Another Kind of Needling Coming

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Presuming every driver who happens to be just driving is also “drunk” – until he proves he isn’t, at a probable cause-free Sobriety Checkpoint, as they are styled – is enough to make one not want to drive anymore, sober. But you’ll probably need a drink when you hear about what’s likely coming next.

Because of what’s already come.

Marijuana has been legalized – medically and recreationally – in states like California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington as well as the District of Criminals (soon to be another state, apparently). With others rapidly following –  not out of shame over the decade’s long persecution of “drug crime” (more precisely, the arbitrary persecution of the manufacture/sale/use of some “drugs,” arbitrarily defined) but rather because of the enormous tax profits to be reaped from arbitrarily legalizing some more drugs. Pot, in this case.

And here it comes . . .

“Studies by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the affiliated Highway Loss Data Institute showed increases in crash rates (associated) with the legalization of recreational marijuana . . .”

The same insurance industry-funded “study” (which you can trust as much for objectivity as “studies” of the effectiveness of “vaccines” funded by those with an interest in selling them) also says that smoking pot is associated with drinking more.

And that, together, is becoming (you knew i was coming) a public safety issue.

“Our latest research makes it clear that legalizing marijuana for recreational use does increase overall crash rates,” saith IIHS President David Harkey. “That’s obviously something policymakers and safety professionals will need to address as more states move to liberalize their (marijuana) laws.” While adding the caveat, “…even if the way marijuana affects crash risk for individual drivers remains uncertain.”

Italics added, just for fun.

How will “safety professionals” – who are these people, cuing Seinfeld . . . and where did they get their sheepskins – “address” this non-specific problem?

Italics mine, to emphasize what will not be done. In favor of what will generally be done. As has already been done to every driver who happens to be driving on a road chosen to be a Fourth Amendment-Free Zone; i.e., a stretch of road at which the threat of murderous violence is used to compel every driver to halt (best said with German inflection) present his papers and prove that he is not “drunk” before he is allowed to resume driving.

The good news – such as it is – being that it is easy enough to disprove the presumption of drunkeness by the absence or dissipation (italics being important) of alcohol in one’s blood. As established – in general – via one’s breath.

As the saying goes, you either is – or you isn’t.

Is isn’t much anymore, of course – the legal threshold  defining “drunk” hardly qualifying for tipsy, even. If you are not of legal age to drink – but legally old enough to drive – you can be adjudicated “drunk” for driving with an open/empty container of alcohol inside the car (and no alcohol in you). If you are of legal age, it hardly takes much more. A number of states having reduced their legal definition of presumptive “drunk” driving to as little as .05 BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) and – important point – irrespective of your actual driving.

But at least there has to be some alcohol in your system in order to be convicted of “drunk” driving. And that is only possible if you’ve had something alcoholic to drink prior to (or while you are actually) driving. You cannot be found guilty of “drunk” driving because you drank some alcohol the day before you drive – because that alcohol will have dissipated from your system by the time you drive up to the Fourth Amendment Free Zone the next day.

There will be no alcohol to detect because there is no longer any alcohol left.

But traces of marijuana linger longer in the body, long after the high has dissipated. Reportedly, as long as a month after the last toke. You can be completely straight – in the old school meaning of the term – and still have detectable traces of the stuff in your blood.

Italicized to give you the creeps.

There is no breath test for DWH – Driving While High, including presumptive DWH. How will the generally presumed disprove that they are “high”?

Via the needle.

Some states – Texas, for instance – have been doing this already. Forcibly extracting blood from presumed-to-be-drunk drivers unwilling to submit to a “voluntary” (italics to emphasize the laughability of anything one is forced to do at gunpoint being “voluntary”) to be used as evidence against themselves in a court of law, never mind the Fifth Amendment, which used to be the law.

The precedent will inevitably be used – urged, by such as the IIHS – to justify the drawing of blood from those presumed to be high, who are unwilling to provide evidence that will be used against themselves and also just because they’d rather not be compelled to donate bodily fluids by the side of the road or even at a hospital, strapped down to a gurney.

And if they had a toke last week – or last month – they could very well find themselves convicted of DWH, too.

It makes one think twice about driving, not merely drinking (or toking) prior to driving. Which is – like so many things of a piece – the underlying reason for all of these things. If that were not the case, drivers would not be presumed “drunk” – or “high.” They would be let alone, to drive wherever they were headed – unmolested – absent some specific reason to suspect that they are unable to drive a car competently, as by evidence so indicating, such as wandering across lanes, erratic braking und so weiter . . . the reason for any impairment – if such is manifest – being incidental to the fact of impairment.

You either is – or you is not.

Not that it matters, anymore.

. . . 

Got a question about cars, Libertarian politics – or anything else? Click on the “ask Eric” link and send ’em in!

If you like what you’ve found here please consider supporting EPautos. 

