Michigan State Police picking counties for roadside drug testing pilot

a reply to: avgguy

That isn't the same thing as what I am talking about at all.

One more time.

In Germany if you need to be drug tested (prescreening, accident, random, weekly, monthly). You go to a dr. Not a drug test facility. The dr gives you a test and physical and evaluates your ability to do the job. The test result is between you and the dr unless an accident claim is madr. He just says no so and so is not fit for this job. Or yes he has a drug problem and pushed the wrong button, or anything in between. The system is then set up for treatment to get this person back into the workforce as soon as possible.

The goal is to keep people working and good citizens. It's not to catch violators.

This type of thing is always follow the money.

Revenue through citations and a kick back to a drug lab to get the tests and bingo the next re election war chest is growing.

a reply to: luthier

So does the doctor get charged with a crime if a pt kills somebody after testing positive? Who would be dumb enough to take on that kind of liability?

a reply to: carewemust

In Austin during no refusal checkpoints the officers literally have an open ended search warrant that if you refuse a test they can draw blood by force.

Since so many human rights are suspended at these checkpoints, I hope the reality shows camp out there. Should be FUN to watch the highlights of the day. We might even find out who the "baby daddy" is.

a reply to: avgguy

No if the patient gets in an accident he is responsible. The jobs that actually test are so few this liability probabilty is not any where near how you are envisioning.

They also trust DR's to evaluate the person based on the job description. If Rambo gets popped for blowing lines and he runs a missle silo he isn't going to be recommended. It's actually just a small civil liberty regard. It doesn't mean getting popped is any better for the person.

In an accident it's the same as here. You fail for drugs and the benifits and comps are declined. Maybe a little extra scrutiny to prove this pt was actually high at the time.

In a free society, you are your own boss until you are observed doing something out of the norm. I this case it would be bad driving. Police should have the right to stop anyone that is observed driving erratically and asked to do a breath test or whatever else they want to test [even though I think you can't test marijuana use as it can stay in your blood for a month and you'll be fine driving apart from the evening of smoking].

I also can confirm that just because you have drunk, doesn't automatically mean you can't drive. Each person is different. IF you are more often drunk than sober, the brain adapts pretty quickly to the 'new norm' and longterm alcoholics are usually safer driving intoxicated than sober because their brains have adapted to the 'drunk' vision and are seeing the world wonky when sobered up. I could explain the very interesting experiment we did at Uni to evidence this, but I'd digress.

Because of the non reliability of 'one standard for all', it is nobody's business to criminalise you UNTIL a crime or a breach of peace has been committed and the police should only stop someone who is clearly incapable of driving by observation.

Roadside stops are the sign of a police state, it assumes that you are all guilty unless you prove different. After all, they can stop you and waste your time even if you are on the way to a job interview, a wedding or your new girlfriend, you have no say in the matter. For the time you spend at a roadside stop, you are practically unfree, just as if you were in prison. Forced upon you at will by the government.
So if you had a drink and drove just fine, then they didn't catch a 'criminal', they made one as under normal circumstance they would have never known you had a drink.


"Don't do anything illegal then" I hear you say. Easier said than done. Depending on the 'law of the week', there would be cases where other things are targeted. You already have police stealing your money if they 'think' it's for illegal use [even if you just sold your car for cash].
What about checking your car for road worthiness? You could get fined for something you didn't even know was wrong. Having a mobile phone in your car! Meaning that even though they didn't see you use it, they could assume you did and so on...

Cardinal Richelieu said "Let me speak with a man for half an hour and I will be able to hang him" [not quoted, the gist is clear though]. Meaning that even if you think the sun shines out of your backside, and you have never done anything wrong, a road stop that needs results, WILL generate them. Whereas if you can only be stopped after obviously having committed a crime [such as erratic driving] will only punish those that deserve it.

How anyone can defend forced road stops is beyond me. If you like that sort of thing, North Korea might be an aspiring place to retire to.

a reply to: carewemust

In Austin at least it would be mostly rich white college kids in longhorns gear slurring about how their dad is a lawyer. But your right the reality show would probably choose a certain demographic.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
I have a hard time accepting that this is a good idea,

So you think drug addicts driving is a good idea....

