Mandatory drug tests for everyone?

[k4kyv]

If there's anything to this story, it looks like that may be coming. While this is not very closely related to ham radio, if enacted it will affect us all, whether we have ever used a "controlled substance" or not.

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."

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.

For more on the story, view

http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/19008/

[K6UEY]

Sounds like a damn good idea to me,too many people are willing to use drugs then go out and endanger everyone on the road.Drugs are so bad out there I refused to work for any company that did not have a drug testing program. I got damn tired of not being able to count on some one because they would sneak out to their car at break and puff on some weed. We were working around 10,000 volt power supply's and there was no second chance to be careful.
If you do the crime you serve the time,that's being responsible for your actions.
It is bad enough that 8 out of 10 on the road are incompetent when they are sober....... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

Great idea dance to the music pay the band. I suspose the outhouse lawyers will try to find a way around this one. It would be a great world if the druggies and drunks ended up in the slammer where they belong instead of getting just a hand slap and sent home. Maybe if the powers that be grew some nads and enforced real punishment some of these problems would abate.

[K4TET]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">detectable levels[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

The problem with this sort of witch hunt is that there are means of detecting the presence of chemicals in meaningless amounts. #Given the inaccuracy of methodology of testing for drugs, innocent persons could be caught up in the devastating crush of the law and its exceedingly slow, irreversible branding. #This sort of despotism seems to be a good thing, until you are ensnared by it.

Moreover, it tends to trample on the Fourth Amendment: #&quot;The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.&quot;

And our rights, freedoms, and liberties are slowly eroded by those who have the power and claim a higher, nobler purpose than what they do.

[N0PU]

Just what we need...another law to make me prove I am not guilty of something... and then put in the hands of the local cops... GREAT!

How many manhours are gonna be wasted on this crappola?

I am not impressed!

When will these folks learn that you can not make people moral with laws! It has to come from within...

[kd5kfl]

The only truly reliable drug test is the gas chromatograph / mass spectrometer. You won't be hauling one of those around in a squad car.

Sounds to me like some politician is trying to get famous for taking a tough stand on drugs during an election year.

Between constitutional issues like probable cause, technical issues related to the inaccuracies of chemical tests - this is a lead balloon.

[ka8jhm]

Just what we all need, more government intrusion into our daily lives. And for those in favor of giving up more of your constitutional rights, just think, you might be the one caught.
You can test positive for drugs by eating a small poppy seed roll, and I do not mean just trace amounts as stated. So eat your breakfast, and then call your lawyer.
And they accused Germany of having a &quot; police state&quot;.
Bob tbtm

[N5RLR]

<span style='color:blue'>Not no, but hell, no.

Placing drug-testing in the hands of your local beat cop is just begging for trouble, IMHO.

Some prescription medications can give a &quot;false positive&quot; if the test is bungled or the results mis-read. #I expect a police officer to be well-versed in answering calls, catching REAL criminals, and eating donuts...not harrassing motorists or playing chemist.

Being &quot;cuffed and stuffed&quot; because I'm on blood-pressure meds is not my idea of a fun time, thankyouverymuch. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif</span>

[n3ijw]

what the five previous posters said.

[ka8jhm]

This is just another example of our elected officials having too much time on their hands. With nothing else to keep them busy, they sit around and dream up stupid laws designed to put more of the public in jail, and take away what little money you might have left after lifes necessary needs in the form of fines.
Then after all is said and done, they'll tax us more to pay for these jails that will be needed.
For those old enough to remember, try counting exactly how many freedoms have been lost to governement intervention in the last sixty years.
Bob tbtm

[W9JI]

I think we should drug test the politicians http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[wd5kca]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Happy_Hamer @ June 22 2004,08:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think we should drug test the politicians #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Ditto for QRZ.com posters.

[WA5KRP]

Bad plan. When was the Bill of Rights cancelled?




WA5KRP
Liberty, Texas

[KF4ZHL]

Ummmmmmm..............no! Our police and courts are getting entirely too brave at violating basic rights as it is. Just watch &quot;Cops&quot; on TV and take a look. They have used things like loitering as probable cause to search someone. Sure, they found something on the one they televised, but how many others were unduly harassed before they found one? There are too many laws they can nail you with for little crap already. The current DUI laws are more than sufficient to do the job I'd say. They need more resources in investigation rather than traffic cops anyway.

[w6ez]

I see so many people at stoplights sniffing, rolling and smoking that at first I am in agreement with the idea of drug tests.

Then I think back to when I worked for a big firm that decided that they would start testing everyone. They hired an outside contractor to do this and the outside contractor found a lot of people who were using drugs. Heck, we had a whole bunch of druggies!

The problem was that the big old bunch of druggies was a crock. The ouside contractor HAD to find something to stay employed so they &quot;bumped&quot; the results a little. (If you hired a termite guy to kill your termites and he found none would you still keep him there to kill termites?)

The company thought they had a major drug problem so a bunch of people got fired for being druggies who weren't. Most of the terminated employees got together and had their own tests done, not cheaply I might add, and came out clean and pure.

Everyone then went to court, the employees got big awards, the company got to fire a bunch of replacement new hires and a drug test company went out of business.

Some of it is still in the courts after 6 years.

So I have to &quot;just say no&quot; to blanket drug tests.

Now, I guess a state could make a drug test part of a driver's license application.

[KF4ZHL]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ka8jhm @ June 22 2004,08:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is just another example of our elected officials having too much time on their hands. #With nothing else to keep them busy, they sit around and dream up stupid laws designed to put more of the public in jail, and take away what little money you might have left after lifes necessary needs in the form of fines.
#Then after all is said and done, they'll tax us more to pay for these jails that will be needed.
For those old enough to remember, try counting exactly how many freedoms have been lost to governement intervention in the last sixty years.
Bob # tbtm[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Preach it brother! I worry that, as a society, we trade entirely too many liberties for security. We're turning into the &quot;Land of the semi-free, and the home of the lawsuit&quot;.

[K9STH]

About 10 years ago, when my youngest daughter was a senior in high school, the school district brought in several &quot;drug sniffing&quot; dogs and went through the parking lot, lockers, etc. They called my daughter out of class and then out to her car. One of the dogs had done a &quot;hit&quot; on her car.

The dog handlers (which were a private concern but police officers were present to make a &quot;bust&quot; if anything was found) asked to search her car. Since she had nothing to hide, she allowed them to do so. Basically, they disassembled the interior of the car and found her reserve supply of Benadryl, which, of course, is perfectly legal! She has severe allergies and always kept a supply in her purse and in her car.

The officers treated her like &quot;dirt&quot;! They basically said that although they didn't &quot;catch&quot; her that time they would &quot;catch&quot; her the next time. They didn't even put the seats, etc., back in her car! She had to do that!

When she got home she reluctantly told me about the situation. Since I personally knew the school district's safety officer I telephoned him immediately. Frankly, I told him that I had no problem with her car being searched since she did give them permission. But, I did tell him the way that the situation was handled and that if it ever happened to her or anyone else that I knew of that I would go directly to the school board, bypassing the superintendent and other officials.

He knew that I also was friends with a couple of the school board members and that he definitely did not want to &quot;lock horns&quot; with them! He then explained that the &quot;drug dogs&quot; cannot tell the difference between illegal drugs and legal drugs. Also, that they will &quot;hit&quot; even on caffine. Thus, if an empty coffee cup was left somewhere that they will &quot;hit&quot; on that!