We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: Get an EPautos magnet or sticker or coaster in return for a $20 or more one-time donation or a $10 or more monthly recurring donation. (Please be sure to tell us you want a magnet or sticker or coaster – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)

My eBook about car buying (new and used) is also available for your favorite price – free! Click here.  If that fails, email me at and I will send you a copy directly!



Share Button


  1. EP – another story I haven’t shared with you that I think you will like.

    Back in May, I got pulled over by one of our local tax collectors for doing 43 in a 35 in my neighborhood. I wasn’t driving dangerously or anything, he was just out raising revenue for the city. I know this because I happened to drive by the same spot a few minutes later and he had someone else pulled over. He was merely cruising around on tax duty.

    My plan with these things is to always go to court and hit back at the prosecutor and “judge” and force them to actually do their respective jobs and “play court” instead of running a taxpayer conveyor belt. I do not intend to ever go to “trial”, my plan is always pretend to take the whole thing so seriously and keep filing motions and patiently asking for hearings and rulings that the judge and/or prosecutor get tired of seeing me and eventually dismiss the case. I’ve never not had this strategy eventually succeed and I’ve never actually gone to “court”.

    I recognize some people don’t have the time to burn that I do, but if more people clogged up the system and fought back instead of meekly just opening their wallets, fewer traffic citations would be issued. The court is not run as an actual court of law, it’s run as a payment conveyor belt for the city. The judge and the prosecutors are lazy and don’t ever want to actually do their stated jobs, which is fine because they usually don’t have to.

    Anyway, the summons had a specific “court date”, which I dutifully intended to observe, at which I was going to file a lengthy discovery motion (make model and VIN of the car, training dates for the officer, calibration records for the radar… all that kind of stuff). But a week before I got a call from the clerk of the court asking me for my email address so they could set up a ZOOM pretrial hearing. In other words, the lazy court personnel were using “covid” as an excuse to be even more lazy.

    I refused to give them my address and said I would be there on the court date, to which they replied that no one was having in-person proceedings right now and I’d be welcome to come do a virtual appearance via the court’s computer, presumably with someone in a different room in the same building. OUTRAGEOUS!

    So I did a little research with a lawyer friend of mine and went and filed a “Motion for Continuance” before the scheduled “court date” and made the following argument:

    1.) Virtual criminal court proceedings are a violation of the Sixth Amendment in many different ways, the most prominent being the right to confront one’s accusers;

    2.) Covid is over anyway and the Texas Supreme Court – who has jurisdiction over all lower courts – has said that courts are free to open back up in person now or can wait until August and postpone any proceeding for any reason until that time. I don’t mind waiting and there is no reason why the court can’t wait; and

    3.) Please give me a ruling ASAP because if I am forced to show up and do ZOOM one time while I am waiting, it will bias the judge against my arguments.

    I fully expected to get a notice of denial at 5:00 PM the day before my “court” date, but instead two days later I was emailed that the judge dismissed the case because “the state of Texas, through it’s prosecutor, has informed the court that it no longer wishes to pursue this case”.

    In other words, these prosecutors were even more lazy that others and gave up even more quickly at the first sign of pushback to their racket.

    What ridiculous times we live in.

    • This is the only effective strategy I’ve found. Gum up the works, postpone at the last minute repeatedly, hopefully making the cop show up in court fruitlessly several times. Legal continuances, etc all take time away and make the scam much less profitable and eventually unprofitable. It is unlikely they will be changing their procedures because the lawyer vermin make their living on this system and messing with it’s use would mess with their revenue stream. Go Saul Goodman on the bastards!

  2. I do live in Texas and we have “No Refusal Weekends” where the cops can pull you over for any reason at all and then get a judge on call who is standing by to rubber stamp a “warrant” to draw a blood sample to test for alcohol. I have always thought that such a practice – forcibly sticking a needle into someone and violating their body in order to gather evidence for use in court – was a gross prima facie violation of their 5th Amendment rights, but most lawyers say that ship has sailed and nothing can be done about it.

    To be honest, I kind of get the reasoning behind mandating blood draws in aggravated cases of drunk driving where there was an accident and injury to people or property, that the alcohol metabolizes and the evidence dissipates, but that requires that you have to accept the certain premises about the “crime” and that gets back to a more fundamental question as to why “drunk driving” is a crime in the first place. It’s very much the same distorted and specious logic as labeling certain crimes as being more special because they are “hate crimes”.

    If you are operating a vehicle and have an accident and kill someone or damage their property, that’s already a crime in the most natural Natural Law sense of the word. There is no need to discuss “aggravated” circumstances or mindset. We have laws on the books for killing someone with a car. We have laws on the books for causing accidents. Someone isn’t “more dead” because they were hit by a drink driver as opposed to a sober driver (or because the killer was a bigot) and their property isn’t more damaged because the driver happened to have a few beers in his system. The physical state of the driver has no effect on the actual damages.

