Drivers may be forced to turn over saliva / LJWorld.com

Archive for Saturday, November 10, 2007

Recommended legislation would require oral-swab drug test at injury accidents

November 10, 2007

Lawmakers to consider mandatory drug test at injury accidents

State lawmakers next year may consider a new law that would require drug testing at accident scenes where there was an injury or death. Enlarge video

Bixby and Pine talk about drug testing at traffic accidents

Dennis Bixby of Tonganoxie and state Sen. Roger Pine, R-Lawrence, talk about a recommendation from House-Senate Committee on Judiciary that is aimed at increasing drug testing at traffic accidents. Bixby's 19-year-old daughter Amanda was killed in a traffic accident on Feb. 14. The driver, Ricardo Flores, was not found to be intoxicated, but Bixby says Flores should also have been tested for drug use.

Topeka — A legislative committee on Friday recommended a bill that would require drug testing using an oral swab at motor vehicle accident scenes where there was an injury or a death.

The lawmakers are reacting to several recent fatal traffic accidents in which people who caused the wrecks were not tested for drug use.

"We've heard some compelling evidence that something needs to be done," said state Rep. Mike O'Neal, R-Hutchinson.

The House-Senate Judiciary Committee said it would recommend the bill when the full Legislature comes into session in January.

The move was supported by Dennis Bixby, of Tonganoxie, whose 19-year-old daughter, Amanda, was killed in a Feb. 14 traffic wreck.

"We've got to get this thing done, and at least this way we know that we are moving forward," Bixby said after the committee vote.

In the death of Amanda Bixby, officers initially cited Ricardo Flores, of Lansing, for vehicular homicide, failure to yield and driving without a license. Flores ran a stop sign and hit Bixby's car and another vehicle on U.S. Highway 24-40 just west of Basehor.

Under current law, vehicular homicide is a Class A misdemeanor carrying a maximum sentence of one year in jail and a $2,500 fine.

But shortly afterward, Leavenworth County Attorney Frank Kohl refused to pursue vehicular homicide charges against Flores. Kohl said a 2002 Kansas Supreme Court ruling in State of Kansas v. Bala Krovvidi held that the mere fact a driver ran a red light or a stop sign did not satisfy the legal elements required for a vehicular homicide conviction.

Flores pleaded no contest to failure to yield at a stop sign, speeding and driving without a valid license. In September, Flores was ordered to pay $228 in fines and court costs and spend six months on probation.

Bixby had lobbied lawmakers to amend the vehicular homicide law so that it could be triggered if a person didn't have a driver's license. But prosecutors who testified to the committee said not having a license doesn't cause wrecks.

Committee Chairman Sen. John Vratil, R-Leawood, said changing the vehicular homicide law was probably not doable. "It's an issue the Legislature has wrestled with for decades," he said.

But O'Neal, who is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said the Legislature could adopt a law that would require drug testing by getting a saliva sample from people involved in accidents. The sample would be retrieved by a swab. He said the Legislature could restrict the requirement to accidents were someone is killed or sent to the hospital.

If an oral swab showed the presence of drugs, then probable cause could exist to get a search warrant for a blood sample, supporters of the bill said.

Under the proposal, a person could refuse to submit to the test but they would lose their driver's license for a year. That is similar to the current law on submitting to a breath test in order to determine the level of alcohol consumption.

Some lawmakers, however, said requiring a swab test was an infringement on an individual's rights of privacy.

"I don't know where we are going with this," said state Sen. Phil Journey, R-Haysville. Journey said swabs may show the presence of drugs from legal, prescription medicines.

But Sen. Roger Pine, R-Lawrence, who attended Friday's meeting with Bixby, said he thought the proposal was balanced, addressed some of the Bixby's concerns, and had a chance of being approved by the full Legislature.

"I don't think this is going to be something that is going to be easy to accomplish, but I believe it has merit and I believe there is a good possibility that it can be," Pine said.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

10 November 2007
at 8:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Ragingbear (Anonymous) says…

Not to mention that such things are riddled with false positives. Many prescription medications produce false positives. Even Tylenol can produce a false positive for meth. Have a lemon poppyseed muffin with breakfast 2 days ago? You will test positive for opiates (heroin). What about things like marijuana? How can you tell if somebody was under the influence with a swab? That stuff stays in your system for over a month. So light up at a party 3 weeks ago, another false positive.

Meanwhile, other drugs such as GHB and LSD produce NO results. So a person could be tripping out on shrooms, acid, or rufies and get by with it.

Also, these oral swabs are not currently admissible in the court system due to flaws in the way they work.
10 November 2007
at 8:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

labmonkey (Anonymous) says…

Did I miss something…or did this article fail to mention that Flores was an illegal alien??? The LJWorld showed its true colors here.

If they inact the saliva swabs, they should also check people's cell phone records to see if they were using the phone during the accident. Those things are just as deadly on the road as any drug.
10 November 2007
at 9:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

I would offer a stool sample as an alternative.
10 November 2007
at 9:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

riverat (Joe Hyde) says…

The worst part of this is that the KS Supreme Court does not consider it vehicular homicide, if you hit and kill someone after running a red light or blowing past a stop sign.

