Blood, spit and cops: Nationwide drug roadblocks raise eyebrows

slimvictor

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
6,477
Location
"Darkness cannot be dissipated with more darkness.
The roadblocks went up on a Friday at several points in two Alabama towns, about 40 miles on either side of Birmingham.

For the next two days, off-duty sheriff's deputies in St. Clair County, to the east, and Bibb County, to the southwest, flagged down motorists and steered them toward federal highway safety researchers. The researchers asked them a few questions about drinking and drug use and asked them for breath, saliva and blood samples -- offering them $10 for saliva and $50 to give blood.

It's not just in Alabama. The roadblocks are part of a national study led by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which is trying to determine how many drivers are on the road with drugs or alcohol in their systems. Similar roadblocks will be erected in dozens of communities across the nation this year, according to the agency.

It's been going on for decades. Previous surveys date to the 1970s. The last one was run in 2007, and it included the collection of blood and saliva samples without apparent controversy, sheriff's spokesmen in both Alabama counties said.

But this time, it's happening as the Obama administration struggles to explain revelations that U.S. spy organizations have been tracking phone and Internet traffic. Against that backdrop, the NHTSA-backed roadblocks have led to complaints in Alabama about an intrusive federal government.

Gov. Robert Bentley complained that his office had not been notified that the surveys were going to be conducted. Speaking on a Birmingham radio show, Bentley, a Republican, said the stops were "bad timing" after the NSA revelations and in light of recent complaints about the Internal Revenue Service subjecting conservative groups that applied for tax exemptions to additional scrutiny.

Bentley spokesman Jeremy King said the governor's office "is working to find out exactly what took place during those surveys."

"We just want to make sure the rights of our citizens are protected," King said.

And Susan Watson, executive director of the Alabama chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the use of deputies to conduct the survey an "abuse of power." Even though the survey is voluntary, people still feel they need to comply when asked by a police officer, she said.

"How voluntary is it when you have a police officer in uniform flagging you down?" Watson asked. "Are you going to stop? Yes, you're going to stop."

The agency said in a statement that the survey provides "critical information" to reduce drunken or drugged driving.

cont at
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/19/us/drug-survey-roadblocks/?hpt=us_c1
 
The feds want to lower the blood alcohol limit to .05 from the .08 threshold we have now. I thought the study and enhanced enforcement was supposed to end on the 19th

And they most certainly should. Relative risk of driving with a 0.05 vs a 0.08 increases between 8 and 4-fold depending on what age group and gender driver you're looking at.
 
And they most certainly should. Relative risk of driving with a 0.05 vs a 0.08 increases between 8 and 4-fold depending on what age group and gender driver you're looking at.

Yeah but it would kill revenues for bars. Plus so many people would get DUI that didnt deserve it at all. I can drink 2 beers and blow a .05
 
If every city was built like NYC--built up instead of out--we'd hardly even need cars. The problem now is anybody who wants to even plan a city out gets called a totalitarian dictator.

screen_shot_2012-11-14_at_8.02.21_am.png
 
Yeah but it would kill revenues for bars. Plus so many people would get DUI that didnt deserve it at all. I can drink 2 beers and blow a .05

You do realize that you are still substantially more likely to get in an accident with a 0.05 than being sober?
 
Yeah but it would kill revenues for bars. Plus so many people would get DUI that didnt deserve it at all. I can drink 2 beers and blow a .05

Do you realize you can always hide a fifth under a seat just in case you didn’t get enough.

Texas won’t take this law at all, this is the beer capital...
 
If every city was built like NYC--built up instead of out--we'd hardly even need cars. The problem now is anybody who wants to even plan a city out gets called a totalitarian dictator.

screen_shot_2012-11-14_at_8.02.21_am.png

Mao's policies killed 50 million people in the great famine of the late 1950's / early 60's, not 17-40 million.
Obama is not comparable to the other two in any way.
 
And they most certainly should. Relative risk of driving with a 0.05 vs a 0.08 increases between 8 and 4-fold depending on what age group and gender driver you're looking at.

Oh yeah, what biased special interest group paid to have that become a fact? Mothers Against drunk Driving? The Mormons.....shiiiit!
 
^I wasn't kidding, but to tell the truth, I shouldn't downplay the seriousness of drunk driving....I'm sorry
 
^I wasn't kidding, but to tell the truth, I shouldn't downplay the seriousness of drunk driving....I'm sorry

.05 is not drunk driving so joke away.
Changing limit to .05 will not stop the chronic drunk driver who drives when he is 5 times the legal limit, on suspended license, while on parole and not allowed to drink. They lowered it here where I live and the guy having two beers with dinner gets caught, the serious drunk drivers know which road to take, the best times etc.
Cannabis makes me a better driver. 16 year olds shouldn't do it and drive, but why can't I?
PS I agree urban sprawl creates more drunk drivers.
 
You do realize that you are still substantially more likely to get in an accident with a 0.05 than being sober?

Maybe. But statistically speaking arent you more likely to get in an accident with the radio on or while riding with passengers? As opposed to no radio no passengers? My point is what is a reasonable amount of risk to take? Driving is dangerous arresting more people wont make it any safer i promise.
 
Australia has had .05 for as long as I can remember, and I have seen studies that conclude for each percentage point, the likelihood of an accident increases not linearly, but dramatically. If you are driving, you should be aware of your alcohol intake and minimizing it as much as possible, not trying to get to the legal limit. This is a law that actually makes sense to me, driving under the influence of alcohol, and other substances, is dangerous.
 
Maybe. But statistically speaking arent you more likely to get in an accident with the radio on or while riding with passengers? As opposed to no radio no passengers? My point is what is a reasonable amount of risk to take? Driving is dangerous arresting more people wont make it any safer i promise.

Yea but the increase isn't particularly large, I would actually guess that you're less likely to crash with one well behaved passenger than none. Talking on the phone (hands free or not) does produce a significant increase in the likelihood of being in an accident (equivalent to about a 0.08), worse with texting.

Any many states new drivers can't drive with more than one non familial passengers as it is considered distracting.

If you won't drive without your seatbelt you shouldn't drive after having a 2-3 beers, you're at the same relative risk for dying plus there's the increased risk for those in your car and around you. Which is really why you shouldn't drive after drinking. I personally don't care if you won't to risk your life but you shouldn't be risking outhers.

Australia has had .05 for as long as I can remember, and I have seen studies that conclude for each percentage point, the likelihood of an accident increases not linearly, but dramatically. If you are driving, you should be aware of your alcohol intake and minimizing it as much as possible, not trying to get to the legal limit. This is a law that actually makes sense to me, driving under the influence of alcohol, and other substances, is dangerous.

Yea the study I linked and some other ones have mentioned relative risk for driving at high (0.15) and it's in the 1000s.
 
Top