I'm against excessive regulations but concerning Drug Testing I don't think there's enough of it.
Since driving in '78 the only times I've been tested were when I went with another company.
Too many Dopers on the Road

 

Cuz, she is going to be paying enough with her insurance and possibly her license since she's old and may not be a safe driver because she was at fault.. You may or may not ever have been in a wreck before but I have in my personal vehicle. That shit was expensive. It's nothing compared to losing even a full weeks wage. I bet you he was tested more because it's company policy than anything. I got in a wreck in my cruiser once, I was the only one involved. I had to test like anyone else in that circumstance would. If the cop at the scene felt that she may have been under the influence of an intoxicating substance or an alcoholic beverage she would have been tested.

 

I'm not against drug test, I am saying this type test is wrong. The State can tell the company's to conduct random test,with 100% of employees every quarter, every month if they really want to. I don't care, I will take it and pass, its fine, its a condition of employment. Its this "implied consent" BS I find wrong, there is no consent. You are forced to submit to an unwarranted search, by an armed official of the State, under threat of arrest. It may be the law, but it is still wrong. It is not right to force a man to supply evidence against himself, taking his presumed innocence,and making him prove his innocence of a crime that hasn't been shown to have already occurred, and there is no evidence of any crime until he is forced to provide this evidence against himself. It is the law, I will submit to the test without giving the LE requiring it any trouble, "yes sir, no sir, here is your cup of pee, have a nice day". However, I still have used no "privileges" granted to me by the State that give "implied consent" to the thought police to prevent me from thinking or believing this whole "consent" deal is built on faulty law, violates my rights, and is just plain wrong.

I don't believe licensed or unlicensed 17yo's should haul loads of nuclear waste, I don't want someone high on crack running around in a propane tanker, I will not drive standing on my head,no matter what the feds say.Any yes Rsco my right against unreasonable search IS equal to your right to life under the Constitution.

But back to my "privilege" to drive, and the States right to deprive me of mine rant:

"In addition to the requirement that regulations governing the use of the highways must not be violative of constitutional guarantees, the prime essentials of such regulation are reasonableness, impartiality, and definiteness or certainty."

25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect. 260

"... the only limitations found restricting the right of the state to condition the use of the public highways as a means of vehicular transportation for compensation are (1) that the state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways for hauling for gain that they surrender any of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent to obtaining permission for such use ..."

Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619;
Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.

one cannot be placed in a position of being forced to surrender Rights in order to exercise a privilege, how much more must this maxim of law, then, apply when one is simply exercising (putting into use) a Right?

"To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property, without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not be the law of the land."

Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15

"We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in order to assert another."

Simons vs. United States, 390 US 389

As previously demonstrated, the Citizen has the Right to travel and to transport his property upon the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business. However, if one exercises this Right to travel (without first giving up the Right and converting that Right into a privilege) the Citizen is by statute, guilty of a crime. This amounts to converting the exercise of a Constitutional Right into a crime.

"The state cannot diminish Rights of the people."

Hurtado vs. California, 110 US 516and ...

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

Miranda, supra

"The courts are not bound by mere form, nor are they to be misled by mere pretenses. They are at liberty -- indeed they are under a solemn duty -- to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purported to have been enacted to protect ... the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects or is a palpable invasion of Rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution."

Mulger vs. Kansas, 123 US 623, 661

and ...

"It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."

Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491

"The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a citizen cannot deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the Magna Carta."

Kent vs. Dulles, 357 US 116 (1958)

"The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution."

Bacahanan vs. Wanley, 245 US 60;
Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway Commission, 294 US 613

"With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police authority."

Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 US 540;
Lafarier vs. Grand Trunk R.R. Co., 24 A. 848;
O'Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 108 A. 887

"The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business."

Thompson vs. Smith, supra.;
Teche Lines vs. Danforth, Miss., 12 S.2d 784

"The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual cannot be rightfully deprived."

Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169 NE 22;
Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 NE 934;
Boon vs. Clark, 214 SSW 607;
25 Am.Jur. (1st) Highways Sect.163

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491



and ...

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."

Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. 486, 489



and ...

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional Rights."

Snerer vs. Cullen, 481 F. 946

"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."

II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135



and further ...

"Personal liberty -- consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of removing one's person to whatever place one's inclination may direct, without imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law."

Bovier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed.;
Blackstone's Commentary 134; Hare, Constitution__Pg. 777

There should be considerable authority on a subject as important a this deprivation of the liberty of the individual "using the roads in the ordinary course of life and business." However, it should be noted that extensive research has not turned up one case or authority acknowledging the state's power to convert the individual's right to travel upon the public roads into a "privilege."

Therefore, it is concluded that the Citizen does have a "Right" to travel and transport his property upon the public highways and roads and the exercise of this Right is not a "privilege."
"... the only limitations found restricting the right of the state to condition the use of the public highways as a means of vehicular transportation for compensation are (1) that the state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways for hauling for gain that they surrender any of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent to obtaining permission for such use ..."

Riley vs. Laeson, 142 So. 619;
Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.

