"Partem aliquam recte intelligere nemo potest, antequam totum, iterum atque iterum, periegerit."
No one can rightly understand any part until he has read the whole again and again.

Drug Testing—Is It A Scam?

Is drug testing really needed in drug prevention? What do doctors say? Does drug abuse happen in such an unexpected, random, unsystematic manner that the only way to tell it, is by drug testing? Does the DARE program work? The answers may surprise you.

First, let's look at the systemic aspects, rather than the all-too-common non-systemic approach. Let's look at the medical data.

Doing that, we find that cigarettes are the typical introductory step in alcoholism and drug abuse, as doctors know. Wherefore the drug problem exists primarily among smokers, not among nonsmokers. Police and judges see this every day. In fact, beginning in the 1830's, they were leaders in reporting this.

Verifying the cigarette-drugs link, Dr. Frank L. Wood cites a 100% factor, "there would be no marijuana addicts . . . if people did not first learn to smoke cigarettes."—Frank L. Wood, M.D., What You Should Know About Tobacco (Wichita, KS: The Wichita Publishing Co, 1944), p 143. He also reported, "all of those who became alcohol addicts, in the experience of this writer [Wood], were first tobacco addicts."

Cigarettes cause "the worst of all drug habits, the smoking of tobacco"—Herbert H. Tidswell, M.D., The Tobacco Habit: Its History and Pathology (London: J. & A. Churchill, 1912), p 69.

"When we take a thorough drug history, we are forced to admit that nicotine—not alcohol or cannabis—is the drug of entry for most young people. See Emanuel Peluso and Lucy Silvay Peluso, "The Challenge of Treating Teenagers," 9 Alcoholism & Addiction (2) 21 (December 1988). This is not new information. The tobacco-alcoholism link was reported over two centuries ago.

Commissioner of Narcotics Harry J. Anslinger and U.S. Attorney William F. Tompkins, in their book The Traffic in Narcotics (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1953), cite that "all" drug addicts are smokers, p 196.

The Surgeon General under George Washington was Dr. Benjamin Rush. Dr. Rush, who had signed the Declaration of Independence, opposed "the habitual use of tobacco, which he thought led to a desire for strong drink and was injurious both to health and morals."—Dr. Carl Binger, Revolutionary Doctor: Benjamin Rush (1746-1813) (New York: Norton, 1966) p 201. Also see Dr. Rush's 1798 writing.

The tobacco-alcoholism link is cited in the book by Meta Lander, The Tobacco Problem, 6th ed. (Boston: Lee and Shepard Pub, 1882), pp 84-87, 255, and 284-288. At 284 is the bottom line:

"it is the prevailing testimony of medical authorities that tobacco-using leads naturally to liquor-drinking, that it is the 'facilis descensus Averni.'"

P 87 says it thus: "the exceptions are very rare, when a user of tobacco in any of its forms is not ultimately led to use alcoholic liquors; and . . . the use of tobacco is the great [No. 1] cause of both moderate and excessive alcoholic drinking," quoting Dr. Cowan.

Professionals have clearly found that drug dependence does not suddenly occur overnight! A nonsmoker suddenly wants to use crack cocaine! Not so. Drug dependence develops in stages, over a period of years. People who do not use the starter drug, rarely proceed to later drugs in the sequence.

Tobacco is an addiction, not a habit, see Ronald M. Davis, M.D. (a health authority during Gov. John Engler's first term), "The Language of Nicotine Addiction: Purging the Word 'Habit' From Our Lexicon," 1 Tobacco Control 163-164 (1992), opposing the tobacco lobby/media lie that smoking is merely a habit.

"Tobacco . . . holds a special status as a ‘gateway' substance in the development of other drug dependencies not only because tobacco use reliably precedes use of illicit drugs, but also because use of tobacco is more likely to escalate to dependent pattens of use of most other dependence producing drugs. . . . These observations have led growing numbers of researchers and policy makers concerned with illicit drug use to consider the role of tobacco in programs aimed at preventing other forms of drug abuse."—Jack E. Henningfield, Richard Clayton, and William Pollin, "Involvement of Tobacco in Alcoholism and Illicit Drug Use," 85 British J of Addiction 279-292, especially p 283 (1990).

Moreover, "tobacco use is associated with the initiation of use of other addicting substances, and . . . increasing levels of tobacco use are associated with increasing levels of use of other psychoactive substances. Furthermore, factors affecting initiation, abstinence, and relapse to the use of tobacco, alcohol, and opioids are similar in nature. In addition, there are similarities in the addictive processes underlying the sue of these substances."—Jack E. Henningfield, Richard Clayton, and William Pollin, "Involvement of Tobacco in Alcoholism and Illicit Drug Use," 85 British J of Addiction 279-292, especially p 279 (1990).

"Goode demonstrated that college students who smoke were more likely to have used every kind of abusable substance, both legal and illegal, than were their nonsmoking classmaters." [Goode, E, "Cigarette smoking and drug use on a college campus," 7 Int'l J Addict 133-140 (1972).] The National Institute on Drug Abuse reports that daily use of marijuana is 20 times higher among high school seniors who smoke tobacco, and the daily use of other illicit drugs is 13 times higher among smokers." [Fishburne PM, Abelson HI, Cisin I, "National Survey on Drug Abuse: Main Findings, 1979" (1980)], cited in DiFranza, JR, Guerrera MP, "Alcoholism and Smoking," 51 Journal of Studies on Alcohol (2) 130-135 (1990).

Professionals and people who are sincere about wanting to prevent drug abuse, recognize that intervention must needs be occurring at the earliest stage -- cigarettes. (Think about it; they wouldn't be citing issues of intervention at early stages, if stages were not something that is occurring!) See, e.g.,
  • DHEW National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Research on Smoking Behavior, Research Monograph 17, Publication ADM 78-581, p vi (Dec 1977);

  • Robert DuPont, Teen Drug Use, 102 J Pediatrics 1003-1007 (June 1983);

  • Raymond Fleming, Howard Levanthal, Kathleen Glynn, and Joahn Ershler, "The Role of Cigarettes in The Initiation And Progression Of Early Substance Use," 14 Addictive Behaviors (3) 261-272 (1989); and

  • DHHS, Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: Surgeon General Report (1994). Page 10 supports law enforcement, saying, "Illegal sales of tobacco products are common."

