Michigan may be first to adopt roadside drug testing

http://www.freep.com/article/201009090300/NEWS06/9090347

The legislation would authorize police to administer a roadside saliva test for illegal drug use, just as they do breath tests for alcohol, when they stop a driver suspected of being intoxicated.


State Rep. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, a former Eaton County sheriff and sponsor of one of the bills in the package, said the tests are easy to administer, reliable and cost effective. The tests could largely replace costly and time-consuming procedures, often requiring search warrants and hospital-administered blood tests, Jones said.

The test kit under consideration for Michigan can detect drug use in six categories, including marijuana, cocaine and methamphetamine.
"I know this has been a problem for law enforcement for years," Jones said. "What do you do when you've got a guy you know is on drugs but you can't test him?"
The state Department of Corrections uses portable drug kits to test parolees, Jones said, but Michigan could become the first state to authorize their use by traffic cops.

Roadside drug testing has been used in Australia and Europe.

Southfield criminal defense attorney Joseph Awad said roadside drug testing opens the door for arbitrary application by police, especially against thousands of drivers on the road every day using doctor-prescribed medications, Awad said.

But Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML, a national group that advocates for the decriminalization of marijuana, said a reliable, roadside test could help. But Armentano is skeptical about the equipment and whether testing would improve public safety.

One benefit, Armentano said, is that the public would be more likely to embrace rational drug laws if a reliable roadside test was available.
The presence of any level of any illegal drug is grounds under Michigan law for a charge of drugged driving.


Read more: Michigan may be 1st to adopt roadside drug testing | freep.com | Detroit Free Press http://www.freep.com/article/20100909/NEWS06/9090347/1001/rss01#ixzz0z25ZHEld​

Read more: Michigan may be 1st to adopt roadside drug testing | freep.com | Detroit Free Press http://www.freep.com/article/20100909/NEWS06/9090347/1001/rss01#ixzz0z25Q75xQ​

That will suck if it is set as a legal precedent for the other states to follow. Saliva's biggest drawback as far as testing is concerned is that THC goes away pretty quickly, so it would only be able to confirm use for the past couple of hours; in this situation it is it's biggest strength to detain for intoxicated driving. Of course, there are already products on the market to help pass a saliva test . . . maybe we need to buy some stock in a few companies.

not a bad idea, but to test for pot if it stays in your saliva for hours kinda sucks, I can smoke one and I normally do before I get in the car for along drive and I'm fine. Now give me a couple beers and I feel that and it impairs me

Saw Rep Rick Jones on tv news. We need to call our state senators and representative and let them know we don't like this one bit.

He said they would not need a search warrant. Talk about losing your rights!

Next up will be check lanes, remember them? They could simply ask for everyone to open their mouth and busted!

If I get this right when the police pull you over they can say you had red eyes and that would be good enough to test you?

I wonder if it measures for the level or just the presence? And what level is too much? Honestly.... I doubt I could drive there legally

more and more they take away our freedoms, im high 50% of the time I am driving , never been in an accident ever in over 20 years, I drive like a grandma

When I'm sober I drive 7 to 10 over always because under ten doesn't effect insurance rates.
When I'm high I follow every single law. Except getting high

this is good and bad...good if someone cant drive right while stoned (which im pretty sure all of us can drive baked out of our fucking skulls better than most people drive sober) but very fucking bad for the rest of us.
ive never had any accidents and only 1 ticket (87 in a 55 lol) and im stoned 90% of the time while driving my truck and 100% of the time when im out in the fields driving the tractor. if anything, they should just administer a "walk the line and touch your nose" type test. but ultimately i think they need to stop wasting time and money trying to fuck with us mmj users and concentrate on all the drunk fucks out there..

Winter Woman - yeah im pretty sure they mean red eyes will be enough to have to take the test..its basically the same thing as the smell of booze is enough for a breathalyzer. im glad i wear glasses, its hard to see my eyes through them

chainseeker said:

When I'm sober I drive 7 to 10 over always because under ten doesn't effect insurance rates.
When I'm high I follow every single law. Except getting high

Click to expand...

my uncle is a cop and he said 7-9 mph over the limit is the sweet spot, he says most cops wont fuck with ya unless you're goin at least 10 over....as long as you're not weaving all over the road that is. i also follow every single law, except for seat belts, that law is unconstitutional and i refuse to abide by it....but i may have to start wearing it so i dont get pulled over and then drug tested...mother fuckers..