People with arrogant, aggressive personalities don't give a damn about obeying stop signs and traffic lights. And they do not require the influence of alcohol or drugs to be menaces to the public safety: they're a menace the second they get behind the wheel of a car or truck, or climb on the seat of motorcycle.

The court is wrong on this. Everybody who drives knows the traffic laws on stop signs and intersection signals; you can't get a license without answering those test questions correctly. So after getting your license, if you then go roaring down the street and run a stop sign or a red light, and that violation results in the death of someone in a collision, you damn well ought to be charged and found guilty of vehicular homicide. Cut and dried.

The effort to gain legal grounds to swab test these drivers, this is only an attempt to scapegoat more of today's anti-social behavior on the effects of drugs and alcohol. The truth is, if you just ran a stop sign and have killed somebody in a crash that your anti-social behavior caused, you are a murderer whether you're under the influence or not.
10 November 2007
at 9:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

labmonkey (Anonymous) says…

“”Did I miss something:or did this article fail to mention that Flores was an illegal alien???”

What does that have to do with driving laws, exactly?”

It has quite a bit….no visa, no green card, no driver's license, no legal right to be here…If not jailed, he and his family should have been deported.
10 November 2007
at 10:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

fraublucher (Anonymous) says…

The swab tells if you eat beans.
10 November 2007
at 10:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Will it find the beans in your ears though?

10 November 2007
at 10:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Fatty_McButterpants (Anonymous) says…

Wow, the conspiracy theorists and anti-government types are out in force today!

My question is why didn't the Leavenworth DA file a charge of negligent homicide against Flores? He could have likely made the case necessary for that charge to stick…
10 November 2007
at 10:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

fraublucher (Anonymous) says…

That is the other end of the swab. A multi-tool.
10 November 2007
at 12:56 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

If you don't kill anyone with your car then you don't have to worry about big brother getting your DNA into their data bases. Drive safe and drive sober.
10 November 2007
at 12:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…

Oh? Where did your defense of our Constitutional rights go, choke?
10 November 2007
at 1:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

Your constitutional rights? What about the rights of those who are killed by drunk drivers every year? Your rights go out the window literally when you choose to get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol and/or you do not know how to drive safely. The man already has your number it's called a social security number/birth record number/blood donor number/unemployment number/tax I.D number, and the list goes on. If you think for one minute big brother don't know who you are already then you are a fool and therefore deserve no constitutional rights. I suggest you get on a slow boat back to China.
10 November 2007
at 1:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…

The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self-incrimination limit.

You defend Phelps based on our Constitution, why not also defend our right to privacy?
10 November 2007
at 1:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…

BTW, choke - this bill has nothing to do with drunk driving. Read the article again and see if you can say something intelligent this time.
10 November 2007
at 2:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

Oh so then China you run people over without being drunk or high? When will you be recalled back to your native land?

10 November 2007
at 2:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

BTW China this article isn't about Phelps read the article again and see if YOU can say anything intelligent.
10 November 2007
at 2:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…

I forgot - you are an idiot - shouldn't have attempted a discussion with the likes of you. You can't answer my question so you resort to insults. Typical. Go back to the Phelps compound, after all they understand the Constitution.
10 November 2007
at 2:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

thebcman (Anonymous) says…

If a cop asks me for saliva, and i spit in his face, can we call it good?
10 November 2007
at 3:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…

bcman - that's funny, but might considered battery. What about it choke -know anything about battery?
10 November 2007
at 3:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

Made_in_China (Anonymous) says:

“I forgot - you are an idiot - shouldn't have attempted a discussion with the likes of you. You can't answer my question so you resort to insults. Typical. Go back to the Phelps compound, after all they understand the Constitution.”

This is exactly why I generally do not respond to you. Please stop following me I do not appriciate your contributions if indeed you can call them such. I believe it is you who insults any contributer can see this by looking at your posts on your profile.

thebcman (Anonymous) says:

“If a cop asks me for saliva, and i spit in his face, can we call it good?”

bcman you should not be so angry the police are only there to help you and keep the roads safe.
10 November 2007
at 4:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

Why arti, what a change in how you feel about the police. Just a week ago, you posted on http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/nov… “Just like when a cop gets blown away, too bad so sad.”
10 November 2007
at 4:15 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

Quite to the contrary I posted about those who choose their jobs. i.e Military and Police. No where in my comment can you quote me saying it is ok to kill officers or disrespect them. My statement about choices is based on any dangerous profession even fire fighting.
This topic is about swab testing for drugs at fatal accidents. I realize you have problems staying on topic but do try.
10 November 2007
at 4:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…

You place entirely too much importance on yourself choke - not following you in particular - just your idiotic posts. You know, like you follow Dots? If you put them out there - expect a response. You can't choose which poster responds, now can you? You have made it very clear how you feel about the police as snap points out. Now, how about talking about how the Constitution applies to the proposal by our legislature. What you are saying in your ignorance is that if an injury or a fatality occurs it is either alcohol, drugs or driving unsafely on purpose. Explain if you can.