    • Tobacco is an "extremely harmful drug."—Frank L. Wood, M.D., What You Should Know About Tobacco (Wichita, KS: The Wichita Publishing Co, 1944), p 5.

    Wherefore the non-scam approach to drug prevention is to deal with nicotine. Drug testers have an inherent conflict of interest; if they expose what they are doing as the scam it is, they become unemployed!

    These facts constitute the underlying reason explaining why, for example, the DARE program is a failure. It does not deal with tobacco (typically the starter drug), nor lead to enforcing cigarette control laws. More focus is needed on prevention. Focus on treatments distracts off prevention, tends towards a never-ending cycle of new cases arising to be "treated."

    Jim Avila, NBC News Correspondent, in "D.A.R.E. doesn't work, study finds" (18 March 1998), says "Students in program used same amount of drugs as others."

    See also a bibliography of analyses of DARE by Donald R. Lynam, Richard Milich, Rick Zimmerman, Scott P. Novak, T. K. Logan, Catherine Martin, Carl Leukefeld, and Richard Clayton (University of Kentucky), "Project DARE: No Effects at 10-Year Follow-Up," 67 Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (#4) 590-593 (August 1999). When tobacco is disregarded, failure is a "natural and probable consequence," meaning, intended so.

    Sincerely concerned people want to end the drug problem, not make money off it. They cite the role of the starter drug nicotine, specifically, the delivery agent, cigarettes, in the drug abuse process. The term that is used is "gateway drug." In other words, cigarettes serve as the starter drug delivery agent. Cigarettes deliver the drug nicotine. Children are being hooked on cigarettes at an early age.

    Cigarettes' toxic chemicals impair impulse and ethical controls, i.e., cause abulia (addiction). But there is some mythology out there among laymen as to which drug is the earliest used by children. Is it alcohol? tobacco, or marijuana? The solution is to read material that actually covers that exact point, the age of onset issue. Here is what such analyses have found: It is typical that cigarettes are the starting point. they are delivery agent for nicotine, the gateway (starter) drug for children. The average age of onset is 12. Next in sequence, alcohol follows, average age 12.6; then marijuana, average age 14.

    Remember what Dr. Woods said, "there would be no marijuana addicts . . . if people did not first learn to smoke cigarettes." And, "all of those who became alcohol addicts, in the experience of this writer [Wood], were first tobacco addicts."

    The DARE scam came about in part due to racketeering itself. The Los Angeles Police Department, itself a criminal enterprise as verified in the RAMPART situation, created DARE in 1983. LAPD's intent was to fail at drug prevention, by avoiding dealing with the starter drug tobacco, thereby as a natural and probable consequence, to promote drug abuse. (For more the RAMPART situation, and related litigation, see, e.g., Diaz v Gates et al., 420 F.3d 897, RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 10,912, 05 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7270, 2005 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9940 (CA 9, 2005).)

    The solution is prevention: Eliminate the cause; the effect disappears. "Sublatâ causa, tollitur effectus: Otez la cause, l'effet disparaît," says Hippolyte A. Depierris, M.D., Physiologie Sociale (Paris: Dentu, 1876), p 328.

    The federal government's "Drug Enforcement Administration" (DESTAPO) is a scam. Instead of doing pro-active drug prevention by focusing on the cause, the starter drug, tobacco, the DESTAPO focus is on after-the-factism, on waiting until after the drug sequence as occurred and reached some steps beyond the starter drug. Then and only then do DESTAPO agents intervene -- faking concern.

    A significant DESTAPO focus is, not prevention, but instead the "Politics of Pain," USA Today (August 2008), p 1. Result: "Millions of Americans live in chronic pain, without access to proper medications, because their doctors are too afraid of being harassed [terrorized] or even arrested by Drug Enforcement Adminstration agents to prescribe sufficient doses." "The [DESTAPO] is attempting to control drug abuse by regulating the practice of medicine, but the [DESTAPO] consists of of bureaucrats, not physicians, and its views on treating chronic pain often amount to malpactice," says attorney Sam Kazman of the "Competitive Enterprise Institute," Washington, D.c.

    "Alexander DeLuca, a board-certified specialist in addiction medicine, describes the obstacles faced by a physician trying to deliver the 'standard of care' called for by his own medical training. According to DeLuca, virtually no patient in the country today receives proper treatment for chronic pain."

    For example, "Gulf War veteran james Fernandez and his wife tell their story of how he, once a robustly healthy U.S. Marine, virtually is confined to his home because of severe, ongoing pain [torture] that has been undertreated for years."

    In essence, DESTAPO agents are terrorists and torturers, and should be criminally prosecuted accordingly, for criminal endangerment and fraud and other crimes.
    "Many Americans do love their police state" ("Unfortunately, all too many of our friends, neighbors and relations have come to relish acting like bit players in a bad Cold War film. They're more than happy to bow down to the nearest uniform so long as somebody assures them it will 'keep us safe' -- from whom, it doesn't matter, though it's certainly not from overbearing authorities.")
    The preference is for dramatic adrenalin-raising door-busting action!, not for prevention.
    "How the war on drugs works" (by Alex Jones), shows a scam aspect even though not focused on the real factor, the deliberate refusal to focus the war on drugs at tobacco, the deliberate refusal to "nip it in the bud," the deliberate refusal to do the proverbial "stitch in time that saves nine."
    This is even so, if, for example, "Marijuana: No Worse Than Alcohol?"
    See also "The War on Drugs: Causing Deforestation and Pollution." Again we see the focus off the starter drug, tobacco, onto other issues, further evidencing intent that drug use continue.

    Drug testing is wholly a scam, a typical "blame the victims" scam, to avoid dealing with the systemic aspect. Nonsmokers don't have a drug problem. Drug abuse is a problem that is essentially only among smokers. Testing nonsmokers for drug abuse is a scam! like testing whether the earth is flat. The answer is regularly "no."

    "The first step toward addiction may be as innocent as a boy's puff on a cigarette in an alleyway," said the U.S. Supreme Court in Robinson v California, 370 US 660; 82 S Ct 1417; 8 L Ed 2d 758 (1962). In fact, that is essentially the ONLY way drug use starts.