I'm still waiting for the statistical evidence that would even make someone think we need
this test. I've missed all the michigan children, teens, parents, and grandparents lost to
the epidemic of driving while high.
How many lives will it save, how much money will it save in insurance costs, lawsuits?
Not to mention pot doesn't affect everyone the same like drugs such as alcohol do.
What are the levels of highness, how much can a 200lb man smoke before high vs a 100lb woman,
what if the womans a 20yr smoker and the mans a first timer?
this also says nothing on to what degree, if any motor function is affected, reaction time, ect...
Marijuana has been mis classed as a drug for decades, as well as had the false stereotypes
associated with it for even longer, and now were to let the police lump it in a test with the same stereotypical
drugs it's always linked to, of course in their minds it's still a gateway (whatever the hell this means) drug.
Like 90% of governmental ideas, this one sucks, is halfassedly thought out, and is totally unnecessessary.
It's a money/power/rights grab.
And sometimes you just gotta say Fuck Tha Police

(I'm still waiting for the statistical evidence that would even make someone think we need
this test. I've missed all the michigan children, teens, parents, and grandparents lost to
the epidemic of driving while high.)



This instant high test will give us the data for that. it has been unavailable, until now. I think its a good ideal! Just like drinking. Do it off the road and give yourself time to recover. driving is a big responsibility. all to often people take it way 2 lightly! stoners may not be the speeders or Rage like the p.o.s.drunks, but they do fucked up stupid shit none the less!. running lights, crossing the line while trying 2 flame a bowl, driving with their knees, and all kinds of forgetful dumbshit that wouldn't have happened if they were paying attention and not all mellowed out thinking about what to eat when they get home......and thats when i got hit head-on @ 50 mph by a young male that tested positive 4 marijuana and alcohol. he said he just fell asleep. (I USED 2 employ other area kids 4 construction that know him) , yea, he's a big stoner....... I"m sitting in a wheel chair now while typing this, minus 1 leg ,
Heart surgery, broken vertebras, & all kinds of internal metal and the list goes on...not to mention what my wife and kids had to go through..All because that guy wanted to get a little buzz on, couldent wait eve just a little, , just 2 relax a little...it's only a short distance, "i do it all time and never gotten pulled over" I'm fine, i drive good when im stoned.I ve been smoking so long i don't even get the high anymore.... and other shitty excuses from truly stupid people that think its ok to enter into a potentially fatal activity, without having all their wits about them!! there is other people, and worse, CHILDREN, on the road. GIVE DRIVING THE RESPECT IT DESERVES!!!! wait an houror 2 after you blaze! OH yea, that p.o.s. kid that almost killed me didn't even get hurt! so FUCK YEA< throw all u driving stoners in jail. you are the same as a drunk driver!!! TESTing EVERYONE THAT HAS RED EYES IS A GOOD START!!! You guys should just b happy that we can have it legal now, of corse they are going 2 control it. u didn't think this is it did u?

Terry Mac1 said:

This instant high test will give us the data for that. it has been unavailable, until now. I think its a good ideal! Just like drinking. Do it off the road and give yourself time to recover. driving is a big responsibility. all to often people take it way 2 lightly! stoners may not be the speeders or Rage like the p.o.s.drunks, but they do fucked up stupid shit none the less!. running lights, crossing the line while trying 2 flame a bowl, driving with their knees, and all kinds of forgetful dumbshit that wouldn't have happened if they were paying attention and not all mellowed out thinking about what to eat when they get home......and thats when i got hit head-on @ 50 mph by a young male that tested positive 4 marijuana and alcohol. he said he just fell asleep. (I USED 2 employ other area kids 4 construction that know him) , yea, he's a big stoner....... I"m sitting in a wheel chair now while typing this, minus 1 leg ,
Heart surgery, broken vertebras, & all kinds of internal metal and the list goes on...not to mention what my wife and kids had to go through..All because that guy wanted to get a little buzz on, couldent wait eve just a little, , just 2 relax a little...it's only a short distance, "i do it all time and never gotten pulled over" I'm fine, i drive good when im stoned.I ve been smoking so long i don't even get the high anymore.... and other shitty excuses from truly stupid people that think its ok to enter into a potentially fatal activity, without having all their wits about them!! there is other people, and worse, CHILDREN, on the road. GIVE DRIVING THE RESPECT IT DESERVES!!!! OH yea, that p.o.s. kid that almost killed me didn't even get hurt! so FUCK YEA< throw all u driving stoners in jail. TESTing EVERYONE THAT HAS RED EYES IS A GOOD START!!! You guys should just b happy that we can have it legal now, of corse they are going 2 control it. u didn't think this is it did u?

Click to expand...

Terry, I'm terribly sorry for what happened to you, and I feel a +rep is needed for you surviving that- I'm glad you did make it through and hope your recovery goes as well as physically possible. One thing you mentioned I wanted to addres: the turd you mentioned did test positive for marijuana, but he also tested positive for alcohol. Marijuana testing can go as far bacck as 30 days or longer, depending on body size, whereas alcohol tests give the exact amount of alcohol in the bloodstream at that time. He could have quit smoking two weeks before the wreck, and still test positive for mj- he would have had to have consumed any amount of alcohol that day to test positive for alcohol. So yes, you were hit by a stoner; more importantly he was a drunk stoner.

Before we should prosecute for marijuana toxicity, we should perform tests to determine how much marijuana would impare someone's ability to drive to see if a "positive" test result for mj means that the driver is incapable of operating an automobile. Before anyone gets upset, keep in mind this is exactly what was done for alcohol.

Again Terry, I wish you well, and welcome to RIU.

Edit: Terry- RIU says I can't give rep right now, but I will post it for you tomorrow.

Sorry 4 the rant. don't post much...i had to speak up,people need to here it. im just humbled to the amount of whining 2 the opposition 2 laws 4 the safety of the others. an awakening that the unsuffered could NEVER begin to understand,( Court Depositions say the kids were up all night partying and yes , smoking too..)small sacrifices to trust in the judgment of our officers on the scene, the judges that hear the evidence.and already know of the 30 day fatty tissue canibinoid thing that WILL get worked out...ect... IT will get better, just annoyed at the opposition 4 legitimate safety..sorry if i 4 the change in tempo to your site board thing here. i wont come on here any more.........please take driving seriously.

Terry Mac1 said:

Sorry 4 the rant. don't post much...i had to speak up,people need to here it. im just humbled to the amount of whining 2 the opposition 2 laws 4 the safety of the others. an awakening that the unsuffered could NEVER begin to understand,( Court Depositions say the kids were up all night partying and yes , smoking too..)small sacrifices to trust in the judgment of our officers on the scene, the judges that hear the evidence.and already know of the 30 day fatty tissue canibinoid thing that WILL get worked out...ect... IT will get better, just annoyed at the opposition 4 legitimate safety..sorry if i 4 the change in tempo to your site board thing here. i wont come on here any more.........please take driving seriously.

Click to expand...

Don't worry about changing the tempo, and never apologize for posting- there are many different viewpoints represented and this forum would be pretty dull if everyone agreed 100% on everything.
I understand where you are coming from- safety is key, and anyone that does behave in an unsafe manner that can harm another deserves the harshest treatment allowable by law. My biggest concern though is that if someone smokes in the morning, and long after they have come down from the effect they drive to the store, get pulled over and arrested, even though they are no longer under the effects. It's not that I don't support using the test, but I feel guidelines should be set and tested before this is done. They know exactly how much alcohol you can consume and safely operate a vehicle- I just feel they should do the same thing for marijuana and this test.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Terry I am really sorry what happened to you, but you are wrong about one thing, you stated that there hasnt been studies done with cannabis and driving, well that is incorrect, there is a wealth of studies that have been done on this subject. I agree with you that people shouldnt be getting behind the wheel who are impaired but I strongly disagree with you that cannabis alone impairs driving to any real degree, ofcourse it can make the situation worse if the person is already tired or impaired in some other way but why should we even target cannabis, I know its a stretch but I almost don't believe that cannabis has ever been the sole contributing factor in a serious car accident, driver getting distracted lighting a bowl or something? sure...but it wasnt because he was high or because of the marijuana, it was because he was a freaking idiot and if it wasnt a bowl he was lighting it would of been a ciggarette.[/FONT]


