The vaunted City of Irving, Texas, [and others whose names slip my mind] is this Memorial Day weekend trying out a “no refusal” policy in re: drunk drivers. No longer can you refuse a breathalyzer; well, you can, but then they’ll just gin up a warrant for a blood test. And complicit city and county judges are standing by to issue warrants. And if the state wants to throw the bum under the jail after his drunk butt plows into a busload of nuns, so be it. This is yet another non-crime, victimless crime, that allows bureaucrats to justify their existence.
But the new twist violates basic human rights guaranteed by both the national and state Constitutions.
Before I’m criticized as a supporter of intoxicated driving, don’t. I think that a sort of micro-evolutionary force is at play here: if you’re dumb enough to drink and drive, you get what you get.
What I have a problem with is not a breathalyzer refusal resulting in some sort of automatic fine, or — especially, since it’s issued by the state — suspension of one’s driver license. But a blood test? Are you serious?
Surely the city judges signing these warrants have heard of the Fifth Amendment [US Constitution]! Or, since they’re Texas judges, have they heard of Section 10 of Article 1 [Texas Constitution]? How much more coercion to testifying against oneself can we get than holding up one’s own blood as a testament to one’s guilt? And not blood found as physical evidence at a crime scene, but blood drawn for the express purpose of guaranteeing a conviction.
I just can’t figure out why otherwise intelligent-seeming people sit idly by while the government tramples all over our rights. 500-plus cable or satellite TV channels turn your brain into mush, while you listen to the corporate mandate: consume! consume! consume! Meanwhile, the Constitution [the sine qua non of these United States] sinks into the realm of late-night monologue punchlines.
[Actually, I do know how: the insurance lobby. Ask yourself why you wear a seat belt, why you're required to have minimum coverage, why you can't have an open container in the car. Big insurance. Whatever it takes to lower the bottom line for the insurance companies, the state will do. Or Big Pharma. Or Big name-your-lobby.]
We’ve all been led to the trough by the government all our lives, most of us to the point that we can’t see ulterior motives when they’re staring us in the face. “No refusal” laws drive civic revenue and lower insurance payouts [notice, I didn't say, "lower premiums"]. But it’s sold, like all other intrusive government actions, as “for your own good.” [Or my personal fave, "it's for the children."]
French Algerian philosopher Albert Camus wrote, “The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.”
Does this sound familiar to anyone but me?
