Piss test or your license

[babystewie]

I came across this in several newsgroups, HEADS UP! this will effect YOU

sooner or later.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your License, Your Urine

By Paul Armentano, AlterNet. Posted June 21, 2004.

New state and federal laws seek to charge non-impaired pot smokers with

'drugged driving.'

Imagine if it were against the law to drive home after consuming a single

glass of wine at dinner. Now imagine it is illegal to drive after having

consumed a single glass of wine two weeks ago. Guess what? If you smoke pot,

it's time to stop imagining.

Legislation weaving its way through the US Congress demands all 50 states

pass laws granting police the power to drug test drivers and arrest anyone

found to have "any detectable amount of a controlled substance ... present

in the person's body, as measured in the person's blood, urine, saliva, or

other bodily substance." Though the expressed purpose of the law is to

target and remove drug-impaired drivers from US roadways, the proposal would

do nothing of the sort.

Most troubling, the proposed law -- H.R. 3922 -- does not require motorists

to be identifiably impaired or intoxicated in order to be criminally charged

with the crime of "drugged driving." Rather, police have only to demonstrate

that the driver has detectable levels of illicit drugs or inactive drug

metabolites in their blood, sweat, saliva or urine. As many pot smokers

know, marijuana metabolites are fat soluble, and remain identifiable in the

urine for days and sometimes even weeks after past use. Consequently someone

who smoked a joint on Monday could conceivably be arrested on Friday and

charged with "drugged driving," even though they are perfectly sober!

Here's how the law would work. Police, at their discretion, could order

motorists during a traffic stop to undergo a drug test, most likely a urine

test. If the driver's urine tests positive for prior pot use then he or she

would automatically be charged and eventually found guilty of the criminal

offense of driving under the influence of drugs -- even if the pot in

question was consumed weeks earlier. Under the law, the fact that the driver

is not impaired is irrelevant; the only "evidence" necessary is the positive

test result.

So Who's Behind This?

Over the past five years, a small cabal of prohibitionists, drug testing

proponents and toxicologists have pushed for legislation criminalizing

drivers who operate a vehicle with inert drug metabolites present in their

system. To date, their efforts have persuaded ten states -- Arizona,

Georgia, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,

Utah and Wisconsin -- to pass such "drugged driving" laws, known as

zero-tolerance per se laws. Leading this charge is the Walsh Group, a

federally funded organization that develops drug testing technology and

lobbies for rigid workplace drug testing programs. Walsh Group President,

Michael Walsh, is the former Director of the Division of Applied Research at

the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) and formerly served as the

Associate Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP),

informally known as the Drug Czar's office

In November 2002, the group partnered with the ONDCP to lobby state

legislatures to amend their drugged driving laws. Every state has laws on

the books prohibiting motorists from driving "under the influence" of a

controlled substance. Like drunk driving laws, virtually all of these laws

require the motorists to be impaired by their drug use in order to be

charged with "drugged driving."

Nevertheless, the Walsh Group argued that these existing laws are too lax on

illicit drug users. To bolster their claim, they argued -- without

explanation -- that actually linking illicit drug use to impaired driving is

a "technically complicated and difficult task." Their solution? States

should enact zero tolerance per se laws redefining "drugged drivers" as any

motorist who tests positives for any level of illicit drugs or drug

metabolites, regardless of whether their driving is impaired.

"There is clearly a need for national leadership at the federal level to

develop model statutes and to strongly encourage the states to modify their

laws," the organization concluded in a widely disseminated report. Notably,

the authors failed to mention that the widespread enactment of such a policy

would be a political and financial windfall for the Walsh Group's drug

testing technology and consulting services.

The Walsh Group is hardly the only organization with something to gain from

the Bush administration's proposed "drugged driving" crackdown. Speaking at

a White House-sponsored symposium in February, former 1970s Drug Czar Robert

Dupont -- another ex-NIDA director who now heads the workplace drug testing

consultation firm Bensinger, Dupont & Associates (BDA) -- also demanded the

federal government mandate zero-tolerance drugged driving laws.

"Workplace drug testing has prepared us for drugged driving testing," Dupont

told attendees, arguing that just as many public and private employees are

subjected to random drug screening, so should be motorists. Those drivers

who test positive, says Dupont, should then be monitored through regularly

scheduled drug tests, including hair testing, for a period of two to five

years.

"The benefits of this approach will be improved highway safety," he

concluded, failing to explain how punishing sober drivers while

simultaneously lining BDA's pockets would make America's roadways any safer.

Cruising on Cannabis: What's the Problem?

"Driving under the influence of, or after having used, illegal drugs has

become a significant problem worldwide," states the preamble to H.R. 3922.

However, despite the government's claim, epidemiological evidence on the

number of motorists who drive under the influence of illicit drugs is

scarce.

Further, among the limited evidence that does exist, much of it finds that

pot's measurable yet relatively mild effects on psychomotor skills do not

appear to play a significant role in vehicular crashes, particularly when

compared to alcohol. "Crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate

that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely

than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes," summarized

researchers Gregory Chesher and Marie Longo in the recent book Cannabis and

Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. A 2002

Canadian Senate report was even more succinct, stating, "Cannabis alone,

particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in

automobile driving."