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is well established that alcohol increases accident risk. Evidence of marijuana&#8217;s culpability in on-road driving accidents is much less convincing.
Although cannabis intoxication has been shown to mildly impair psychomotor skills, this impairment does not appear to be severe or long lasting. In driving simulator tests, this impairment is typically manifested by subjects decreasing their driving speed and requiring greater time to respond to emergency situations.
Nevertheless, this impairment does not appear to play a significant role in on-road traffic accidents. A 2002 review of seven separate studies involving 7,934 drivers reported, &#8220;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.&#8221; This result is likely because subject under the influence of marijuana are aware of their impairment and compensate for it accordingly, such as by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. This reaction is just the opposite of that exhibited by drivers under the influence of alcohol, who tend to drive in a more risky manner proportional to their intoxication.
Today, a large body of research exists exploring the impact of marijuana on psychomotor skills and actual driving performance. This research consists of driving simulator studies, on-road performance studies, crash culpability studies, and summary reviews of the existing evidence. To date, the result of this research is fairly consistent: Marijuana has a measurable yet relatively mild effect on psychomotor skills, yet it does not appear to play a significant role in vehicle crashes, particularly when compared to alcohol. Below is a summary of some of the existing data.

Summaries
Crash culpability studies
On-Road Performance Studies
Driving simulator studies



[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]SUMMARIES

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]&#8220;[/FONT]At the present time, the evidence to suggest an involvement of cannabis in road crashes is scientifically unproven.
To date &#8230;, seven studies using culpability analysis have been reported, involving a total of 7,934 drivers. Alcohol was detected as the only drug in 1,785 drivers, and together with cannabis in 390 drivers. Cannabis was detected in 684 drivers, and in 294 of these it was the only drug detected.
&#8230; The results to date of 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. &#8230; [In] cases in which THC was the only drug present were analyzed, the culpability ratio was found to be not significantly different from the no-drug group.&#8221;
REFERENCE: G. Chesher and M. Longo. 2002. Cannabis and alcohol in motor vehicle accidents. In: F. Grotenhermen and E. Russo (Eds.) Cannabis and Cannabinoids: Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutic Potential. New York: Haworth Press. Pp. 313-323.


&#8220;Cannabis leads to a more cautious style of driving, [but] it has a negative impact on decision time and trajectory. [However,] this in itself does not mean that drivers under the influence of cannabis represent a traffic safety risk. &#8230; Cannabis alone, particularly in low doses, has little effect on the skills involved in automobile driving.&#8221;

REFERENCE: Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs. 2002. Cannabis: Summary Report: Our Position for a Canadian Public Policy. Ottawa. Chapter 8: Driving Under the Influence of Cannabis.


&#8220;This report has summarized available research on cannabis and driving.

&#8230; Evidence of impairment from the consumption of cannabis has been reported by studies using laboratory tests, driving simulators and on-road observation. ... Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in (i) a more cautious driving style; (ii) increased variability in lane position (and headway); and (iii) longer decision times. Whereas these results indicate a 'change' from normal conditions, they do not necessarily reflect 'impairment' in terms of performance effectiveness since few studies report increased accident risk.

REFERENCE: UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). 2000. Cannabis and Driving: A Review of the Literature and Commentary. Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.


&#8220;Overall, we conclude that the weight of the evidence indicates that:

1)There is no evidence that consumption of cannabis alone increases the risk of culpability for traffic crash fatalities or injuries for which hospitalization occurs, and may reduce those risks.
2)The evidence concerning the combined effect of cannabis and alcohol on the risk of traffic fatalities and injuries, relative to the risk of alcohol alone, is unclear.
3)It is not possible to exclude the possibility that the use of cannabis (with or without alcohol) leads to an increased risk of road traffic crashes causing less serious injuries and vehicle damage.&#8221;

REFERENCE: M. Bates and T. Blakely. 1999. &#8220;Role of cannabis in motor vehicle crashes.&#8221; Epidemiologic Reviews 21: 222-232.


&#8220;In conclusion, marijuana impairs driving behavior. However, this impairment is mitigated in that subjects under marijuana treatment appear to perceive that they are indeed impaired. Where they can compensate, they do, for example by not overtaking, by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. &#8230; Effects on driving behavior are present up to an hour after smoking but do not continue for extended periods.