    Remember, 18 years before, in 1944, Dr. Frank L. Wood had already cited a 100% factor, "there would be no marijuana addicts . . . if people did not first learn to smoke cigarettes." And, "all of those who became alcohol addicts, in the experience of this writer [Wood], were first tobacco addicts." Everyone in the drug business knows this, the pushers, the Mafia who count on it, the police, the prosecutors, the prison guards and administrators, the legislators, governors, and judges, and the drug-testers. All of them know. And it is very lucrative for them.

    An underlying factor in drug-testing advocacy is widespread bribery reported among officials and judges. Drug testing is a scam diversionary tactic to divert laymen attention off the role of cigarettes as the gateway drug, into believing that authorities are sincerely trying to solve the drug problem, when the truth is, too many are riding it as a prime underlying factor in bribes for themselves.

    You ask, Wouldn't the obvious solution be to ban the manufacture, giveaway, and sale of cigarettes?

    Answer: Yes, you are right. In fact, our honest, educated ancestors figured that out a long time ago! In Michigan, cigarettes were banned in 1909! The law number is MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216. Details are at our website explaining that law.

    So you ask, How is it that cigarettes are being sold all over? There are two answers,

    REMEMBER THAT: bribery and racism, the prime reasons for the non-enforcement.

    Recall that ". . . the war on drugs . . . started as a war against minorities," says Kenneth Michael White, CXLVI Newsweek, p 15 (10 October 2005). It'd begun by at least the 1840's as a war against China, to force opium into China. See, e.g., George W. F. Mellen, Unconstitutionality (Boston: Saxton & Pierce, 1841), p 91, ftn 3. Thus the so-called "War on Drugs" is a failure, as it was never ended to end drugs, as it never targeted the starter drug, but minorities. See background on the "Numbers Tell of Failure in Drug War" (Sunday, 8 July 2012). And the targeting of minorities continues unabated, as that a major purpose of the so-called "War on Drugs."

    Police and prosecutors can enforce a 109 year old law against public cursing? But they don't EVER enforce the anti-cigarette law?!! And that's honest?!! No bribery involved?! Yeah, right!

    A century ago, an honest person, Carrie Nation, said the area prosecutor was taking bribes to not enforce the liquor control law. (One was removed [Foster], but sadly only one!) Be assured, the same is true today, re cigarettes. Bribery was not just a late-nineteenth century Kansas problem.

    Bribery is a TODAY problem—among prosecutors, Attorneys General, Governors, legislators, state police, sheriffs, etc. That is why they ignore the tobacco role in drugs and crime. They didn't ALL suddenly forget that role. They didn't ALL suddenly forget pertinent legal definitions, or principles and case law on murder.

    Geographers didn't all suddenly forget the earth is round!! (Even if one or two would forget, the others would remind him; that is how it works in an occupation not massively infested and tainted by bribery).

    If you disbelieve this, check, verify, ask, question, challenge.
  • First, read the cited material yourself.

  • Then contact the officials in your area, especially the ones who TALK the most on the subject! Find out what they know, do, on the subject.
    • You'll come to the same conclusion as Carrie Nation: BRIBERY. They're making money off the problem, that's why they pull their punches on it, and don't deliver the blow (eliminating cigarettes) that'd end the problem

    One individual in the area 15 years ago told me, he made half his income off tobacco-caused effects, and wherefore, he said, he'd not oppose tobacco. 'Nuff said?

    "The two co-founders of Alcoholics Anonymous (Bill Wilson and Bob Smith) both died of lung cancer at ages 75 and 71 respectively," says www.cardiovision2020.org/KickTobacco.htm. Significantly, as tobacco addicts, they omitted citing the tobacco cause and omitted citing ending tobacco as the 90% solution. Instead, they invented their own whimsical notions, their non-medical-science-based vaunted “Twelve Steps.” That was an omission surely guaranteed to fail, both for themselves and for others. And, according to Uncle John's Bathroom Reader Plunges into History, Again (2004), and its section, pages 398-400, on the founding of "Alcoholics Anonymous" and founder Bill Wilson, "My Name is Bill," there is more:

    "Bill's Other Vices

    "Though Bill Wilson's other [alleged] contributions to the understanding of alcoholism and recovery are legendary, he was not a saint. He was an unrepentant womanizer after A.A. became famous; many women were attracted to him because of his celebrity within the organization. He would troll A.A. meetings for young women and offer them private "counseling." His wife, Lois, mostly ignored his infidelities.

    "He was also blind to the ill effects that smoking had on his health - until it was too late. Near the end of his life, he was suffering from advanced emphysema. But he was so addicted to tobacco that he'd turn off the oxygen he needed to breathe so that he could have a cigarette. He died in Miami in 1971."

    [You won't find this on AA's website!]

    Drug testing is purely a scam. It is welfare (nay, BRIBERY) for drug testers. Nobody who honestly professionally analyzes the drug problem sequence is recommending across-the-board drug testing, ever has recommended it, or ever will recommend it! Doing so would be criminal fraud and UNETHICAL, as unethical as, for example, recommending repeated testing to see

  • if Texans in July are having frostbite!
  • or if the earth is flat!
  • or replacing an unbroken furnace!

    • Read the bribery site. Unbribed people don't want to make money off the drug problem. They want to END the drug problem, not make money off it. They cite the role of the starter drug nicotine, specifically, the delivery agent, cigarettes, in the drug abuse process.

    Remember the term "gateway drug," and facts, e.g., earliest age of onset, 12. Check how often your supposedly honest official uses the term!! cites the age and sequence facts. If it is "never," remind yourself of the word: BRIBERY.

    When you see people recommending (without reference to tobacco) drug testing of job or welfare applicants, tell yourself that you are seeing corruption, bribery, racism, immorality (or at best, extreme incompetence) in action. Oops, my error, the explanation can't be "incompetence," that implies they don't know the typical cigarette-alcohol-drugs sequence!! But they do know!! They see it everyday! And have, for a century!!

    When someone wants to drug-test you, a nonsmoker, be assured, a felony (fraud) is being committed in your presence, the carrying out of the pre-arranged-by-bribery activity. You may legally respond just as you would concerning any other felony being committed in your presence, and here, directly against you personnally.

    As stated above, cigarettes are illegal in Michigan, for the last 90 years! On paper, Governor John Engler and staff were supportive of cigarette control, for example, see

    Exec Order 1992-3 Pro-Law Letter # 1 Cigarette Smuggling Memo Pro-Law Letter # 2 E-Mail Overview

    But the reality is, there is no enforcement whatsoever of the law. It is much easier for politicians to pander to corrupt interests and base motives.

