<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Sacred Breathalyzer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.duiblog.com/2008/04/20/the-sacred-breathalyzer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.duiblog.com/2008/04/20/the-sacred-breathalyzer/</link>
	<description>Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 01:11:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: koivisto</title>
		<link>http://www.duiblog.com/2008/04/20/the-sacred-breathalyzer/comment-page-1/#comment-856</link>
		<dc:creator>koivisto</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2008 16:01:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.duiblog.com/2008/04/20/the-sacred-breathalyzer/#comment-856</guid>
		<description>How about a law for driving while stupid? If your IQ is below 100 then you are not as capable as someone with a higher IQ? The police can pull you over and give you a test on the spot, subjected of course to the officers own judgement  and scoring method. Mother Against Dumb Drivers, they won&#039;t even have to change their name. The same principles apply.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How about a law for driving while stupid? If your IQ is below 100 then you are not as capable as someone with a higher IQ? The police can pull you over and give you a test on the spot, subjected of course to the officers own judgement  and scoring method. Mother Against Dumb Drivers, they won&#8217;t even have to change their name. The same principles apply.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: jim</title>
		<link>http://www.duiblog.com/2008/04/20/the-sacred-breathalyzer/comment-page-1/#comment-855</link>
		<dc:creator>jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:46:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.duiblog.com/2008/04/20/the-sacred-breathalyzer/#comment-855</guid>
		<description>YOU KNOW MY ARGUMENT ABOUT SPECFICALY THE ALCOTEST. I AM ALL FOR IT AS LONG AS IT SUPPLIES THE RAW DATA SIGNAL COUNTS FOR STANDARDS AND SAMPLES, LIKE EVERY OTHER INSTRUMENT DOES THAT PRODUCES A RESULT OF SIGNIFICANCE.

AS FAR AS NOT BEING ALLOWED TO PUT UP A DEFENSE IN COURT- THAT IS REALLY GOING TO FAR. DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PREWSENT ANY DEFENSE THEY WANT. IT DOESNT HAVE TO BE AGREED WITH BY THE COURT, BUYT WE MUST BE ALLOWED TO MAKE THE DEFENSE ON RECORD.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>YOU KNOW MY ARGUMENT ABOUT SPECFICALY THE ALCOTEST. I AM ALL FOR IT AS LONG AS IT SUPPLIES THE RAW DATA SIGNAL COUNTS FOR STANDARDS AND SAMPLES, LIKE EVERY OTHER INSTRUMENT DOES THAT PRODUCES A RESULT OF SIGNIFICANCE.</p>
<p>AS FAR AS NOT BEING ALLOWED TO PUT UP A DEFENSE IN COURT- THAT IS REALLY GOING TO FAR. DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PREWSENT ANY DEFENSE THEY WANT. IT DOESNT HAVE TO BE AGREED WITH BY THE COURT, BUYT WE MUST BE ALLOWED TO MAKE THE DEFENSE ON RECORD.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