    Some weaker thinkers will then say, “You want to to wait for someone to be killed before a dangerous drunk driver is apprehended?” No, actually, I don’t.

    We already have laws on the books for something called “reckless driving”. If the cops see someone driving recklessly, then they already can pull them over. Hell, they can make up reasons for pulling someone over already, there is no scrutiny at all over “probable cause” for a traffic stop. Why does it matter whether the person driving recklessly was intoxicated or not? Pull them over and, if in the judgment of the officer, the person driving shouldn’t be behind the wheel, arrest them and go throw them in the “drunk tank” for a few hours.

    The only reason for the current 40 year witch hunt is because screaming ninny female voters – and screaming ninny judges – have empowered legislatures to put “pre-crimes” on the books based on emotive television images and sad stories.

    Logically, the crime of “drunk driving” shouldn’t be.

  3. Got news yesterday that a good friend’s father who’s in his mid-70s and got the gene therapy jabs is now in the hospital with internal bleeding. I’m told it’s pretty serious.

    • Morning, Zek…

      Very sad to hear this; I’ve had similar news from other people in my circle. It makes me even madder at the cretins behind it all.

      • I know the guy. He lives in Northern California and visits his son (my friend) out here in NC every year. About 7 or 8 years ago, I had a long convo with him about politics. He is an old SF Haight/Ashbury hippie who got some religion about communes and collectivism from those days but still believed in a very American version of leftist/altruistic gov’t and it being run by the “right people.” I was early in my libertarian days and argued against that possibility and he waved me off instead blaming, get this, “corporations.” Almost exactly like some of the stuff I hear on your site these days. Of course I argued that gov’t has a legal monopoly on violence and corporations do not but he said the two were, effectively, one in the same, using the example of a logging company that bought up almost all the land in his county and then promptly restricted “public” access to mountains and hiking trails. The answer to which, to him, was to lobby to have the local gov’t pass a law requiring public access to such trails. Which actually happened.

    • Zek, Sorry to learn of this. It is a tragic, self-inflicted misery. I also learned this weekend of another friend’s mom who had to have a blood transfusion after the second jab.

      This makes 5 people in my circle, without directly inquiring, that have suffered severe effects, up to and including death, within a very short time of the jab.

      Again, I am sorry for your friend’s father. I can only hope that there is somehow an antidote to this physical harm, but most of all, to the madness behind it.

  4. Well I suppose there’s no way a year of pumping fear porn 24/7, calling millions of people non-essential, killing jobs and businesses, forcing everyone into isolation, encouraging spoiled brats to Burn Loot Murder, stealing elections, carrying out false flag operations to demonize liberty loving Americans, destroying supply chains, sending inflation into the stratosphere could in any way be related to changes in the social fabric. Nah. There’s only one thing that could cause that; legalized marijuana.

    • Hi Jim,

      Alcohol seems to me to be far more effective in that respect. Alcohol being both physically and psychologically addictive whereas pot is neither. I think the reason for the legalization rush is two-fold. The reason being money. All of that untaxed “revenue.” The second is that legalization is a civil liberties crumb flicked off the table by the (mostly) liberal autocrats who rule in places like CA and Washington. It is interesting to note that in state ruled by conservative autocrats – SD, for example – there has been pushback against legalization, on account of “moral” considerations.

      • I have extensive experience with marijuana and alcohol. The latter is FAR more debilitating, both physically and mentally. A thing I do NOT have much experience with is opioids. Which the Medical Industrial Complex has turned loose upon the nation. Which I suspect is a far more effective means of keeping people subdued than either of the former.

        • Same here, John –

          I occasionally smoke pot – chiefly as a palliative/sleep aid. I have never once awakened the next day with a “hangover.” When I was young, and got stoned with friends, no one ever wanted to fight. We wanted to eat, laugh and maybe (if we had ’em) sleep with our girlfriends. Pot is orders of magnitude less “dangerous” than alcohol.

          • Hi Mark,

            I question that – about marijuana’s ability to “F you up.” It gets you high, certainly. So does alcohol. In moderation, I doubt either causes meaningful – if any – harm. It hasn’t caused me any that I am aware of. Nor any of my friends – and all of us have smoked occasionally since we were teenagers. I regard pot as the lesser evil vs. alcohol in that it is not physically or psychologically addictive, while alcohol is potentially both. One cannot overdose – and die – from too much pot. One can from too much booze. Kids who drink tend to do stupid, even dangerous things. Pot makes them less likely to do them. I’ve never heard of a “pot fight.” Everyone knows about bar fights. When you’re stoned, you generally just want to eat, laugh, sleep and “F.”

            • Maybe the PTB know that pot users won’t fight “back” either. It’s quite interesting in comparison to how viciously the pols restricted bars and restaurants serving alcohol.

