Your License, Your Urine

[Guest guest]

I do not use marijuana nor do I advocate the use of marijuana except in some

limited medical use, but the US government is nuts to take the extreme position

that it does about this drug.

 

I would guess that more than 25% to 30% of the US population is on some kind of

psychotropic, mind altering, judgement impairing, doctor drug and alcohol use is

rampant and encouraged in our society.

 

The only explaination that I have been able to come up with is that the alcohol

and the doctor drugs are big business " friends " and are treated kindly and the

laws of the land are harshly used against pot because it seen as an economic

competitor.

 

Of course all it takes is a lot of propoganda and scare tactics fed to everone

through the major media ( the same ones running all those doctor drug ads and

all those talk shows promoting the latest mind bending doctor drug.) and work

everyone up to a lynch mob fever pitch. Wave the flag, throw in a little

religion and voila. How is that for " critical thinking " .... but look at all the

" business " it creates along the way. Now that is the good ole american way.

 

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

 

Your License, Your UrinePaul Armentano , AlterNet

Viewed on Jun 23, 2004

 

Imagine if it were against the law to drive home after consuming a single glass

of wine at dinner. Now imagine it is illegal to drive after having consumed a

single glass of wine two weeks ago. Guess what? If you smoke pot, it's time to

stop imagining.

 

Legislation weaving its way through the US Congress demands all 50 states pass

laws granting police the power to drug test drivers and arrest anyone found to

have " any detectable amount of a controlled substance ... present in the

person's body, as measured in the person's blood, urine, saliva, or other bodily

substance. " Though the expressed purpose of the law is to target and remove

drug-impaired drivers from US roadways, the proposal would do nothing of the

sort.

 

Most troubling, the proposed law -- H.R. 3922 -- does not require motorists to

be identifiably impaired or intoxicated in order to be criminally charged with

the crime of " drugged driving. " Rather, police have only to demonstrate that the

driver has detectable levels of illicit drugs or inactive drug metabolites in

their blood, sweat, saliva or urine. As many pot smokers know, marijuana

metabolites are fat soluble, and remain identifiable in the urine for days and

sometimes even weeks after past use. Consequently someone who smoked a joint on

Monday could conceivably be arrested on Friday and charged with " drugged

driving, " even though they are perfectly sober!

 

Here's how the law would work. Police, at their discretion, could order

motorists during a traffic stop to undergo a drug test, most likely a urine

test. If the driver's urine tests positive for prior pot use then he or she

would automatically be charged and eventually found guilty of the criminal

offense of driving under the influence of drugs -- even if the pot in question

was consumed weeks earlier. Under the law, the fact that the driver is not

impaired is irrelevant; the only " evidence " necessary is the positive test

result.

 

So Who's Behind This?

 

Over the past five years, a small cabal of prohibitionists, drug testing

proponents and toxicologists have pushed for legislation criminalizing drivers

who operate a vehicle with inert drug metabolites present in their system. To

date, their efforts have persuaded ten states -- Arizona, Georgia, Iowa,

Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah and Wisconsin --

to pass such " drugged driving " laws, known as zero-tolerance per se laws.

Leading this charge is the Walsh Group, a federally funded organization that

develops drug testing technology and lobbies for rigid workplace drug testing

programs. Walsh Group President, Michael Walsh, is the former Director of the

Division of Applied Research at the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)

and formerly served as the Associate Director of the Office of National Drug

Control Policy (ONDCP), informally known as the Drug Czar's office

 

In November 2002, the group partnered with the ONDCP to lobby state legislatures

to amend their drugged driving laws. Every state has laws on the books

prohibiting motorists from driving " under the influence " of a controlled

substance. Like drunk driving laws, virtually all of these laws require the

motorists to be impaired by their drug use in order to be charged with " drugged

driving. "

 

Nevertheless, the Walsh Group argued that these existing laws are too lax on

illicit drug users. To bolster their claim, they argued -- without explanation

-- that actually linking illicit drug use to impaired driving is a " technically

complicated and difficult task. " Their solution? States should enact zero

tolerance per se laws redefining " drugged drivers " as any motorist who tests

positives for any level of illicit drugs or drug metabolites, regardless of

whether their driving is impaired.

 

" There is clearly a need for national leadership at the federal level to develop

model statutes and to strongly encourage the states to modify their laws, " the

organization concluded in a widely disseminated report. Notably, the authors

failed to mention that the widespread enactment of such a policy would be a

political and financial windfall for the Walsh Group's drug testing technology

and consulting services.

 

The Walsh Group is hardly the only organization with something to gain from the

Bush administration's proposed " drugged driving " crackdown. Speaking at a White

House-sponsored symposium in February, former 1970s Drug Czar Robert Dupont --

another ex-NIDA director who now heads the workplace drug testing consultation

firm Bensinger, Dupont & Associates (BDA) -- also demanded the federal

government mandate zero-tolerance drugged driving laws.

 

" Workplace drug testing has prepared us for drugged driving testing, " Dupont

told attendees, arguing that just as many public and private employees are

subjected to random drug screening, so should be motorists. Those drivers who

test positive, says Dupont, should then be monitored through regularly scheduled

drug tests, including hair testing, for a period of two to five years.

 

" The benefits of this approach will be improved highway safety, " he concluded,

failing to explain how punishing sober drivers while simultaneously lining BDA's

pockets would make America's roadways any safer.

 

Cruising on Cannabis: What's the Problem?

 

" Driving under the influence of, or after having used, illegal drugs has become

a significant problem worldwide, " states the preamble to H.R. 3922. However,

despite the government's claim, epidemiological evidence on the number of

motorists who drive under the influence of illicit drugs is scarce.

 

Further, among the limited evidence that does exist, much of it finds that pot's

measurable yet relatively mild effects on psychomotor skills do not appear to

play a significant role in vehicular crashes, particularly when compared to

alcohol. " Crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with

cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers

to be culpable in road crashes, " summarized researchers Gregory Chesher and

Marie Longo in the recent book Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology,

Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. A 2002 Canadian Senate report was even

more succinct, stating, " Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little

effect on the skills involved in automobile driving. "

 

Nonetheless, Congress' proposed bill specifically and disproportionately targets

motorists who may occasionally smoke pot because marijuana's metabolites exit

the body more slowly than other drug metabolites, often remaining detectable in

urine for several weeks at a time. Equally troubling, there currently exists no

technology that can accurately correlate drug metabolite concentration to

impairment of performance.

 

Of course, such concerns are no bother to those in Congress who intend to ride

this latest wave of drug war rhetoric to reelection. Nor are they of much worry

to those in the drug testing industry who stand to make a fortune prosecuting

and jailing sober pot smokers.

 

As for everybody else, be afraid; be very afraid. And be sure to keep a fresh

sample of urine in the glove compartment.

 

This article originally appeared in Heads Magazine in Canada.

 

 

 

© 2004 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.