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.
>
>
>
>
>
Threaded Mode