford him an opportunity to observe variations In phenomena, and to study their causes.

The war has upset some accepted articles of faith, but it has confirmed many others, which not only stood the test of war, but determined the victory. Many new needs have arisen and some old tendencies have become clearer.

We are entering a new era. We may do so blindly, or we may attempt to crystallize our ideas on the issues arising out of the war for the purpose of intelligently controlling social forces.

The problems of social and of political adjustment, and of the conservation of human resources, are neither less pressing nor less significant to the country than are the economic and financial questions, which have riveted the attention of statesmen and publicists during the past year. The little attention which the social problems have received is not a criterion of their relative importance in the life of the American people. It is characteristic of human nature to neglect those problems which, though they deal with the most fundamental aspects of the national life, lack the driving force of the economic motive.

This volume is a sequel to "American Problems of Reconstruction, a Symposium on the Economic and Financial Aspects." In the treatment of their subjects the contributors were requested to discuss:

1 . What have been the effects of the war? a. What pre-war conditions have become more clearly defined? b. What new conditions has the war brought to life?

2. What should be our policy during the reconstruction period? Thanks for suggestions are due to Drs. Dickinson, Rogers and Wolman, and others of the group of men who gathered at the Cosmos Club during the war. The volume has benefited as a result of the advice of Dean William H. Welch, of the School of Public Health of the Johns Hopkins University, and of my brother, David, particularly in the section dealing with the social aspects of medicine. Grateful acknowledgment is also made to President Frank J. Goodnow, Professors Charles H. Cooley, Franklin H. Giddings, M. M. Kaplan, T. I. Parkinson, Roscoe Pound, E. A. Ross, and Arthur J. Todd, and Mr. Abraham Flexner, for helpful suggestions.

That's from "America and the new era, a symposium on Social Reconstruction" It's a book written by progressives, for progressives. Social reconstruction? Who but progressives look at the progressive era through the era after World War 1 as an era of social reconstruction. Progressives are very intense when it comes to their "fundamental transformation" of America, and they have been since day one.

Notice how the theme of the preface is entirely geared toward social control, with a sprinkle of economic talk. That's the job of the new specialist in the progressive era, social control. Control over you, over your life. In part, this is also why progressives worship the false god of "the economy" so intently. They can use it for control purposes. Sure, it can be said that in the short term, an economy comprised entirely of specialists will be more productive and prosperous with fatter bank accounts than the corresponding generalists. However, at what price?

Here we are, one century past the progressive era. Tyranny is knocking at our door, demanding payment. You ready to pay the price for abandoning generalization? The generalists then had more freedom than the specialists do now. Choose wisely.

http://tinyurl.com/y7g8smca

I think you know it does and you can't win the word battle.

So you post a link to a supreme court decision to try and end the conversation with a "victory".

Come on Gatlin read the fourth and tell us how it doesn't violate it. I think you know it violates the fourth amendment. That you don't care if it violates the fourth amendment. To you, in my opinion it is more important that it goes the way you want then following the constitution to the letter. You generally support the constitution. But if there is something you feel strongly about you will go with be in favor of that instead of the constitution.

, it can be said that in the short term, an economy comprised entirely of specialists will be more productive and prosperous with fatter bank accounts than the corresponding generalists. However, at what price?

Here we are, one century past the progressive era. Tyranny is knocking at our door, demanding payment. You ready to pay the price for abandoning generalization? The generalists then had more freedom than the specialists do now. Choose wisely.

Another excellent post, AKA. --- Thanks..

You have gatlin on the run, although he'll never admit it. Good work.

When I approach a DUI checkpoint, I always have the driver’s window down and the left rear limo tint window full down so the officer can also see in the back seat area. I keep both hands fully visible on top of the steering wheel and greet the officer with a “Good Evening, Sir/Ma’am.” [No, not brownnosing….I always refer to everyone as “Sir” or “Ma’am. That was the proper upbringing that has been carried forward from my Southern heritage]. The officer generally looks at me and then waves me on through….at which time I wish the officer to “have a good evening.”