"The courts are not bound by mere form, nor are they to be misled by mere pretenses. They are at liberty -- indeed they are under a solemn duty -- to look at the substance of things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purported to have been enacted to protect ... the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects or is a palpable invasion of Rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution."

Mulger vs. Kansas, 123 US 623, 661



and ...

"It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."

Boyd vs. United States, 116 US 616


well geee wiz maybe I'm not alone in my thinking!

 

now I thought if you refuse to take a test when its mandatory to do so after an accident then they pull yer CDL and you don,t drive till after court or somethihng.....so go ahhead and refuse to work sure its okay....if you don,t need a job maybe

 

You're so good at quoting this and quoting that, how about this one:

TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PART 382_CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES AND ALCOHOL USE AND TESTING


It's all there in black and white. It's part of the job. It's not illegal search and siezure, forced at gunpoint, so stop your whining. It's the LAW. If you don't like the fact that part of your JOB is pissing in a cup for a number of specific reasons, get another job.

-p.

 

Maybe you should try reading a little of it, most of it is not above 5th grade reading levels, you might be able to get through some of the short words


"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."

Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491

that is a United States Supreme Court Ruling not a rule from the DOT
sorry, my court trumps your department the law is faulty, get over it, pissing is part of my job, but not for supplying evidence against myself in a criminal matter

 

I agree with you and disagree with you at the same time Yeti.
I'm 100% for MORE Drug Testing but I look at the "Implied" Consent differently. I see it as a Way for the Driver to clear himself and if he/she is Dirty with the Test Hang them out to dry.

 

uh, miranda doesn't have shit to do with this. Cuz, I used to enforce these laws, get over it. Next time you have beef with a cop or someone else in the government acting under a color of authority you can try to sue him in federal court for violating your 'rights'. Take this prison lawyer stuff and try it elsewhere.


IMHO of course.

 

oh Rcso I must have hit a nerve, hmmmm is that hints of I'm only following orders mien Gruppenfurer I hear coming thru? What is it you don't grasp? I have no problem with a cop doing his job and enforcing the laws as they are written and as he is instructed to do. Is this so hard for you to figure out. The Cop makes me take the test, and that is his job and its fine, I'm not going to sue him, or give him a hard time, or refuse to take the test. Read it again Rsco, can you grasp this concept? I have no beef with the cop, its not his choice which laws he enforces, he does the job he is paid to do and its all good as far as he and I are concerned. I am NOT going to sue him, I am NOT going to give him a hard time, I am NOT going to cry and whine to him about violating my rights. I will pee in his bottle and go on my way. What is not sinking in here? The cop is just doing his job and that is what I expect him to do. He and I can go have a beer together when we are both off duty. Let it sink in Rsco, I understand its a long hard way to get there, but relax, its not gonna hurt a bit.


What is your problem with me saying I, do you see that word? I, I, I don't believe its RIGHT? No matter what YOU feel toward the law as written, as an American I, I, I still get to think and believe its wrong. What is the possible problem you have with me saying I feel the LAW is flawed? Do you agree with every law on the books? Isn't it possible that somewhere out there is a law you don't think is right? Who, exactly, do you think you are to tell me I can't disagree with a law? Must I blindly follow every edict that comes from Washington with out reading it and forming my own opinion? Tell me why I can't feel something that comes out of Congress, or the DOT, or IRS just isn't right? What right in hell do you invoke to believe you can tell me how to feel or think?

And what is this prison lawyer crap Rsco? I am expressing MY opinion and I am using the words and written opinions of the courts to back me up, and show that in some cases the courts express the same opinion I hold on limiting the power of the state, and how no rules or laws should diminish the rights we have in the Constitution. Right now the courts have held that the law is constitutional, therefore I submit to it, but I am still allowed to believe they are incorrect, I still can voice my opinion,and I can still site other courts and Judges that have said the same things I am. Why does this bother you so much? Haven"t you ever had an opinion or belief of your own that wasn't issued by the State?

How small minded can you be? You keep telling me to get over it, turn in my CDL, stop being a prison lawyer. WHY? Where did you not learn what an opinion is? How, or when did you lose the basic concept of having a discussion? Why are YOU allowed to believe its a perfectly fine law, but I'm a prison lawyer for thinking that the law sucks and trying to explain to you why I think its bad, and showing you quotes from other sources that appear to voice the same feelings toward constitutional rights? I'm not a lawyer trying to win a case, I'm not a prisoner trying to fill my time and screw the system, I AM an American voicing my opinion, trying to engage you or others in a discussion, if you find you can't hold up your end, don't blame me, if you can do it. A discussion is a give and take, I have my say you have your and then we talk about it and try to convince each other that we are right. I don't call you a thick headed, jackbooted nazi police state thug, you don't call me a prison lawyer, or a lowlife, dope smoking, child molester. We are not going to change each others opinions, but we could spend a few enjoyable hours trading views and thoughts on a subject that I find interesting. If that is a violation of some implied consent order you feel you must enforce, then I truly feel sorry for you, no human should be that shallow in his abilities to hold a conversation with another.

the law is flawed.

 

I'm sorry Yooper, I was going to respond to you, but I'm getting kind of tired of trying to engage some others in a conversation and being told I have no right to hold an opinion that differs from theirs.