Michigan State Police picking counties for roadside drug testing pilot

From somebody that works in the business, this is going to be hard to pull off unless they're only testing for street drugs and nonprescription meds.

a reply to: RickyD

It's not because you're using public roads. That's what I've heard at least for dui checkpoints

originally posted by: hellobruce

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

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

Drugs show up in a test for over a month, unlike alcohol which is out in a matter of hours, so if you did a drug three weeks ago and get targeted at a random stop and get charged for driving under the influence, is that fair? Is that even legal?

Follow the money. Guess who owns the labs for the Michigan contracts?

Republicans are all about saving money until they can get their friends and loved ones government grants and contracts. (Dems too but they will spend money on anything)

a reply to: Arizonaguy

This is a terrible idea and a HUGE invasion of privacy. I don't want to be arrested while driving around because I did drugs the day before...

nothing like going out and using
precognition to arrest people for crimes
that have NOT happened.

UNCONSTITUTIONAL

a reply to: JHumm

Your work can do the same thing, and so can a hospital. I guess you just have to not do illegal drugs.

a reply to: Arizonaguy

This is the final goodbye to the 4th and 5th amendments. Thanks to all of you for playing along in our Constitution Game, and goodnight. (wave bye-bye)

a reply to: avgguy

Your work can do the same thing but companies are starting to take a different approach based more in recovery.

Drug testing only truly and definitely helps the labs doing the tests financially. The studies and stats don't support the cost vs benifits of testing.

This is why no other country in the west drug tests like the us (57 percent of jobs).

Germany and France dont even drug test pilots. For the fields where safety is a concern for the public like chemical and law enforcement the tests are done through a dr who evaluates the results along with a physical.

All because of civil liberty protections. No where else in the free world does your employer have so much power over the employees life outside of work.

It's sad really.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Unless you fail the rest of the impairment test, you won't be. Kinda like how you don't get breathalyzed until after you've already exhibited other signs of impairment.

Though I realize the fear drum is way more fun to bang.

a reply to: luthier

You'd be mistaken if you think they don't matter in terms of businesses that the employees work for. You would be really surprised at the amount of on the job accidents where an employee either tests positive for alcohol or street drugs.

And drug tests are cheap. I don't think anyone makes any real money off of them.

Dr are always involved in the process, they're called MROs.

a reply to: Shamrock6

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

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

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Unless you fail the rest of the impairment test, you won't be. Kinda like how you don't get breathalyzed until after you've already exhibited other signs of impairment.

Though I realize the fear drum is way more fun to bang.

Come on. you cant compare the two. a breathalyzer will indicate use in the moment.


So ( just look at some posts here) if someone uses more nomenclature and says " whats up dude?"- Is he using marijuana at the time. See the problem?

originally posted by: Arizonaguy

originally posted by: hellobruce

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

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

Hmmm...I had to reread my post because I don't remember writing that. Sure enough it wasn't there. As a matter of fact I pointed out EXACTLY why I thought it was a bad idea. That leads me to believe that you didn't read my post, or you're looking to start a quarrel...which is it?

yup, and poof. the poster disappears after that... a quarrel or asinine circular argument is exactly what he/she was trying to incite.

some drugs can pop weeks to months after use.
they should be trying to crack down on the drug which claims the most lives per year, causes the most DUI s per year, destroy marriages, and is linked to a myriad of lung kidney and liver diseases... oh and its available at nearly every corner. anyone over 21 can buy it .

a reply to: luthier

Where does it say anything about being done without probable cause? As I read the article, it doesn't. It says the saliva test is done hand in hand with the rest of the drug impairment evaluation.

And, again, the saliva test is ALREADY part of the evaluation. The last step is blood, urine, or saliva testing. Which means it's done after you've already failed the rest of the test.

If this turns into them setting up a checkpoint and forcing drivers to open their mouth so they can swab then hell yes, it's absolutely a rights violation. If this is nothing more than taking something that used to be done at an intake facility and putting it in a mobile version, then so freaking what?

Fear. That's what.

a reply to: Shamrock6

So? None of that negates the potential for misuse and shennanigans. And where is the cutoff? Any amount? That's hardly justice. We already know that long term heavy drinkers have an unusually high tolerance for alcohol, and many show no signs of impairment at .08, and probably aren't impaired. In fact,before the change in the laws, many accused drunk drivers were winning trials, and sometimes based upon the police officer's own testimony. That is why the states came up with a PRESUMED level of intoxication, and started charging drivers with TWO counts for a single offense. One count of DWI/DUI ( terminology is location specific ), and one count of DUI/DWI blood alcohol content above legal limit. You get popped driving at or above that limit and it doesn't matter if you are technically impaired or not...you're getting convicted. The only defense that a person had was to allege that the stop was illegal, but due to a recent SCOTUS that no longer applies.

I don't live in Michigan, and I don't use any illegal or prescription drugs. But I am well aware of the potential for abuse, especially in the early morning hours. At one point my job required me to have late nights on weekends. Twice I was pulled over, Once by Mesa PD, and once by Glendale PD. Mesa alleged that I was crowding the center line, took my info, questioned me, and sent me on my way. Glendale alleged that I was alternating frequently between 35-40 mph. The officer said he suspected me of being under the influence of a controlled substance and asked me to submit to a blood test. By asked he meant " take a blood test or we will suspend your license for a year" . I complied, and waited for two months and heard nothing. I contacted Glendale pd, and after what seemed like a half dozen transfers I was finally informed my blood tests were negative and no charges would be filed. So, because my eyes were red, I appeared a certain way to the officer, and because I wasn't going a solid speed for 2 miles I was handcuffed, my truck towed, humiliated by being in a public hospital in handcuffs ( for my safety and his he said ), and had to call somebody for a ride at quarter of 6 on a Sunday morning. Then I had to pay a towing bill complete with an extra $100 tacked on ( $25 for a couple of hours of impound, $75 for opening the impound yard on a Sunday). Yes....I can see a lot of potential for abuse here.

a reply to: avgguy

Well your not very well researched.

Those accidents happen even with testing. An accident is also probable cause.

Europe does not drug test and two of the ones that don't test almost any job have more productive work forces.

Tests are between 20-50 bucks.

Times millions you can bet it's huge money.

In Florida Scott's wife's company got the state wellfare contract and he had 62 million in the company himself.

It's big big money. And the results literally don't show an impact at all in production or safety increases.

Those people you spoke of in the accidents probably passed the pre employment drug screen.

a reply to: Shamrock6

So the story was sensationalized? Ok. Well I'm still a huge critic of drug testing in general anyways.

a reply to: bknapple32

I can absolutely compare the two. Why? Because both tests are done after a driver has already exhibited signs of impairment. If you smoked a bowl two weeks ago, you're probably not going to exhibit signs of impairment in the moment, are you?

a reply to: Shamrock6

I lived in Austin where there are checkpoints. You are forced to do field sobriety tests at random. Which doesn't sound bad in functionality. However it's a little intrusive to be forced out of your car without probable cause. Just my opinion.