​LAPD deploys drug detection swab test

[Likely Guy]

Are the LAPD subject to the same tests before they hit the road everyday?

If not, perhaps they should provide the same good example.

[spartan max2]

Can we swab test our politicians? I would like to get a hold of whatever it is they are on when they make some of our laws

[Likely Guy]

Can we swab test our politicians? I would like to get a hold of whatever it is they are on when they make some of our laws

For a laugh, Google "Rob Ford mayor Toronto" (in case you haven't heard).

[FLOMBIE]

Not the kind described in the articles we had.

You have to send hair off to be tested for just pot.

They made it sound like a dna swab.

When ever an autopsie is done, it takes weeks to month to get a full toxicological screen.

Just like the alleged tests for swine flu, which can type dna faster than any lab, which I so don't buy, how can a test that takes a few minutes, do something other more comprehensive tests take hours to weeks...

There are many different kinds of drug tests: Saliva, urine, blood, hair, and probably a lot more. Hair drug testing is certainly not the only drug test for pot.

A DNA swab is a different procedure. The only similarity is wiping the mouth.

[FLOMBIE]

What drugs are those, specifically?

I cannot tell you all of them. I am not a doctor or a pharmacist. They should tell you about that.

[Babe Ruth]

I said certain drugs. Not all. Drugs that influence your perception, reaction time, give you a high, etc, which makes completely sense.

So then, why isn't each individual given a performance test then? Why isn't each person's ability to drive evaluated, rather than trace elements in his bloodstream?

Why isn't his sobriety and performance tested, rather than the (possibly legal) contents of his blood?

Way back in 1991 Business Week wrote about a system that did exactly that. Performance Factors Inc, with its PFI Factor 1000 machine, tests a person's performance, rather than what is in his bloodstream.

[pallidin]

Officer to myself(fictitious): What the "bleep" did you do that for?

Myself to Officer: Well, since you swabed me, I thought you would get additional results if I farted.

[pallidin]

I don't mind a "sobriety checkpoint" per se.

After all, driving is legally considered a privilege and not a "right"

OK, fine. But to demand a swab is just something I do not agree with.

[Simbi Laveau]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8zYrLJGjM4

[Kowalski]

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8zYrLJGjM4[/media]

That's really messed up. Like I said before, I can understand if the person is driving all over the road, and the cops pull him over and give him a breathalyzer and drug swab, that I agree with. But this whole checkpoint thing is wrong.

[Yamato]

I don't mind a "sobriety checkpoint" per se.

After all, driving is legally considered a privilege and not a "right"

OK, fine. But to demand a swab is just something I do not agree with.

You actually do have a right to travel unmolested in this country. It's been codified into our rule of law since the Articles of Confederation. Driving is incidental, you might be riding on a bus and you don't lose your right.

[Iron_Lotus]

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8zYrLJGjM4[/media]

drunk p.o.s got what was coming to them.

[pallidin]

You actually do have a right to travel unmolested in this country. It's been codified into our rule of law since the Articles of Confederation. Driving is incidental, you might be riding on a bus and you don't lose your right.

Unfortunately, and I do mean that, you are seriously wrong.

Driving is considered a privilege and NOT a right.

One does NOT enjoy the freedom, say, in their car, as they do in their home. Just the way it is...

[FLOMBIE]

You actually do have a right to travel unmolested in this country. It's been codified into our rule of law since the Articles of Confederation. Driving is incidental, you might be riding on a bus and you don't lose your right.

You do. But does that prevent the police from having check points? Like for checking the licence, which is mandatory for operating a vehicle, or to check if people drive under the influence, which is against the law? After all, this is for safety.

Edit: What I mean is that I am seeing this more in the line of a conductor checking your train ticket. When we travel by car, train, boat, whatever, we agree to certain regulations, which have to be enforced and should be held by us. With this "we have the right to travel unmolested" argumentation, you could even argue against stopping at a red light.

Edited January 3, 2014 by FLOMBIE

[FLOMBIE]

So then, why isn't each individual given a performance test then? Why isn't each person's ability to drive evaluated, rather than trace elements in his bloodstream?

Why isn't his sobriety and performance tested, rather than the (possibly legal) contents of his blood?

Way back in 1991 Business Week wrote about a system that did exactly that. Performance Factors Inc, with its PFI Factor 1000 machine, tests a person's performance, rather than what is in his bloodstream.

Well, the thing with laws is that they are valid for everyone. We should not lay them out individually. And with intoxicants, we have to agree on certain limits, which should be based on average tolerance level and not those of heavy users. Besides, I can tell you from personal experience that you might think you have a clear head and can drive your car properly, but actually that's not the case. It's simple: Don't drink and drive, don't do drugs and drive, and if you are under medication, ask your doctor or pharmicist if it may be influence your perception.