Since my daughter had been embarrassed by being called out of class, I insisted that a formal appology be made to her in front of that class. Although he hesitated for a moment about doing that, he then realized that we had grounds for a lawsuit against the school district for the way that she was treated! I didn't tell her about the appology because she probably would have &quot;skipped&quot; class to avoid the publicity! But, the dog handler, the police officer who was there when the search was made, and the safety director all showed up at that class the next day to try to make ammends!

I don't know how many others were &quot;called out&quot; because of mis-identifcation of items, nor do I know how many &quot;true&quot; hits were made. But, I do know that the dogs were not called back any more that year. Don't know about since then because I didn't have any more children in the school district.

However, from what I learned about the subject the number of &quot;false&quot; readings greatly exceed those of a &quot;true&quot; reading! Unfortunately, those involved in that phase of law enforcement do not want that information to get out. Also, those people usually have the attitude that you are guilty until proven innocent.

Within the past 2 years in the Dallas, Texas, area, there has been a serious situation wherein over 100 drug cases have had to be dismissed. It seems that a paid informant, and several police officers, were &quot;framing&quot; people, especially Hispanics, by &quot;finding&quot; drugs in the vehicles, apartments, etc. The drugs actually, in most cases, were nothing more than bags of ground up plaster wall board. If any drugs at all were found, they were just enought to barely register in the tests.

Several people were imprisoned, several were deported, and so on. Many of these really did not understand their &quot;rights&quot; and were told if they pleaded guilty that they would be allowed to go free. Then, they were deported.

The &quot;paid informant&quot; has since been convicted in these cases. The police officers have basically gotten off in terms of criminal charges at the state level. However, federal charges having to do with how they treated the &quot;defendants&quot; are pending. All of the cases have been dropped and those few who were serving jail time have been released.

Although a very few of those involved were dealing with drugs at some point, the vast majority were completely innocent, it was just the fact that they did not understand the &quot;system&quot; that they were &quot;taken advantage of&quot;.

Now, I realize that drugs can be a problem. However, I also believe that there are more appropriate ways of dealing with this &quot;problem&quot; than what is being suggested in the bill before Congress. I also believe that their are more appropriate methods than what are now being used in the field.

I know that, because of all the things that I take for my rheumatoid arthritis (including, at times, hydrocodone) that I would make any testing equipment go completely &quot;off scale&quot;! And, there are a lot of others like me who must take all sorts of drugs to combat their physical situation. As such, I definitely do not approve of many of the proposed things that are supposed to help in the &quot;war on drugs&quot;!

My wife and I are going to fly to Atlanta to be there when our youngest daughter's first baby is born around the first of August. With all of the security in the airports these days I can just see all of the &quot;sniffer&quot; dogs going bananas with our carry-on! Frankly, I carry all of my &quot;pills&quot; with me and not in our checked luggage. This is for two reasons: The first is so that the drug dogs don't &quot;hit&quot; on our luggage and then have someone go through it when I am not present. The other is because I do not want those drugs to get &quot;lost&quot;.

I would rather &quot;deal&quot; with the drug enforcement people in person instead of having them go through our luggage and then have it &quot;miss&quot; the plane.

Glen, K9STH

[KF4ZHL]

Good thinking Glenn. Keep your Hydrocodone close. It WILL be stolen. I hear that stuff is becoming a problem.

[W7WV]

They don’t need a new law that is most likely unenforceable. I will do a drug test any time they want. But I want something in exchange.
I want them to start prosecuting the people that employ the illegal immigrants that enter across the border with Mexico just a few miles from my home each night. They estimate there are some 1000 per night this time of the year.
If they catch them (only a 10-20% chance of that) all they do is return them. In some cases, they catch them twice in the same day.
So, if they are not going to punish them for the crime, we need to prosecute the ones that employ them and benefit from the cheap labor with no benefits.
This law is already on the books, with very little prosecution.
Does anyone have any idea how much of your tax payer dollars are spent here everyday to catch only some 20% of the illegal border crossers? It's a bunch.
We don’t need more laws that cannot be enforced.

[K4JSR]

Glen, I wish you and your wife good luck getting through the
security people at the Atlanta Airport. They are some of the
most inept, poorly trained and poorly supervised in the nation.
I will not go into details in this post, but there have been
horror stories coming from good old Hartsfield-Jackson for
many years now. Federalizing the personnel only made things
worse. If I fly now I go to either Birmingham or Chattanooga
to depart. The drive is not much longer and the parking is
cheaper and easier and the airline tickets are cheaper, also.
As far as having to pee in a cup for law enforcement, I will
be happy to... When they have their Haz-Mat people there to
deal with it! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
73, Cal K4JSR

[w4glm]

I for one do not see a problem.

If your clean your clean !!!!!

[k4kyv]

THE STORY IS NOT BOGUS!


Drug Impaired Driving Enforcement Act of 2004 (Introduced in House)

HR 3922 IH


108th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 3922
To amend title 23, United States Code, relating to improving safety and enforcement with respect to individuals operating motor vehicles while under the influence of, or having used, drugs.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 9, 2004
Mr. PORTMAN (for himself, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr. SOUDER, and Mr. RAMSTAD) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To amend title 23, United States Code, relating to improving safety and enforcement with respect to individuals operating motor vehicles while under the influence of, or having used, drugs.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Drug Impaired Driving Enforcement Act of 2004'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds that--

(1) driving under the influence of, or after having used, illegal drugs has become a significant problem worldwide;

(2) in 2002, over 35,000,000 persons in the United States aged 12 or older had used illegal drugs in the past year and almost 11,000,000 of these persons (5 percent of the total population of the United States aged 12 or older and 31 percent of past year illicit drug users) had driven under the influence of, or after having used, illegal drugs in the past year;

(3) research has established that abuse of a number of drugs can impair driving performance;

(4) according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, illegal drugs (often in combination with alcohol) are used by approximately 10 to 22 percent of drivers involved in all motor vehicles crashes;

(5) drug impaired drivers are less frequently detected, prosecuted, or referred to treatment than drunk drivers;

(6) there is a lack of uniformity or consistency in the way the 50 States approach drug impaired drivers;

(7) too few police officers have been trained to detect drug impaired drivers, and too few prosecutors have been trained to prove drug impaired driving cases beyond a reasonable doubt;

(8) per se drug impaired driving laws, like those used for driving under the influence of alcohol, are feasible and represent a sound strategy for dealing with drug impaired drivers and can assist in the prosecution of drug impaired driving offenders; and

(9) while it is illegal in all States to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, drugs other than alcohol, or a combination of alcohol and other drugs, there is no consistent method across States for identifying drug impairment and the presence of drugs in the body.

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are--

(1) to provide a model for States to implement and enforce a drug impaired driving statute;

(2) to ensure drivers in need of drug education or treatment are identified and provided with the appropriate assistance;

(3) to advance research and development of testing mechanisms and knowledge about drugged driving and its impact on traffic safety; and

(4) to enhance the training of traffic safety officers and prosecutors to detect, enforce, and prosecute drug impaired driving laws.

SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act, the following definitions apply:

(1) Controlled substance- The term `controlled substance' includes substances listed in schedules I through V of section 112(e) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812(e)).

(2) License- The term `license' means any driver's license or any other license or permit to operate a motor vehicle issued under the laws of, or granted by, a State, including--

(A) any temporary license or instruction permit;

(B) the privilege of any person to drive a motor vehicle whether or not the person holds a valid license; and

&copy; any nonresident's operating privilege.

(3) Revocation- The term `revocation' means the termination by formal action of the State of a person's license or privilege to operate a motor vehicle on the highways.

