Actually, this already exists to some degree. According to the implied consent law, if you are driving, you have consented to be tested for driving under the influence. If you are stopped,the police have the right to test you for alcohol through a blood, breath or urine test. If you refuse, you can lose your license, even if it is later found that you were not under the influence. That is because you agree to being tested as a condition of getting your driver's license...
According to the implied consent law, if you are driving, you have consented to be tested for driving under the influence. If you are stopped,the police have the right to test you for alcohol through a blood, breath or urine test. If you refuse, you can lose your license, even if it is later found that you were not under the influence. That is because you agree to being tested as a condition of getting your driver's license...
Not so fast...
The cops still need probable cause that one is under the influence. They, in no way, may randomly pull people over and force them to submit to a test.
This decision stinks. Drugs are nasty things, but setting a precedent that one is subject to government intrusion in your private affairs, is even worse.
I read in a paper today that the California ASSembly voted to test MLB players for performance enhancing drugs. These are guys engaged in a private practice, and using a substance which their organization believes to be consistant with the rules of baseball. It's just do-gooders trying to expand government.