      • Eric

        Here’s a thought…

        Ever see two stoned guys engaged in fisticuffs ?

        That is something you just never see.

        Alcoholic bar fights…..literally all the time.

        • The argument about stoned driving was forwarded during legalization debates and it seemed to me the problem was most likely to be someone going 30 under in the left lane munching Doritos. Hardly public enemy #1.

    • That’s funny, because I’ve oft thought that a nation of “outlaw” stoners was much easier to control. Even, perhaps, that the proliferation of pot actually had the blessing of those in power. It was so much easier to find rebellious and free-thinking minds who like to partake, and charge them criminally, thereby making second class citizenry of them. Legalization threw a mean wrench into the “sniff and arrest” protocols.

      Notice still, to this day, I don’t think any state legislature has voted to legalize marijuana. It has all been done with ballot initiatives. I find that telling.

      • Prohibition fails. I’m against it in all forms. Legalize it and I will advertise it. That being said, my outlook on the actual outcome of the legalization of weed is that, for most people, it was the one element in their life that could be pointed to and the absurdity and downright evil of the State could be observed in all it’s glory. Now that it’s legal, these people are like lockdowns?, forced needling? whatever, scro, I just scored a QP of the dank with my UI bennies. I think the State has taken advantage of this.

        • Hatts,

          Yeah, I don’t doubt that in the least. People didn’t hesitate to ramp up use of their favorite intoxicants to numb the pain of tyranny. Hell, I didn’t.

    • It’s money, nothing more sinister. If there’s anything Harry Browne taught us it’s two things. First, government is best at killing. But also that government is excellent at following trends. In this case the reality is people do some stuff no matter what so why fight reality and, more importantly, why not profit from it?

  5. Live in Oregon, and since the legalization there has been a big increase in DWH. Between the sail fawns, the weed smoker, and the drunks, there has been a detectable corrosion of good driving. Hate to agree with the insurance mafia study, but then again insurance should not be a forced purchase…if you are actually a free people…I know, silly concept.

    • Hi Bill,

      Of course, the fact that some do doesn’t mean everyone does!

      My loathing of these “studies” emanates from the inevitable use of them to justify more police state measures. It still astounds me that (a) ostensibly “free” people seem to be ok with East German-style random checkpoints where one must show one’s papers and prove one is not a “drunk”- and (b) that the Supreme Court anointed them with the holy oil of its approval, in spite of the obvious fact that stopping people at random, absent even an assertion of probable cause to suspect them of any offense whatsoever – and compelling them to produce “papers” and submit to a search (however initially cursory) – is a flagrant violation of the plain language of the 4th Amendment, being unreasonable and not having any probable cause to satisfy the 4th’s specific wording and clear intent.

      I know… I know… it’s a “compelling state interest.” I’d like the learned justices to please show me where such language can be found in the amendment, or anywhere in the Constitution. They simply inferred it. Claimed such was “implied” by language as “general welfare.” That is to say, they made it up.

      Shakespeare was right about lawyers!

      Also: I submit that the general dumbing down of drivers is much more to blame for “stoned” driving than pot!

      Same for booze. I’d far rather be in a car with someone who can drive who has had a few drinks than someone who cannot drive who hasn’t had any. Certainly, alcohol can impair driving ability. But the fulsome scurvy truth is many drivers are simply impaired. Alcohol/pot makes them more so, but that is not the core problem. Until that is addressed, the problem will remain – and worsen. And at the expense of people who aren’t the problem.

      • I once made this argument over a land line phone maybe 40 years ago. The local TV station had done a production to show the dangers of drinking and driving, during which they pointed out that half of all fatal accidents involved drunk drivers. I called them up, there being no such thing as an internet, and someone actually answered the phone. I pointed out that if half the fatal accidents were caused by drunk drivers, then the other half were caused by sober drivers. CRICKETS. CLICK.

      • Great points Eric!
        The “supreme” (my ass) court gets away with making up rules that override the constitution they took an oath to upload and defend. Especially loathsome is the “qualified immunity” they made up to protect AGW’s from the consequences of their actions.

      • The problem with these 4A-disregarding checkpoints, aside from being an affront to freedom-loving Americans and their Constitution, is that they’ve become a “gateway”, pun intended, to give the cops all sorts of ability to mess with you. Before, a cop had to go to the trouble of pulling you over, and at least INVENTING an equipment or a moving violation as probable cause. Maybe you WERE speeding, or that turn-signal didn’t flash, or maybe that’s just BS…your word against the cops, and who will the judge believe? And if the outcome is a piece of “paying paper”, that’s the least of it.