(4) State- The term `State' means a State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the territories and possessions of the United States.

(5) Suspension- The term `suspension' means the temporary withdrawal by formal action of the State of a person's license or privilege to operate a motor vehicle on the highways.

(6) Secretary- The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of Transportation.

(7) Inhalant- The term `inhalant' means a household or commercial product that can be used by inhaling for intoxicating effect.

(8) Drug recognition expert- The term `drug recognition expert' means an individual trained in a specific evaluation procedure that enables the person to determine whether an individual is under the influence of drugs and then to determine the type of drug causing the observable impairment.

SEC. 5. MODEL STATUTE.

(a) In General- Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall develop and provide to the States a model statute relating to drug impaired driving which incorporates the provisions described in this section.

(b) Mandatory Provisions- Provisions of the model statute under this section shall include, at a minimum, a provision that the crime of drug impaired driving is committed when a person operates a motor vehicle--

(1) while any detectable amount of a controlled substance is present in the person's body, as measured in the person's blood, urine, saliva, or other bodily substance; or

(2) due to the presence of a controlled substance or a controlled substance in combination with alcohol or an inhalant, or both, in the person's body, the person's mental or physical faculties are affected to a noticeable or perceptible degree.

&copy; Discretionary Provisions- Provisions of the model statute under this section may include the following:

(1) Sanctions for refusing to submit to a test for the presence of a controlled substance in a person's body which are equivalent to sanctions for a positive test result.

(2) Lawful use of any controlled substance listed in schedule II, III, IV, or V of section 112&copy; of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812&copy;) that was lawfully prescribed by a physician licensed under State law is an affirmative defense to a charge of drug impaired driving; except that the affirmative defense shall not be available if it is shown that the person's mental or physical faculties were impaired by such use to a noticeable or perceptible degree.

(3) An appropriate system of evaluation, counseling, treatment (if required), and supervision for persons convicted of drug impaired driving.

(4) A graduated system of penalties for repeat offenses of drug impaired driving, including, at a minimum, that a third or subsequent offense within a 10-year period shall be a felony punishable by imprisonment for more than a year.

(5) Authorization for States to suspend or revoke the license of any driver upon receiving a record of the driver's conviction of driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of a controlled substance.

(6) Provisions that require a sentence of imprisonment imposed for any drug impaired driving offense be served consecutively, not concurrently, from a sentence imposed for any other criminal act; except that a sentence imposed for the same act of impaired driving may be imposed concurrently if the additional conviction was based on an alternate theory of culpability for the same act.

SEC. 6. USE OF GRANTS TO ENFORCE DRUG IMPAIRED DRIVING LAWS.

(a) General Authority- Section 410(a)(1) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting `and individuals driving while under the influence of a controlled substance (as defined in section 4 of the Drug Impaired Driving Enforcement Act of 2004)' before the period at the end of the first sentence.

(b) Maintenance of Effort- Section 410(a)(2) of such title is amended by inserting `and drug impaired driving traffic safety programs' before `at or above'.

&copy; Basic Grant- Section 410(b)(1) of such title is amended by inserting after subparagraph (G) the following:

`(H) Controlled substance programs- The State provides for at least one of the following programs:

`(i) Detection of controlled substances- A program to detect the unlawful presence of a controlled substance (as defined in section 4 of the Drug Impaired Driving Enforcement Act of 2004) in the body of the operator of a motor vehicle or on the person of any occupant of the vehicle, including the operator.

`(ii) Model statute- A program that adopts and enforces on a statewide basis, at a minimum, the mandatory provisions of the model drug impaired driving statute developed by the Secretary under section 5 of the Drug Impaired Driving Enforcement Act of 2004.

`(iii) Counseling and treatment- A program to ensure that individuals who are convicted of drug impaired driving are provided counseling and treatment as necessary.

`(iv) Training- A program to train law enforcement officers and prosecutors in the detection, investigation, and prosecution of drug impaired driving, including training provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the International Association of the Chiefs of Police, or the American Prosecutors Research Institute in drug recognition expert techniques.

`(v) Education and research- A program to advance research in the area of drug impaired driving and enhance communication of advancements in research, technology, and policy to key policymakers, prosecutors, law enforcement and judges.'.

SEC. 7. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

Section 403(b) of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(5) New technology to detect drug use.

`(6) Research and development to improve testing technology, including toxicology lab resources and field test mechanisms to enable States to process toxicology evidence in a more timely manner.

`(7) Determining per se impairment levels for controlled substances (as defined in section 4 of the Drug Impaired Driving Enforcement Act of 2004) and the compound effects of alcohol and controlled substances on impairment to facilitate enforcement of per se drug impaired driving laws. Research under this paragraph shall be carried out in collaboration with the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.'.

SEC. 8. GOALS FOR TRAINING.

Section 403 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`(g) Training Goals- For the purpose of enhancing the States' ability to detect, enforce, and prosecute drug impaired driving laws, the Secretary shall--

`(8) establish and carry out programs to enhance police and prosecutor training efforts for enforcement of laws relating to drug impaired driving and for development of programs to improve enforcement of such laws;

`(9) ensure that drug impaired driving enforcement training or drug recognition expert programs, or both, exist in all 50 States and the District of Columbia by December 31, 2006;

`(10) ensure that at least 10 percent of State and local police officers whose duties, entirely or partly, include traffic monitoring or enforcement are trained to enforce drug impaired driving laws and utilize new technologies or any recognition training by December 31, 2010; and

`(11) ensure that at least 10 percent of State prosecutors are trained to prosecute drug impaired driving laws by December 31, 2010.'.

SEC. 9. REPORTING.

(a) In General- Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall transmit to Congress a report on the progress being made in carrying out this Act, including the amendments made by this Act.

(b) Contents- The Secretary shall include in the report an assessment of the status of uniform drugged driving laws in the United States, new research and technologies in the area of drug impaired driving enforcement.

SEC. 10. FUNDING.

Out of amounts appropriated to carry out section 403 of title 23, United States Code, for fiscal years 2004 through 2009, the Secretary shall use, at a minimum, $2,000,000 per fiscal year to carry out drug impaired driving traffic safety programs, including the provisions of this Act and the amendments made by this Act.


Latest Major Action: 4/2/2004 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

[KG4CGC]

Gattaca

[w6ez]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (w4glm @ June 21 2004,10:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I for one do not see a problem.

If your clean your clean !!!!![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
If you think you are &quot;clean&quot; go around town and buy a bunch of stuff using large bills. Then, take all paper change down to the local police station and have their dog sniff it.

60 minutes did a gig a few years back and they said that 80% of the money in circulation will test positive for coke or meth.
Just don't take too much cash in there because under most states seizure laws ANY dirty money is theirs! You might also want to have a lawyer on call as well to bail you out.

Does this mean a tech or general wishing to upgrade will have to submit a urine sample at the VEC's discretion? Hey, it may come down to that.

First of all their must be a bunch o drug users on here! You guys can't have it both ways either you want the enforcement and the BS with it or everybody runs wild and does what they want. The legal system in the U.S. has gotten soft due to crybaby liberals saying this violates this right or that right. Now the next time you or a member of your family is robbed, beaten or worse by a drug crazed fool stop and think back about what you said. Someday you poor souls, you will understand.