    Doctors have been struggling against this rampant corruption and outright lying by politicians for over a century, not just here but around the world. For example, in France in 1897,

    "The Society against the abuse of tobacco has asked the Minister of Instruction to have instruction given in lycées [schools], showing the bad effects of tobacco. The Minister [refused on the scam pretext that] the first evil to combat is alcoholism . . . ."—"The Abuse of Tobacco," 2 British Medical Journal 1611 (27 Nov 1897).
    Note the politician focus on a post-gateway matter, not the medically valid method of focusing on the gateway drug! How corrupt!

    Drug testing is a scam, in essence, it is criminal fraud, racketeering. It pretends to do a service, but one that is unneeded. Such immoral behavior is typically seen among the sleaze who, for example, swindle unsuspecting senior citizens into buying an expensive furnace that they do not need!

    Webmaster's Letter to Editor, "Loss of DARE shouldn't concern school district," Macomb Daily, 20 Feb 2002)

    The media are aiding and abetting in, accessory to, the drug testing scam, the bribery process, the racketeering. The media have a "tobacco taboo" to conceal much of the truth about tobacco. Worse, publishers take bribes (oops, they don't call their advertising revenue "bribes") to print tobacco advertising, even though they know that the "natural and probable consequence" is unlawful deaths in holocaust level numbers.

    Please join us in our letter writing campaign against the drug testing swindle. Help expose drug testers, like unnecessary furnace sellers, as the corrupt scam artists that they are. For example, whenever the drug testing issue comes up, verbally say the information you see here. Write letters to the editor saying the same.

    And let's get the 1909 cigarette ban law enforced! Our great-grandparents thought they protected us, their offspring, from this scam, back when they passed the law. They'd be horrified to see how we are being swindled by corrupt politicians and drug testers pretending that drug testing, like an unneeded furnace, has legitimacy.

    Case Law Refuting
    Constitutionality
    of Drug Testing
    Drug testing is reminiscent of law enforcers in the case of the 16th woman in Toledo, Spain. She "was accused of having worn clean underwear on a Saturday. This day being the Jewish Sabbath, it was charged that she was a secret Jew," says Daniel P. Mannix, The History of Torture (New York: Dell Pub, 1964), pages 51-52. So she was tested, tortured, with respect to the validity of the charge!
    Drug testing is reminiscent of the Galileo situation. Invent a law that says the earth is flat! Invent a law that is not consistent with scientific research. Call this "reasonable" (a word lawyers politicians use to to distinguish from "scientifically accurate"). As the facts are different than that, the arbitrary and capricious concept of testing all, vs dealing with the actual reality is unconstitutional on its face! The Galileo defense.

    Understand that to politicians, it is "reasonable" to declare the earth flat. It is just not scientifically correct. For them, calling the earth flat is "reasonable" inasmuch as in any particular place, many places on the planet, it has that appearance, and calling it flat "works." For many practical purposes, to them, "flat" is "reasonable." But recognize, that "reasonable" is incompetent and malicious, far too low a standard, allowing for what in science is in fact gross error.

    The old flat earth argument against the round earth notion is still, to the uninformed, "reasonable." The round earth argument says the earth is about 24,000 miles around at the equator. The day is 24 hours long. Wherefore the earth is spinning 1,000 mph.

    Said the political flat earth advocates in rebuttal, 'the wind from that high a speed air blast would knock us all down. We find no such wind in nature. Wherefore the round earth advocates are in error. The earth IS flat!!' That is the politician "reasonableness" argument.

    Some might say that since Galileo's time, legislators, city councils, officials have gotten more sensible. Human nature among officials has magically changed. Government officials are all now scientists, have a Sc.D. degree, and ALL without exception adhere rigorously, solely and exclusively to what is scientifically determined, and THAT ONLY.

    Oh, is that so? You believe that, see a psychiatrist right away! You need help!

    Politicians (among whom have been drunks and $200 an hour whore customers) still invent assertions!! Nothing has changed since the Galileo case. Politicians still invent things!

    Fabrications contrary to medical, engineering or scientific fact do occur, and are regularly attempted in court. So there is a long line of case law on that subject. U.S. v Amaral, 488 F2d 1148 (CA 3, 1973); Richardson v Richardson v Richardson-Merrill, Inc, 273 US App DC 32; 857 F2d 823 (1988); Christophersen v Allied-Signal Corp, 939 F2d 1106 (CA 5, 1991); Brock v Merrell J. Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 874 F2d 307 (CA 5, 1989); and eventually reaching the Supreme Court, Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc, 509 US 579; 113 S Ct. 2786; 125 L Ed 2d 469 (28 June 1993).

    On paper, in order to allow scientific evidence in support of a litigant, a judge must determine whether the evidence is genuinely scientific, as distinct from being unscientific speculation offered by a genuine scientist. Likewise, politicians must act on real science fact, not their pet myths.

    The Supreme Court in Daubert told judges to distinguish between real and courtroom science (e.g., drug-testing scam claims). The effect is to require officials in their science and medicine claims, to adhere to the same standards of intellectual rigor that are demanded in normal science and medicine professional work. Cf. 113 S Ct at 2796-97; O'Conner v Commonwealth Edison Co, 13 F3d 1090, 1106-07 (CA 7, 1994).

    If they do so adhere, their relevant claims are admissible even if the particular methods they have used in arriving at their opinion are not yet accepted as canonical in their branch of the scientific community. If they do not, their evidence is inadmissible no matter how imposing their credentials or big political titles. Regarding this test, even "an expert who supplies nothing but a bottom line supplies nothing of value to the judicial process. . . . [you] would not accept from . . . students or those who submit papers to [a professional] journal an essay containing neither facts nor reasons; why should a court rely on the sort of exposition the scholar would not tolerate in his professional life?" Mid-State Fertilizer Co v Exchange National Bank, 877 F2d 1333, 1339 (CA 7, 1989). Politicians who favor drug testing of course only supply a bottom-line, a phony one, devoid of reference to genuine medical and scientific fact. Bribed, they brazenly disregard the tobacco role.

