phase_dancer
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,179
In regards to mention of legislating to allow the use of these devices for drug testing; regardless of whatever system they decide to go with, I have strong doubts about whether either technology, on its own, would stand up in court. The test will come if and when someone decides to challenge a demand for a blood/urine test should the initial test comes up positive, or if a person comes up clean with a blood test after failing a roadside swab, saliva etc test. The only legally acknowledged undisputable test for drug/ metabolites is GC/MS, of which results must be reproducible. In special circumstances, with some substances, other techniques are permitted, but only where there is substantial evidence of reliability and repeatability with the technique. This is why a positive immunoassay test in the workplace requires confirmation by GC/MS
Immunoassay tests are not without problems, just check the disclaimers from every manufacturer. It is also important to remember the difference between a breathalyzer test for alcohol, where a single oxidising agent (usually Chromium VI) oxidises alcohol and is itself reduced from the orange Cr6+, to (Chromium III), green in colour; and drug testing which looks for far lower concentrations of a wide variety of compounds. The alcohol breathalyzer system is far from fallible, but in many respects there is less consequence in the advent of a false positive, and it may be as simple as waiting 10 minutes for mouth alcohol levels to subside before being cleared with a second test.
A thing I have proven many times is that a squirt of lemon juice in water swirled in the mouth and swallowed coupled with correct breathing prior to the test can often fool the test. The dichromate breathalyzer test also indicates the presence of other things, in fact anything which can be reduced by Cr6+, so it is far from perfect.
But the biggest difference is that which has been mentioned – that drug tests indicate previous use, perhaps irrelevant to the intent of stopping those driving under the influence. However, as with alcohol, it is arguable to some that any presence of certain drug metabolites also increases risks when driving. The seemingly fair alternative of establishing base levels, is as BT explained, unlikely to receive priority due the cost of implementation. As well, there the legal ramifications of any future accidents involving drivers with serum levels of metabolites. Establishing these base levels would be a legal nightmare, especially when no other country currently recognizes minimum levels. While drugs remain illegal, aside from the crime of driving under the influence, any body levels of a drug or its metabolites (at least that which is detectable) constitutes very a convincing indication that at least 3 past offences have occurred. Procurement, personal possession and administration
But as I see it, the data from this will point to an urgent need for social focusing on what will be revealed as a far greater *problem* than has ever been acknowledged. I believe this has been at least some of the reasoning behind past decisions not to implement such testing. Once you have the numbers, as a government you are forced to attend to the problem. How this will go is anybody’s guess.
Either base levels will be established, or society will be segregated more distinctly. I’m sure there are many marijuana users who could give up for weeks and still show positive on such a test.
Personally (sorry baby-doc) I would rather drive with someone who has regularly taken pot or even a bit of coke/amp etc, than with someone who has taken benzo’s for any length of time. Just my opinion of course, but my point is that just as many OTC and prescription drugs also increase risks, so what will be the permitted baseline levels for these which will possibly also show up on roadside tests.
Either way the non-effectiveness of such tests will be well exploited. Mouth rinse products capable rendering these ineffective will find a good market, illicit or otherwise. As urine tests have shown, this is easily accomplished. Perhaps these products will work by cleaving the immuno-labeled antigens, or more likely provide a convenient mouth wash which will bind to any and all metabolite etc present in the mouth. The immuno labeling compounds will then have nothing to attach to. Or perhaps people will resort to obtaining prescriptions for a drug which conveniently masks the colour of an illicit favorite.
Immunoassay tests are not without problems, just check the disclaimers from every manufacturer. It is also important to remember the difference between a breathalyzer test for alcohol, where a single oxidising agent (usually Chromium VI) oxidises alcohol and is itself reduced from the orange Cr6+, to (Chromium III), green in colour; and drug testing which looks for far lower concentrations of a wide variety of compounds. The alcohol breathalyzer system is far from fallible, but in many respects there is less consequence in the advent of a false positive, and it may be as simple as waiting 10 minutes for mouth alcohol levels to subside before being cleared with a second test.
A thing I have proven many times is that a squirt of lemon juice in water swirled in the mouth and swallowed coupled with correct breathing prior to the test can often fool the test. The dichromate breathalyzer test also indicates the presence of other things, in fact anything which can be reduced by Cr6+, so it is far from perfect.
But the biggest difference is that which has been mentioned – that drug tests indicate previous use, perhaps irrelevant to the intent of stopping those driving under the influence. However, as with alcohol, it is arguable to some that any presence of certain drug metabolites also increases risks when driving. The seemingly fair alternative of establishing base levels, is as BT explained, unlikely to receive priority due the cost of implementation. As well, there the legal ramifications of any future accidents involving drivers with serum levels of metabolites. Establishing these base levels would be a legal nightmare, especially when no other country currently recognizes minimum levels. While drugs remain illegal, aside from the crime of driving under the influence, any body levels of a drug or its metabolites (at least that which is detectable) constitutes very a convincing indication that at least 3 past offences have occurred. Procurement, personal possession and administration
But as I see it, the data from this will point to an urgent need for social focusing on what will be revealed as a far greater *problem* than has ever been acknowledged. I believe this has been at least some of the reasoning behind past decisions not to implement such testing. Once you have the numbers, as a government you are forced to attend to the problem. How this will go is anybody’s guess.
Either base levels will be established, or society will be segregated more distinctly. I’m sure there are many marijuana users who could give up for weeks and still show positive on such a test.
Personally (sorry baby-doc) I would rather drive with someone who has regularly taken pot or even a bit of coke/amp etc, than with someone who has taken benzo’s for any length of time. Just my opinion of course, but my point is that just as many OTC and prescription drugs also increase risks, so what will be the permitted baseline levels for these which will possibly also show up on roadside tests.
Either way the non-effectiveness of such tests will be well exploited. Mouth rinse products capable rendering these ineffective will find a good market, illicit or otherwise. As urine tests have shown, this is easily accomplished. Perhaps these products will work by cleaving the immuno-labeled antigens, or more likely provide a convenient mouth wash which will bind to any and all metabolite etc present in the mouth. The immuno labeling compounds will then have nothing to attach to. Or perhaps people will resort to obtaining prescriptions for a drug which conveniently masks the colour of an illicit favorite.