Glen those dogs at the school must have been the worse trained dogs in history. I train dogs and I can tell you a dog is capable of smelling a pile of dropping and can separate every food item that the pile is made of. Yes dogs can be trained to sniff out only illegal drugs. The problem with dog training is just like everything else, the trainer is in too big of a hurry and the results spoil. Years back one of my dogs ran circles around the law enforcement hounds in tracking and substance detection, at the end of the trials one handler came over to me and asked how I did it. I told him I just take a little extra time working with the dogs SIMPLE.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (expro @ June 22 2004,14:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">First of all their must be a bunch o drug users on here! You guys can't have it both ways either you want the enforcement and the BS with it or everybody runs wild and does what they want.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Not necessarily. There may be instances where someone has been prescribed a medication (as in stimulant medication for ADD, for example) that would show up in a urine test as a controlled substance. In that case, should the driver carry a doctor's sworn statement that in the event of a drug test, the testee is taking a controlled substance with a doctor's authorization?

This also brings up another point with regard to drug screenings by potential employers. A prospective employee does not have to disclose to a potential employer that they have a disability if they do not expect it to affect their job performance (and if said disability is &quot;invisible&quot;). In other words, if I have ADD and am taking a controlled substance as medication to treat it, and I have to submit to a drug test, that substance may show up in the test results and I would HAVE to explain why I have speed in my system-- even though the ADA says the prospective employee doesn't have to disclose that.

I suspect lawsuits will be filed over this issue, if they haven't already. I'm not against drug testing per se, unless innocent people are denied a job over testing positive for taking a legally-prescribed controlled substance and then have to disclose why they are taking it (which is not legally required).

[KG4ZQZ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k4kyv @ June 22 2004,13:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(2) in 2002, over 35,000,000 persons in the United States aged 12 or older had used illegal drugs in the past year and almost 11,000,000 of these persons (5 percent of the total population of the United States aged 12 or older and 31 percent of past year illicit drug users) had driven under the influence of, or after having used, illegal drugs in the past year;[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
- hmm... 35,000,000? sounds like quite a few constituents?

:-)

[KG6OPR]

Just had some poppy seed cake for lunch. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[kg4ivt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (expro @ June 22 2004,12:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Glen those dogs at the school must have been the worse trained dogs in history.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Explain that to the friend of mine that got busted for having Tums in his car. The same thing happened at my school a few years ago (for the first and last time) when I was still attending classes there. The cops gave him a hard time about it and said they were still going to take the pills to be &quot;analyzed&quot;. Apparently there were a bunch of other false hits that were explained to us as being due to someone once having drugs in their lockers possibly by someone else that used them before. Great. I never had drugs in school at any point in time so I'd get punished for someone that did because some dog screwed up? Right....


In regards to the subject at hand, what are roadside sobriety checks supposed to be for? I forget and I also know that not all stoners will have your stereotypical look in their red eyes when they smoke a joint and go driving around but isn't there another way to test for someone having marijuana and other drugs in their system besides a piss test by checking the reaction of their eyes to a flashlight?

This type of legislation will really only catch marijuana users out of all other, possibly &quot;harder&quot; drug users. Habitual use of THC can show up on a test as much as something like 12 weeks in your urine. Marijuana is, I think, part of the &quot;NIDA 5&quot; which also includes cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, and PCP if I remember correctly. Cocaine's out of your system in 3 days. Depending on the type of opiate, you can have detectable amounts in your system to about 4 days for some. Amphetamines stay in you about 1-4 days and PCP on a single use is 3 to 7 days (30 for habitual). All of these are very dangerous drugs but have very short testing times and by the time you tested someone for them, they'd either be out of the person's system and/or they'd no longer be intoxicated by them....just like testing someone for marijuana several days/weeks after use. Not tested in your standard drug test are usually hallucinogens (psilocybin mushrooms, lysergic acid diethylamide, and MDMA which can though trigger positives for amphetamines) which anyone who's ever done such drugs will tell you are the absolute worst things you could ever imagine driving on and they're all out of your system very quickly too. On the flip side, what about those that abuse DXM (dextromethorphan), an ingredient in some cold medicines? That stuff can make you hallucinate but is not covered in standard drug tests. So to make the point again (like the original poster said), smoke a j on monday, get busted on Friday while being completely sober. If you blow over the legal BAC on a sobriety check, you get in trouble and you're intoxicated right there, on the spot. If you smoked pot a few weeks ago and are no longer intoxicated at that point in time you get busted for having drugs in your system? This doesn't make sense to me.

It could also start a whole other &quot;problem&quot; with racial and/or age profiling. Hey, there's a black person. They all smoke pot or do PCP. Let's make him piss in a cup and use some reagent strips to see if he has drugs in his system. Nevermind if he's intoxicated or not. Or there's a rich white kid with mommy and daddy's money, same thing. Also, how is this testing going to be done? Are you supposed to go over into the bushes and pee, hand it to the cop who then uses reagent strips or something to see what you have in your system? I could see that being a privacy issue right there. The ACLU would have a field day with that, would they not?

Wow, what a brilliant idea for legislation. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

That should be part of the new licensing requirement. If you want to get a general or extra class you have to either take a drug test or take a test on code

Was wondering how code no code can get thrown in this post. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Like I said the worse trained dogs in history. A well trained detection dog does not make false targets. A slight trace of residue scent may cause the dogs interest to perk up but a real handler should be able to figure out what the dog is trying to communicate. To avoid the poor trained dogs and handlers and if you are clean always make sure you wash out any new digs. Several of the popular cleaners on the market will remove any old scents from lockers etc. I just don't understand a dude will change his underwear every day but use a cruddy old locker without a thought of cleaning it before use. I still find it hard to believe that a dog will false out on a tum though.

[w5zzq]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N5RLR @ June 22 2004,07:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span style='color:blue'>Not no, but hell, no.

Placing drug-testing in the hands of your local beat cop is just begging for trouble, IMHO.

Some prescription medications can give a &quot;false positive&quot; if the test is bungled or the results mis-read. #I expect a police officer to be well-versed in answering calls, catching REAL criminals, and eating donuts...not harrassing motorists or playing chemist.

Being &quot;cuffed and stuffed&quot; because I'm on blood-pressure meds is not my idea of a fun time, thankyouverymuch. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif</span>[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That's just what we need - Barney Fife giving drug tests...... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif if your conscience is clear...then there should be NO problem...

just like

drivers licence checking

insurance checking

seat belt checking

tail light / brake light checking

if you aint doing any thing illegal or wrong, there IS no problem. !!

If you are, then stay home...or let some one else drive....dern that is SOOOO complicated !! ( duh ) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

(lol ) I keep fogetting my &quot; new years resolution &quot; ...not to argue with folks that are not as wise as I. { dern, keep forgetting that, and they year aint half over yet !!} (lol ) ( rofl )


Shucks I do NOT mind of the cops check out my vehicles, even make / let me get OUT and let them search it...they will not FIND any thing. Plus the fact that I am WILLING to let them should let them know that I have nothing to hide ! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[WA5KRP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ai4ep @ June 22 2004,16:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Shucks I do NOT mind of the cops check out my vehicles, even make / let #me get OUT and let them search it...they will not FIND any thing. Plus the fact that I am WILLING to let them should let them know that I have nothing to hide ![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Have you worn blinders all your life? Do you have a clue what a cop or group of cops with an agenda can do to turn innocent people's lives into a living hell?

DOES ANYONE SERIOUSLY WANT TO IMPERILE THEIR OWN LIVES OR THE LIVES OF LOVED ONES - WHO HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE - T0 A SYSTEM THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN ITS SUSCEPTIBILITY TO CORRUPTION TIME AND AGAIN?