        The cop, once he’s pulled you over, and you even crack the window but an inch, can claim, “I smell ‘weed’ “. That’s his way of skirting the 4A requirement for probable cause to search you and/or your vehicle. Already, for nearly a century, dating back from the days of Prohibition, we’ve had the “Carroll doctrine”, arising from a 1925 SCOTUS case (Carroll v. US) where a bootlegger had been stopped and the officers search Mr. Carroll’s “Flivver” and found illicit booze behind the back seat. IDK what constituted the “probable cause” that the SCOTUS still said was necessary to support the search, likely there was more involved than a random stop getting lucky. Part of what made the Carroll decision ominous for motorists is that the Court held that there was a reduced expectation of privacy in an automobile on the road versus one’s domicile; adding to that generally homes stay put where they are (Dorothy Gale’s home in the tornado notwithstanding, ending up flattening the Wicked Witch of the East in “Oz”), whereas automobiles are inherently mobile. Never mind that so were horse-drawn carriages and wagons, as well as riders on horseback. This increased mobility of motor cars is what impelled the SCOTUS to decide that obtaining a search warrant from a magistrate wasn’t “practical”.

        So, once the officer makes the claim that he smells or sees something illicit, he has his Probable Cause. Now, IF he’s simply overbearing but still sincere, and you’ve got no contraband on you, you should be “ok”, right? Except that many times, LEOs are corrupt, either to seize your car and profit from that, or to rack up the “honors” and the promotions! Recently, there were two examples, one of the Norther Florida “super deputy”, who racked up a huge number of roadside busts, and a female Utah Highway Patrol officer, who had an impressive amount of DUI busts. Both were found to be planting and/or fabricating evidence, and though both were eventually fired, it left quite a wake of the respective courts having to sort the mess out!

        Hence why, my rule is, when accosted by an LEO: record, Record, RECORD the encounter! Yes, they may get mad, but most who are inclined to “go by the book” will know they can’t stop you. Those that will stop you anyway, by intimidation, threats, or simply seizing your phone and/or destroying it, aren’t the kind that’s be appeased if you genuflect. Yes, you can and SHOULD decline to give consent to a search, as sure, the officer/deputy will say, “Well, I’ll get a warrant”, to which you can say, “Yes, if you’re going to keep detaining me, that’s what I want you to do!”. If the officer says, “It’ll be worse for you”…”How? What will the judge find me ‘guilty’ of? Standing up for my 4A rights?” Of course, it’s best to actually say as LITTLE as you absolutely have to, never VOLUNTEER anything and don’t agitate the officer. If nothing else, if there’s a lawsuit against him and/or his employing agency on the basis of unlawful arrest, or detention, or unlawful search, or even use of excessive force, it never helps your case to be on video as being a smart-aleck that “had it coming”.

        As for when you’re accused of DUI or Drugged driving, well, IF you’re arrested, you do have to submit to a chemical test IAW the laws of your state, it’s called “implied consent”. If you still refuse, some states allow that refusal to be considered as evidence, along with whatever else the officer observed or other things regarding how you were driving. Also, the statutory minimum penalties if convicted are typically more severe than if you did the test and were found guilty, and most states will not allow a first offender that refused into a “diversion” program that allows him to avoid a criminal conviction, or to drive with a restricted license. In fact, most states mandate a revocation of your license for the refusal, typically at least a year if you’ve no prior DUIs, even if you beat the DUI itself.

        Now, if you’re cold sober, you go to the station and “blow clean”, do you just go get your car from the impound lot (paying a hefty fee to get it out of “car jail”, no recourse to recover the fees either) and go home, scot-free? Not necessarily. Many states will then RE-ARREST you, especially if you went against what any DUI attorney advises and did the Field “Sobriety” Tests, which are subjective and not actual scientifically meaningful evaluations of sobriety, but are meant for you to FAIL, and therefore establish that Probable Cause which opens up that legal can of worms on you. The “new” charge will be “drugged” driving, and the cops will demand and get a blood and/or hair sample. The trouble is, neither at this time have a presumption under law of proving “intoxication” for purposes of a DUI conviction as does BAC. So, while such a case, if you’ve ANYTHING in your system (the DWI laws aren’t confined to illicit substances, you can and folks often are convicted based on perfectly legal Rx and OTCs), can be difficult for even an experienced toxicologist to evaluate, and therefore for the DA to prosecute, likewise such cases can be very complicated, and therefore hugely expensive, to defend against. Often the outcome, since in most cases neither party really wants to “go to the mat”, is to settle the case with a “wet reckless” conviction, which is kinda like a “DUI-lite”, except that it still can wreak holy hell on your insurance rates and employment. Also, a “wet” conviction still counts as a “prior” just like a DUI, if you get arrested for one again. Even if that charge is bogus, you may still face having your ride confiscated (often allowed if someone’s on DUI or WR probation), facing mandatory MINIMUM “holding” time in jail for up to a WEEK (which might scuttle your employment), and, of course, the bail is much, much higher, even if the charge isn’t upgraded to a FELONY.