10 November 2007
at 5:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

“You have made it very clear how you feel about the police as snap points out”

Really do show me exactly where. I want to see the quote.
Then when you are finished with that ( and only then) try real hard to address the reasons as to why there should not be swab tests done besides some lame cry about privacy. You see when one breaks the law such as driving drunk or on drugs; prescription or not that person has crossed the line and is therefore not entitled to privacy any longer because the party has now infringed on the right to privacy of another much in the same way a thief does when they kick your door in to rob your home.
Free Speech on the other hand is a right whereby invading another is a bit on the gray side in that the 1st Amendment protects everyone's right to speak in spite of another's digruntled response. Funny how the forefathers included that in the amendment knowing about people and their nature. Thye irony as it relates to you makes it real funny.
10 November 2007
at 5:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…

“Just like when a cop gets blown away, too bad so sad.” Here is YOUR statement.
Now, read Dots post on this thread. She says it much more eloquently than I have. Your argument is lame, as is your argument that the latest Phelps case is a Free Speech case. It is not.
10 November 2007
at 6:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

That quote proves nothing it simply supports what I said about choosing careers. Why on earth would I care to read anything Dotlines says when you are right here already. I can see you lack the ability to argue a point, unlees you consider circular hypocrisy to be debate. It is true you can post what you want, but you expose the cloth from which you are cut with each and every post.

Second verse same as the first:

You see when one breaks the law such as driving drunk or on drugs; prescription or not that person has crossed the line and is therefore not entitled to privacy any longer because the party has now infringed on the right to privacy of another much in the same way a thief does when they kick your door in to rob your home.
Free Speech on the other hand is a right whereby invading another is a bit on the gray side in that the 1st Amendment protects everyone's right to speak in spite of another's digruntled response. Funny how the forefathers included that in the amendment knowing about people and their nature. Thye irony as it relates to you makes it real funny.

Try real hard to respond to the above or don't bother as I am on my way out to the Lied anyway.
10 November 2007
at 6:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

happypill4014 (Anonymous) says…

This would allow the government to store peoples DNA for different databases. This is just one way they can begin to get samples from people without consent - They will not destroy them - You will be put into every database there is - The government is once again overstepping its bounds - What is next? We all need microchips to track us in case something happens? For our safety? Welcome home, Big Brother! Civil rights and liberties no more!
10 November 2007
at 9:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

Arti got caught talking out of both sides of her mouth. Too bad, so sad. ;)
10 November 2007
at 9:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

selene (Anonymous) says…

Dotslines information is incorrect.

Check out half life and side effects.

Alcohol
Toxicology Detection: Very quickly, generally within 24 hours
Psychological Effects: Poor judgment, loss of memory, decreased alertness, lack of inhibitions, and blackouts
Chronic use: Hallucinations, permanent neurological impairment due to destruction of brain cells and alteration of brain metabolism
Physical Effects: Loss of motor control and coordination, slurred speech, double vision, low blood pressure, decreased and shallow respiration, coma and death
Chronic use: a host of liver, heart, and other organ diseases; high blood pressure and possible stroke or heart attack
Withdrawal Symptoms: Tremors, sweating, loss of appetite, nausea, high blood pressure, possible hallucinations, convulsions and death. Withdrawal is life-threatening.

Amphetamines
Street Names: Bennies, black beauties, bumble bees, co-pilots, Crank, Cross tops, Crystal meth, Dexies, Footballs, Hearts, Hot Ice, Ice, L.A. glass, Meth, MDMA, Pep pills, Speed, Uppers
Toxicology Detection: 48 to 72 hours
Psychological Effects: A low dose can cause alertness, euphoria, increased motor performance and energy, as well as irritability, restlessness, and panic. High doses can cause brief psychosis, increased aggressiveness, and antisocial behaviors
Physical Effects: Body becomes ready for “fight or flight”; can cause stroke, heart attack, or kidney failure
Withdrawal Symptoms: Confusion, apathy, irritability, depression, increased appetite and need for sleep

Barbiturates
Street Names: Amytal, Downers, Nembutal, Phenobarbital, Reds, Red birds, Red devils, Seconal, Tuninal, Yellowjackets
Toxicology Detection: Slowly, about half is metabolized within 48 hours
Phenobarbital may be detected 4 weeks later
Psychological Effects: Like alcohol inebriation, but with greater euphoria and disinhibition. Higher doses can lead to memory loss, greater impairment in judgment, paranoia and suicidal ideation
Physical Effects: Sleepiness, slurred speech, decreased respiration, and can lead to death. Tolerance develops quickly, and danger of an overdose, especially when taken with another drug, is significant
Withdrawal Symptoms: Same as those of alcohol. Withdrawal is life-threatening.
10 November 2007
at 9:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

selene (Anonymous) says…

Cont.