    The Constitution requires that laws be fact-based. A non-fact-based law violates due process. Why? Due process includes the notion that, on science and engineering issues and such type issues, only facts will be presented in court, not myth, not speculation. As drug testing is a scam, an arbitrary fiction, to distract attention off the corruption and racism involved in disregarding the cigarette role in drugs, there are no studies verifying that drug testing actually solves the drug problem! In medical science fact, testing CANNOT solve it.

    Drug testing is not chosen pursuant to medical science, research, and recommendations. It is in fact, maliciously contrary to it, and an outgrowth of politicians' personal corruption, bribe-taking, malice and racism.

    The bottom line is that random drug testing disregarding the tobacco role, is a non-science based arbitrary invention and fiction, without supporting scientific or medical evidence.

    Remember, politicians (legislators and governors) are NOT scientists and engineers, are not adhering to the scientific method of truth finding, and do not make their decisions based on science and engineering. Instead, they make them on political bases and biases. Politicians do not
  • rigorously study professional journal writings,
  • pass examinations on their understanding of them,
  • nor even take professional under-oath testimony on the subject before they vote or act!

    • Such scam drug-testing is unconstitutional. Catching a drug abuser when testing nonsmokers is on the order of being struck by lighting! The drug tester is following a non-medical-science-recommended approach, hence, an unconstitutional approach

    The Legislature cannot constitutionally, for example, order testing of the flatness of the earth! Why not? Because factually (by engineering and scientific evidence), the earth is not flat. Such a "flat testing" law would not be "fact-based," therefore it is on its face unconstitutional. (Judges are inherently aware of the fact the earth is not flat!! no evidence need be presented.) A 'flat earth testing' law is unconstitutional, agreed? Fact basis is mandatory pursuant to due process requirements.

    Medical researchers have already long tested in the drug sequence process. In 1909, via the drug testing prevention act, MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, Michigan solved the post-gateway drug problem by banning the gateway drug. That was when politicians had a semblance of integrity.

    What we see now is that politicians and police corruptly, for reasons of bribery, racism, and/or malice, refuse enforcement of the gateway drug prevention act, and then in an act of further malice, to distract attention off their personal corruption, come up with the nonsense nonsmoker drug testing concept.

    As laws are unconstitutional when they are not fact based, over the years, various people have filed lawsuits on non-fact-based laws. When the government could not prove X accurate from a science, engineering, or logic point of view, the law was struck down by the courts. When laws such as purport to cover public health and safety lack rational basis, e.g., 29 CFR § 1910.1000 (a voluminous set of "speed limits" for chemicals), they are invalid, and must be stricken. Industrial Union Department v American Petroleum Institute, 448 US 607; 100 S Ct 2844; 65 L Ed 2d 1010 (1980) (a testing related criterion established without scientific basis is invalid); and Alford v City of Newport News, 220 Va 584; 260 SE2d 241 (1979) (a no smoking law that does not achieve its aim is unconstitutional).

    As drug testing does not get the 1909 law enforced, it is obvious on its face that the drug testing law is not achieving its professed goal!! What we need is bribery-testing! of the politicians and "law enforcers." Re a law that is not enforced in 90 years, no possible explanation exists but massive, pandemic bribery. (You have an alternative explanation? Let me know.)

    Alford is particularly relevant. It was a case concerning no-smoking sections. Politicians invented a fiction, here is a toxic chemicals line. On this side, test to see that it is no-smoking; on that side, it is not.

    What politicians ignored is--the scientific fact that smoke drifts. Drugs use starts with smoking, then progresses. The magic testing line | does not work.

    Even children's experiments show this basic science fact. A standard child's science experiment is to take two colored liquids, and pour them into one bowl. See how they merge!! Politicians are not even as mentally alert on science as children!! So naturally, in Alford, the court struck down the law as unconstitutional. It is sheer nonsense to say, on this side of the line / number, it is safe; on that side, it is not! There is no scientific evidence that that is so. It is pure fiction on the part of scientifically illiterate politicans, not even as well educated as children.

    In the case of Chandler v Miller, 520 US 305 (1997), the U.S. Supreme Court held a Georgia law unconstitutional that required candidates for state offices to certify that they had tested negative in a drug urinalysis. The Court said that the law, introduced to demonstrate the state's commitment to challenging drug abuse, "diminishes personal privacy for a symbol's sake," and that Georgia failed to show a special need substantial enough to override the candidates' privacy interests.

    Even with the fraud being perpetrated on the Supreme Court, cited herein, the Constitution essentially bans drug testing, is the essential meaning of another drug test case, Skinner v Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n, 489 US 602 (1989). To be constitutional, post-gateway drug testing must relate to a problem of "great human loss before any signs of impairment become noticeable to supervisors or others."

    Of course, there is no such unnoticeable thing. Smoking behavior is ultra obvious, and cannot remotely be overlooked!! So the Supreme Court criterion, sine qua non, for drug testing, does NOT exist, just as, in the Galileo case, the condition precedent, a flat earth, did not exist. We have long known how to prevent post-gateway drug abuse, eliminate the gateway drug! So in that case, the pro-drug testers committed fraud on the court, pretended there are no such "noticeable" "signs of impairment."

    Supreme Court judges, contrary to popular opinion, are typically not educated people, not even as well educated as children of a century ago, on this subject, so were so gullible as to believe that scam. And the opposing side, in this in essence collusive suit, said nothing to expose the fraud. This failure to expose the drug-war scam is evident even in the first challenge to the 'war-on-drugs' scam, the case of U.S. v Dr. Doremus, 249 Fed 958 rev 249 US 86; 39 S Ct 214 (1919) (a 5-4 vote; Brandeis, Clarke, Day, Holmes & Pitney v White, McKenna, McReynolds & Van Devanter).

    In a 1928 narcotics case, Nigro v U.S., 276 US 332; 48 S Ct 388; 72 L Ed 600 (9 April 1928), there was some minimal progress. At least the dissent said that tobacco is treated differently, but failed to develop the point.

    "The term 'narcotic' is broadly defined to encompass any substance, including . . . hallucinogens, which directly induces sleep, allays sensibility, or blunts the senses, and which, when taken in large quantities, produces narcotism or insensibility."—25 Am Jur 2d, Drugs, Narcotics, and Poisons § 2." Annot., 92 ALR3d 47 (1979)

    The bottom line is that all post-gateway drug testing is purely "symbolic," and is predicated on the corrupt refusal to eliminate the starter drug that begins the drug problem.