        Sure, the best thing to do is, Don’t drink (or toke) and then drive under the influence, get a designated, SOBER driver, or just take a cab, or Uber, or a hotel (DO NOT “sleep it off” in the car, you can get arrested for DUI just dozing off in the back seat with the keys in your pocket!), all are FAR cheaper than even a DUI case that you prevail upon. But folks have gone to jail and paid hefty bail, impound fees, and legal bills even when arrested while COLD SOBER. Hint: NEVER submit to a Field Sobriety Test, b/c they are NOT genuine tests, they’re a form of roadside “Kabuki” that gives the officer probable cause to arrest for DUI. In general, IF he’s going to the trouble to ask, he’s already made that decision. You can, despite his blandishment that it’ll be considered a “refusal” (legally, pre-arrest, it is not), decline the test with no legal onus. Neither is refusing the roadside “breathalyzer”, as though they’re actually fairly accurate, a roadside measurement is not considered valid DUI evidence, due to inability to carry out certain testing procedures. Besides, the test for collecting DUI evidence may ONLY be administered following an arrest, unless the subject is unconscious due to injury or just “dead drunk”. If the officers puts the PAST in front of you and asks you to blow, ask him if you’re under arrest. If the officer says, “Not at this time” (you’re being detained, which though it’s a de facto arrest, is not considered that status), then he’s simply screening you. You can and SHOULD refuse to “blow”. Yes, again, he may and likely will threaten you with arrest for “refusal”, but if the basis for the arrest is your refusal to perform what’s legally a “voluntary” test, then any attorney will have a field day with quashing the “evidence” afterwards (fruit of the ‘poisoned tree’ doctrine) as well as pursuing legal action against the officer and his department for unlawful arrest. Again, record, Record, RECORD, have it on video!

  6. They (the Stasi in the pinstripe suits) have been saying for a few years that traditional DUI checkpoints don’t work with pot smokers because it can’t be determined in a roadside stop if they are high. In other words, no physical degradation can be detected. In other words, the ability to physically operate a vehicle proficiently is still there. In other words, there is no added “danger”.

    BUT, they HAVE to bust people.


    Because the Criminal Justice System isn’t about criminals. It isn’t about Justice. It’s all about The System.

    If people stop drinking because they can legally smoke pot (a great concern for the liquor industry that has lobbyists) the number of DUI cases will drop and the money will stop flowing.

    Maybe you’ve seen the billboards showing cop lights flashing and some guy blowing into a breathalyzer where it states, “You just blew $10,000”.

    Remember, when they say it’s not about the money…

    • ‘DUI checkpoints don’t work with pot smokers’ — Mark in BC

      Nor do K-9s:

      RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Asking dogs to follow their noses won’t work anymore in states that have legalized marijuana.

      As Virginia prepares to legalize adult possession of up to an ounce of marijuana on July 1, drug-sniffing police dogs from around the state are being forced into early retirement.

      The dogs trained on multiple drugs alert in the same way for all of them, so it’s impossible to tell whether they are indicating the presence of marijuana or an illicit drug. The dogs also cannot distinguish between a small, legal amount of marijuana or a larger, still-illegal amount of the drug. For police, that means they can no longer be used to establish probable cause for a search.

      • Hi Jim,

        On the one hand, this s good… as it was (is) beyond outrageous to have a dog “testify” against you. And to have to let a dog paw your vehicle – thanks for the scratches.

        On the other, this will only serve to justify more draconian measures, such as forced blood draws if some AGW “smells marijuana.”

        It makes one want to stay home. Which is just exactly the point.

    • In fact, the minutes of quite a few state legislatures have state officials bemoaning the fact that DUI “education” and draconian laws are “WORKING”…that is, DUI cases are DOWN, and so are revenues from FINES, mandated “rehab” programs, other court-imposed “fees”, and property confiscations. Many were justifying greater expansion of “drugged driving” enforcement for EXACTLY that reason, and NOT due to any field data indicating a greater danger on that state’s roads from “stoned” drivers.

      • Hi Douglas,

        I rarely drink and when I do, it’s a beer or two; maybe a shot of (good) whiskey. I haven’t been “drunk” in years – and I’ve got an inarguably perfect record of not wrecking cars, which is probably one of the reasons why the car manufacturers trust me with their brand-new models, including models with extreme capabilities. I’m a very responsible dude, probably excessively so. Which is why I don’t drink at all if I am going to have to drive. It’s not that I refrain because of the effect a beer or two will have on me; I am certain I’m a better driver with five or six beers in me than many people I know are with no beers in them. Aber, if I have the bad luck to roll up to a probable-cause-free “checkpoint” and they smell beer on me, I’m doomed – professionally. “Drunk” drivers do not get loaned press cars; so it’s just not worth it to me to risk it.

        • Likewise I can’t risk the loss of my security clearance over a DUI ARREST, which would doom me professionally. Even if I beat the charges, I’d be “toast” in my current employment.

          And there are BAC calculators which at least will tell you when you should be “sobered up” again, you can’t just rely on how you’re feeling. FWIW, my GI tract isn’t “factory original”, so the effects of alcohol are, to say the least, quite interesting. My own personal assessment is that even ONE good, stiff IPA can temporarily put me out of commission, though my recovery is usually quick as well. Ergo, it doesn’t matter that my BAC might never even hit .02, it’s a matter of how well I believe that I handle the booze…which means put away the car keys until I’m sober as a Southern Baptist pastor at the END of Sunday Services.

          I have no issue of strict enforcement of DUI and drugged driving laws against drivers that show signs of impairment. What I have is the misuse of said laws to bully, harass, and mulct drivers who are COLD SOBER, but the cop doesn’t like them or has his own ulterior motives, which won’t bode well for his victim.

    • I saw that Spain is saying that people who’ve been poked with experimental genetic therapies now should not fly due to the elevated risk of blood clots. So the county that was pushing every living biped to get “vaccinated” so they can travel is now saying that they shouldn’t travel due to the risk of health consequences.

      • Hi Anon,

        One of the many facets of this fiasco is that Officialdom – the “experts” – have publicly invested so much in their narrative that they can’t back down now without risking utter discrediting. But I think that is happening anyhow and it worries me – because these cretins will do anything to save face – and their power.

      • Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah to all the people who got injected because “I just want to travel this summer.”

        • Hi Anon,

          Well, there’ll be less traffic, that’s for sure… but there’ll also be some other things, less pleasant, if it turns out that these “vaccines” are meant to (or just end up inadvertently) causing mass death, including a mass panic far worse than the manufactured one we’ve just experienced. Bodies actually stacking up like cordwood would probably lead to martial law and a police state that makes the current one seem Jeffersonian.

    • Elites do not get drug tested — only plebes. When I was an undergraduate, I recall several individuals, including the sons of a congressman, the son of a cop, the son of a judge, a guy who became a “special ed teacher (probably making over $100k today), a guy who became a public defender and represented a notorious murderer, and a couple of guys who inherited successful family businesses, stoned out of their minds every day, 24-7.

      I had to take a drug test last year at age 50+ for a part-time job driving a lawnmower for $14 an hour.

    • Karalan and X,

      Yeah, I always thought it was awesome how if you were in a scientific research position, there was no-such-thing as drug testing. We could go across the street to a bar and get half-lit, too, and just come in and continue work. Never heard a word. Now, if you’re in a lowly “production analysis” lab or the like, you may be subject to the venerable piss-test…

      Also, my girlfriend is a teacher. No drug testing for them either. Don’t be surprised if the people teaching your kids get nice and toasted before work now and then (not that I blame them).

      • There were several teachers in my high school who were drunk ever day. One was fairly sloppy about too.

        An annoying coworker recently was let go, probably because of performance issues but the skuttlebut around the office is he was caught dwi, and that he made daily trips to the liquor store in the company vehicle.

        • Considering that modern work trucks often have tracking devices, it likely wasn’t too hard to get the evidence of the gross misuse of a company vehicle. Which likely saved YOU job, as if they’d allowed this joker to continue working, and he’d cause an accident on company time, with a company vehicle, and management KNEW but took no action (like dismissal or at least revocation of driving privileges’), it’d be a civil litigation attorney’s wet dream.

  7. It is no insignificant fact that most contact made by police with the populace occurs on the road. You can be a complete derelict and psychopath and cause persistent harm to those around you, but if you don’t drive, the cops may just never arrest you. You can be a decent and honorable citizen, but because you drive, you can easily end up in cuffs and be siphoned.

  8. ‘Marijuana has been legalized – medically and recreationally – in states like California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington’ — EP

    With Connecticut having legalized it by legislative vote this week, the total is now 19 states with recreational cannabis and 36 states with medical cannabis.

    Virginia’s legalization takes effect on July 1.

    South Dakota’s citizens voted for recreational cannabis in a referendum last November. But a court ruled it unconstitutional, and Gov Kristi Noem opposes it — illustrating the unfortunate difference between conservatives and libertarians.

    Likewise, Wisconsin Republicans continue to block any cannabis legalization, in a state with perhaps the most extreme drinking culture in the country.

    In Utah (pioneer of 0.05 BAC), the Mormon church saw that medical weed was coming. So it intervened with a more restrictive approach paralleling Utah’s convoluted alcohol laws: limits on THC content; a licensed pharmacist present at every dispensary to verify that the prescribed quantity and dose is not exceeded; and a Nasper-like registry to cross check that no one obtains a duplicate prescription.

    Meanwhile, old-and-out-of-it Uncle Sam soldiers on with cannabis on Schedule 1 as a dangerous substance with no medical use. He thinks it’s still 1969 … damned hippies!

