What’s the deal, Michigan? Why institute a completely asinine traffic law? I smell an ulterior motive, here
The spirit and letter of this law is by no means subtle as it will almost certainly precipitate breaches of privacy, costly training for those officers with the authority to administer the drug test, false imprisonment (this could become ripe if the officer forbids the driver and passengers inside the car to move around or venture outside of the automobile, for the sole reason that they were stopped for a suspicion of driving while drugged (read: this is what can lead to racial profiling, as well as general harassment – in certain places during certain times, you can be pulled over for the most arbitrary of reasons; however, this law takes the cake with respect to its arbitrary and myopic nature.
The issue of determining probable cause is one that will simply NOT work. With the exception of marijuana, most other narcotics are relatively (and extremely) difficult to affirmatively state that prior to a comprehensive urine test don’t have the large paraphernalia items (unless they are using marijuana) making it less likely that the officer can accurately determine if the driver has been using drugs, just by studying their behavior through the cop car’s window and the goings on in the potentially adverse car.
Quite frankly, many people who use drugs have learned to hide it better than a pirate who was forced to bury his treasures) is absurd by another issue but still faintly possible), extreme racial profiling, costs that have not gone unnoticed by the state’s taxpayers, a possible anti-trust issue, definite time theft cases, an newly-minted system and methodology.
Basic common sense dictates that a large overhaul of long-established rules, regulations, policies, and procedures require a lot of real-world exposure, coupled with a wholly inadequately informed public who will recoil at this new law. Deficiencies strongly attest that this law’s lack of efficacy, practically with respect to the total absence of any public outcry or even expressed desire to force the police to respond in more detail, or release a report, notwithstanding whether the evidence is damning or not. This law affects an absurdly large number of people – approximately 85% of Michigan residents drive at least fifteen miles per day [NOTE: this is a guess – find the actual percentage).
Like Big Pharma has consistently demonstrate with abandon, perhaps it’s now the Government’s time to look foolish, myopic, and foolish. If true, then who can we trust, and how is it that our country that was founded on such a progressive platform, with multiple federal entities, all of which containing the requisite checks and balances to maintain a semblance of balance.
These days it seems as though everyone who in the least bit involved in any level of our government is watched closely and scrutinized at every move (or lack thereof). Is this fair? Well, it’s certainly inevitable, due to the explosion of information that is so quickly and mutually shared over the internet. More than ever, the appearance (external and internal are important, the latter being slightly more so) of anyone in the public spotlight must be carefully coordinated and tailored to each event. It make me think of the Nixon/Kennedy debate in 1960, which was the first televised event of its kind, and Nixon was riddled with nerves, blinking excessively, etc., and is widely attributed to why he lost to Kennedy.
Yes, I am cognizant that I’ve gone a bit off topic, but my reason for doing so is that those who enact rules, regulations, laws, mandates, etc. are under constant scrutiny. I am a Georgian who has never been to Michigan, so am I really the best judge of this law. Well, I think geography doesn’t matter in issues that have reached the level of absurdity as have this one. My input is that of an objective southerner, one who brings a new perspective to the tired and antiquated political machine. The spirit and letter of this law is by no means subtle as it will almost certainly precipitate breaches of privacy, costly training for those officers with the authority to administer the drug test, false imprisonment (this could become ripe if the officer forbids the driver and passengers inside the car to move around or venture outside of the automobile, for the sole reason that they were stopped for a suspicion of driving while drugged (read: this is what can lead to racial profiling, as well as general harassment – in certain places during certain times, you can be pulled over for the most arbitrary of reasons; however, this law takes the cake with respect to its arbitrary and myopic nature.
The issue of deterring probable cause is one that will simply NOT work. With the exception of marijuana, most other narcotics are relatively (and extremely) difficult to determine prior to a comprehensive urine test don’t have the large paraphernalia items more difficult premise that an officer can accurately determine the driver has been using drugs by studying their behavior – many people who use drugs have learned to hide it better than a pirate who was forced to bury his treasures) is absurd by another issue but still faintly possible), extreme racial profiling, costs that have not gone unnoticed by the state’s taxpayers, a possible anti-trust issue, definite time theft cases, an newly-minted system and methodology.
Basic common sense dictates that a large overhaul of long-established rules, regulations, policies, and procedures require a lot of real-world exposure, coupled with a wholly inadequately informed public who will recoil at this new law. Deficiencies strongly attests this law’s lack of efficacy, practically a total absence of any public outcry or even expressed any desire be forced to how this law has been broken breached will it ever burden unnoticed non it’s: I suppose it’s now the Government’s time to look foolish, myopic, and foolish.
The only unequivocal way to allocate fault will not be realized by the proposed simple saliva-based drug screening, because it’s so contestable, subjective, and seemingly easy to fabricate the results [NOTE: I need to research this and find some authority].
As consistent as the workings of London’s “Big Ben”, good old Pharma jumps head first into the quagmire, as always seems to be the case. This author posits, with minimal skepticism, that they apparently have a kind of preternatural understanding of where trouble is, and if it’s not directly their fault, they’ll do whatever to exacerbate the problem. If one we’re to objectify Al Sharpton, he could be described using some of the words mentioned above. Now, please do not misunderstand me, I am a bit of a fan of Reverend Sharpton!
Incredibly, the law presupposes guilt over innocence, which is a blatant violation of the sixth amendment, as the purpose of a drug screening is to locate drugs in somebody’s system; should the officer administer the test, and the results are entirely clean, does it not follow that the act of administering the test can be analogized to a confession.
Look, you do not have to be a get genius to see that these MI cops want the drivers to be high, they want the drug tests to be positive for drugs. To administer the test, the officer has to use up a not-insignificant amount of time takes up all involved parties time, energy, patience, and must feel like a violation, especially for an innocent driver .Ultimately, this new law couldn’t possibly be less judicious.
___________________________
CAVEAT: THIS ARTICLE IS FAR FROM FINISHED. THE BELOW ARE TWENTY (20) ADDITIONAL POINTS AND TOPICS THAT I EITHER DIDN’T OR Insufficiently ADDRESSED:
1. What was the reason for enacting this bill? > > 2. Look up who was the biggest proponent of the law and/or who wrote the initial > > 3. Who has the final authority to issue the ticket? Does the first responding officer have sole and exclusive discretionary? Is there a particular employ or department that enforces and acts like the watch dog of the law. Is the actual urine, which is retained for only a very short time, discoverable? What if the matter is a long time away from filing its complaint with the court? Depending on the jurisdiction, your lawyer might be allowed to send.an informal letter to all opposing counsel requesting they will honor any initial spoliation issues. > > 4. How can probable cause be accomplished? What other matters could the officer potentially breach? > > 5. What drugs can be discovered by the test,? Does one company have exclusive rights to sell brand of the saliva. > > 6. How much time will it take to stop the car and determine the probable cause? What if you review the results once you get to the precinct? The results will surely be less damage as the passage of time metabolizes and excretes the substances. > > 7. Why now, Determine who gotten a ticket for this. > > 8. What court has purview over these? > > 9. Is this s traffic, small claims, or tort matter? > > 10. How can this be quantified. How can determine what kind of case it is. > > 11. Which drugs tested for and why? Which ones were especially absent? > > 12. Cost for the kits. Determine to total cost which is the sum of the average number of tickets issued, costs from me, and average cost of the kits. Who remits payment > > 13. Is this a trend or or fad > > 15. Do the cards (??) > > 16. Research the appropriate MI police department and drug test’s websites > > is the increased precaution a direct result of the Vegas (I CAN’T REMEMBER WHAT THIS MEANS OE RELATES TO THE ARTICLE) > > 18. Have suits been filed to contest this ticket? Has the number increased in the period yesterday? > > 18. Why now? > > 19. Is this how it be for a long time, > > 20. How do the resident feel about these drug tests?
