[microgood]

Similarly, there are circumstances, such as those bearing upon public safety, under which random drug tests are perfectly reasonable.

And why is this reasonable? Not one known event has ever occurred to show drug testing has saved one life or prevented one accident. Drug testing was implemented as a solution to a problem that did not exist. It was just another step down the road to tyranny. Even now, the only people being arrested or charged with anything remotely like this are the pilots who try to fly planes drunk, not a part of the drug testing phenomena.

Yes, and that should be used to justify making the law whatever you want it to be.

No, the way it was written in the Constitution. Even the black robes struck it down in some cases, in recognition that at least the 4th Amendment exists.

There are two kinds of conservatives. One kind is a strict constitutional conservative that believes we should follow the original meaning of the constitution. That is the kind of conservative I am.

The second kind of conservative believe that their agenda needs to be followed no matter what it takes to achieve it, similar to the liberal side of the house, only with a different agenda. That is the kind of conservative you are.

You aren't posting from jail, are you?

I fight for freedom whether it personally affects me or not. It runs in my veins.

[Luddite Patent Counsel]

For a guy with no sense of humor, you're pretty funny. If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, you're a walking time bomb.

[HawaiianGecko]

 

 

	<<Not one known event has ever occurred to show drug testing has saved one life or prevented one accident.>> That may be a true statement but it doesn't have much meaning. It's like trying to prove a negative statement. I'm sure that if the government kept Hunter S. Thompson from piloting a B-747 full of tourists, that many lives were saved; but since they didn't die, how can one say it was prevented.