How many properties of illegal drugs are in some PRESCRIPTION drugs, taken legally and as prescribed?
Many PRESCRIPTION drugs taken legally allow for driving with a caution warning.
Traces of some PRESCRIBED drugs stay in the body for days, even weeks at a time.
How much of a PRESCRIBED drug is needed to give a positive result?

This is a bad idea all around.

a reply to: FamCore

Your prob right. A 5 or 10 panel like for on the job random drug testing as a condition of employment.

At least the 5 panel above you mentioned....

a reply to: Krazysh0t

And, again, you get the saliva test after you've failed multiple other steps in the evaluation. No signs of impairment? No saliva test. Crazy, right?

Why that part seems to getting ignored is perplexing.

Oh. Wait. No it's not perplexing at all.

As I said, if this turns into them swabbing people at random, then yea it's a problem. But if it stays the same as it is, which the article seems to indicate it will, (because guess what, the saliva test is already part of the evaluation) then what are we crapping our pants over again? A test you'd get while being booked in being given before you get booked in? Because that effects the results...how? Whether it's on the side of the road, at the intake area, in a sweat lodge, or on the moon, that test is given because you've already displayed signs of impairment.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Shamrock6

It's really the principle that's the issue.

The whole "papers please" thing. Without probable cause it's pretty invasive.

Just comply.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I thought I've made this clear several times. I believe that ALL drug tests should be unconstitutional. That is my entire gripe with this procedure.

a reply to: Arizonaguy

Where are the SJW on this one? This, voluntary or not, is a violation of rights, particularly because there doesn't seem to be regulation on what is done with the remaining sample...

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Arizonaguy
I have a hard time accepting that this is a good idea,

So you think drug addicts driving is a good idea....

As long as they don't cause any accidents, I see no problem with them driving.

So, first they have to release the statistics showing the correlation between drug-driving and accidents.

They will pop right up if it involves minorities getting in trouble.

Something tells me here in The mitten this law will be equally oppressive to blacks and whites... this is A HUGE pot smoking state. Just like any state with medical MJ would be..

while I see this being initially implemented in poorer blacker counties, This is not just limited to minorities.

Racist? Initially yea.
Clasist? Always .



a reply to: Jekka

I know exactly where this "law" will fall flat on its face, and be repealed eventually. Let's say that they test someone for amphetamines that takes a prescription amphetamine. When that person is hauled off to jail, and they have enough time to talk to their attorney, the lawsuits that these 5 counties will face will far outnumber the arrests and income that they will make off of this. The same goes for prescription opiates (Oxycontin, Lortab, Lorcet, Percocet, etc.). They will show up "hot" for heroine or opioids to be more specific. The law on prescription drugs in most states is that it is printed on the label on the bottle to "be careful taking this medication, until you are completely aware of the side-effects". They also say that the drug "may affect your ability to drive. do not use heavy machinery, until you are familiar with the effects.

One or two of those type of lawsuits will finish this law off. The cops will probably write them a ticket, and then have the "accused" come into the courthouse to verify their prescription. This is a huge waste of taxpayer money, just like the Michigan Food Stamp (SNAP) drug testing. That welfare drug testing found only a very small segment of the population on welfare was "using illegal drugs". Waste of 300,000 dollars. This program will waste even more money.

Whats odd is michigan has a law against DUI checkpoints. Their case was the one heard that made dui checkpoints legal in the Supreme Court.

If you can pop someone for drugged driving the state can get an extra 10g, what's not to love about money and ruining someones life. Drugged driving laws already exist. This is ripe for abuse once they can use a device to prove guilt.

a reply to: jellyrev

The odds are 100% no alcohol checkpoints in Michigan. No stoplight cameras no pulling over without cause.

originally posted by: RickyD
And isn't this still an overreach of the 4th amendment?

No, as it is not unreasonable to stop a drugged driver.

Driving is a privilege, not a right.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sorry, your concern about "being arrested while driving around because I did drugs the day before" lead me to believe you hadn't bothered to actually educate yourself on the content of the OP, rather than bringing up a constitutional argument.