Ask a black. Ask a Jew. This kind of legislation, created with the best of intentions, is just another paved road to hell. Maybe you think you are immune to such a system. Maybe you think you know the right people, such as Glen described in his post. It's very easy for the right people you count on to turn their back and send you into a nightmare, or be swallowed by the nightmare itself, and leave you defenseless.

This kind of legislation is playing with fire.


WA5KRP
Texas

[KG6OPR]

&quot;Your papers please.&quot; with commie accent. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[kg4ivt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ai4ep @ June 22 2004,15:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">if you aint doing any thing illegal or wrong, there IS no problem. !!

If you are, then stay home...or let some one else drive....dern that is SOOOO complicated !! ( duh ) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif


Shucks I do NOT mind of the cops check out my vehicles, even make / let #me get OUT and let them search it...they will not FIND any thing. Plus the fact that I am WILLING to let them should let them know that I have nothing to hide ! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I've followed that second part and it is wise, very wise. #I'll also never get in the car with someone that's DUI. #But I think it's safe to say a lot of people are being pulled over and are automatically guilty until proven innocent. #

I will not ever consent to a warrantless search, however. #Why should I? #I also have nothing to hide as well but why go through the process if I'm not guilty of carrying concealed drugs or weapons or whatever? #Also, I'd actually wager that carrying radio equipment in the car would raise a few eyebrows of a cop that doesn't know the difference between your rig and his equipment, probably worse if it's a scanner or if you're fortunate enough to be able to afford the same model of radio they use with the same freqs programmed in but TX disabled. #A ham license won't mean much to any cop unless he's either a ham or knows something about the service.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kg4ivt @ June 22 2004,16<!--emo&amp;http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">#A ham license won't mean much to any cop unless he's either a ham or knows something about the service.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
a cop serched my truck when a friend and I were sitting in a parking structure. #He claimed it was city property and we looked suspicous.

My HT was spewing the trunked police chatter, and he even pressed his ptt to see if it would repeat, and it did.

He let me keep the HT even though my license was inside the toll both of the parking structure, yes i worked there. #He said his dad was a ham.


Another time, A police man walked next to my truck and heard his dispach eminating from the speakers inside. #Luckily I had my license on me that time. #The state trooper wanted to see it also, because he had never seen one.

I tell everyone, when explaining ham radio, that its illegal to have a &quot;scanning radio&quot; in your car without a ham radio license. #Its peaks thier intrest a bit.

I don't think its a good idea to be driving while under the influence of any drug legal or not. #The proposed law could save lives. #But so would shutting down big tobbacco. #SHOW ME THE MONEY!

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ...no scanner in my cehicle... the AMATEUR rig is programmed ONLY with amateur repeater &amp; simplex ( 146.520 )..... never been modified for &quot; out-of-band &quot; operation....oh suuure it CAN recieve 130 - 174 Mhz...but with none of their freq. in the memory channels or even in the vfo.... very very small chance of a problem there

so far as letting ALCOHOLICS DOPE HEADS ( is there a real difference ? ) ride in the passenger seat... no way...I dont even associate with those kinds of folks, much less let them sit IN my vehicle. My standards are so high, at least my money is NOT being spent on their addiction or for paying a fine for being DUMB enough to get caught with it. I may be a snob, but I dont have an addiction to alcohol or any illegal drug.

And so far as cops confiscating amateur radio equip...MY stuff ( wont reveal model or brand name here...my advantage ) equipment can not be re=preogrammed real easily to have COP freq. in it, and it would take more time and effort on their part to DO it than it would be worth. Stop and think. If you act like a criminal, you look like a criminal, and you are then treated like a criminal. Just be your self...my personal PAST is clear ( no arrests, FELONIES, or warrants ) so they dont have a reason to SUSPECT any thing from last week, month, year or a decade ago. You reap what you sow. Take all that apart now &amp; chastise me , and try to make me look lousy. Put my vehicle next to YOURS, and let us see which one the COPS pay more attention to. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif { oh now they gonna start taking certain items OUT !!} ( duh !http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[kg4ivt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8YKH @ June 22 2004,16:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I tell everyone, when explaining ham radio, that its illegal to had a &quot;scanning radio&quot; in your car without a ham radio license. #Its peaks thier intrest a bit.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I see you're in Michigan. Isn't it illegal to have a &quot;scanning radio&quot; on you or in your car if you're not a licensed ham? I thought MI had some serious scanner regulations versus other states.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kg4ivt @ June 22 2004,16:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N8YKH @ June 22 2004,16:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I tell everyone, when explaining ham radio, that its illegal to had a &quot;scanning radio&quot; in your car without a ham radio license. #Its peaks thier intrest a bit.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
I see you're in Michigan. #Isn't it illegal to have a &quot;scanning radio&quot; on you or in your car if you're not a licensed ham? #I thought MI had some serious scanner regulations versus other states.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
In Michigan, you cannot have a scanner operating or nonoperating in your car, unless you are a licensed ham radio operator. #Ped mobile is ok.

If you do not have your license on you, the radio/scanner will be taken if they don't believe you.

[ki4bgo]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wa5krp @ June 22 2004,11:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Bad plan. #When was the Bill of Rights cancelled?




WA5KRP
Liberty, Texas[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
November, 2000. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif dont need no MODIFIED 2 meter / 440 RIG to talk to COPS ...have 2 easy ways around that that are a lot simplier:

1) cellular telephone

2) in person ( best of the 2 ) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif


notice there is no thread asking us about our &quot; past crimes and offences &quot;...just one about &quot; occupations &quot;
cause IF there was, it would be a several-page-thread in 24 hours or less...but my part would be one line or less ( nothing to report !! )
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

---ai4ep---

[kg4ivt]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ai4ep @ June 22 2004,17:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">notice there is no thread asking us about our &quot; past crimes and offences &quot;...just one about &quot; occupations &quot;
cause IF there was, it would be a several-page-thread in 24 hours or less...but my part would be one line or less ( nothing to report !! )
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Same. #My prior offense occuried when I was juvenile. #I don't have to say anything to anyone. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KD7WHQ]

The bill of rights hasn't been cancelled, it's just ignored.
The proposed legislation is in direct violation of both the 4th and 5th amendments, but in our current state, it wouldn't be deemed that when it came up for constitutional muster.

Pages back, someone mentioned police states. We are closer to that than some are willing to even look into.

History repeats itself. Those who don't remember it are doomed to repeat it.
However those who do, stand a chance of stopping it.

Check the resources at JPFO.org (http://www.jpfo.org). There is a ton of information there.

We have enough Nazi laws on the books. We don't need any more, and would do well be rid of what we have..

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif we dont need any NEW laws period. Law Enforcement folks have enough problems enforcing those that are already in effect. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[k4kyv]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (expro @ June 22 2004,12:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">First of all their must be a bunch o drug users on here! You guys can't have it both ways either you want the enforcement and the BS with it or everybody runs wild and does what they want. The legal system in the U.S. has gotten soft due to crybaby liberals saying this violates this right or that right. Now the next time you or a member of your family is robbed, beaten or worse by a drug crazed fool stop and think back about what you said. Someday you poor souls, you will understand.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I love it when these bogus &quot;conservatives&quot; start bitching about every ill of society being the fault of the &quot;liberals&quot;. #As I understand it, #&quot;conservative&quot; is supposed to represent a political philosophy that advocates individual liberty and limited government, as provided for under our Constitution. #Yet some of the people who claim to be &quot;conservative&quot; are the very ones who most loudly advocate draconian police power by the state and draconian penalties for activity that is essentially private conduct. #These are the same folks who are shouting the loudest to promote a half dozen or so amendments to the Constitution to remedy a variety of alleged social ills. #They want it both ways: get the government off our backs and into our bedrooms. #This is not &quot;conservatism&quot;; this is a radical political agenda.