I cannot of course help but notice the dumb bastards lined up and trying to walk in a straight line. I chuckle thinking there are at least a few Sons-of-Bitches who will not kill me this evening….and mutter a silent “Thank You” to the officers who will be taking them into custody.

But unfortunately, not all DUI drivers get caught in check points. For it is a couple times or more each week I read that people were killed in the area by a person driving under the influence.

Here is but one tragic event that keeps coming back to mind for personal reasons:

The wrong-way driver who caused a crash that killed two sisters and himself had a blood-alcohol level three times the legal limit at the time of the collision on Interstate 17 in Phoenix, a report shows.

Keaton Allison, 21, had a BAC level of 0.25 percent, according to blood-testing results from the Maricopa County Office of the Medical Examiner.

A blood-alcohol level between 0.16 and 0.3 percent qualifies as "severe impairment," with effects including "dangerously impaired" driving skills and decision-making ability, blackouts and loss of consciousness, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.

In Arizona, a DUI is considered "super extreme" when the driver’s BAC level is 0.2 percent or above. Allison drove nearly six miles the wrong way before running head-on into the vehicle in which Karli and Kelsey Richardson were riding at 2:10 a.m. on April 14.

You stated about me:

Your over zealousness sometimes clouds your judgement and makes you support things that are contrary to the constitution.

But you have absolutely NO basis WHATSOEVER to say that I in any way support things that are contrary to the Constitution.

Just because I don’t agree with your opinion and your personal interpretation of the Constitution does not mean I am wrong….it only means that you disagree with me.

So be it …

If you want to call my strong desire to prevent anyone from being killed by an inconsiderate bastard driving under the influence as being over zealous….then I will cop a plea to that. But you have absolutely NO basis WHATSOEVER to say that I in any way support things that are contrary to the Constitution.

Just because I don’t agree with your opinion and your personal interpretation of the Constitution does not mean I am wrong….it only means that you disagree with me.

So be it …

I'm not saying you are a bad person.

People in the day of slavery who opposed it and say harbored slaves. They acted against the constitution but they followed their hearts with what they thought was a higher calling.

I'm just observing a fact I see. I'm not saying you are wrong to think it is more important to pull people over and violate their plain 4th amendment rights. Possibly saving someones life. That could be the right thing to do. The moral thing to do.

You need to for the purposes of this conversation tell us how this doesn't violate the fourth amendment since you said we can't say that you don't support the constitution. Just take a stab at it.

So again tell me how it doesn't violate the fourth amendment.

So again I will tell you the same thing.

It doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment because the United States Supreme Court ruled that it doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment.

You may think it violates the Fourth Amendment, but that is only your personal opinion which of course you can freely express.

Wouldn’t it have been nice had Allison come upon a DUI check point that evening before he entered the Interstate and killed Kelsey and Karli Richardson?

I don't support check points.

However if I could magically go back and make that guy go through a check point that would be good with me.

So again I will tell you the same thing.

It doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment because the United States Supreme Court ruled that it doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment.

You may think it violates the Fourth Amendment, but that is only your personal opinion which of course you can freely express.

Fourth amendment says there has to be a search warrant signed by a judge.

It violates it.

The Supreme court said unborn babies aren't human and worthy of a trash can. They know better then you right?

Sometimes you have to have the guts to say they got it wrong.

Or in your case to say they got it wrong and I don't care because it was the right thing imo.

Fourth amendment says there has to be a search warrant signed by a judge.

It violates it.

You must learn the your constitutional rights still apply in at a DUI checkpoint. Though police are permitted to stop you briefly, they may not search you or your car unless they have probable cause that you’re under the influence or you agree to the search.

We are not discussing unborn babies here….stay on topic.

Drug Recognition Expert

We'd all be a lot safer if these officers remained at the doughnut shop.

Sometimes you have to have the guts to say they got it wrong.

When someone does say the US Supreme Court got it wrong….they are only expressing their personal opinion which of course they are entitled to do.

And they can go to the open window and scream I’m mad as Hell and I’m not goint to take this anymore like the actor did in the 1976 American satirical film.