[Babe Ruth]

Well, the thing with laws is that they are valid for everyone. We should not lay them out individually. And with intoxicants, we have to agree on certain limits, which should be based on average tolerance level and not those of heavy users. Besides, I can tell you from personal experience that you might think you have a clear head and can drive your car properly, but actually that's not the case. It's simple: Don't drink and drive, don't do drugs and drive, and if you are under medication, ask your doctor or pharmicist if it may be influence your perception.

They put enough information on the prescription label and accompanying literature that one does not really NEED to ask the druggist.

The only laws that apply to everyone are the legitimate laws. Thus, the laws that apply to NOBODY are the illegitimate, the unconstitutional laws.

It so happens that the drug prohibition and its associated laws are illegitimate and unconstitutional.

[toast]

I can understand a breathalyzer. That detects alcohol. But this drug swab, detects things that are legal prescription medications, that many doctors prescribe. Many people take pain killers or anxiety medication as well, as smoke marijuana for medical reasons. Should these people be penalized and forced not to drive for a medical condition they can't help?

Police patrols here in Germany are equiped with drug test devices since years. In case of a driver control the officer asks the driver, based on the facts that the control was maybe caused by the drivers driving style or in case of drivers behaviour (alcohol/drugs?), the driver if he has consumed alcohol or drugs or if he is under the influence of medicals. If the officer is in doubt, an alcohol breathalyzer test will be performed and some neurologic test like an iris reaction test. If still in doubt, a drug test follows (with some pee). If positive, the driver is forbidden to drive and a blood sample will be taken (by a doctor or in a clinic nearby) for analysis. The results of this analysis, and not from the test devices used at the controll, will be used as proof if the case will be subject to the court later on.

I say it´s a must that police patrols are able to perform drug controll tests. It does not make sense to just and only test on alcohol without a chance to get the weed and acid heads out of the public traffic. In regard to medications it´s clear and well-defined by the doctor and/or the informations on the pharmaceutical instruction leaflet if driving is allowed after the use or not.

[LEGIONS]

I can not give consent to this search without a warrant ...simple .....now you also have the right to remain silent ...exercise your rights!

[FLOMBIE]

They put enough information on the prescription label and accompanying literature that one does not really NEED to ask the druggist.

The only laws that apply to everyone are the legitimate laws. Thus, the laws that apply to NOBODY are the illegitimate, the unconstitutional laws.

It so happens that the drug prohibition and its associated laws are illegitimate and unconstitutional.

They do, but most people don't read that very carefully. A doctor always tells you how how to use a certain drugs, and if it influences your ability to operate a vehicle, he should tell you that as well. In Germany, he HAS to.

Could you tell me why this "law" (it's not a law) illegimate? They are checking if people actively break laws.

Interesting. Do you have any sources on that?

I can not give consent to this search without a warrant ...simple .....now you also have the right to remain silent ...exercise your rights!

It's not a search.

[Babe Ruth]

They do, but most people don't read that very carefully. A doctor always tells you how how to use a certain drugs, and if it influences your ability to operate a vehicle, he should tell you that as well. In Germany, he HAS to.

Could you tell me why this "law" (it's not a law) illegimate? They are checking if people actively break laws.

Interesting. Do you have any sources on that?

It's not a search.

The drug laws, those that criminalize drug use and possession, are unconstitutional because the US Constitution does not empower the federal government to tell the citizen what he may or may not ingest. The government does not have that power, so any laws it passes in that regard are a usurpation of power, and illegitimate.

The drug laws, those that criminalize drug use and possession, are unconstitutional because the US Constitution does not empower the federal government to tell the citizen what he may or may not ingest. The government does not have that power, so any laws it passes in that regard are a usurpation of power, and illegitimate.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Babe Ruth

[FLOMBIE]

For what I know is the US constitution silent on all those issues. That does not mean that it would be unconstitutional to install regulative laws, and we are talking about federal laws here.

[Babe Ruth]

For what I know is the US constitution silent on all those issues. That does not mean that it would be unconstitutional to install regulative laws, and we are talking about federal laws here.

The federal government IS empowered to regulate commerce between the states, Article I Section 8.

Legitimate and proper regulation is fine and dandy, but prohibition and criminalization IS NOT regulation.

[FLOMBIE]

The federal government IS empowered to regulate commerce between the states, Article I Section 8.

Legitimate and proper regulation is fine and dandy, but prohibition and criminalization IS NOT regulation.

Alright, but in this case we are talking about driving under the influence, which would be illegal even if drugs would be fully legalized.

[Babe Ruth]

True, dat!