Comments on: Narco Field Tests Fail

By: Tactical Dock Blog

Tactical Dock Blog — Sun, 03 Jul 2011 02:53:25 +0000

Narcotest Professional Kit…

[...] willfully believe these tests are iron-clad even when information shows otherwi [...]…

By: Those Miraculous Marijuana “Field Tests” | The Agitator

Those Miraculous Marijuana “Field Tests” | The Agitator — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 04:30:48 +0000

[...] also includes chocolate chip cookies; deoderant; billiards chalk; Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soap; patchouli, spearmint, and eucalyptus; and breath [...]

By: John Kelly

John Kelly — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:24:55 +0000

Rather than piss and moan, let me offer a concrete proposal to bring the Drug War to a screaming halt. HOW TO OBTAIN A PRETRIAL DISMISSAL OF MARIJUANA CHARGES OR AN ACQUITTAL OR AN EXONERATION is a book I am writing with Dr. Frederic Whitehurst for which we are seeking funding to continue as well as a publisher. It will allow anyone arrested for marijuana charges to block further prosecution or to obtain an acquittal if a case goes to to trial. It will place the law into the hands of the American people because the time is way past waiting for the U.S. government to do the right thing. If even small numbers of arrestees and prisoners begin challenging the validity and reliability of the drug tests, the government will be compelled to call a moratorium. In turn, this will provide the opportunity to transform the entire drug situation. We welcome all contacts:
kjohn39679@aol.com. The book will definitely be a best seller.

John Kelly

By: MacGregory

MacGregory — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:37:12 +0000

#18 bob42,
you left out my personal favorite: RANDOM drug tests

By: OneByTheCee

OneByTheCee — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:06:11 +0000

#13, #14 & #17:

aka DISORDERLY CONDUCT. Every officer’s bullshit fallback charge to arrest you and teach you a lesson about RESPECT.

By: Narco Field Tests Fail « Big Bear Observation Post

Narco Field Tests Fail « Big Bear Observation Post — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 03:59:07 +0000

[...] [...]

By: bob42

bob42 — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 23:44:10 +0000

Field narcotics tests, along with pre-employment drug tests are just two examples of the many legitimate money trails feeding Drug Warrior politicians who’d rather stick their heads in a hole than behave morally and discuss the downsides of current drug policies.

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 22:14:16 +0000

#13 #14 Yeah, Bambam, you’ll probably be arrested for “speaking to officers in an unreasonable tone of voice”.

By: nemo

nemo — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 20:53:01 +0000

In British Columbia, when the local goons threatened to use drug-sniffing dogs on the ferries, the local cannabists threatened to begin carrying spray bottles of bongwater and spritz here-there-and-everywhere. The local goons quickly gave up on the idea.

Dogs are anything but infallible…

By: Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy Theories — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:18:11 +0000

A few years ago the TSA took a sample of cookie crumbs from a pouch in my backpack to determine if it was drugs or not. I am surprised I didn’t get busted.

By: ktc2

ktc2 — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:17:07 +0000

BamBam,

They’ll probably arrest you on some variation of insulting/harrassing the dog, an “officer”.

By: BamBam

BamBam — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:31:45 +0000

Chance: tell your boss about fija.org. It will probably fall on deaf ears since she laughed at your comment. Maybe you can provide a few postings from Radley showing that cops, prosecutors, and judges lie and are immune to their actions, thus the system can’t be expected to breed anything BUT lies, bravado, and destruction.

Yeah, it’s just an extension of the drug sniffing dog bullshit.

Ever seen them in action? If they sniff hard, scratch, cry, bark, lick their nuts or anything else dogs do all the time for no reason then it’s a “sign” and justifies a search.

I’m waiting for the day when a drug sniffing dog is used on my or my wife’s vehicles. The dog will likely sniff hard, indicating a possible “hit”, at which point they will search despite my harsh words. They will find nothing (assuming they don’t plant anything), and I will have to call them stupid and abusive because the dog had a hit because IT SMELLED OUR DOGS IN OUR VEHICLES AND WANTED TO SNIFF BECAUSE IT’S A DOG, NOT A HUMAN, AND IS DRIVEN BY ANIMAL INSTINCTS.

By: Frank

Frank — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:18:12 +0000

The cops don’t care. Positive test justifies the door kicking and the puppycide. That’s good enough for them.

By: Red Green

Red Green — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:37:57 +0000

And ,some $hitforbrains senator in Florida wants to drugtest all the unemployed . We are pissing away our freedom one drop at a time.

By: Michael Chaney

Michael Chaney — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:33:49 +0000

I have no problem with a field test that’s not 100% accurate (none ever will be) being used to establish probable cause. It’s better than relying on the officer’s intuition or whatever other silly excuse.

But when it comes to seizing assets or jailing people, sorry, it’s gotta be a double-blind independent analysis (see if any of these samples, marked 1 through 10, is a controlled substance).

By: CHRISC

CHRISC — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 15:18:43 +0000

WTF!! So does every criminal defendant need a Miss Vito from “My Cousin Vinny”? How does this go on here? When did the need to make arrests and get convictions trump civil liberties?? What was said a long time ago – “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance”? Sticking with the movie theme, that must have been said a long time ago in a galaxy far, far….

By: Nick T

Nick T — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:54:10 +0000

Field tests are really just to establish probable cause sufficient ot make an arrest. If they are accurate 75% of the time, then they sort of do this job. The problem is when people willfully believe these tests are iron-clad even when information shows otherwise.

In other words, if police were real professionals dedicated to arresting actual, dangerous criminals rather than racking up arrest stats, and looking out for people’s civil rights… rather than racking up arrest stats, a field test with far less than 100% accuracy could be a useful tool to put some objective and permanent (for discovery purposes) basis as to why an officer made an arrest or augmented his search of a vehicle.

(Keep in mind, often times officers are allowed to testify that “from their experience” a subsatnce with XYZ physical characteristics is illegal narcotic X.)

By: ktc2

ktc2 — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:54:02 +0000

Yeah, it’s just an extension of the drug sniffing dog bullshit.

Ever seen them in action? If they sniff hard, scratch, cry, bark, lick their nuts or anything else dogs do all the time for no reason then it’s a “sign” and justifies a search.

By: David

David — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:31:22 +0000

I’m of the opinion that all of the high tech toys that police use are junk that only gets bought because the public(police included) mistakenly believes that technology is never wrong. The average person has no idea how clean everything has to be in a lab setting to get an accurate reading on a substance, let alone using some handheld device out in the field. I hate to recommend litigation, but the companies who market this stuff should be sued out of existence.

By: Marty

Marty — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:27:23 +0000

even if the tests were 100% accurate, they’d still be bullshit.