TheAgitator.com
Post-Reductio America
Tuesday, April 20th, 2004Rep. Rob Portman of Ohio wins the “Hysterical Drug Warrior of the Week” award:
While the expressed purpose of this legislation, the “Drug Impaired Driving Enforcement Act of 2004,” is to target and remove drug-impaired drivers from our nation’s roadways, the reality is that this poorly worded proposal would do little to improve public safety. Rather, it would falsely categorize sober drivers as “intoxicated” simply if they had consumed an illicit substance, particularly marijuana, some days or weeks earlier.John and Jane Doe attend a party. John enjoys a glass of wine while Jane takes a puff from a marijuana cigarette. The next day, John and Jane are pulled over. John is given a breathalyzer test and tests negative for alcohol. Jane is asked to submit to a urine test and tests positive for marijuana. Jane is then arrested for “driving under the influence of drugs,” despite the fact that any impairment she experienced from smoking marijuana would have worn off hours earlier.
That’s because Portman’s proposal, so-called “zero tolerance” per se legislation, presumes individuals guilty of driving while intoxicated simply if trace levels of a controlled substances or even drug metabolites (inactive compounds indicative of past drug use) are detected in their bodily fluids — even if the individual is neither under the influence nor impaired to drive. For anyone who enjoys an occasional toke from a marijuana cigarette, this news ought to be especially unsettling, as marijuana metabolites are often detectable in a person’s urine for days or even weeks after the drug is consumed.
So if they find metabolites in your blood, and you drive, you are de facto guilty of driving under the influence of drugs.
Not sure whether to laugh or cry.
If I experience a “Tropical contact high” would these metabolites be in my system? In other words, if I’m around people smoking doobies and I breathe some in would I be guilty?
Matt –
You actually would be guilty. You can have trace amounts of pot in your system, even if you personally don’t smoke. So now you really ARE “guilty by association”!
Matt and msc –
Stop hanging around with dirty hippy friends and you won’t have anything to worry about.
This law will protect us all.
Eric – I do hope you were kidding.
Radley–
Cry. Definitely cry.
Pot can almost always be detected up to 30 days from consumption. Quantity consumed has no influence on detection.
Also interesting is Fed tests on the influence of pot while driving manages to merge alcohol (not a drug according to prohibitionists….ever see the terms “drugs and alcohol” ?)and pot exclusively when doing driving “safety tests”. Unfotunately, 98% include pot and booze combined. Because pot is considered equally dangerous as herion, there’s never been a gov’t test on driving and pot. When it comes to the war on drugs, remember:NO THINKING ALLOWED!!
meek
Matt and msc–You have to be in a closed area while exposed to a massive amount of smoke for second hand marijuana smoke to make you test positive on a drug test.
And Anon–Quantity consumed does have an effect on detection. A daily smoker will test positive longer than someone who has only smoked once recently.
Dirty hippy friends aside O:>.
Being around pot of any amount on say.. an every day basis will leave trace amounts in your system.
What an appropriate topic, Happy 4/20!!!
I hate this stuff as much as the rest of you. However I think those opposed to drug laws have always accepted the kind of compromises in enforcement that have made this kind of fascist suppression workable.
Let’s agree with all those who want to use the government to control recreational drug use.
Let’s demand drug tests for everyone. And I mean EVERYONE. The owner of the business. His sons daughters and family relatives. His favorite secretary. No more random testing. 100% testing-100% compliance. Further there should be no occupation excluded from such testing. Drug testing for ALL government officials. You get the idea.
Rather than waste time and political capital arguing against the drug war; let’s demand total across the board unrelenting drug law enforcement. This is quite obviously the direction we are headed in anyway. If we continue to allow it to happen gradually–it very well could happen. Let’s force the system to confront head-on NOW the full implications of the rationale behind recreational drug enforcement! We put enough “chestnuts in the fire” and the political backlash would make the drug war unsupportable.
Rocketman – testing really doesn’t work though. You can go to any marijuana mag website and find about 20 ways to get around a test. Good idea though, about pushing more legislation on those who are trying to push it on us. It probably wouldn’t work, but it’s unique.
Oh yeah, and happy 4/20 to all. I haven’t said that in a few years…
Could someone let the rest of us in on the “4/20″ reference? Context leads me to believe it has something to do with marijuana. Having never been a drug user, though, I really don’t know.
Check out this article on SF Gate, Matthew. Maybe if you watched some TV, you wouldn’t be so out of the loop.
seacrest out. yeah, out smokin a doobie.
If you ever want to clean your system (not sure other if it will work for more than pot), you can take a shot of vinegar, and drink nothing but water for a day before the test. A second shot couldn’t hurt during the day. Once you’ve pissed perfectly clear a few times, you’ll know you’re there. Drink up some high protein stuff to get some color back, and pass your test. I’m 2/2 on under a 24 hour notice. This will actually clean you out, not just mask it. Hair test…you’re S.O.L. Rip the system!
druuugs are baaaddd, ummm kayyy
Fits right in with the drug war. Federal drug laws assume a person is guilty of interstate commerce without needing to prove it.
