New Texas Blood Draw Law Starts Sept 1st 2009
- Thread starter Smirgen
- Start date
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Perfect example of how liberties are eroded. Notice how the politicians selected three situations where the drawing of blood is automatic following a collision? Eventually the law would be changed so that those three preconditions would not be required.
The fascists use the fear of drunk drivers among the general public to justify crap like this. Scapegoating is a very effective political tool.
This is especially dangerous for cannabis users because THC remains in one's system long after use. Smoke a joint the day before and find yourself involved in a collision where someone is injured - the coppers are taking your blood whether you like it or not and you are fucked.
However, this law is on shaky ground Constitutionally and should be struck down in the courts. The "Let's pass it and let the courts sort it out" mentality is dangerous and lazy.
Senator Gattis should be proud for doing his part to ensure Texas becomes a police state. The notion that a liberty-robbing piece of shit like this was enacted shakes my faith in the Lone Star State.
The fascists use the fear of drunk drivers among the general public to justify crap like this. Scapegoating is a very effective political tool.
This is especially dangerous for cannabis users because THC remains in one's system long after use. Smoke a joint the day before and find yourself involved in a collision where someone is injured - the coppers are taking your blood whether you like it or not and you are fucked.
However, this law is on shaky ground Constitutionally and should be struck down in the courts. The "Let's pass it and let the courts sort it out" mentality is dangerous and lazy.
Senator Gattis should be proud for doing his part to ensure Texas becomes a police state. The notion that a liberty-robbing piece of shit like this was enacted shakes my faith in the Lone Star State.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Yes Johnny O , once on the slippery slope, it is easy to continue the downward slide.
Using the emtionality of "getting drunks off the road" the police state will prosper. We are supposed to be protected from baring witness against ourselves, free from unwarranted search etc. This is a major step away from presumed innocence to guilty until proven innocent.
Using the emtionality of "getting drunks off the road" the police state will prosper. We are supposed to be protected from baring witness against ourselves, free from unwarranted search etc. This is a major step away from presumed innocence to guilty until proven innocent.
And all the while we do not have 1 shred of evidence that these DUI crackdowns actually reduce people driving under the influence. If these laws did work you would see reductions in the number of people arrested for such behavior, unfortunately the numbers climb every year. Kinda like the war on drugs, or should I say the war on the citizens, drug use is an epidemic and it wasn't that way until it was made illegal.
FlyLikeAnEagle
Well-Known Member
Sorry but you're wrong about this. THC will remain in your system for days after use but not in your bloodstream. 90% of THC will be gone from the bloodstream within 6-8 hours after ingesting it. 24 hours after ingesting it there will be small traces in your bloodstream but not enough for intoxication. Blood tests are very accurate in determining someones intoxication level at the time of the test and thats why they use them. If THC, alcohol, or any other drug is in your blood then you are intoxicated by it, once its out of your bloodstream (and stored in your fatty tissues) you are no longer high. Urine tests will show THC for days and sometimes weeks after ingesting but not blood tests.
I did a lot of research on this after someone I know was involved in a fatal accident (in the state I live blood tests are required if there is a fatality), she smoked the night before about 1AM and the accident happened about 9AM the next day and they took blood. The blood test showed negative intoxication.
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Will the blood test determine recent cannabis use?
Because that was my point. I said nothing of intoxication which is why I used the one day example - plenty of time between smoking and safe driving.
I am concerned with the authorities invading my privacy on the pretext of public safety and learning things about me that have no connection with probable cause.
purpleplantsmoker
Member
Thanks Fly, they had me shook for a min. I have to take a blood test sometime next week,do u think i'll b ok?
FlyLikeAnEagle
Well-Known Member
I do believe it can show very low levels of THC days after but from what I understand the levels are so low it is below the levels they are testing for or falls within a margin of error. The person I was referring to lost her own child and I have no doubt if they detected any amount of THC it would have at least been mentioned.
Personally I don't think its that bad of an idea depending on the situation. If someone drops 3 Valium and kills someone on the road shouldnt it be known?
FlyLikeAnEagle
Well-Known Member
Here is a good article from NORML about this:
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6495
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Because blood collection is generally viewed by the courts as invasive and requires the use of medically trained personnel, its use in DUID cases is often seen as impractical. However, many European DUID laws rely on blood specimen collection. This is because, unlike urinalysis, both drug metabolites and parent drugs are readily detectable in the blood. In general, peak THC serum levels typically exceed 100 ng/ml minutes after drug ingestion and then fall rapidly. As a result, detection times for marijuana and other parent drugs in the blood at levels above 1 ng/ml is typically only a few hours after past use.21 (Heavy cannabis users, however, may show residual THC serum levels of more than 2 ng/ml up to 48 hours after last use.22) Consequently, the Department of Transportation speculates, "In terms of attempting to link drug concentrations to behavioral impairment, blood is probably the specimen of choice."[/FONT][/FONT]
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6495
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Because blood collection is generally viewed by the courts as invasive and requires the use of medically trained personnel, its use in DUID cases is often seen as impractical. However, many European DUID laws rely on blood specimen collection. This is because, unlike urinalysis, both drug metabolites and parent drugs are readily detectable in the blood. In general, peak THC serum levels typically exceed 100 ng/ml minutes after drug ingestion and then fall rapidly. As a result, detection times for marijuana and other parent drugs in the blood at levels above 1 ng/ml is typically only a few hours after past use.21 (Heavy cannabis users, however, may show residual THC serum levels of more than 2 ng/ml up to 48 hours after last use.22) Consequently, the Department of Transportation speculates, "In terms of attempting to link drug concentrations to behavioral impairment, blood is probably the specimen of choice."[/FONT][/FONT]
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Then we'll just chalk this up to a difference of opinion because I have a major problem with any end run around our Constitutional protections.
You do make a point which should send a chill up the spine of any Texas members who are cavalier about smoking and driving. Meet the qualifications for automatic blood testing and then show intoxication levels of THC and you are double fucked. One because of the D.U.I. and two because the coppers now have probable cause to justify even more invasive searches.
TreesOfLife
Well-Known Member
Noone mentioned the end. They are training the POLICE TO TAKE BLOOD RIGHT THERE JOHNNY ON THE SPOT!!!
Johnnyorganic
Well-Known Member
Did not mention it, but took note of it.
Picture Deputy Fife with a bloody syringe in his hand and your arm full of holes.
FlyLikeAnEagle
Well-Known Member
I agree this particular law goes to far, requiring a blood test for any accident with a child in the car is fucking ridiculous. If they are going to have such laws they should be used for only extreme cases such as a death. This law requires it anytime there is a kid in the car or if there is any type of injury.
Someone needs to ask Republican Dan Gattis why he wrote this law.
doobnVA
Well-Known Member
That's scary as shit. Where I live, you CAN'T refuse a breathalyzer test. Refusal is basically an automatic admission of guilt (as well as a separate charge) and if you refuse, they take away your license on the spot for six months to a year.
I wonder, though... is the blood test only for the person who caused the accident, or do they test both drivers?
I can't see this new law lasting too long before someone appeals to the Supreme Court and the whole thing is ruled "unconstitutional".
I wonder, though... is the blood test only for the person who caused the accident, or do they test both drivers?
I can't see this new law lasting too long before someone appeals to the Supreme Court and the whole thing is ruled "unconstitutional".
ViRedd
New Member
Automatic blood tests without any outward sign, or suspicion of drunk driving, is bullshit. HOWEVER, if the officer smells alcohol on the suspect, or finds open containers in the car, then I'd be OK with the law. Personally, I think drunk driving under the influence of alcohol, should be a felony ... first time.