The only way a drug test for drivers could possibly be justified under constitutional law would be when they develop one that accurately and reliably tests for active substances in the body that are actually causing impairment at the time of the test, like the breath tests and blood tests for alcohol. #Giving a drug test and prescribing a penalty for #people who have traces of chemicals in their bodies that may or may not be the result of indulgence in a controlled substance weeks ago and saying that lack of impairment is an irrelevant issue, is not promoting highway safety but using the &quot;privilege&quot; to drive as an instrument of social control, much in the manner of states that yank the driving licence from fathers who fail to pay child support or for other misconduct that has nothing to do with oprerating an automobile.

-k4kyv

[KD7WHQ]

KYV, not only the drivers &quot;licence,&quot; but also fishing, hunting, and business &quot;licenses&quot;.
We'll find out about the CCW permit pretty quick, as the CZ-52 showed up today http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif.
Now, you yank the first and last of the prior, how the h*** is someone supposed to pay?? Strip them of the ability to transport themselves (supposedly) and eliminate the possibility of &quot;legal&quot; enterprise? Right.
And then there are the inequities as well, but that's another issue entirely.

But yeah, makes a lot of sense..

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k4kyv @ June 22 2004,20:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The only way a drug test for drivers could possibly be justified under constitutional law would be when they develop one that accurately and reliably tests for active substances in the body that are actually causing impairment at the time of the test, like the breath tests and blood tests for alcohol. #Giving a drug test and prescribing a penalty for #people who have traces of chemicals in their bodies that may or may not be the result of indulgence in a controlled substance weeks ago and saying that lack of impairment is an irrelevant issue, is not promoting highway safety but using the &quot;privilege&quot; to drive as an instrument of social control, much in the manner of states that yank the driving licence from fathers who fail to pay child support or for other misconduct that has nothing to do with oprerating an automobile.

-k4kyv[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
yay

[mackinac]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k4kyv @ June 22 2004,20<!--emo&amp;:0)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As I understand it, &quot;conservative&quot; is supposed to represent a political philosophy that advocates individual liberty and limited government, as provided for under our Constitution.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
No, I think that is not correct. In the US the political philosophy that advocates individual liberty and limited government is usually referred to as libertarianism and is not very popular. In the messy world of political labels, the term used to be &quot;liberal&quot; but now some people use &quot;classical liberal&quot; to differentiate from the quasi socialist big government types that now use the word. To add some sense of balance, the term &quot;libertarian&quot; used to, and sometimes still is, used by some socialist groups although it now refers to a group that is strongly in favor of a free market economy.

As to conservatives being against big government, some people who are for limited government call themselves &quot;conservative&quot; because it is the only term they know that means &quot;not liberal&quot;, but there is not much evidence that that is a correct use of the label.

[K6UEY]

mackinac,
Can you blame them,look at how pushed out of shape an individual gets when called a &quot;Liberal &quot; # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[kn6z]

Sure, I'll test some. Wuddya got?

[KG4CGC]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ai4ep @ June 22 2004,12:52)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so far as letting ALCOHOLICS # DOPE HEADS #( is there a real difference ? # #) ride in the passenger seat... #no way...I dont even associate with those kinds of folks, much less let them sit IN my vehicle. My standards are so high, at least my money is NOT being spent on their addiction #or for paying a fine for being DUMB enough to get caught with it. #I may be a snob, but I dont have an addiction to alcohol or any illegal drug.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Robert,
# # # # #If you are posting here, you are associating with those kind of folk. You don't know who's who or what's what behind the keyboard.
# Maybe they will also pass legislation that will allow the police to go door to door. You know, when they get bored they can just go fishing around your house, checking you sock drawer. This is after they've already dispatched the &quot;GORRDS&quot; in your neighborhood earlier in the week. GORRDS? Government Ordained Routine Random Drug Searches. I can't take credit for that one. I had a crazy friend 20 years ago who claimed he could predict the future. He was only half off as half of what he said has come true so far. Half crazy maybe?


# Next will be sex police, cameras in the bedroom. Then we will have developed the technology for the thought police. It will be called PsyCore.

[KG4CGC]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ai4ep @ June 22 2004,13:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">notice there is no thread asking us about our &quot; past crimes and offences &quot;...just one about &quot; occupations &quot;
cause IF there was, it would be a several-page-thread in 24 hours or less...but my part would be one line or less ( nothing to report !! )
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

---ai4ep---[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Maybe you, should start that topic. Only the Good Lord knows, You are our gift from Him.

[KG4CGC]

Sorry in advance Glen, I just had too.

re Michigan scannerlaw. You may also have a scanner in your vehicle if you have a permit issued by the State of Michigan, no big deal you can fill out the form online and in 2-3 weeks the permit arrives in the mail.

[W9JI]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG4CGC @ June 23 2004,03:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Then we will have developed the technology for the thought police. It will be called PsyCore.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
There was a movie with Tom Cruise that had &quot;Thought Police&quot; and the &quot;Anti Crime&quot; section. They would know when you were going to perform a crime, murders mostly, and arrest you before the crime even occured. I liked the movie, I guess not enough to remember the name of it http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif but it was interesting to watch.

Anyone remember that movie?

[KG4CGC]

Minority Report
Washington DC in 2054 murder has been eliminated the future is seen, the guilty are punished before the crime has even been committed.

[W9JI]

Thats the one!!!!!!

[ai4ep]

cgc...u r rite...ya never know what kind of folks you mite find here... like ol &quot; concernedfeather &quot; said in another thread....

guess we uns shuld all be paranoid and schitzophrenic and never say a word on the air ( who know WHO is just listening ) and waiting to USE that against ya ? { let us see...ai4ep was on xx.xxx frequency at x:xx time,..plus he was on this site at x:xx time...see his post ? } hee hee hee http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif You folks can be like that .


so far as apologizing...just say &quot; the devil made me do it &quot; !! ..Flip Wilson used to say it all the time

Speaking of the devil...he IS every where... tempting us to do wrong in sooooooooo many different and varied ways. ( nah, no further on that, like &quot; code/nocode &quot; done been beaten to death and beyond...plus if you mention GOD you get chastisized...oh oh done did it!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif ...boy you in trouble now !! )

Better run and git back under the bed.... I seen that cop car drive by 2hours ago...he is up to something ...he gonna git me 4 sure !!

He may think I am talking to ALIENS from another planet with all these antennas and noises coming from my trailer..... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

[KF4ZHL]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (k4kyv @ June 22 2004,20:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (expro @ June 22 2004,12:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">First of all their must be a bunch o drug users on here! You guys can't have it both ways either you want the enforcement and the BS with it or everybody runs wild and does what they want. The legal system in the U.S. has gotten soft due to crybaby liberals saying this violates this right or that right. Now the next time you or a member of your family is robbed, beaten or worse by a drug crazed fool stop and think back about what you said. Someday you poor souls, you will understand.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I love it when these bogus &quot;conservatives&quot; start bitching about every ill of society being the fault of the &quot;liberals&quot;. #As I understand it, #&quot;conservative&quot; is supposed to represent a political philosophy that advocates individual liberty and limited government, as provided for under our Constitution. #Yet some of the people who claim to be &quot;conservative&quot; are the very ones who most loudly advocate draconian police power by the state and draconian penalties for activity that is essentially private conduct. #These are the same folks who are shouting the loudest to promote a half dozen or so amendments to the Constitution to remedy a variety of alleged social ills. #They want it both ways: get the government off our backs and into our bedrooms. #This is not &quot;conservatism&quot;; this is a radical political agenda.

