by Crane-Station
The current war-on-drugs strategy appears to be to target everyone, even the innocent. The weapon of choice is on-the-spot drug testing of saliva to determine the presence of anything. This technology is being sprung onto the public ahead of any validation studies that connect a positive screening test in the field to actual impairment. Even though the saliva test is nowhere near acceptance in the scientific community, that has not stopped its premature use. House Bill 5385 in Michigan, for example, was set to force people to have this test, and this test exclusively, on demand.
On Thursday, state Rep. Mike Callton (R.MI) announced that the saliva test amendment would be dropped from the legislation based on the inaccuracy of the test.
Michigan HB 5385 said that if an officer thinks that a driver just might have any amount of drugs or alcohol on board, the person would be forced to submit to a mandatory roadside screen of saliva. Furthermore, if a person were to decline and opt for more rigorous screening and/or confirmatory testing of blood, that would count for a refusal, which could be used against the person in court. In other words, a person would be penalized for insisting on a more accurate test.
A person who was operating a commercial motor vehicle and who is requested to submit to a preliminary chemical breath 22 analysis under this section shall be advised that refusing a peace officer’s request to take a test described in this section is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both, and will result in the
issuance of a 24-hour out-of-service order.
Drug testing ordinarily follows a two-pronged approach: a screen, and then a confirmation. Drug screening of body fluid is achieved by Enzyme Immunoassay (EIA)/Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA), followed by confirmation, if the initial screen is positive. Confirmation takes longer and utilizes gas or liquid chromatography (typically), ie: GC/MS or LC/MS/MS, but it is more accurate. For the body fluids urine and blood, there are limits of detection for each specified substance, and these are listed in each manufacturer’s package insert. The package insert also has instructions for use, and it is FDA-regulated.
As the drug testing industry expands and takes on a life of its own that has little to do reality, the limits of detection are an issue. The saliva tests mentioned in the Michigan Bill are not FDA approved, nor are there any clear methods or limits of detection anywhere, not to mention any connection to actual driving impairment. There are no uniform guidelines for calibration, or specimen handling, and no algorithms exist. Indeed, the pseudo-scientific forensics community speaks of “predictive toxicology.”
Furthermore, on Point of Care Testing (POC), even the Department of Transportation (NHTSA) explains:
THE FUTURE IN DETECTING DRUGS IN DRIVERS
Having an immediate drug test result obtained from a POCT-type test would permit the officer to confront the driver with the drug test result and make the DUID charge. At this time, however, only the urine based POCT technology appears to provide the accuracy and reliability required, and use of this technology is not yet widespread. With the advent of more “zero tolerance” laws, we may see the use of this technology grow. The development of sweat and oral fluid technology holds great promise for the field, but the most recent evaluations indicate that it may be a few more years before the desired sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and reliability are attained.
That a drug test isn’t exactly proven, however, hasn’t stopped the tight-knit forensics community in the past. At one point, a urine test to determine alcohol use was pimped as the gold standard. Many doctors, nurses and other professionals in supervised treatment programs as well as others who were on probation or parole supervision had to submit to this test, to determine their compliance in the supervised programs. Many people lost their licences or went to jail, for ‘non-compliance,’ based on the ‘gold standard’ urine alcohol test. People lost their jobs, ended up in family court fighting for their kids, and fought to salvage professions. The courts were sold.
But then, the test was deemed to be bogus.
SAMHSA has issued an Advisory that cautions licensure bodies, other monitoring organizations, and staff in criminal justice settings that a widely used test for alcohol consumption is “scientifically unsupportable” as the sole basis for legal or disciplinary action.
Unfortunately, that did not help some people, because the courts had decided that the test was reliable.
The urine alcohol thing was a miserable failure, but the forensics industry is pushing forward, undaunted. Now, there is a huge move afoot, essentially, to find anything in the blood, and prosecute accordingly. Namely, the various versions of synthetic cannabis are the target. The limits of detection for the various substances have not been worked out, and the protocols have not been worked out, and connection to driving impairment has not been worked out, but that’s okay because the passing public makes a pretty decent lab rat, and if any other molecules of any sort are detected along the way, those are thrown in as well.
I might mention that guilty pleas are extorted from the vast majority of people pulled over, because the cops, who frequently refer to themselves as “DRE Experts” have demonstrated competence in noting things on the citation that indicate severe, marked impairment, even if they are describing a ham sandwich. Those things are: glassy eyes, red eyes, unsteadiness, HGN, and a smell of alcohol. Faced with this sort of threatened testimony, even though it’s bogus, many people cut their losses and plead guilty rather than to fight. Plus, retaining a good lawyer is cost-prohibitive.
Now, there is a new tool. The saliva test. The marketing ploy is, “It’s just like a portable breath test.” The potential is endless, especially given that most Americans take medicine for some reason. Literally everyone can go to jail. Workers, school kids, drivers, professionals. There’s just one thing though. The saliva spot test for a given machine make and model, if positive in the field, will be sent to one lab, who will do another screening. Not a confirmation. Just a ‘confirmatory’ screen. This is actually in the product insert for one of the machines, the Dreager 5000. Whoever the lab is will potentially receive windfall profits.
CONFIRMATION ANALYSIS
Positive results can be confirmed with a
second oral fluid sample via an
independent, third-party laboratory
analysis using the gold standard method
for evidential tests. Results are available
online in a matter of days.
Also note that the product is for “law enforcement only,” and that there is little information available about the machine, because the process is “proprietary.” The lab in this instance that stands to gain a fortune by convincing the public that everyone everywhere should be subjected to this saliva screen is NMS Labs.
In the next post I will explain why it matters that that one lab stands to gain so much. Also, I will take a look at the studies, linked to this product, that somehow got it off the ground. Suffice it to say, there is not the same rigorous scrutiny involved that there would be in getting a medical device to the clinical market.