With respect to comparisons between alcohol and marijuana effects, these substances tend to differ in their effects. In contrast to the compensatory behavior exhibited by subjects under marijuana treatment, subjects who have received alcohol tend to drive in a more risky manner. Both substances impair performance; however, the more cautious behavior of subjects who have received marijuana decreases the impact of the drug on performance, whereas the opposite holds true for alcohol.&#8221;

REFERENCE: A. Smiley. 1999. Marijuana: On-Road and Driving-Simulator Studies. In: H. Kalant et al. (Eds) The Health Effects of Cannabis. Toronto: Center for Addiction and Mental Health. Pp. 173-191.


&#8220;Intoxication with cannabis leads to a slight impairment of psychomotor &#8230; function. &#8230; [However,] the impairment in driving skills does not appear to be severe, even immediately after taking cannabis, when subjects are tested in a driving simulator. This may be because people intoxicated by cannabis appear to compensate for their impairment by taking fewer risks and driving more slowly, whereas alcohol tends to encourage people to take great risks and drive more aggressively.&#8221;

REFERENCE: UK House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology. 1998. Ninth Report. London: United Kingdom. Chapter 4: Section 4.7.


&#8220;The evidence suggests that marijuana presents a real, but secondary safety risk; and that alcohol is the leading drug-related accident risk factor.&#8221;

REFERENCES: D. Gieringer. 1988. Marijuana, driving, and accident safety. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 20: 93-101.



CRASH CULPABILITY STUDIES

&#8220;For each of 2,500 injured drivers presenting to a hospital, a blood sample was collected for later analysis.

There was a clear relationship between alcohol and culpability. &#8230; In contrast, there was no significant increase in culpability for cannabinoids alone. While a relatively large number of injured drivers tested positive for cannabinoids, culpability rates were no higher than those for the drug free group. This is consistent with other findings.&#8221;

REFERENCE:
Logan, M.C., Hunter, C.E., Lokan, R.J., White, J.M., & White, M.A. (2000). The Prevalence of Alcohol, Cannabinoids, Benzodiazepines and Stimulants Amongst Injured Drivers and Their Role in Driver Culpability: Part II: The Relationship Between Drug Prevalence and Drug Concentration, and Driver Culpability. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 32, 623-32.


&#8220;Blood samples from 894 patients presenting to two Emergency Departments for treatment of motor vehicle injur[ies] &#8230; were tested for alcohol and other drugs.

&#8230; Based on alcohol and drug testing of the full range of patients &#8230; alcohol is clearly the major drug associated with serious crashes and greater injury. Patients testing positive for illicit drugs (marijuana, opiates, and cocaine), in the absence of alcohol, were in crashes very similar to those of patients with neither alcohol nor drugs. When other relevant variables were considered, these drugs were not associated with more severe crashes or greater injury.&#8221;

REFERENCE: P. Waller et al. 1997. Crash characteristics and injuries of victims impaired by alcohol versus illicit drugs. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29: 817-827.


&#8220;Blood specimens were collected from a sample of 1,882 drivers from 7 states, during 14 months in the years 1990 and 1991. The sample comprised operators of passenger cars, trucks, and motorcycles who died within 4 hours of their crash.

&#8230; While cannabinoids were detected in 7 percent of the drivers, the psychoactive agent THC was found in only 4 percent. &#8230; The THC-only drivers had a responsibility rate below that of the drugfree drivers. &#8230; While the difference was not statistically significant, there was no indication that cannabis by itself was a cause of fatal crashes.&#8221;

REFERENCE: K. Terhune. 1992. The incidence and role of drugs in fatally injured drivers. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 808 065.



ON-ROAD PERFORMANCE STUDIES

&#8220;Marijuana's effects on actual driving performance were assessed in a series of three studies wherein dose-effect relationships were measured in actual driving situations that progressively approached reality.

&#8230; THC's effects on road-tracking after doses up to 300 µg/kg never exceeded alcohol's at bacs of 0.08%; and, were in no way unusual compared to many medicinal drugs. Yet, THC's effects differ qualitatively from many other drugs, especially alcohol. Evidence from the present and previous studies strongly suggests that alcohol encourages risky driving whereas THC encourages greater caution, at least in experiments. Another way THC seems to differ qualitatively from many other drugs is that the formers users seem better able to compensate for its adverse effects while driving under the influence.&#8221;

REFERENCE: H. Robbe. 1995. Marijuana&#8217;s effects on actual driving performance. In: C. Kloeden and A. McLean (Eds) Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety T-95. Adelaide: Australia: HHMRC Road Research Unit, University of Adelaide. Pp. 11-20.


