What, Me worry
 

:eek: 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.
>
>
>
>
>

way22hot---There is also a law in NH,called-Driving after the use of
intoxicating beverages!I was charged,with it,in the '60s,at the Laconia Cycle
Races.At the time,I lived in Conn & had a Conn drivers license.I also had a
NH license,from being stationed at Pease(Portsmouth NH)They took my NH license.When I moved to NH,they renewed it,but I had to take my motorcycle
test again.By that time,I had been riding for many years,so it was just an
inconvenience! Irish

uh, holy crap! there is just so much wrong with this i don't even want to start a list. just out of curiosity... how many people have actually been charged with this? anyone know?

another set of "zero intelligence" laws...

It's going to be tough to prosecute because it does stay in the blood for a long time.

actually they are trying to make it easier to prosecute .By not having to prove under the influence only exposure to.

If only there was a way to "out" the skeletons in these legislators closets! When you kick up enough dust, it screens you from being seen!

When will they start testing to see when we took our last breath of polluted air?

So I can be arrested for being in the same room as someone who smoked up? I can't see that holding water. It reminds me of Ross, the snowboarder who used that excuse to keep his gold medal. :)

And another happy Sieg-fucking-Heil to the Walsh group, too!

Agreed this is just another one of those stupid laws. I dislike it because there is no cause for a cop to get a sample from you. If you get pulled over they can just say they want a sample, regardless of a reason.

Heavens forbid you ever have a prescription containing codine. :(

Not unlike many laws that totally miss the target from both PURE graft and ignorance.



Do you think these legislators ever have questions as to why there is a growing disregard for the law, or do you believe it is their intent so it can generate future political and personal profit opportunities? My guess is the second option.:( Greed seems to outrank stupidity every time.

PF:
It is said "Never attribute to malice that which can adaquately be explained by stupidity".

The problem with this statement is that it draws an artifical dichotomy. Many things are best explained by a confluency of malice and stupidity.

Including this whole proposal.