Benzodiazepenes
Street Names: Rohypnol, Roofies, Flunitrazepam, Ruffies, Roches, R-2, Valium)
Toxicology Detection: 7 to 30 days
Psychological Effects: Aggressiveness, high energy, increased disinhibition, may be used prior to “slam dancing” or “Date Rape”
Physical Effects: Drowsiness, loss of memory, consciousness, and motor control; headaches, dizziness, and nightmares afterwards
Withdrawal Symptoms: Withdrawal is life-threatening due to risk of seizures

Cocaine
Street Names: Crack
Toxicology Detection: 48 to 72 hours
Psychological Effects: Varies with dose and tolerance, but increased energy, alertness, and euphoria, as well as irritability and insomnia. High doses can cause psychosis, paranoia, and aggressive and antisocial behavior
Physical Effects: High blood pressure and pulse, increased risk for seizures, strokes, heart attacks, and death
Withdrawal Symptoms: Intense physical cravings, irritability, depression, paranoia, and suicidal ideation, sometimes delusions and hallucinations

LSD
Street Names: Acid, Bartman, Bart Simpson, microdots, gelatin chips, windowpanes/blotter, paper/blotter
Toxicology Detection: 30 hours
Psychological Effects: Hallucinations, distortion of time and space, good trips with pleasant affect, bad trips with paranoia, panic, and agitation
Physical Effects: Subtle changes in body temperature, blood pressure, and pulse, as well as sweating, chills, headache, and nausea
Withdrawal Symptoms: None
10 November 2007
at 9:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

selene (Anonymous) says…

cont.

Marijuana
Street Names: Hash Oil, Pot, Refer, Weed
Toxicology Detection: Occasional use, 1-3 days: Weekly use, persistently positive test: Heavy use, even 1 month after cessation
Psychological Effects: Mild euphoria and relaxation, impaired motor control and memory, sometimes panic and paranoia. Chronic use may lead to apathy, poor judgment, decreased personal hygiene, and some lasting short-term memory impairments
Physical Effects: Higher blood pressure and pulse, increased appetite (munchies), dry (cotton) mouth, dizziness and nausea. Males have low sperm counts, females have irregular menstrual cycles
Withdrawal Symptoms: Insomnia, loss of appetite and weight, irritability, and rebound in REM sleep

Opiates
Street Names: Codeine, China White, Ddarvon, Darvocet, Demerol, dilaudid, heroin, methadone, Morphine, Percocet, Percodan, Talwin, Vicodin
Toxicology Detection: Sometimes 2 to 4 days
Psychological Effects: Pain relief, sleepiness, euphoria (on the “nod”)
Physical Effects: Decreased respiration and motor control, nausea. China White is especially potent
Withdrawal Symptoms: 1 to 3 weeks, physical craving, anxiety, loss of appetite and weight, fatigue, nausea and diarrhea, not life-threatening

PCP
Street Names: Angel Dust, Hog, Horse tranquilizer, Killerjoints, Peace pill, Sherman Sticks/tanks
Toxicology Detection: Up to 7 days
Psychological Effects: Feelings of being disconnected from reality, visual distortions, increased strength and aggressiveness, may cause brief psychotic episode
Physical Effects: Stupor, muscle rigidity, coma, convulsions
Withdrawal Symptoms: Violence, muscle rigidity, convulsions, coma, psychosis

10 November 2007
at 9:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

selene (Anonymous) says…

Hmm wonder if those side effects could possibly effect a persons ability to operate a vehicle.

Just food for thought.
10 November 2007
at 11:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…

Well,well. Nice cut and paste arti, oops, I mean selene. Now try to PROVE the correlation between half life and physical effects.

Reasons not to use this type of swab test, you ask?

Inaccuracy of the test
presumptive screening in an uncontrolled environment
illegal search
police state mentality
Inadmissability to court
invasion of privacy

Bring out all of your identities choke - it doesn't make you an less worng about this subject.
11 November 2007
at 3:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

igby (Anonymous) says…

So, which will it be:

Lose your license for a year!

Or,

Do 38 months in jail for agg. battery or 61 months in jail for V-homocide.

I think I'll lose my license for a year.

What a flawed pice of mucked up legislation, swab to get probable cause to do a blood test.

As it now stands, they can force you to do blood and urine if the accident causes injury anyway.

These law makers do not know to laws that already on the books, what idots.

So, just say no now and lose your license for a year, buy a beater, no tag no insurance and if you get stopped jump and run like hell. Lol.
11 November 2007
at 6:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

All drug testing must be verified and follow the chain of command. Typically a 7 creatinine screening process is used leaving no doubt of error. I love that this bill will pass. It is high time people who use substances and drive are held responsible. While there are already laws on the books associted with this behavior more teeth needs to be put into it so that the roads are safe to travel on.
11 November 2007
at 9:33 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…

OMG - choke you are hilariously stupid - a 7 creatinine screening? WTH is that? Chain of command?

This isn't really about driving under the influence, this is about the invasion of our privacy. Laws are already on the books to deal with DUI - as, choke, I know you are familiar with.
11 November 2007
at 10:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

In Bizzaro-world, “chain of command” = “chain of custody”?
11 November 2007
at 10:13 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

Golly China is there something you don't know? I am shocked! Feel free to explore this concept by typing “7 creatinine screening/drug testing” into your search bar. Every Drug Treatment Facility., Hospital, Court Services Office etc. uses this method to test urine. See sometimes druggies try to hide their use with other things. while dilution is the most popular often they will drink bleach or take golden seal (ha) to mask their drug use. Through the process of 7 or 9 screens their is little doubt of confirmation related to drug use and positive results. Of course there are the fools who even in the face of these confirmed results will claim they ate poppy seed muffins or some other food item that caused the result to be positive, that is a joke in itself. That is why the swab test is an excelent idea. Hair testing is also a great idea used. In any case have some fun learning today and I will try to check back later on.

http://www.mbdetox.com/product84/prod…

http://www.thedrugtest.net/adulterati…
11 November 2007
at 10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

Sorry I forgot.
The chain of command works like this:

A sample is take. The person giving the sample and the taker never allow the sample to leave their sight. A label with a code # is placed on the container itself. A identical label is place in the record book. The person giving the sample and the taker sign and date the container and the log verifying the sample is true. The container is closed and sealed with a safety strip across the lid and initialed by both parties. The sample is then bagged and labeld and signed by both parties. The bag is sealed and sent to lab where the tester logs code #'s signs and verifies that the sample has been appropriately sealed and signed. Then the 7 or 9 creatinine screen test is done on the sample with result being logged to 99.9999 accuracy.
Like I said before have some fun learning today.

11 November 2007
at 10:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

I adore you snap:)
11 November 2007
at 10:31 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

Heck, why stop at cotton swabs. Usually there are plenty of trees along roadsides where accidents occur. Just string people up on the spot.

Don't pass a retarded law because someone is grieving and their method of grieving is to retaliate against the individual they clearly blame by exacting a pound of flesh from someone else, no matter how just or unjust.

What this law represents is a larger problem of motherly laws designed to every persons demand that comes to the state capital, i.e. scruffy's law, seat belt laws, cell phone laws, baby booster seat laws, hate crime laws against blacks, hate crime laws against pregnant women, hate crime laws against gays, hate crime laws against fat people, hate crime laws against purple, blue, pink brown people and on and on and on and on and on. Sign a law that requires common sense and be done with it.

The corner these laws are painting us into is literally a minefield of strict liability laws that do not allow a prosecutor or judge to exercise any descretion. What the Bixby's are contributing to is a path to a mid-evil draconian justice system. We should not follow them down the path simply because they are grieving and we feel for them. Instead we should reject this request for what it is, a transparent attempt to exact revenge for the daughters death on countless unknown third-parties, and our justice system as a whole.
11 November 2007
at 10:41 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

So are you saying the Bixby's grief is not as important as that of the soldier's father? You cannot have it both ways. If grief is to dictate what someone can say and/or where they say it then grief should allow for further means of drug testing or any other thing that would deter the end result being death. Scruffys law is a good law as is requirements for safety belts and car seats. Just so you know the other things you listed are exercised everyday at some level in this Country even if they have not been signed into legislation.
11 November 2007
at 11:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

You are wrong dot, but every poster on this board knows you will keep posting so carry on as you will. The bill will pass and there is nothing you can say to change it.
11 November 2007
at 11:59 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

BTW dot I never said there was a chnge of custody with swab tests, but if they chose to they could do so by tagging and bagging the swab at the scene. Also I did not say that swabing after the fact would stop a death that already happened but if swabs were implemented I bet you drunk/druggies would think twice before driving. Time for China and Snap to chime in now.
11 November 2007
at 12:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…

Gladly. Choke - take your ball and go home until you are old enough or intelligent enough to play with the big kids - Dots just kicked your sorry arse. Deal with it, sweetpea.
11 November 2007
at 1:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

Not a chance China you don't run this forum. Now read the links provided and study up.
11 November 2007
at 1:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

Dot I did back it up sorry if you can't understand anything but the voices in your own head. Read the links like I said.

11 November 2007
at 1:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…

It took me 30 seconds to find, on the Internet, that your 7 creatinine test was bogus. Why would I read your links? I have all of the information I need to form my opinion of the facts presented. It took me 30 seconds of reading your posts to know that you have minimal comprehension skill and your motive is for pure argument's sake. You bore me.
11 November 2007
at 1:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

The Bill will pass and then the drunks and Druggies will be on record as such. Quite uncomfortable to you isn't it.
11 November 2007
at 2:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…

I believe that the results of a buccal swab just might be PHI covered by HIPAA.
11 November 2007
at 2:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

What's wrong dot can't you take it when someone disagrees? I also told you where to look for more information but guess you don't know where the search bar is. I notice you are batting a thopusand on other topics where I have not even posted so maybe it is you.
This bill will pas and when it does the drunks and druggies will be on the list they belong.
11 November 2007
at 2:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

I knew you would cry HIPAA eventually, try and tell the courts that.
The Bill will pass and when it does the drunks and druggies will be on the list where they belong.
11 November 2007
at 2:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…

choke - your Jerry Springer-like tactics are very weak - you are making a fool of yourself. Everyone here would gladly DEBATE the facts with you, but you have no facts, and you lack the skills of debate to make a solid statemtent of fact. Your're damned right I mentioned HIPAA - better be glad it is in place or we would all be able to access your mental health records.

Here, let me help you with your outline for your facts - what list are you talking about?
11 November 2007
at 5 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

I'm starting to think that arti is a program that wasn't given the complete instructions for writing English. Kinda like artificial dumbness.
11 November 2007
at 5:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

The bill will pass, the drunks and the druggies will be on a list just as they deserve. Does that scare you? I believe someone else said it ” the only people worried about this are those who have something to hide” What do you have to hide?

11 November 2007
at 5:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

Snap, I don't know, it seems pretty much genuine to me. Not artificial in the least.
11 November 2007
at 7:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

The bill will pass so the drunks and the druggies will be on a list just like they should be. How are you Dot?
11 November 2007
at 7:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…

She needs the last word, Dots, it 's her life. While it is quite fun tormenting her, it is getting boring. This is the peril of arguing with an idiot. It is very likely that you will win, but if you do win, no one cares. You've just beaten an idiot.
11 November 2007
at 7:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…

It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it.

bbbwwwhaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaa!
11 November 2007
at 8:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

igby (Anonymous) says…

The Flaw in this law is that if the test is positive for lets say “Oxi”and the person has no Rx for “Oxi”. On the other hand a different person who has a RX in the same cirumstances test positive for “Oxi” as well. Both of these people were in an injury accident, tested, arrested and tried.

Here's the defence and the flaw in the law.

They'er both under the same influnce of the same drug, one legal and one not legal and both tested positive. The apex of the charge is agg. battery while under the influnce.
Both are guilty because having a RX is no excuse for operating under the influnce. This law won't pass for this very reason. Under the influnce is the same for both legal and non-legal users. It does not pass the comparitive law test. If passed the law discriminates people that do not have a RX, therefore the defence could argue that the person rights were violated and the probable cause for testing will not stand. If you can't smell it or see it then theres no probable cause that will not discriminate.
11 November 2007
at 8:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…

Could be, could be. Like this one?

http://www.learn2type.com/images/Tots…
11 November 2007
at 8:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

The bill will pass, the drunks and the druggies will be on a list just as they deserve. Does that scare you? I believe someone else said it ” the only people worried about this are those who have something to hide” What do you have to hide? So will China,Dot and Snap pass the test, doubtful.
11 November 2007
at 8:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Haiku_Cuckoo (Anonymous) says…

If you kill somebody while driving, your saliva should be examined. Period. The fact that people feel the need to defend drunk/stoned drivers is absolutely beyond me.

11 November 2007
at 8:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Katara (Anonymous) says…

artichokeheart says:
“The bill will pass, the drunks and the druggies will be on a list just as they deserve. Does that scare you? I believe someone else said it ” the only people worried about this are those who have something to hide” What do you have to hide? So will China,Dot and Snap pass the test, doubtful.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Typical tactics of the fascist - insinuate that you have something to hide if you don't agree with their draconian measures.
11 November 2007
at 8:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

I hear that Haiku.
11 November 2007
at 9:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

What dots said.
11 November 2007
at 9:49 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

“The bill will pass, the drunks and the druggies will be on a list just as they deserve. Does that scare you? I believe someone else said it ” the only people worried about this are those who have something to hide” What do you have to hide?
11 November 2007
at 9:50 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

The

last

word

.
11 November 2007
at 9:59 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

chronic drug users should lose their right to drive.
11 November 2007
at 10:06 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Katara (Anonymous) says…

its_getting_warmer says:
i.e. this new swab thing is totally not needed, won't solve anything, will make some things worse.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You sum it up pretty nicely.
11 November 2007
at 10:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

oldgoof (Anonymous) says…

If you examine the people promoting “drug testing” to school districts (El Dorado, for example) you will find an industry of drug testing companies. The professionals (academics who study substance abuse) say that these policies actually make things worse, in part because of some of the reliability issues that others have mentioned previously here.

11 November 2007
at 10:46 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

What's the matter Dot you poor dear can't write it in 300 words tonight?
11 November 2007
at 11 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

The fact that the laws want to have a taste of my mouth worries me a lot.
12 November 2007
at 12:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Hoots (Anonymous) says…

Wasted is wasted whether its alcohol, pot, coke or whatever. Why should booze be the only thing that's looked at especially when it's legal in the first place. Do us all a favor and don't drive stoned. Is that too difficult? The life you save might be someone on this board or one of your kids. If you don't have anything to hide then what are you worried about people? Stay at home with your BONG…that's all we ask.
12 November 2007
at 1:51 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

badger (Anonymous) says…

Never drive stoned, never get stoned, still think this is a stupid f'in law.

Dots has it right. It won't actually prove you were driving impaired.

I'd be pretty upset on personal grounds if someone pulled out in front of me at 60 mph and died for the mistake (cause the law doesn't seem to be requiring that the accident is your fault, just that you survived it and someone else didn't).

However, I'd be extraordinarily cheesed if, on the basis of that other person's fatal mistake, I was subjected to having biological samples taken regardless of my demeanor or conduct or fault in the accident, even though it's extremely unlikely that those samples would demonstrate any sort of illicit drug use. I reject the “If you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide,” categorically and absolutely. It's precisely because I've done nothing wrong that I think my right to privacy should be protected. I'm not a criminal, and I would strongly object to the assumption that I am one.
12 November 2007
at 8:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho (Anonymous) says…

These ideas are dangerous. They make you a suspect and give the government the right to treat you as an enemy. If you believe you have a right to privacy, then you need to stand up for it, including questioning what will happen with your DNA if it is collected.
=============
In all fairness, DNA has also been used to exonerate numerous people. I wouldn't be opposed to a national database that contained the DNA information of convicted criminals.
12 November 2007
at 8:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Haiku_Cuckoo (Anonymous) says…

Thank goodness for the DNA database:

http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/0/8f9…
12 November 2007
at 8:52 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho (Anonymous) says…

What will happen to the DNA once its collected?…But will it be cataloged? Will it become part of a permanent database, housed by the FBI and the Department of Defense?
============
I would certainly hope so. I'm not for the DNA collection of everyone, only convicted felons. I have no sympathy for murderers and rapists.
12 November 2007
at 9:04 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

Chronic drug users should not drive.

12 November 2007
at 9:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

So stop eating hummus it is gross anyway.
12 November 2007
at 9:19 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

I do not drink or smoke and only use herbal remedies for illness, so no I do not choose to revise.
12 November 2007
at 9:34 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

JJE007 (Anonymous) says…

Resistance is futile.
12 November 2007
at 10:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

Dyslexia of Borg says: futility is resistant, your @ss will be laminated.
12 November 2007
at 10:23 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

I challenge you to prove that.
12 November 2007
at 10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

Once the 7 creatinine screen is done any false positives are screened out, of course you don't care about that since you are one of those who blame poppy seed muffins.
12 November 2007
at 10:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ForThePeople (Anonymous) says…

Actually Dots, arti is middle aged, and my guess is that she has you mistaken for someone else she's carrying a grudge for. I must congratulate her on her spelling though, it sure has improved with the arti identity…LOL!
12 November 2007
at 10:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

I don't know you forthepeople so it must be you who has mistaken me for someone.

12 November 2007
at 10:32 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ForThePeople (Anonymous) says…

Anonymous user

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says:

I don't know you forthepeople so it must be you who has mistaken me for someone.

No you don't…thank goodness. But you sure have shown who you are, stalking Dots all over the LJW. I would think you of all people would be against the swab test! But you are already in the system aren't you so it doesn't really matter in your case!
12 November 2007
at 10:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Gootsie (Anonymous) says…

children children.

Take a time out and read your posts. You sound so silly.
12 November 2007
at 11:20 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

a_flock_of_jayhawks (Anonymous) says…

artichoke writes,
“I believe someone else said it ” the only people worried about this are those who have something to hide” What do you have to hide?”

That's a great reason to just go through, search and trash everyone in America's personal residence, car, etc. Besides, if they didn't have anything to hide, then why would they care? Let's hope you are one of the first to be on the wrong end of a false positive in the event a law fo this nature is enacted.

I'm not nearly as educated on the topic as DotLines, etc., but I agree with the points they made. The law is a bad idea. It is designed to placate a greiving family, and that's really the wrong time and place to develop legislation. Let cooler heads prevail and hope that accurate and reasonable information finds it's way before those legislators that are considring this measure.
12 November 2007
at 11:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho (Anonymous) says…

You must now tell me how the 1 in 4 Americans who take blood pressure medicine are supposed to:

a. get to work?
b. buy groceries?
c. buy their medications?
d. get to the airport?
============
a. Get to work?
http://www.eliboat.com/wp-content/Tab…

b. Buy groceries?
http://www.makezine.com/blog/img413_1…

c. buy their medications?
http://www.makezine.com/blog/20352e50…

d. get to the airport?
http://engineering.curiouscatblog.net…
12 November 2007
at 11:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jafs (Anonymous) says…

Two issues here:

1. Are mandatory drug tests reasonable under these circumstances?

2. Are the penalties for killing someone with a car reasonable?

It seems to me that a lot of attention is being focused on the first question and not enough on the second. If the maximum sentence for vehicular homicide is 1 year and/or a $2500 fine, that's way too low, whether the driver is sober or not.
12 November 2007
at 3:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

ForThePeople (Anonymous) says:

Anonymous user

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says:

I don't know you forthepeople so it must be you who has mistaken me for someone.

No you don't:thank goodness. But you sure have shown who you are, stalking Dots all over the LJW.

It would be difficult to avoid Dot and some others who post on every topic. Like I said you are mistaken about who I am. I do not know any of you on here unless some of you are in my classes at K.U., but I do not talk about my postings in class so I doubt it. I have noticed that a couple of the people on here seem to follow me around.
12 November 2007
at 3:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ForThePeople (Anonymous) says…

arti says:
I have noticed that a couple of the people on here seem to follow me around.

And I say, honey I haven't posted here in almost a year, but do read and since you've been around you seem to be doing the stalking, um err “following” of a couple posters. Falling back into old patterns it seems. Guess you'll have to pull out a new identity, since you've been outed once again…OH and, going to KU…yeah riiiiiiiiiiight!
12 November 2007
at 3:28 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Made_in_China (Paul R. Getto) says…

Charades anyone?

12 November 2007
at 3:30 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

You are paranoid I just moved here during the summer to get settled in before fall classes started., but whatever. If you think you know me then just tell me who you are through the message system.
I do believe the swab test is a good idea and do not plan any time soon to change my mind on that.
If you want to respond to the topic fine otherwise don't bother me with whatever is going on in your paranoid head.
12 November 2007
at 3:41 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ForThePeople (Anonymous) says…

Same old drivel…just a bit better with the spelling. When will the LJW learn to block your IP? How many times have they kicked your sorry arse off here? As to the swab test, and “staying on topic” it's a darn good thing for you that it won't fly, since you've had your share of runins and are likely to continue on that path!
12 November 2007
at 7:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

My some feathers are ruffled today. Carry on silly people and keep thinking your ideas are the only ones.
This legislation will pass and it will be you that are held to the iron as a result.
12 November 2007
at 8:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

It is my considered opinion that if this legislation passes, all saliva samples should be delivered to the officer in the form of a big green lugie.
12 November 2007
at 10:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

chronic drug users should lose their right to drive.
****************************************************************************
As should dumb people. It is the pervasive presence of irrational people with a greater ratio of writing and talking than thinking or logic that convinces me a higher power watches over this country. It is proof which I simply cannot find a way to deny.
12 November 2007
at 10:34 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Katara (Anonymous) says…

DotsLines says:
Here's one way - you think an all powerful higher power would have made a mistake like artichoke? ;)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I dunno. You could always ask janeb, Selene, HelenBrown & HesterPrynne. They have an uncanny way of re-“enforcing” artichoke's arguments. ;p
13 November 2007
at 12:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

That's “3000 characters', which includes spaces, punctuation, etc.

Dots:

re: The urine sample.

I can't write that one here without getting deleted and maybe banned!
13 November 2007
at 3:10 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

janeyb (Anonymous) says…

Does the swab test solve the problem? It appears that someone in the legislature just wants to get this swab test in as law and it doesn't even relate to the Tonganoxie accident. If you drive without a license, run a stop sign or red light, kill someone, and test negitive, they still can't charge you with homicide.
Aren't there driving while impaired laws on the books, or am I wasting my time always being the designated driver? It seems the legislature should find out why law enforcement isn't enforcing the current laws and that we should look into which legislators own testing labs.

Didn't they arrest Mr. Flores immediately after the sentencing for his illegal status? I thought I read that in the LJW.

I

13 November 2007
at 7:54 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

artichokeheart (Anonymous) says…

Except that the 300 word thing was posted by I belive oldgoof. I know I laughed at it. I guess some people can't keep up since they post so much. BTW Dot you claimed you were not a Therapist on the Montgomery topic but then now claim you are a Therapist upholding the staunchest of etical standards. Which is it.
As to the swab test abd why they need or want it, I susspect the rules on chargeing will change a little when there is a fatality involved.
13 November 2007
at 8:08 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ForThePeople (Anonymous) says…

What's a matter chokey….afraid she might be one of the many you've seen? LMAO…you are so transparent!
13 November 2007
at 11:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Marion (Marion Lynn) says…

Yeah, Dots, the Loonies invoke thier “300 word” thing when they don't like what YOU are writing but fall back on the 3000 chracter limit when spewing their nonsense!
13 November 2007
at 11:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

oldgoof (Anonymous) says…

Dotslines says: “Except that the 300 word thing was posted by I belive oldgoof.”
.
I am not sure where the conversation on 300/3000 started on this thread. But I will admit to Dotty that the old goof is inclined to read short stories instead of novels, and has pointed out that her before that her posts would be better read if written with more brevity. I admit sometimes length is necessary, but Dots are consistently too long, and devoted to doing little more but being snide. I don't think I am the only person to note this.

I'm just trying to help the old gal out.
13 November 2007
at 12:05 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…

I kinda liked “300”, but thought it needed more slow-motion fighting scenes.
13 November 2007
at 2:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

oldgoof (Anonymous) says…

oldgoof agrees that Dots lengthy posts earlier in this thread were very informative. Goof thanks Dots…but only those posts. And this does not cure all, or even many, such long posts. For instance the one just posted.

I'm only pointing out to her what she already knows. 1) people post here to be heard, and 2) people are not as apt to read long messages. The practice of editing for brevity enhances the message, instead of hiding it.

Me personally, I do frequently roll by messages that are longer than a screen. Including those by Dots.
13 November 2007
at 4:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

oldgoof (Anonymous) says…

No, I don't always.
Much better.
13 November 2007
at 6:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

jonas (Anonymous) says…

oldgoof: Some of the longer posts are the ones that sometimes actually contain real thought. It can be worth it.

Either that or its cut and paste. But I think we all know the ones that just do that.

13 November 2007
at 8:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

GretchenJP (Anonymous) says…

This is fun! Where did artichokeheart, I mean livingstone, I mean artichokeheart, I mean livingstone go??