The Drug “IDEA” of 2004? Some of you live in D.C.; do any of you know any staffers that, as a function of their employment, have to come up with the titles of these nifty, acronym-friendly laws that are so trendy these days? PATRIOT, RAVE, IDEA, COPA, ISTEA… it’s getting ridiculous…
Travis says;
“You can go to any marijuana mag website and find about 20 ways to get around a test. Good idea though, about pushing more legislation on those who are trying to push it on us. It probably wouldn’t work, but it’s unique”.
Thanks for being positive(no pun intended) about my idea. Even if testing is ineffective, the across-the-board-testing would throw a monkey-wrench into the system.
You’re probably right about it not working because those most interested(users)lack the organizational skills and gumption to pull it off. Nobody wants to stand up for what’s right as long as they think they have a reasonable chance to beat the system.(see Chris’s post above)
Which is probably THE most telling indictment of recreational drug use. Here we are, living in the most open and free society in man’s history and nobody has the ingenuity and cajones to effectively organize for change.
Think carefully grasshopper, why oh why could that be?(hint; “inhale” now “exhale”)
Many of us sympathize with you but are unwilling to expend the politcal capital necessary to help you out. Would I really give up, school vouchers, tax reform, or a successful prosecution of the WOT just so you can get stoned? Answer,(insert drum roll) no.
The method I suggest would be difficult to resist by those opposed to your goals because after all it takes them at their word. It would also enable you to draw support from those sympathetic to your cause but unwilling to embroil themselves in a controversy some of us grown-ups regard as less than pressing.
All this means is that,absent the path I suggested, you are own your own, and believe me that’s been the problem from the word “go”. (“rooooollllllllanother one….just like the other one”)
signed, an embarrased ex user
So I should lay off the poppy-seed bagels, then?
. . . not to mention the lemon-poppy seed muffins and all other poppy seed-encrusted goodies that’ll make you test positive for opiates.
stoopadidiots
good googlin William Hung ?
Nobody wants to stand up for what’s right as long as they think they have a reasonable chance to beat the system.
Well said, R-man.
I think also (as you perhaps obliquely alluded by your “embarassment”) many–if not most–users of pot tend to do it for a while, then get bored with it and either quit or severely taper off their use. By that point, legalization just isn’t a very pressing issue personally. And those for whom it is aren’t exactly ideal for winning over the hearts and minds of “straight” Americans who have been told that drugs are BAD BAD BAD for the better part of a century.
For me, legalization is simply a matter of personal freedom and responsibility, and that’s all the convincing I need.
But I recognize that most people in this country simply don’t value freedom the way I do. So if legalization (or even reasonable decriminalization) is ever going to be a reality, people need to be convinced that the cost of prohibition far outweighs the benefits. Your (Rocketman’s) suggestion would certainly increase the cost of prohibition, so it might work.
But the real problem I see is that since drug use is perceived as always bad among a good chunk of the population, prohibition is therefore considered worthwhile regardless of the cost.
In other words, there’s a lot of people that won’t be convinced that prohibition isn’t worth it unless they are first convinced that drug use (or at least marijuana) isn’t really that bad to begin with.
And that’s where a lot of productive, law-abiding, respectable people who favor legalization stop short. People are afraid to stand up for their vices. And in most cases, with good reason.
Chris – I’ve heard the vinegar idea, but never got the luxury to try it out (extreme sarcasm). I think a shot of vodka is just about the lowest you can go, but vinegar might take the cake.
Anyway, I passed a test by going to a head shop and buying some drink that tasted like cough syrup a few years back. It worked well, I passed anyway.
On the 420 note, my old neighbor in college Freshman year (he didn’t last) used to wake up every morning at 4:20 to have his “morning session”. He’s my best argument against the “pot isn’t addictive crowd”. It might not be addictive like Heroin or Nicotine is addictive, but he couldn’t stop if he wanted to.
Why would Jane have been tested if John was driving? Or vise-versa?
That was either a mistake in the passage or a REALLY scary aspect of the proposed legislation. Kind of eliminates the need for a designated driver, wouldn’t you say? Might as well drive yourself home if you’ll get busted for DUI as the passenger.
Rocket, not to single you out, because people who don’t use recreational drugs clearly have no obligation to support things, but the more you look at the connections the more you realise that prohibition hurts you as well.
War on Terror? Afghan heroin has been a big part of the direct and indirect support for terror (direct – it’s a huge cash crop, and the only thing worth fighting to control in that region, indirect – part of the reason the US refused to confront the Taliban before 9-11 was because they’d restricted the growth of opium plants). The link between other drugs black markets and nastiness of all kinds is very strong. North Korea makes a whole lot of money smuggling drugs, etc. etc.
As well as this, the amount of tax money spent fighting the War on drugs is nigh on unfathomable. Regulation and taxation, while an unsavoury prospect for a libertarian, would leave us all with a huge amount more money in our pocket, and a much safer society in which to spend it.