    Of course, failure is the result, the intended result. See, e.g., Martha Mendoza, Associated Press Writer, "U.S. war on drugs has met none of its goals" (Macomb Daily, pp 1A and 6A, 14 May 2010). None? Yeah, that's right, none! as intended.

    Examples on How to Test
    'Tobacco Program' Authenticity
    A number of programs (e.g., DARE) claim to 'educate' on tobacco.
    Here are some criteria, some points to look for, to test
    whether a program is genuinely educational or not.
    Genuine Program Fake Program
    1. Cites Full Range of Tobacco Ingredients Merely Perfunctory Data, 'It's Bad'--That's About It
    2. Cites Full Range of Tobacco Effects Limited, Cites Little But Heart or Lung Effects
    3. The Right to Pure Air, Smoke-free Air, Already Exists, Merely Needs Enforcement. No Such Right Exists; So (discouragingly) Politicians Must Be Begged to Pass a Law to Create Such a Right
    4. Provides Background Against Smoking As Known Many Centuries Purports That Discovery of the Tobacco Hazard Is 'Brand New, Still Controversial, Unproven'
    5. Provides Reading List of Centuries of Writings No Meaningful Reading List, For the Above Reason
    6. Provides Moral Background Against Tobacco Pretends The Matter Is Purely a 'Health' Issue
    7. Cites Past Solutions Such as Iowa's 1897 Law Pretends The Movement for Anti-Tobacco Laws Is New
    8. Identifies Tobacco In Addiction, Mental Disorder, and Brain Damage Terms Limited To Pretending That Tobacco Use is (Merely) A 'Habit'
    9. Tracks Tobacco Farmer History Back to Slavery Era Generally Has NO Historical Data on Tobacco Farmers, Who and What They Are
    10. Emphasizes Adult Duty To Set Right Example for Youths Ignores Adult Example, Fixates on Youth (Intending Ineffectiveness)
    11. Teaches Pertinent Legal Terminology Silent on the Issue of Legal Terminology
    12. Identifies Tobacco Pushing in Murder Terms Pretends That Tobacco Pushing Is 'Just Another Business'
    13. Cites Smokers' Rights to A Safe-Product Pretends There Is a 'Right to Smoke'
    14. Genuinely Educational, Cites Full Range of Truths and Facts A Fake Program, Surreptitiously Giving the Tobacco Lobby Side Under the Pretended Guise of Anti-Tobacco Education

    To fight this problem (scam drug testing (and the DARE scam) when it is so well-established that cigarettes are the typical starting point into the drug lifestyle), here are four sample letters.

    Sample "A" is to Governor Rick Snyder asking him to have the State Police enforce the cigarette control law. Sample "B" is to Attorney General William Schuette asking him to take "cease and desist" action to enforce cigarette control law. Each has the authority to help. As both the Governor and Attorney General are lawyers, the letters are written in "legalese."

    Sample letter "C" is to the State Police Director asking for the law to be enforced. Sample letter "D" is different, and is for you to send where the government still ignores the role of cigarettes as gateway drug delivery mechanism. It is to be sent, for example, to the President, Congress, other Governors, and state legislators.

    ***
    Sample Letter to Michigan Governor Rick Snyder
    Urging Him to Have Michigan's Cigarette Control Law Enforced
    The Letter is Short, Right to the Point,
    Says the Law Number, and Asks Him to Have It Enforced

    ***

    Honorable Rick Snyder
    Governor, State of Michigan
    P. O. Box 30013
    Lansing MI 48909-7513

    Dear Governor Snyder:

    Michigan has an excellent cigarette control law, MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216. It forbids "any person within the state" from action that "manufactures, sells or gives to anyone, any cigarette containing any ingredient deleterious to health or foreign to tobacco . . . ." Please, as a drug prevention measure, assign the Michigan State Police to enforce it, and aid county sheriffs and local police departments to do likewise.

    It is typical that cigarettes are the starting point in the drug abuse lifestyle; they are the delivery agent for nicotine, the gateway (starter) drug for children. The average age of onset is 12. Next in sequence, alcohol follows, average age 12.6; then marijuana, average age 14. See, e.g., DHEW National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Research on Smoking Behavior, Research Monograph 17, Publication ADM 78-581, p vi (Dec 1977); DuPont, Teen Drug Use, 102 J Pediatrics 1003-1007 (June 1983); Fleming, et al., Cigarettes' Role in The Initiation And Progression Of Early Substance Use, 14 Addictive Behaviors 261-272 (1989); and DHHS, Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: Surgeon General Report (1994). Page 10 supports law enforcement, saying, "Illegal sales of tobacco products are common."

    "When we take a thorough drug history, we are forced to admit that nicotine—not alcohol or cannabis—is the drug of entry for most young people. See Emanuel Peluso and Lucy Silvay Peluso, "The Challenge of Treating Teenagers," 9 Alcoholism & Addiction (2) 21 (December 1988).

    Verifying the cigarette-drugs link, Dr. Frank L. Wood cites a 100% factor, "there would be no marijuana addicts . . . if people did not first learn to smoke cigarettes."—Frank L. Wood, M.D., What You Should Know About Tobacco (Wichita, KS: The Wichita Publishing Co, 1944), p 143. He also reported, "all of those who became alcohol addicts, in the experience of this writer [Wood], were first tobacco addicts."

    All cigarettes are deleterious, their label admits they are, and most if not all are adulterated with additives. MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, avoids the error of Prohibition, and puts personal responsibility on those with most knowledge of the contraband substance (manufacturers and sellers), not on unwary consumers, often children.

    State Police enforcement action is a normal action that they do in other state-wide law violation situations. There are precedents as well. Austin v State, 101 Tenn 563; 48 SW 305; 70 Am St Rep 703 (1898) aff'd 179 US 343 (1898); Shimp v N J Bell Tele Co, 145 N J Super 516; 368 A2d 408 (1976); Commonwealth v Hughes, 468 Pa 502; 364 A2d 306 (1976); and Smith v Western Elec Co, 643 SW2d 10, 13 (Mo App, 1982).

    Drug testing is a scam, in essence, it is criminal fraud. It pretends to do a service, but one that is unneeded. Such immoral behavior is typically seen among the sleaze who, for example, swindle unsuspecting senior citizens into buying an expensive furnace that they do not need! So drug testing needs to be criminally prosecuted as fraud.