    What senile old codger Uncle Sam don’t grok is that when dozens of states defy his Nixon-era cannabis laws, those states can and will defy federal diktats on gun control and voting ‘rights’ that DemonRats *think* they’re going to impose from the top down, by executive order if necessary.

    Come and take it, uncle …

    • South Dakota’s gubner, Kristi Noem, opposes legalization which translates to the Mexican drug cartels will be moving in and setting up shop.

      Interesting letter:

      July 7, 1913.

      Mr. F. 0. Bennett, Route 1, Box 95, Georgiana, Alabama

      Dear Sir:

      This office is in receipt of your note of July first, requesting information in regard to the culture of Cannabis indica [underlined in original].

      The name Cannabis americana has been applied to hemp grown in this country for the production of the active principle used in medicine. Of course, the seed of this hemp was obtained originally from India or other Oriental regions, the Indian hemp being known as Cannabis indica. Botanically both American and Indian hemp are known as C. sativa. As a matter of fact the United States Pharmacopoeia recognizes the drug as official only when “grown in the East Indies,” but American-grown Cannabis possessing the desired physiological properties finds a place in the drug market, its value being determined by test of active principle content.

      I would suggest that in planting hemp it would be well to wait until the season is fairly well settled. Drill the seeds into rows five or six feet apart, bearing in mind the fact that one-half of them will be males which p. 2. will have to be pulled out if it is desired to make the drug out of the product. It is desirable that the female plants remaining shall not be more than three feet apart when the stand is ready to develop. Seed every two or three inches will probably be more than abundant, allowing for usual germination. If the. seeds are planted an inch in the ground I think it will be deep enough, especially if the ground is well mellowed below. The richer the soil the better. The male plants will be recognized by a paler green color, by a less dense foliage, and as they begin to open, by the presence of stamens. The development of stamens should be stopped, it being necessary to prevent the formation of seed.

      In general, medicinally active hemp of acceptable quality is produced only in regions having long hot summers. Hemp grown in the northern States is usually not acceptable. Hemp seed can probably be obtained from J.M. Thorburn & Co., 33 Barclay Street, New York City. Cannabis indica tops are quoted in the Oil, Paint and Drug Reporter for July 7, 1913, at from $1.40 to $1.55 per pound.

      Trusting this information may be of interest,

      I am,

      Yours very truly,
      WW Stockberger
      Physiologist in Charge of Drug Plant Investigations

  9. The Insurance Institute for Higher Surcharges has never found something they can’t manipulate a study or data to show causes more crashes. They want more laws for people to get pulled over and charged/convicted of something that allows them to be charged higher insurance rates as always.

  10. “Our latest research makes it clear that legalizing marijuana for recreational use does increase overall crash rates,” saith IIHS President David Harkey.”
    Curious that it seems it matters not HOW MUCH of an increase there is, since it obviously isn’t stated. Which if COVID tactics are being used, would be “not much”. If it was much, it would have been in the first line. Which would define exactly how and if its “obviously something policymakers and safety professionals will need to address”. Kind of like destroying our economic, social, and mental health to contain a virus slightly more dangerous than ordinary.
    An “increase” in crash rates could be one more than average.

    • The Insurance Institute for Higher Surcharges has never found something they can’t manipulate a study or data to show causes more crashes. They want more laws for people to get pulled over and charged/convicted of something that allows them to be charged higher insurance rates as always.

    • Great phrase: “COVID tactics.”

      The silver lining of this Covid shit is that because it was/is so over the top and apparent, it is incredibly easy now to spot the tyrannical tactics used in other government actions against us, such as dui checkpoints, seatbelt mandates, speed limit laws, compulsory insurance, TSA gate rape, drug prohibitions, etc. Covid tactics have shown us the entire playbook. Enduring the onslaught of Covid tactics for the past 15 months has also sharpened my resistance skills. Calmly saying no is a very powerful and effective force.

      • Amen, Mister L!

        They boiled the water too hot, too fast. I suppose they had to, though – as the cracks in their scams (plural) were becoming increasingly obvious as well as unsustainable.

        I am seriously considering flipping the bird – so to speak – to a number of other “mandates” that stick in my craw, such as being made to buy “coverage” for all my vehicles, only one of which I can use at any given time. Doesn’t the liability coverage I pay for “cover” the potential harm I cause others? Why must I carry – literally – six iterations of such “coverage”?

        • Indeed, since the very first time I owned more than one vehicle, I’ve never understood why in hell I needed liability coverage for each of them. True, some vehicles have a higher potential for liability. One ton pickups for example. But there’s nothing but friction and gravity preventing insurance companies from charging me the rate for the highest risk vehicle I have, and leaving the rest alone. Just another example of the State insurance regulators siding with the insurance companies against us.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here