Quote:

Lawmakers want possession charge for drug users

Blood or urine tests could be used to arrest offenders

By DAVID KLEPPER

The Kansas City Star

TOPEKA ? It?s against the law to carry illegal drugs in your pocket, but not in your bloodstream, and some lawmakers in Kansas want to be the first in the nation to change that.

For three years, lawmakers and law enforcement have pushed to make a positive urine or blood test for drugs equivalent to the crime of drug possession. They say it would give police another tool to arrest and prosecute drug offenders. The proposal got yet another discussion at a meeting Wednesday of the Legislature?s Special Judiciary Committee.

?If someone is caught having ingested or injected ? they can be charged with possession,? said Rep. Kathe Decker, a Clay Center Republican who advocates the ?internal possession? proposal. ?It just gives more teeth to law enforcement.?

But the idea presents a host of legal consequences and has earned the opposition of criminal defense attorneys. They worry that people who fail drug tests for employment or school athletics could wind up facing criminal drug charges.

Criminals on probation often must pass regular drug tests ? if the test carries the threat of further criminal charges, then it could violate the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, according to Sen. Phil Journey, a Haysville Republican and a criminal defense attorney.

The proposal, which would be the first of its kind in the U.S., would ?lead to more prison time and more people being prosecuted, not treated,? said Sal Intagliata of the Kansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

In order to charge someone with ?internal possession? a police officer would have to have probable cause that drugs had been consumed.

Right now, police can charge people with possessing, selling or manufacturing drugs.

Blood and urine tests are routinely used to determine whether a person is guilty of the crime of driving under the influence of drugs. But having illegal drugs in one?s system is not a crime in and of itself.

?If it?s illegal for one, why not for the other?? said Kyle Smith, deputy director of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation.

Even if the law is passed, Smith said he doubted the result would be a rash of new drug arrests. He said possession is often seen as a low-priority crime.

?Don?t assume there?s going to be thousands of cases,? he said.

Smith said the proposed law would require authorities to invest in more and better drug testing labs, as most aren?t sophisticated enough to detect small traces of drugs in urine or blood. He also said it would mean more expense for prisons if more people are arrested on drug charges.

Rep. Ann Mah, a Topeka Democrat who sits on the Special Judiciary Committee, said the state should focus its limited resources on addiction treatment programs rather than new ways of prosecuting offenders. The ?internal possession? proposal ?creates criminals out of people who just need treatment.?

---

If this passes,  I'm fucked.

Quote:

Even if the law is passed, Smith said he doubted the result would be a rash of new drug arrests. He said possession is often seen as a low-priority crime.

?Don?t assume there?s going to be thousands of cases,? he said.

---

JesusChrist said:

We should make all politicians take these drugs tests first. Then we should test their families. And make the drug tests screen for pain killers and muscle relaxants, and then see if those people have perscriptions and legitimate medical concerns. Lets see if they are fine putting their loved ones into the system.

---

moog said:

I wonder if they'll start by arresting everyone in Kansas for possession of DMT?

---

Good lord man.  People who come up with those kinds of laws need to take more drugs.

And then be thrown right back to the wolves who'd test them and arrest them.  That's just a shitty, shitty craptastic idea.

Two  's way down.

Quote:

You do realize that many anti-drug bills were passed under the Clinton Administation, right?

---

ToiletDuk said:

Well, it is Kansas, after all. When all you have is weed plants to talk to, pretty soon, the weed plants start talking back to you....

---

JesusChrist said:

I bet that congressmen and state reps don't have to take drug tests.

Isn't the next step just to drug test everyone and lock up everyone who is positive? OK, maybe that isn't the NEXT step, but isn't that a step in that direction?

Quote:

Even if the law is passed, Smith said he doubted the result would be a rash of new drug arrests. He said possession is often seen as a low-priority crime.

?Don?t assume there?s going to be thousands of cases,? he said.

---

This seems to signify how arbitrarily and capriciously our drug laws are enforced. Drug possession is a "low priority crime", yet black men have a much higher chance of getting hit with it. It isn't low priority to them. If they start nailing people who fail drug tests, don?t expect them to nail everyone that fails them or even to test everyone.

If they had to uniformly enforce drug laws there would be more pressure to change the system. I know a CEO?s son who got busted with a bunch of coke. He didn?t go to jail, he went to med school. In the hood things don?t work that way.

I am not saying that the people who write these laws want to keep the black man down, but in reality these laws tend to hit blacks the hardest.

We should make all politicians take these drugs tests first. Then we should test their families. And make the drug tests screen for pain killers and muscle relaxants, and then see if those people have perscriptions and legitimate medical concerns. Lets see if they are fine putting their loved ones into the system.

The whole thing is fucked.

---

Quote:

It?s against the law to carry illegal drugs in your pocket, but not in your bloodstream, and some lawmakers in Kansas want to be the first in the nation to change that.

---