
I am sure that Mike is correct on this point.  I am also pretty sure that
administering "truth serum" would be ruled a violation of your right
not to incriminate yourself.  But, what is the salient difference?
Both drawing blood and injecting "truth serum" incapacitate you for
a while, but do no permanent damage.  Is it simply that we have come to
view one as acceptable, while the other is viewed as a fundamental
violation of one's rights?  If this is the case, how do we expand the
protections of the 5th amendment to incorporate new technologies without
the results being a hodgepodge of different judges personal opinions?