Nonetheless, Congress' proposed bill specifically and disproportionately

targets motorists who may occasionally smoke pot because marijuana's

metabolites exit the body more slowly than other drug metabolites, often

remaining detectable in urine for several weeks at a time. Equally

troubling, there currently exists no technology that can accurately

correlate drug metabolite concentration to impairment of performance.

Of course, such concerns are no bother to those in Congress who intend to

ride this latest wave of drug war rhetoric to reelection. Nor are they of

much worry to those in the drug testing industry who stand to make a fortune prosecuting and jailing sober pot smokers.

As for everybody else, be afraid; be very afraid. And be sure to keep a

fresh sample of urine in the glove compartment.

[Candy]

[dirtyepic18]

talk about bullshit.

[ladyshady]

that will never happen.

not anyytime soon at least.

[jimk29]

that will never happen.

not anyytime soon at least.

Why would you say that? They can always just paper clip it to something that will pass, and boom. There you go... drugged driving

[babystewie]

So I take it nobody has ever come across a cop having a badday?

>H.R. 3922 -- does not require motorists

to be identifiably impaired or intoxicated in order to be criminally charged

with the crime of "drugged driving." Rather, police have only to demonstrate

that the driver has detectable levels of illicit drugs or inactive drug

metabolites in their blood, sweat, saliva or urine.

>Police, at their discretion, could order

motorists during a traffic stop to undergo a drug test, most likely a urine

test. If the driver's urine tests positive for prior pot use then he or she

would automatically be charged and eventually found guilty of the criminal

offense of driving under the influence of drugs -- even if the pot in

question was consumed weeks earlier. Under the law, the fact that the driver

is not impaired is irrelevant; the only "evidence" necessary is the positive

test result.

Now read this again---Under the law, the fact that the driver

is not impaired is irrelevant; the only "evidence" necessary is the positive

test result.

No that would never happen, a cop having a badday....

Here in Fla we have a term "driving while black" , anybody know what that means? It means you got pulled over just because your black and must be a wanted druggie. Now say you "busted" and now have to take hairtest for the next 2-5yrs along with making payments to the court , I wonder what your boss would think? Your now labeled a druggie and have fun finding a good job or a place to live- in Daytona several appartments ask for a piss test before they start the paper work- my 67yr mom got asked this!

How many people here vote? not just for the pres. but at the city/state level? You need to tell people in power how you feel or your just asking for it!

You know who votes, the "grayhairs" and we all know how they feel about anything they don`t understand.

Before you say it can`t happen-- RAVE ACT ring any bells? Like "jimk29"

said attach it to another bill and bingo its now LAW.

The newsgroups I saw this posted - most of the replies are very much in favor of this bill passing ASAP.

Be affraid

[PCR]

that's just so fucked up - complete and utter invasion... what's up with the 5th ? Wouldn't that be a sort of self- incrimination??

[babystewie]

http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001265.html

H.R. 3922: Last Week's Joint is Tomorrow's DUI

Let me preface this by making one thing clear: I firmly believe that if someone drinks and gets behind the wheel, they deserve punishment; And if someone smokes a joint and tries to drive, it's not much of a difference except in semantics. That said, alcohol is detectable in your system for a very short period of time since it is water soluble. Marijuana on the other hand, is fat soluble, which means that if you smoke a joint and are high for a few hours, that joint is going to be detectable a week later when you are completely sober.

Now, is it fair to cart someone off to jail for smoking some reefer a week ago and charging them with a DUI simply because it takes longer for the body to remove the traces of THC metabolites? Hell no, but that's exactly what Congress is proposing.

**********************

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/329/driving.shtml

"Drugged Driving" Campaigners Open New Front with Federal Legislation

A little more than a year ago, DRCNet reported on the opening of a campaign led by drug czar John Walters and backed by self-interested drug testing consultants to crack down on "drugged driving," or operating a motor vehicle while high (http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/264/druggeddriving.shtml). Walters, backed up by research and recommendations from the drug test consulting firm the WalshGroup (http://www.walshgroup.org), called on states to enact zero tolerance per se laws against drugged driving.

Per se laws assume that a certain level of a drug in one's system is prima facie evidence that one is intoxicated. State drunk driving laws, where a blood alcohol level of 0.08% gets one an automatic drunk driving conviction, are examples of such laws. The difference between per se drunk driving laws and the per se drugged driving laws envisioned by Walters (and already enacted by eight states, according to the American Prosecutors Research Institute), is that the drugged driving laws will set the amount of drugs in one's system that would trigger a drugged driving conviction at zero. Under such laws, a person who smokes a joint Friday night could be pulled over and arrested for driving while intoxicated Monday morning, long after the high has worn off, but while the notoriously long-lasting cannabis metabolites linger.

Now, Congress has joined the campaign with two bills introduced in the last two weeks, one that creates a model zero tolerance per se drugged driving law for the states, and one that would penalize the states for failing to implement such laws. On March 4, Rep. Jon Porter (R-NV) introduced H.R. 3907, which would take federal highway transportation dollars away from "states that do not enact laws to prohibit driving under the influence of an illegal drug." The bill would strip 1% of federal highway funds from states that do not enact such laws by 2006, with the percentage doubling each year up to a ceiling of 50%. And states must create mandatory minimum penalties for drugged driving to comply with the bill.

********************

US: Series: A Bleak Forecast for Pot Smokers?

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04/n804/a02.html?81399