But then, reality must set in …

You either follow and obey the ruling….or you must suffer the consequences.

Your choice …

I will leave you with this from findlaw.com:

DUI Checkpoints and the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that the people have a right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Searches will often involve the issuance of a search warrant, but not always. Searches and seizures can occur without a warrant under certain circumstances as long as the search is reasonable.

Most of the time, a search will be reasonable if there is probable cause for law enforcement officers to believe that it is necessary. A search incident to an arrest, for example, is generally considered reasonable since there is already probable cause to believe that the subject of the search has done something wrong.

Searches and seizures that occur randomly or that are overly burdensome or intrusive, however, will generally not be considered reasonable by a court. Any evidence acquired as a result of such a search will be removed from the official record in a case.

Sufficient Probable Cause?

DUI checkpoints pose an interesting application of the Fourth Amendment’s rules. Stopping the driver of a car is considered a seizure since the person has to pull over and can’t leave again until the officer allows it. Since the law enforcement officers at a DUI checkpoint stop every single driver without any individualized suspicion, it would appear at first glance that the officers would not have sufficient probable cause to conduct the seizure of the drivers.

In certain cases where the type of seizure is minimally intrusive, however, the Supreme Court has decided that a balancing test is more appropriate for determining the reasonableness of a search than the probable cause standard. In the case concerning DUI checkpoints mentioned in the introduction to this article, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, a majority of the Supreme Court Justices determined that the needs of the state to prevent drunk-driving accidents outweighed the minimal intrusion on sober drivers who just happen to get caught up in the DUI dragnet. Thus, the Justices argued, DUI checkpoints did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure.

http://traffic.findlaw.com/traffic-stops/are-dui-checkpoints- legal-.html

Do with this whatever you wish to.

Fight it all you want to, but you are never going to win.

However, if it make you feel better to fight it….then have at it until your heart’s content.

You just go along with what authority figures say.

No, I just don’t intentionally fight the law just to be an obstinate rebellious ass.

fight the law

You anti-Constitution totalitarians, will lose again.

There is no probable cause.

In order to detain you at a DUI check point, a cop is required to have “probable cause” that you’ve violated the law.

Probable cause at a DUI check point simply means that you are operating a motor vehicle while under the influence. It takes very little for a cop to show probable cause. If the officer observed the smell of alcohol coming from your car, that may provide probable cause to charge you with a DUI….in the case of marijuana, the smoke.

Unfortunately you don’t get to say “there is no probable cause” at the check point. You can fight it later in the court.

If you feel there is no probable cause, you can fight it. If the cops truly had no probable cause, then later in your case you can bring a motion to suppress which may result in the entire case being thrown out. However BEWARE….when it’s your word against the officer’s—such claims usually don’t succeed, particularly in DUI cases

In the case concerning DUI checkpoints mentioned in the introduction to this article, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz, a majority of the Supreme Court Justices determined that the needs of the state to prevent drunk-driving accidents outweighed the minimal intrusion on sober drivers who just happen to get caught up in the DUI dragnet. Thus, the Justices argued, DUI checkpoints did not constitute an unreasonable search and seizure.

Probable cause at a DUI check point simply means that you are operating a motor vehicle while under the influence. It takes very little for a cop to show probable cause. If the officer observed the smell of alcohol coming from your car, that may provide probable cause to charge you with a DUI….in the case of marijuana, the smoke. ---- gatlin

The Justices admit such stops are a dragnet, yet they are not an intrusion?

This is insanity, --- the SCOTUS is wrong, and those who argue otherwise are at best anti- constitutionalist dupes.

Have you ever read the fourth amendment? Tell me exactly how this doesn't violate the fourth amendment.

You have to remember that Gatlin at heart is a fascist.

His treatise and staunch defense of the ACLU is well-documented over at LP's archives. What's THAT tell ya??

This is insanity, --- the SCOTUS is wrong, and those who argue otherwise are at best anti- constitutionalist dupes.

Yup.

They are dupes (yes, like Gatlin) who also happen to defend the ACLU policies AND subversive agenda. Fascists at the core.