why is there a big difference between a blood test and it russell iser. i look at a breathalyzer and it's a little box the size of a cell phone. it has a little straw on the end and you breathe into it. it must what you breathe into it is carbon dioxide which will be going through the environment anyway. you're not going to keep it. a blood test coming up go somewhere else. there is risk involved, time lapses can affect the evidence, and it's painful in some instances. so i immediately think, isn't there a difference? in a to in what i'm saying is, what is wrong with a breathalyzer test when it can save lots of lives and is given to those people where there is probable cause, i take it, or at least reasonable position to think they are drunk. if there innocent fine, if they're guilty, it's very little interference. a blood interference. a blood test, that might be a different thing. okay, i appreciate what your response is to that line of thought. >> i think your statement is quite correct. on the breath test, the breath test is a significant intrusion on