The only way a drug test for drivers could possibly be justified under constitutional law would be when they develop one that accurately and reliably tests for active substances in the body that are actually causing impairment at the time of the test, like the breath tests and blood tests for alcohol. #Giving a drug test and prescribing a penalty for #people who have traces of chemicals in their bodies that may or may not be the result of indulgence in a controlled substance weeks ago and saying that lack of impairment is an irrelevant issue, is not promoting highway safety but using the &quot;privilege&quot; to drive as an instrument of social control, much in the manner of states that yank the driving licence from fathers who fail to pay child support or for other misconduct that has nothing to do with oprerating an automobile.

-k4kyv[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Thank you! A voice of reason! I'm not &quot;for drugs&quot;. I'm for preserving our rapidly deteriorating individual liberties.

[KB9YCO]

Another conservative extremist wacko idea that blatantly contradicts The Bill Of Rights, lovely. Just what we need, more emphasis on guilty until proven innocent; sick, sad, wholly un-American crap, these people should be run out of office as soon as legally possible.

Civil liberties do not include the right to break the law.

What's the complaint here, that you smoke dope and now you may be caught? Well tough! It's against the law.

Contrary to the esteemed legal opinion of many posters here no part of the constitution is being violated here. NO ONE has to take a drug test. Just say no. No problem, they can not give you one. Of course you will lose your drivers license but that's your fault. You did apply for a drivers license and in doing so you AGREED the state has the right to regulate your driving. So now the little cry babies don't want to live by the agreement they made. So this is nothing new today, make an agreement and then cry about it, my rights are being violated WAH, WAH, WAH.

Just don't make the agreement to begin with. If you great defenders of the Constitution had any balls you would sent your drivers license back with a note explaining you don't believe the state has the right to regulate driving. Then you would just drive without one. So what happens when you get stopped? Well it depends on the state, you need to read the law, something it appears most of you have never done. In many states driving without a license (NOT a license that has been suspended or revoked) because you don't think they have the right to say you need one is only a traffic offense. Yes, it's the same as a speeding ticket, just pay the fine or argue they can't require a license to drive because it's your constitutional right and be on your way, win or lose. What are they going to do, revoke the license you don't have.

If you have a drivers license you AGREED to follow the rules, the law is quite hash to people who agreed to something and then break that agreement. Once again no one is REQUIRED to take a drug test, therefore self incrimimation and the right to privacy under the 4th are not affected. You merely lose the license you have, which you agreed to when you applied for it. Don't make an agreement you don't like or expect to keep. That's what an adult does, children are another story. To see what they do read the posts here.

73, Marty WB2RJR

[KB9YCO]

&quot;Civil liberties do not include the right to break the law.&quot;

The law does not have the right to break civil liberties to justify the paranoia of a few zealots that assume that if you hold true to your rights you are trying to hide something. It doesn't make someone a drug addict because they believe in the fundamentals of our society as gauranteed by The Bill Of Rights. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, not the other way around.

&quot;The law does not have the right to break civil liberties to justify the paranoia of a few zealots that assume that if you hold true to your rights you are trying to hide something.&quot;kb9yco

Evidently you can not read well. The law as I stated above is NOT breaking any civil liberties. You did not address this. It leads me to believe you are a person affected by drugs since you do not deal with the reality of what is occuring, just proceed foward with whatever is in your mind, a common trait I have observed in the drug impaired.

73, Marty WB2RJR

[KB9YCO]

Evidently, you missed the entire point; but thanks for the pointless personal attack, it’s a good indication of the level of intelligence you operate at. That does not help your argument in any way, it detracts from your credibility and adds nothing useful. Whatever floats your boat I guess...
As far as your attempted point about civil rights and driving privilege, I think you missed my point entirely. People drive mostly out of necessity, it’s not some magical gift from the gods of government; as long as there are laws governing financial responsibility and legal recourse for accidents and irresponsible driving there is no need to blatantly ignore The Bill Of Rights. In the American system of justice people are supposed to be guilty until proven innocent, they are also not supposed to be legally coerced into testifying against themselves.
Try to do a little more reading (try The Bill Of Rights, you might just like it!) and a little less assuming things about other people. If you wish to live in a country that ignores freedom then try Cuba, I hear it’s nice this time of year.

WB2RJR Very well put! Sir our hats are off to you. If the dude's can't stand the heat better stay out of the kitchen.

[K9STH]

Things are starting to get personal. Let everyone take a few moments to cool down and refrain from any more personal remarks. You can get your &quot;points&quot; across without having to resort to getting personal with others who are posting in this thread.

Glen, K9STH
One of the QRZ.com moderators

[WA5KRP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WB2RJR @ June 23 2004,15:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Evidently you can not read well......It leads me to believe you are a person affected by drugs since you do not deal with the reality of what is occuring, just proceed foward with whatever is in your mind, a common trait I have observed in the drug impaired.

73, Marty WB2RJR[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Appears you are running out of intellectual ammo. Personal attacks are an obvious indicator.

You sign, 73. Clever. Who are you trying to kid?



WA5KRP
Texas

WA5KRP,

So I have said that there is no violation of the constitution because a person AGREED to the rules when they got their drivers liscense and your argument against that is ......................WHAT? Oh! looks like you ignored the main point.

Please let me know what it is......unless you have no intellectual ammo left.

I have plenty.

73, Marty WB2RJR

[WA5KRP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (WB2RJR @ June 23 2004,20:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WA5KRP,

Oh! looks like you ignored the main point.

Please let me know what it is......unless you have no intellectual ammo left.

I have plenty.

73, Marty WB2RJR[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Looks like you ignored my two earlier posts in this thread. #I'll stick to what I've already said.



WA5KRP
Texas

[KF0RT]

RJR-

My own problem with the &quot;drug war&quot; is that the penalties are out of line with the infraction in a lot of cases. As a taxpayer, I really don't want to pay for a 5-year jail sentance for someone who got caught with a joint.

It's fine to be be a law absolutist, but sometimes we must question the laws; otherwise nothing improves. As much as I'd love to put total faith in our law-makers, they make mistakes, and it is our DUTY to question this at every step.

Drug use is a social problem that is being treated with criminal law. This has never worked. Didn't work yesterday, won't work tomorrow.

[WA5KRP]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KF0RT @ June 23 2004)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's fine to be be a law absolutist, but sometimes we must question the laws; otherwise nothing improves. #As much as I'd love to put total faith in our law-makers, they make mistakes, and it is our DUTY to question this at every step. #

Drug use is a social problem that is being treated with criminal law. #This has never worked. #Didn't work yesterday, won't work tomorrow.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/ups/the_turtle/supasmsm0.gif # #DAAAAAANG! #I always feel like a deer caught in the headlights whenever a bolt of common sense strikes from out of the blue.



WA5KRP
Non-Plussed, Texas

[n6xa]

This November, the State of Nevada will vote on a new law to allow possession and sale of up to 1 ounce of marijuana. The stores selling pot would be State licensed and taxed. To make this work it is necessary that the proponents show that they are dealing with the problem on marijuana use while at work or driving. That is part of the motivation for this legislation.

The proposed law does not have its origins in Nevada. Apparently a national group to legalize mariguana chose my home state as they thought it had the best chance of getting passed here.

Personally, I would rather not have pot legal, except possibly for real medical reasons, and keep my pee pee to myself!

