|
On the spot drug test via sweat and/or saliva (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
but is that "the law"? |
With respect to motor vehicles there are two charges available to law enforcement:
- Impared (operating a vehicle under the influence of drugs/alcohol)
- BAC over 0.08
Lets ignore the BAC since we're not talking about alcohol. Hopefully this doesn't get too technical:
With impared the charge is mainly proved through observations of the accused and is most often given by a police officer (observations can include: red glassy, watery or bloodshot eyes and/or dilated pupils, flushed/pale complexion, profuse sweating, difficulty speaking, etc). The prosecution will argue that all of the above symptoms are evidence of impairment. If the evidence of impairment establishes any degree of impairment ranging from slight to great, the offence has been proved. Evidence of consumption and (internal) posession of illegal narcotics (which this device provides) supports the imparement argument further.
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
subjectivity generally means problems when the case goes to court. |
Even if found innocent - don't forget about the being charged, arrested, jailed, facing significant legal expenses and the trouble of going to court. |
|
|
| MarkT |
not saying that conviction is impossible...just that it's far less clear cut than a case where they can actually provide a measure to determine DUI (as with booze). The test lends support...but how iron tight is that support, if challenged?
unless they can someone quantify (or at least qualify) the postitive test (IMHO, as judges may disagree, lol) as they can in alcohol related cases, it's still highly subjective support for an impairement charge. You can't really argue a BAC test result as easily as you could a "he had e in his system" result.
There is literature out there on how long drugs stay in the system and I'm sure the developers of the test know that :p but will this information be written into the law?
again, I support this...I just have doubts on it's effectiveness without expanding the law to include some #s like they do for BAC.
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Are you aware of what happens to someone if they are arrested for DUI? Conviction or not - one's life goes to the ter pretty quick as a result (insurance, suspension, lawyer fees, etc). |
not saying it's a picnic (and definitely is expensive to fight)... and it's something I don't plan on ever experiencing first hand...though I don't believe insurance is affected by charges, only convictions...no?
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
And further - are you telling me you'd rather be convicted of posession (than DUI)? |
yes, actually :D
less social (and judicial) stigma vs. DUI (hurting yourself isn't seen to be as bad as endangering others), possession wouldn't show on your driving record (i.e. no insurance issues), jail time and even serious consequences are rare for simple possession, even a 2nd offense (depending on the drug and qty), whereas a DUI driver is *ed* after their second and especially subsequent convictions.
although I'm guessing they could distinguish between possession on your person and possession while operating a motor vehicle...and a criminal record is still a criminal record.
curious though...how often do you guys think that people get pulled over precisely *because* they are impaired from drugs (vs. booze where presumably it's more obvious from the erratic driving that someone might be seriously impaired)? |
|
|
| Spam |
| How would this affect someone who smoked a joint, say... the night before? Does anyone have any clue? |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by nusty
To condone driving while baked sounds pretty irresponsible to me.
|
100% agree.
what makes you any better of a driver than a drunk driver while you are stoned. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| actually, studies commissioned by the US DMV and ATA (american truckman's association) have proven that people drive better while under the influance of amphetamines. |
|
|
| Adamo |
Alfred Crancer of the Department of Motor Vehicles in Washington State did a study showing that stoned users drive no worse than sober ones, except in the regard that they do not watch the speedometer as much
this information can be found in a book called Uses of Marijuana...published by the Oxford University publishing company...can't remember the author but it's a doctor
give me a motor-skills test when you pull me over on the side of the road and i'll laugh in your face when i pass it with flying colours |
|
|
| LittlePoonzgirl |
You guys might hate me for saying this but, I don't really think these tests would be all that bad. If they get it right, they may actually legalize Cannabis because the biggest thing holding them back was not being able to test drivers for intoxication.
Also, I dont quite understand what intoxication while driving has to do with possession assmunig you have already consumed whatever you were taking. If you walked outside a club after a 'hard' night of partying and they tested you, all it may do is give them a reason to search you...but if they find nothing on you what can they charge you with? (assuming you arn't driving)
If you already consumed all of it, you arn't in possession. |
|
|
| TrinityGirl |
from a scientific point of view- I really dont think its gonna work- for once- cross reactios and specificity- one test just can not be specific for so many substances, the antibodies reactios are known to cross react with other things, so a test like that will not hold up in court.
To detect cocaine or other "harmful" substances ;) forensic lab has to run a test for over an hour if not longer- depending on the substance; it uses big expensive equipment, has many ppl verifying the work and results- all this is done for a reason - so that the results are accurate- because thats what Canadian cours require- I just dont see it to be done in a field on the spot to detect all bunch of things and be able to tell what they are. |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by TrinityGirl
from a scientific point of view- I really dont think its gonna work- for once- cross reactios and specificity- one test just can not be specific for so many substances, the antibodies reactios are known to cross react with other things, so a test like that will not hold up in court.
To detect cocaine or other "harmful" substances ;) forensic lab has to run a test for over an hour if not longer- depending on the substance; it uses big expensive equipment, has many ppl verifying the work and results- all this is done for a reason - so that the results are accurate- because thats what Canadian cours require- I just dont see it to be done in a field on the spot to detect all bunch of things and be able to tell what they are. |
I think that the tests would likely be used as an indicator thus providing reasonable and probable grounds to compel a blood sample, which would then be subjected to the appropriate tests. |
|
|
| TrinityGirl |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spam
How would this affect someone who smoked a joint, say... the night before? Does anyone have any clue? |
it wouldn't- its not gonna be in ur saliva anymore, and second of all, they just cant give u a test because they feel like it- u have to display some kinda behavior consistant with being stoned- its not a natzi state where the police can do whatever they want- they have to have reasonable grounds to give u the test |
|
|
| loca |
| quote: | Originally posted by LittlePoonzgirl
You guys might hate me for saying this but, I don't really think these tests would be all that bad. If they get it right, they may actually legalize Cannabis because the biggest thing holding them back was not being able to test drivers for intoxication.
Also, I dont quite understand what intoxication while driving has to do with possession assmunig you have already consumed whatever you were taking. If you walked outside a club after a 'hard' night of partying and they tested you, all it may do is give them a reason to search you...but if they find nothing on you what can they charge you with? (assuming you arn't driving)
If you already consumed all of it, you arn't in possession. |
Direct quote from what RJ wrote:
| quote: | | Case law already exists for where people have been convicted of “possession of a controlled substance” via having the substance in their blood at measurable amounts. |
In other words, you'll get charged for possession if they get a positive result for drugs.
People are concentrating too much on the fact that the cops give you that test when you're driving. They can also give it to you when you are walking should they decide you look like you are on something. |
|
|
| NuERA |
| quote: | Originally posted by Swamper
Just take a cab :toothless |
spoken by the pope himself |
|
|
|
|