    All Michigan residents endangered by this deleterious and adulterated product, need enforcement to occur. Please assign the State Police to protect abulic smokers, children, and nonsmokers, by enforcing the cigarette control law, MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216. Please have them halt the rampant violations, and interdict deleterious and adulterated cigarettes, and arrest drug testers, like unneeded furnace sellers, for criminal fraud.
                                                                                     Respectfully,

     

    ***

    Sample Letter to Michigan Attorney General William Schuette
    Urging Him to Have Michigan's Cigarette Control Law Enforced
    The Letter is Short, Right to the Point,
    Says the Law Number, and Asks Him to Have It Enforced

    Honorable William Schuette
    Attorney General, State of Michigan
    P. O. Box 30213
    Lansing MI 48909-7513

    Dear Attorney General Schuette:

    Please, as a drug prevention measure, take "cease and desist" action to stop violations of MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216. That law forbids "any person within the state" from action that "manufactures, sells or gives to anyone, any cigarette containing any ingredient deleterious to health or foreign to tobacco . . . ."

    It is typical that cigarettes are the starting point in the drug abuse lifestyle; they are the delivery agent for nicotine, the gateway (starter) drug for children. The average age of onset is 12. Next in sequence, alcohol follows, average age 12.6; then marijuana, average age 14. See, e.g., DHEW National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Research on Smoking Behavior, Research Monograph 17, Publication ADM 78-581, p vi (Dec 1977); DuPont, Teen Drug Use, 102 J Pediatrics 1003-1007 (June 1983); Fleming, et al., Cigarettes' Role in The Initiation And Progression Of Early Substance Use, 14 Addictive Behaviors 261-272 (1989); and DHHS, Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: Surgeon General Report (1994). Page 10 supports law enforcement, saying, "Illegal sales of tobacco products are common."

    "When we take a thorough drug history, we are forced to admit that nicotine—not alcohol or cannabis—is the drug of entry for most young people. See Emanuel Peluso and Lucy Silvay Peluso, "The Challenge of Treating Teenagers," 9 Alcoholism & Addiction (2) 21 (December 1988).

    Verifying the cigarette-drugs link, Dr. Frank L. Wood cites a 100% factor, "there would be no marijuana addicts . . . if people did not first learn to smoke cigarettes."—Frank L. Wood, M.D., What You Should Know About Tobacco (Wichita, KS: The Wichita Publishing Co, 1944), p 143. He also reported, "all of those who became alcohol addicts, in the experience of this writer [Wood], were first tobacco addicts."

    All cigarettes are adulterated, their label admits they are, and most if not all are adulterated with additives. "Cease and desist" action is an action you take in other cases. There are precedents, for example, Austin v State, 101 Tenn 563; 48 SW 305; 70 Am St Rep 703 (1898) aff'd 179 US 343 (1900); Shimp v N J Bell Tele Co, 145 N J Super 516; 368 A2d 408 (1976); Commonwealth v Hughes, 468 Pa 502; 364 A2d 306 (1976); and Smith v Western Elec Co, 643 SW2d 10, 13 (Mo App, 1982).

    Drug testing is a scam, in essence, it is criminal fraud. It pretends to do a service, but one that is unneeded. Such immoral behavior is typically seen among the sleaze who, for example, swindle unsuspecting senior citizens into buying an expensive furnace that they do not need! So drug testing needs to be criminally prosecuted as fraud.

    All Michigan residents endangered by this deleterious and adulterated product, need enforcement to occur. Please take "cease and desist" action to protect abulic smokers, children, and nonsmokers, by enforcing the cigarette control law, MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216. Please take "cease and desist" action to halt the rampant violations. Also, please arrange to prosecute drug testers, like unneeded furnace sellers, for criminal fraud.

                                                                                     Respectfully,

    * * * Sample Letter C * * *

    Col. Kristie Etue, Director
    Department of State Police
    714 South Harrison Road
    East Lansing MI 48823

    Dear Col. Etue:

    This is a request that, as a drug prevention measure, you assign officers to enforce the safe cigarettes law, MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216.

    It is typical that cigarettes are the starting point in the drug abuse lifestyle; they are the delivery agent for nicotine, the gateway (starter) drug for children. The average age of onset is 12. Next in sequence, alcohol follows, average age 12.6; then marijuana, average age 14. See, e.g., DHEW National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Research on Smoking Behavior, Research Monograph 17, Publication ADM 78-581, p vi (Dec 1977); DuPont, Teen Drug Use, 102 J Pediatrics 1003-1007 (June 1983); Fleming, et al., Cigarettes' Role in The Initiation And Progression Of Early Substance Use, 14 Addictive Behaviors 261-272 (1989); and DHHS, Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: Surgeon General Report (1994). Page 10 supports law enforcement, saying, "Illegal sales of tobacco products are common."

    This is especially true in Michigan. Violations of the safe cigarettes act, MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, which bans unsafe cigarettes, are rampant.. That law forbids "any person within the state" from action that "manufactures, sells or gives to anyone, any cigarette containing any ingredient deleterious to health or foreign to tobacco . . . ." Please, as a drug prevention measure at the gateway drug stage, work with prosecutors, assign officers to enforce the law, and aid county sheriffs and local police departments to do likewise.

    "When we take a thorough drug history, we are forced to admit that nicotine—not alcohol or cannabis—is the drug of entry for most young people. See Emanuel Peluso and Lucy Silvay Peluso, "The Challenge of Treating Teenagers," 9 Alcoholism & Addiction (2) 21 (December 1988).

    Verifying the cigarette-drugs link, Dr. Frank L. Wood cites a 100% factor, "there would be no marijuana addicts . . . if people did not first learn to smoke cigarettes."—Frank L. Wood, M.D., What You Should Know About Tobacco (Wichita, KS: The Wichita Publishing Co, 1944), p 143. He also reported, "all of those who became alcohol addicts, in the experience of this writer [Wood], were first tobacco addicts."

    All cigarettes are deleterious, their label admits they are, and most if not all are adulterated with additives. MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, puts personal responsibility on those with most knowledge of the contraband substance (manufacturers and sellers), not on unwary consumers, often children.

    State Police enforcement action is a normal action that officers do in other state-wide law violation situations. There are precedents as well. Austin v State, 101 Tenn 563; 48 SW 305; 70 Am St Rep 703 (1898) aff'd 179 US 343 (1898); Shimp v N J Bell Tele Co, 145 N J Super 516; 368 A2d 408 (1976); Commonwealth v Hughes, 468 Pa 502; 364 A2d 306 (1976); and Smith v Western Elec Co, 643 SW2d 10, 13 (Mo App, 1982).

    Drug testing is a scam, in essence, it is criminal fraud. It pretends to do a service, but one that is unneeded. Such immoral behavior is typically seen among the sleaze who, for example, swindle unsuspecting senior citizens into buying an expensive furnace that they do not need! So drug testing needs to be criminally prosecuted as fraud.

    As a matter of preventing drug abuse at the gateway drug stage, the Michigan safe cigarettes law needs to be enforced. Please help. The law against this deleterious and adulterated product needs to be enforced. Please assign officers to protect abulic smokers, children, and nonsmokers, by enforcing the safe cigarettes act, MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216. Please have them halt the rampant violations, and interdict deleterious and adulterated cigarettes. Also, please arrrest drug testers, like unneeded furnace sellers, for criminal fraud.

    Respectfully,

    * * * Sample Letter D * * *

    President Barack H. Obama U.S. Senator _______ U.S. Representative __Governor ___ State Senator __State Representative __
    1600 Pennsylvania AvenueSenate Office BuildingHouse Office BuildingState CapitolState CapitolState Capitol
    Washington DC 20500Washington DC 20510Washington DC 20515City State ZipCity State ZipCity State Zip

    This is a request that you take action to get a law passed that will serve as a drug prevention law. Michigan already has such a law. It is law number MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216. It deals with the cigarette role as the gateway drug delivery mechanism.

    It is typical that cigarettes are the starting point in the drug abuse lifestyle; they are the delivery agent for nicotine, the gateway (starter) drug for children. The average age of onset is 12. Next in sequence, alcohol follows, average age 12.6; then marijuana, average age 14. See, e.g., DHEW National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), Research on Smoking Behavior, Research Monograph 17, Publication ADM 78-581, p vi (Dec 1977); DuPont, Teen Drug Use, 102 J Pediatrics 1003-1007 (June 1983); Fleming, et al., Cigarettes' Role in The Initiation And Progression Of Early Substance Use, 14 Addictive Behaviors 261-272 (1989); and DHHS, Preventing Tobacco Use Among Young People: Surgeon General Report (1994). Page 10 supports law enforcement, saying, "Illegal sales of tobacco products are common."

    "When we take a thorough drug history, we are forced to admit that nicotine—not alcohol or cannabis—is the drug of entry for most young people. See Emanuel Peluso and Lucy Silvay Peluso, "The Challenge of Treating Teenagers," 9 Alcoholism & Addiction (2) 21 (December 1988).

    Verifying the cigarette-drugs link, Dr. Frank L. Wood cites a 100% factor, "there would be no marijuana addicts . . . if people did not first learn to smoke cigarettes."—Frank L. Wood, M.D., What You Should Know About Tobacco (Wichita, KS: The Wichita Publishing Co, 1944), p 143. He also reported, "all of those who became alcohol addicts, in the experience of this writer [Wood], were first tobacco addicts."

    The Michigan safe cigarettes act, MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, bans unsafe cigarettes. Please, as a drug prevention measure, get a copy of that law, which in essence forbids "any person within the state" from action that "manufactures, sells or gives to anyone, any cigarette containing any ingredient deleterious to health or foreign to tobacco . . . ."

    All cigarettes are deleterious, their label admits they are, and most if not all are adulterated with additives. MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, puts personal responsibility on those with most knowledge of the contraband substance (manufacturers and sellers), not on unwary consumers, often children. Michigan's well-written drug prevention act deals with one of the key risk factors, unsafe cigarettes, and bans them. We need the same law for the protection and benefit of everyone. Smokers should not be discriminated against by being the only people regularly sold a deleterious product. Other deleterious products are recalled and taken off the market.

    Drug testing is a scam, in essence, it is criminal fraud. It pretends to do a service, but one that is unneeded. Such immoral behavior is typically seen among the sleaze who, for example, swindle unsuspecting senior citizens into buying an expensive furnace that they do not need! So drug testing needs to be criminally prosecuted as fraud.

    As a matter of preventing drug abuse, everyone needs you to take action to get a safe cigarettes act passed. Please take action to copy the Michigan safe cigarettes law, MCL § 750.27, MSA § 28.216, so all of us can benefit from its wise prevention-oriented approach. Include cigarettes in the controlled substances act. And hold hearings on jailing drug testers, like unneeded furnace sellers, for criminal fraud.

    Respectfully,

    ***
    Please download, format, add your name
    and return address, sign, and mail the above letters.
    The person you save may be yourself.

    If you wish, you can use different wording.
    If you have suggestions for improved wording, please let us know.

    Some people might cynically say that if you would enclose $10,000, $100,000 or more in each letter, as "campaign contributions," there'd be more chance of a favorable reaction!! But if you can't do that, the only alternative is numbers of letters. Please encourage many people to write! Sometimes numbers (other than dollars!!) can be effective!

    Text of A Letter By This Author to The Secretary of Labor Asking Her To Have A Federal Job Safety Agency (OSHA) Act Against The Gateway Drug

    Text of A Letter By This Author to The British Medical Journal On One of the Drug-Induced Symptoms (Stress Disorder) A Recent Study Found in Prostitutes

    Related Web Sites

    AIDS ALCOHOLISM ALZHEIMER'S
    BRIBERY CRIME DWB
    DIVORCE HEART DISEASE LUNG CANCER
    MENTAL DISORDER SIDS SUICIDE

    Other Pertinent Sites (By Others, Not This Author)
    Illinois Citizens for Legal Responsibility
    The ACLU Website
    The ACLU Lawsuit Against Michigan Drug Testing

    See also Ferguson v City of Charleston,
    186 F3d 469 (CA 4, SC, 13 July 1999)
    Filed in the Public Interest by the
    Center for Reproductive Law and Policy,
    New York, Challenging the Drug-Testing Scam
    The CRLP Case Analysis

    This site is sponsored as a public service by
    The Crime Prevention Group.
    If you have any questions or suggestions,
    please contact TCPG by Email .

    Copyright © 1999 Leroy J. Pletten