I don’t use drugs either, but with respect, the ‘I don’t use so I don’t care’ attitude is a big drain on your finances.
Bernard:
Oh believe me Bernard, I’m on board. Remember, the topic of my post in the first place was about how to accomplish legalization.
Unfortunately, political capital,is,like other forms of capital–limited. It’s use in one area,precludes its use in another.
The drug war hurts me,but probably not as much as the lack of school vouchers,tax reform, or a successful prosecution of the WOT.
My guess is that most non-using Libertarians feel the same way.
My all-time favorite line in any category is from the Married with children show. The son, has just confided to dad some personal problem, Al throws his arm around Bud’s shoulders and lovingly exclaims,” son,just because I don’t CARE doesn’t mean I don’t UNDERSTAND”!
Maybe you had to be there. But it more or less sums up my attitude.
Rocketman, it does mean that one of us doesn’t understand the matter of degree. From my perspective (again, despite being a non-user) prohibition is an issue which affects society in far more significant and corrosive ways than the lack of a school voucher system. On the other two issues you mentioned as being more important, I see too many direct links to consider them either/or.
Taxes, for eg., would be much easier to reform if the Federal government didn’t expend so much money excluding its own citizens from taking part in the income earning portion of society. Whenever we have tax reform debates, we hear cries of ‘but which programs are going to be cut?’. To me the ‘throwing people in prison for no good reason’ program is far easier to cut than any of the other possibilities, and the concurrent boost to revenue swells the Federal coffers still further. Getting the government’s paws off peoples’ money is never going to be easy, but knocking down the more attractive objections is the obvious way to start.
Likewise with the war on terrorism. When so many channels of revenue for so many terrorist groups stem directly or indirectly from the black market for drugs (as the prohibitionists have gleefully been squealing in their ‘drugs users are funding terrorism’ rants), the single easiest way to limit their funding in the long run would be to move the drugs market into the mainstream.
Are school vouchers really this important?
Coincidentally. Your suggestion ages ago about demanding that laws be enforced consistently, even if we disagree with them, was one of my favourite. This was a suggestion I originally read from Peter McWilliam and it’s one I very much support. I think it’s the quickest ways to roll back a law which the political and social elite pay lip service too because they know it won’t affect them or theirs.
Ha! I can do one better. We already have this in Arizona. It is at ARS 28-1381(A)(3).
Further, Probation will test a probationer say four or five days in a row. If they have been smoking marijuana, they might come up hot 5 different days. Probation, when they draft thier petition to revoke, will count each hot piss test as a seperate violation when, and this is that crappy thing called “REALITY,” the probationer may have smoked says before.
Bernard:
I’ve read many of your posts and have always respected the thoughtful nature of them, so please believe me when I say no offense meant,but everything you say, while extremely well thought out is really very old ground.
If you could get drug law reform merely because the public cared about justice and freedom–we’d already have it.
The problem is that in the real world we generally have to choose between having the cake and eating it too. If I could give up something unimportant(like having my way on school prayer or gay marriage)in exchange for it, fine no problem. You seem to think that all we need to do is enlighten the world with our insight and it will be done. I don’t think so, though I’d love to be wrong.
The unfortunate fact is that any energy expended on this issue would almost certainly be taken away from that expended on the issues I already mentioned(or any number of other important issues like tort reform, decentralization,etc).
BTW you bet I happen to think school vouchers is THE most important domestic issue out there.
Maybe, if Radley ever gets over his obsession with Bush, or after Bush gets re-elected we will be able to talk about vouchers. All I want to say now is that the better education we have the better climate we will have created for the kind of Libertarian reforms I’m sure both of us would like to see.
Rocketman, no sweat, If I were offended at being disagree’d with i’d have a troublesome time posting anything on internet message boards. As I said before, the point of contention here seems to be one of relative importance. We likely both agree that school vouchers and rolling back prohibition are positive things, but apparently disagree on which would be more so. I see school vouchers as an easy one to have a position on (more choice of curricula, less power for the various contemptible teaching unions) but a less than compellingly important one compared to the things which drive me more.
The nuances of focus here are interesting, but I have to get to bed, so I’ll explore them another time.
Bernard – you must be high to be goin’ to bed at 6:18!! what’re you smokin?
I’m smoking something which makes me believe i’m British. As an unfortunate side effect, it feels like the clocks have been set 5 hours ahead.
Funny the drugs you can get these days, eh?
I know I’m late to the comments, but here goes. There actually was a study involving marijuana influence and the performance of pilots on flight simulators (no real airplanes involved as far as I know). The study found “significant” impairment as far as 48 hours after use, though I don’t know how they quantified “significant.” Marijuana does seriously affect depth perception, and driving (as well as flying) seems to require depth perception. Of course, any DUI law that does not require an impairment, independent of a substance in one’s blood, has already been held to be a violation of the Constitution. So relax, Radley. If you run afoul of this law, just appeal, and you will win and get the law overturned(unless you’re so bombed out you can’t pass a field sobriety test).