&#8220;This report concerns the effects of marijuana smoking on actual driving performance. &#8230; This program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate when they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC&#8217;s adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small.&#8221;

REFERENCE: W. Hindrik and J. Robbe and J. O&#8217;Hanlon. 1993. Marijuana and actual driving performance. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Report No. DOT HS 808 078.


TABULATED SUMMARY OF ROAD TRIALS OF CANNABIS AND DRIVING
Table compiled by the UK Department of Transport (2000)



DRIVING SIMULATOR STUDIES

&#8220;Overall, it is possible to conclude that cannabis has a measurable effect on psychomotor performance, particularly tracking ability. Its effect on higher cognitive functions, for example divided attention tasks associated with driving, appear not to be as critical. Drivers under the influence of cannabis seem aware that they are impaired, and attempt to compensate for this impairment by reducing the difficulty of the driving task, for example by driving more slowly.

In terms of road safety, it cannot be concluded that driving under the influence of cannabis is not a hazard, as the effects of various aspects of driver performance are unpredictable. However, in comparison with alcohol, the severe effects of alcohol on the higher cognitive processes of driving are likely to make this more of a hazard, particularly at higher blood alcohol levels.&#8221;

REFERENCE: B. Sexton et al. 2000. The influence of cannabis on driving: A report prepared for the UK Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Road Safety Division). Crowthorne, Berks: TRL Limited.


TABULATED SUMMARY OF SIMULATOR STUDIES OF CANNABIS AND DRIVING
Table compiled by the UK Department of Transport (2000)

[/FONT]
[/FONT]

Terry, I am truly sorry for the devastation to you and your family. I think any driver impaired by drinking, pot, or driving tired should be held responsible for what they do. They do have a choice.

I was hit head-on by a drunk driver (underage) a few years ago. Luckily, I wasn't as injured as you. But, it did take me a year to recover completely. I think that driving impaired is wrong, but I don't think that this test is accurate enough to tell how long ago you toked.

I have a friend that lives in Las Vegas and if you are tested and found to have any pot in your system you lose your license or at least that is how it was a few years ago. I think that is wrong too.

This will seem very petty, especially, after Terry's posts. I have hayfever and I have very red, itchy eyes in the fall. I would be easy pickings for an aggressive cop.

I work with an ex-Detroit cop (old STRESS cop)and he still brags about the easy busts he used to make and complains, to this day, that MJ busts weren't much fun. Why? Because they don't get abusive and just give up, meaning no fighting involved.

I saw him yesterday and asked him about this new test. He smiled and said he wished that he had that test available because a lot more people would have been busted and lost their licenses. He enjoys it whenever he can get over on anyone and tells you to your face that if he can get your commission he will and does in a heart beat.

Terry Mac1 said:

Sorry 4 the rant. don't post much...i had to speak up,people need to here it. im just humbled to the amount of whining 2 the opposition 2 laws 4 the safety of the others. an awakening that the unsuffered could NEVER begin to understand,( Court Depositions say the kids were up all night partying and yes , smoking too..)small sacrifices to trust in the judgment of our officers on the scene, the judges that hear the evidence.and already know of the 30 day fatty tissue canibinoid thing that WILL get worked out...ect... IT will get better, just annoyed at the opposition 4 legitimate safety..sorry if i 4 the change in tempo to your site board thing here. i wont come on here any more.........please take driving seriously.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with testing people involved in accidents for anything.

Terry i am sorry about your situation, but i refuse to allow the government to take anymore of my freedoms in the name of public safety. if they want my spit (and therefore my DNA) they are going to have to get a court order or force me just like the Nazi's. it is absolute BULL that they think that our freedoms are so worthless that they feel they can do whatever they want as long as its for "Public Safety". We recently had a new law passed in Michigan that stripped the rights of thousands of business owners in the name of "Public Safety". Now we cannot smoke in any public place, what happened to choice, what happened to the ability to make a decision for yourself. I agree if someone is involved in an accident test them for everything, if your taillight is out you better get backup to take my fluids from me. the police can already give you a damn cavity search if they feel they have "Probable Cause" why does this surprise anyone?