Ed N6XA/7

[N0ZB]

As an Air Traffic Control Specialist, I have had the priveledge of being subjected to forced random drug testing for nearly twenty years now. #I will spare you the narrations of my personal experiences with such an utter waste of taxpayer money that the DOT drug testing program constitutes and condense all to the following:

NOT ONE TIME when FAA drug testers have been on site in ANY facility I have been employed in have there not been ERRORS in either the application of drug program guidelines, collection processes, documentation procedures or the chain of custody continuity.

I'd feel a bit better about having my urine extorted from me if every time I'm require to submit to drug testing, facility management was required to submit to management testing.

N0ZB
(breathing deeply, avioding rant)

[KC2HJN]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Contrary to the esteemed legal opinion of many posters here no part of the constitution is being violated here[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>


&quot;Amendment IV # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # # #(1791)

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.&quot;

If no warrant is issued, it is a violation of your rights.

[w6ez]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0ZB @ June 23 2004,11:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As an Air Traffic Control Specialist, I have had the priveledge of being subjected to forced random drug testing for nearly twenty years now. I will spare you the narrations of my personal experiences with such an utter waste of taxpayer money that the DOT drug testing program constitutes and condense all to the following:

NOT ONE TIME when FAA drug testers have been on site in ANY facility I have been employed in have there not been ERRORS in either the application of drug program guidelines, collection processes, documentation procedures or the chain of custody continuity.

I'd feel a bit better about having my urine extorted from me if every time I'm require to submit to drug testing, facility management was required to submit to management testing.

N0ZB
(breathing deeply, avioding rant)[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This points out my ONLY objection to drug testing.

Too many people will get accused of something they didn't do.

I am all for jailing anyone who gets behind the wheel under the influence of any controlled substance but I won't go far enough support this new law.

Before you get the wrong idea, I am not a liberal. I think drugs are bad. I think druggies are bad. I think anyone driving under the influence who hurts someone else should be taken care of and I would even offer my services to do the roadside executions.

But I have seen too many people who never touched drugs have their lives harmed by badly trained, corrupt and dishonest 'drug testers' to ever trust them again.

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif I do not mind being tested.

I know they are wasting their time.

simple and to the point.

[KF4ZHL]

Perhaps a good cavity search could be included in the typical roadside traffic stop also? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif That's always a crowd pleaser! It'll also give our boys in blue something to do on a slow tuesday afternoon! We certainly don't want our tax money wasted on sitting around idle!

It'll lend a whole new meaning to the phrase, &quot;cuffed and stuffed&quot;. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[N0ZB]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ai4ep @ June 24 2004,15:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif I do not mind being tested. #

# # I know they are wasting their time.

# # simple and to the point.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
You don't have to be a drug user to test positive http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

Check out a copy of a drug testing programs Medical Review Officer manual. The one the FAA uses is online and should be easily found with a few Googles. There are many and quite interesting ways your test will produce a positive.

If the overseers of a particular program are honorable and genuinely motivated to obtain accurate results, you're most likely, not definitely, in no danger. If on the other hand, someone is trying to convice the taxpayers that tests costing well over $100 are nabbing some boogey people, you can be seriously screwed.

An ostrich always thinks hiding his head in the sand is effective untill the lion comes by and takes a big bite out of his a$$.

N0ZB

[ai4ep]

I am not scared.

Mere words on a computer screen.

Please try again at your convenience.

[KG6OPR]

Give 'em a stool sample. make 'em work for their pay. As a US tax payer I have no problem with that. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[K4JSR]

Gosh folks, up until I read this thread I thought that a
&quot;SPECIMEN&quot; was an Italian Astronaut! But then I was educated in a &quot;Government School&quot;. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
73, Cal K4JSR

[WA5KRP]

http://www.dusko.net/sheep/pictures/005.jpg #Good luck on your test.


Sheep McStakeproof
Neverland, Texas

[KF0RT]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (wa5krp @ June 23 2004,22:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KF0RT @ June 23 2004)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It's fine to be be a law absolutist, but sometimes we must question the laws; otherwise nothing improves. #As much as I'd love to put total faith in our law-makers, they make mistakes, and it is our DUTY to question this at every step. #

Drug use is a social problem that is being treated with criminal law. #This has never worked. #Didn't work yesterday, won't work tomorrow.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/ups/the_turtle/supasmsm0.gif # #DAAAAAANG! #I always feel like a deer caught in the headlights whenever a bolt of common sense strikes from out of the blue.



WA5KRP
Non-Plussed, Texas[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Common sense appears to be a little more common in Texas.

[KF0RT]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (ai4ep @ June 24 2004,14:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif I do not mind being tested. #

# # I know they are wasting their time.

# # simple and to the point.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
But, it costs YOU, doncha see?

Where I work, a drug testing program was started a couple years ago. In essance, the policy is that if you're caught doing something dumb, if you damage company property or if you're injured on the job, you WILL be tested. (And after the test, you'll be taken home to await the results, while still on the payroll).

Only person I know who was ever tested wrenched his back carrying a heavy piece of equipment. There were at least 4 witnesses. Long-time employee who is about as straight-laced as they come. He got the afternoon off and there was a lot of policy jokes as a result. Waste of time, waste of money, waste of productivity.

Likewise, I have taken &quot;health profile&quot; blood tests that exist to pinpoint potential health problems. The last one I took had me testing positive for drug use and the test explained that this was &quot;the one&quot; employers use most frequently for drug abuse pre-screening. What was I &quot;on&quot;? Toprol, prescribed for high blood pressure, and asperin.

Point is, they may be wasting time (and money), but at some point YOU may have to prove you're innocent. And in the world of employers, you may be trusting that decision to an HR employee who runs things &quot;by the book.&quot; These tests are by no means infallable.

As Americans, we have become so sensitive to prejudice that we want a &quot;one rule fits all&quot; scenario. We want one rule because it makes the decisions easy. All you have to do is point at the rule book and Viola!! it's no longer your problem. You're just doing what the book says.

We're better than this. Aren't we?

[kb1ljl]

Driving under the influence is bad, and I fully support any law regarding it. But this law is not about driving under the influence.

If a responsible and law abiding US citizen were to travel to a country where Marijuana smoking is legal and experiment with it legitimately, then return to the US never to smoke again, they could be arrested and charged under this law over a month after returning to the US. Most drug tests currently used do not detect current use of the drug, only past use. Thus they are, by nature, innapropriate for determining if someone is driving under the influence.

On a side note, I think the movement towards decriminalizing &quot;soft drugs&quot; currently seen in many countries (including the US and Canada!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif is a really good idea. I think regulating people's behavior through laws is too costly with no real benefit. When I was in HS Marijuana or &quot;Ecstasy&quot; were easier to obtain than cigarettes or beer. It is more important to regulate teenage use and promote responsible use (just like we do now with alcohol.)

Just my 2 cents http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Of course it is! Please tell that to the parents of a local high school kid here who was killed in a head on crash and the other who suffered for 6 months in a burn center before dying. Cause of crash a 18 year old, high on weed. If justice is served the little rat is now serving 15 years in the state pen even though it took the legal system over 2 years to get him there. Anybody who uses illegal drugs deserves to rot in a butt buddy house far as I am concerned.

[KF4ZHL]

I don't know about all these &quot;soft drug&quot; legalizations. The ONLY drug I would even consider for such a thing is Cannabis. I don't even think that's such a grand idea. It compromises your intellectual potential and makes cigarrette smoking look like candy eating as far as your lungs are concerned. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif