cannabisnews.com: What's Wrong With Drug Testing 





What's Wrong With Drug Testing 
Posted by FoM on February 17, 2001 at 10:03:41 PT
By Myron Von Hollingsworth
Source: Log Cabin Democrat
Drug testing of children should be between the child and the parent -- with their own money -- without intrusion by the schools or the state. Stop asking the government to raise other people's children with my tax dollars.Dare to say know more.Dare to question the lies and the lying drug warriors.
Making people urinate on demand beginning when they are very young desensitizes them to the government's war on people's privacy, personal liberties and dignity. Hitler and his Nazi youth groups would be proud.Maybe the corrupt politicians and media are required to adhere to the party line of prohibition because law enforcement, customs, the prison and military industrial complex, the drug testing industry, the "drug treatment" industry, the INS, the CIA, the FBI, the DEA, the politicians themselves, can't live without the budget justification, not to mention the invisible profits, bribery, corruption and forfeiture that prohibition affords them.The drug war also promotes, justifies and perpetuates racist enforcement policies and is diminishing many freedoms and liberties that are supposed to be inalienable according to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.Source: Log Cabin Democrat (AR)Author: Myron Von Hollingsworth, Fort Worth, TexasPublished: February 16, 2001Address: 1058 Front Street, Conway, Arkansas 72032 Copyright: 2001 The Log Cabin Democrat Fax: 501-327-6787 Contact: dkeith thecabin.net Website: http://thecabin.net/ Feedback: http://www.thecabin.net/contact/letters.shtml CannabisNews Drug Testing Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/drug_testing.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help




Comment #10 posted by Lehder on February 18, 2001 at 09:13:02 PT
Operation Hazalah
The Hazalah partisans, more than other young people, are conscious that their elders blindly imprison themselves in the subtle and complex network that the diabolical SS weaves around them."Don't you understand what they are up to?" a partisan one day asks his father, a one-time Budapest wholesaler, who is in favor of the Jewish Council."There is no choice! The Resistance offers us no chance. And that's not the way we live."It is a conflict of ideas, but also of generations. The young don't believe in the "good SS." They despise the Jewish Council. They place all their hopes in their own plan for action. But they also know that if this plan has little chance to succeed in the face of the Nazis, it has none at all of convincing the "lukewarms" of the Jewish Council. And in addition to the anguish of an uncertain future, they feel the disappointment and sadness of being misunderstood and rejected by their elders.A situation all the more paradoxical in that, from the first days following the Nazi occupation and the start of the sinister bargaining between the Jews and the SS, the young Zionists' Hazalah plan, on one precise and surprising point, seems to give rise to a gleam of hope. Eager to take advantage of every opportunity, of the slightest imperfection in the death machine they are facing, ready to cling to any "hold" they can get their hands on, the partisans analyze the situation they now have to deal with.Soon, the idea comes to them to circulate a great number of false ID cards, as a means of creating confusion at the administrative level. The Nazis, working statistically, count on the extermination of a certain number of Jews. It is reported that in Denmark the Nazis were held in check because all the Danes declared themselves Jews. Such a movement of solidarity being inconceivable among the Hungarians, the opposite situation will be presented to them: far fewer Jews than expected.Polish and Slovakian refugees who had been caught up in concentration-camp logic and who, miraculously, escaped it were all struck by one fact: like every German system, the Nazi death machine is founded upon order and method. It is a huge structure which attacks from the outside can only scratch. Perhaps, however, is vulnerable from the inside. It is a heavy industry, a colossal mechanism without flexibility, which a defect, no matter how minor, could impede. The massive appearance of false IDs, upsetting the forecasts could spoil some the Nazis' plans....And soon, some creaking can be heard. The Hungarian gendarmerie, the Nazis' zealous servants, are thrown into confusion. They are missing Jews here and there. The Nazis become impatient - which might be interpreted as an encouraging sign.	-Gilles Lambert, Operation Hazalah The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc. 1974
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #9 posted by Lehder on February 18, 2001 at 08:33:45 PT
drug-free juries
Of course, I would like to see all jurors drug tested at the outset, prior to or during voir dire. I'll have to do more reading, but, in general, it seems that the defendant's 6th Amendment is pitted against the jurors' 5th, and in between presides the judge.Drug Warriors and Their Prey shows a long list of personal attributes and behaviors, supposedly indicative of drug use, which have been ruled valid cause for police searches at airports and other places where people are "profiled". Characteristics such as "having a dark complexion", also "having a light complexion" and other similarly all-inclusive pairs and sets of traits have been ruled valid reasons for search. I thought perhaps these rulings would allow an attorney to demand drug testing of each juror individully, as each was questioned. But, in general, it seems that the judge has the final word here. The judge's conclusions regarding juror competence based on his interview of the juror is the final word; the "scientific evidence" of urine tests is not needed. Further, I have not seen the rule explicitly, but my impression is that ( 5th Amendment ) attorneys and judges are allowed only to ask about the jurors' attitudes in order to uncover bias, and not allowed to ask about their illegal practices ("Are you on drugs?") - so this also would be inconsistent with drug testing jurors.The judge is, of course, not going to allow 'crippling the judicial system', but it would have been nice to force the only logical alternative, a ruling that a certain level of drug use is unavoidable and tolerable in the halls of justice and, therefore, in society at large. And see how this is to be reconciled with prosecuting a defendant for possession of drugs, convicting him with a jury that is on drugs.A blanket ruling, which attempted to enforce drug testing of all prospective jurors, would of course not be permitted to interfere with the goverment's relentless prosecutions. Our system would then be revised to use only professional paid jurors. Then Bennett and McCaffrey would be back in business.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #8 posted by Lehder on February 17, 2001 at 23:33:44 PT
sleepy juror smokes pot to stay awake
2. Juror dismissal. On the fifth day of trial and before deliberations, the judge informed counsel that a matter had come to his attention during recess and that he was going to inquire of one of the jurors outside the presence of the jury. In response to questions, the juror stated that he had met an acquaintance on a bus and told the acquaintance he was a juror. The juror denied having told the acquaintance that he smoked marijuana in order to stay awake during the proceedings. The judge then questioned the victim's sister. She stated that she was riding an MBTA train on the previous Friday and that she heard the juror say that he had to smoke marijuana in order to stay awake attrial. Over defense counsel's objection, the judge dismissed the juror.The defendant contends that the judge's decision to dismiss the juror requires reversal because "there was no legitimate basis for the Court's action."(5) According to the defendant, there was no showing in the record that the juror was unable to perform his duty as a juror, Commonwealth v. Connor, 392 Mass. 838, 847 (1984), and the allegation of the victim's sister was insufficient to justify the judge's decision. The defendant, noting that the juror was the only young black male on the jury,asserts that the dismissal caused a "real and unique" loss which denied the defendant his right to a jury of his choosing.   "The court shall have the discretionary authority to dismiss a juror at any time in the best interests of justice." G. L. c. 234A,  39. In making his ruling, the judge implicitly accepted the testimony of the witness and rejected the testimony of the juror, stating "what [the juror] has denied and the other [person] has testified to causes me concern." Both the Commonwealth and the defendant are entitled to a sober, conscious jury. SeeCommonwealth v. Keaton, 36 Mass. App. Ct. 81, 87 (1994) (acknowledging that right to fair trial is placed in jeopardy if juror sleeps through testimony and noting that it is incumbent on judge to ensure that all jurors hear evidence). Where a judge has seen and heard a witness, the judge determines credibility. If a judge, after evaluating credibility, believes testimony that a juror is usingdrugs during the course of a trial, the judge has discretion to remove that juror.--http://www.socialaw.com/sjcslip/7646.html
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #7 posted by Lehder on February 17, 2001 at 23:14:15 PT
unfit jurors
Despite the fact that the District Court had denied petitioners' motion for leave to interview jurors, two days after Hardy's visit Tanner's attorney arranged for Hardy to be interviewed by two private investigators. Id., at 242. The interview was transcribed, sworn to by the juror, and attached to the new trial motion. In the interview Hardy stated that he "felt like . . . the jury was on one bigparty." Id., at 209. Hardy indicated that seven of the jurors drank alcohol during the noon recess. Four jurors, including Hardy, consumed between them "a pitcher to three pitchers" of beer during various recesses. Id., at 212. Of the three other jurors who were alleged to have consumed alcohol, Hardy stated that on several occasions he observed two jurors having one or two mixed drinks during the lunch recess, and one other juror, who was also the foreperson, having a liter of wine on each of three occasions. Id., at 213-215. Juror Hardy also stated that he and three other jurors smoked marijuana quite regularly during the trial. Id., at 216-223. Moreover, Hardy stated that during the trial he observed one juror ingest cocaine five times and another [483 U.S. 107, 116]  juror ingest cocaine twoor three times. Id., at 227. One juror sold a quarter pound of marijuana to another juror during the trial, and took marijuana, cocaine, and drug paraphernalia into the courthouse. Id., at 234-235. Hardy noted that some of the jurors were falling asleep during the trial, and that one of the jurors described himself to Hardy as "flying." Id., at 229. Hardy stated that before he visited Tanner's attorney at his residence, no one had contacted him concerning the jury's conduct, and Hardy had not been offered anything in return for his statement. Id., at 232. Hardy said that he came forward "to clear my conscience" and "[b]ecause I felt . . . that the people on the jury didn't have no business being on the jury. I felt . . . that Mr. Tanner should have a better opportunity to get somebody that would review the facts right." Id., at 231-232. --http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=483&invol=107More follows, and other references can be found searching under "juror was iintoxicated". 
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #6 posted by dddd on February 17, 2001 at 14:34:15 PT
juries
You are definitely onto something there Lehder.Drug testing all jurors could have several results.It could expose the absurd concept of drug testing becauseall the potential jurors would find this invasion of privacyunacceptable,,, Or,it could also produce jurys that consist of only anti drugnatzis,and really wierd people who only do legal drugs andwould want to lock up anyone who enjoys the wonderful worldof illegal drugs,because they are jealous of people who knowhow to be happy with weed.They would think that it is no fair that they have to go to their doctor to get a presciption,then goto the pharmacy to buy the drugs.After paying off the doctor,andMerck,or Pfizer,,they are broke...."It's just not fair that we haveto pay for our drugs,and those dam pot smokers are able to growtheir own.....heck,,none of the local garden supply stores carryPaxil seeds,,,Ritalin seeds are almost impossible to find too"....dddd
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #5 posted by Dan Hillman on February 17, 2001 at 12:48:42 PT
Attorneys: did you hear Lehder?
Lehder, I love it! If drugs are really so "mind altering" as the prohibs make them out to be, then how can we be assured of a fair verdict from a potentially drugged jury, which could well be hallucinating the guilt or innocence of the defendant?I would love to hear from a defense lawyer as to why you won't be calling for jury drug tests this coming Monday morning.  That is, if you have any drug cases not already surrendered to the prosecution by copping a plea.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #4 posted by Lehder on February 17, 2001 at 12:37:01 PT
Promoting a Drug-Free America
A drug-free America begins with drug-free work places, drug-free schools and drug-free juries. A defendant has the right to a drug-free jury. It is my expectation that attorneys will use this principle to cripple the U.S. judicial system.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #3 posted by NiftySplifty on February 17, 2001 at 12:36:36 PT
Every violation of privacy should have a jingle.
"Fill it to the Rim, with the rich taste of Brim."(besides, it's fun to make them spill).Nifty...
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #2 posted by Jeaneous on February 17, 2001 at 12:15:53 PT:
Truthfull
I like this writing for it states the truths and directly addresses the direction our country is going.I do not believe that we should be mandated to pee in a cup for anyone other than our doctors. We have a right to our own private lives and we need to fight harder to have those rights re-enstated.If only more were aware of where this is heading I'm sure we would see more of an effort to eliminate this invasion of privacy. Keep spreading the word.
[ Post Comment ]


Comment #1 posted by sm247 on February 17, 2001 at 12:00:17 PT
Right to privacy
Drug testing is just bad policy.Right to privacy is very clear.
[ Post Comment ]


Post Comment


Name: Optional Password: 
E-Mail: 
Subject: 
Comment: [Please refrain from using profanity in your message]
Link URL: 
Link Title: