siks3 Posted June 4, 2017 Hey does anybody know the name of the chemical reagent used in those roadside drug test devices that the police are using these days. Im just really paranoid about the chemical we are all potentially being forced to ingest. The chemical reagent is on the lick test strip I have concerns this is not approved or designed for human ingestion and could be potentially harmful it could even potentially react with other medications being taken. I think we all have the right to know what we are potentially ingesting. This can't be played down it's an untested chemical. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Change Posted June 5, 2017 Unfortunately the biomolecules used in the drug swab detection kits are not visible with your eyes, so you're going to have some difficulty believing they exist in the first place. Maybe the flat earthers have a better explanation. 6 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anodyne Posted June 5, 2017 If you don't know what is on the strips, why are you claiming that it's "untested"? Either you know what they use, and know that it's untested, or you don't know what it is and therefore don't know its status - you can't have it both ways. But if you UTFSE, you will find that this is a topic that has been discussed here before, so you may find your answer here: Positive Drug Drive test may not show impairment Sure, there is some information that should be (& in this case, is) free & open to the public. Understanding of that information, however, is not guaranteed. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waterboy 2.0 Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) well thats a first...lol... oral drug swabs are not made for ingestion I really wanna see where this is going...its a protein AFAIK Edited June 5, 2017 by waterboy 2.0 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
siks3 Posted June 5, 2017 2 hours ago, Anodyne said: If you don't know what is on the strips, why are you claiming that it's "untested"? Either you know what they use, and know that it's untested, or you don't know what it is and therefore don't know its status - you can't have it both ways. But if you UTFSE, you will find that this is a topic that has been discussed here before, so you may find your answer here: Positive Drug Drive test may not show impairment Sure, there is some information that should be (& in this case, is) free & open to the public. Understanding of that information, however, is not guaranteed. Yea I browsed over that thread awile back I'll check it out again. I could have posted this there. The point I was really trying to get at is that we are ingesting this chemical so it should be fit for human consumption I am unable to find any Information that supports this. What's the ld50 on this reagent for instance. I would just like to know if this reagent is actually approved to be ingested and is safe to do so. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waterboy 2.0 Posted June 5, 2017 If you are worried about a LD50 on a drug test swab , you are overthinking it... 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yeti101 Posted June 5, 2017 Have to get one of our sciency types to explain it, but I very much doubt that the swabs (or anything like them) could be toxic unless you eat the whole thing - the only chemicals the enzymes/proteins in the swabs react to are drugs or drug metabolites. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ThunderIdeal Posted June 5, 2017 I like the thought behind this thread. Under threat of violence forcing us to not ingest this thing, or that we must ingest that thing. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Yeti101 Posted June 5, 2017 Well yes, there is that - I don't think anyone here is supporting the MDT scam though - just that the swab itself is the least of your problems. If I thought refusing to take the test on the grounds that they haven't been proven to be safe had any potential, I'd support it, but I don't think it would get widespread support. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anodyne Posted June 6, 2017 I could be wrong about this, but I thought that you could refuse a swab test... and they will just detain you and do a blood test instead. If you're really concerned about the safety of the enzymes used (which are designed to stay on the swab, otherwise the test wouldn't work, so I really doubt you are "ingesting" much, if any) you could try calling legal aid to confirm this. But I don't think you will be able to dodge being tested - they will just find some alternate way to test you, which may involve you spending a night in a cell awaiting test results (plus as many "accidental" contusions as they think they can get away with) as the cops pay you back for the inconvenience of making them find a pathologist at 1am on a Saturday. Which is, depending how big is the bee in your conspiracy bonnet on this topic, arguably not worth the fucken hassle or bruises. 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slocombe Posted June 8, 2017 My understanding is that it is an offence to refuse the swab test and that the penalty for refusing is quite significant https://www.lylawyers.com.au/what-happens-if-i-have-been-pulled-over-for-a-mdt/ 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bardo Posted June 8, 2017 On 5/06/2017 at 0:09 AM, Change said: Unfortunately the biomolecules used in the drug swab detection kits are not visible with your eyes, so you're going to have some difficulty believing they exist in the first place. Maybe the flat earthers have a better explanation. Way to be condescending, You cant see them with your naked eye but you can see biomolecules with your eyes when you use them to look with cryo-electron microscopy ya wally lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
etherealdrifter Posted June 8, 2017 if the jacks are testing for the presence of a hydrochloride or sulfate or even a citrate or something?, don't you want to neutralize that with something that would interfere with tits ph.....like a vitamin tablet with alkaline properties?...this would make it alright to ingest something a jack gave you - roight? fuck i need to read more journals and get oiff the hooter......fucken! anyway, we all can appreciate the effort the 'man' puts into making sure not to nab those nasty lawyers, barristers and anesthetists driving home from work high on morph or cok....right? I mean.....think of the children 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bardo Posted June 8, 2017 (edited) F__king with your theology like darwinism in the bible belt. Is that directed at me Change ? or am I being vain in that thought ? it is estimated that 84% of the worlds population is religious http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/dec/23/84-percent-world-population-has-faith-third-are-ch/ So I see theology as a useful activity as it helps better understand the people of the world and there views and to understand history with more clarity. I can't see how you could interfere with theology? theology is a study not a belief. If its not directed at me than whatever. Edited June 8, 2017 by bardo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anodyne Posted June 8, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Slocombe said: My understanding is that it is an offence to refuse the swab test and that the penalty for refusing is quite significant https://www.lylawyers.com.au/what-happens-if-i-have-been-pulled-over-for-a-mdt/ Yep, like I said, I am not sure that you can ask for an alternative test - get some real legal advice before trying this. I think if you were belligerent about it in any way, it would go poorly for you. But there may be a distinction here between "refusing", and just "requesting an alternative" - which I didn't make in my previous post - my apologies for the sloppy wording. It certainly IS an offense to refuse testing if you're pulled over. What I'm still unsure of though, is whether the testing method is negotiable. Depending how the actual legislation is worded, it might be possible to *politely* request that they do a blood test instead. If the law just says you need to submit to a drug test, and you are being cooperative, it would be kinda weird if they objected to your request. Given that you are obviously not trying to dodge being testing, and are actually asking for a *more* invasive, sensitive, and accurate test. Like those T-ray scanners they use at airports: you can refuse to let them scan you, but only if you let them strip-search you instead. Edited June 8, 2017 by Anodyne Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
etherealdrifter Posted June 8, 2017 btw, always dont refuse the test. just suck it up and eat a teaspoon of cement and face your fears......they will be alleviated because i don't think a magistrate has set precedent yet( i could be wrong?) in putting someone away for a term because the tests by the jacks own account are exxy and highly probable to discrepancies................utilize your right to the p[resumption of innocence unless proven otherwise.....we don't live in France ffs - there they think you are guilty until its proven thru phone book bashings that you you ARE indeed guilty. be polite and tell em the truth - that is, ie - i dont smoke or do drugs because i'm a bible abiding mormon 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freakazoid Posted June 9, 2017 On 08/06/2017 at 5:36 PM, bardo said: F__king with your theology like darwinism in the bible belt. Is that directed at me Change ? or am I being vain in that thought ? So I see theology as a useful activity as it helps better understand the people of the world and there views and to understand history with more clarity. I can't see how you could interfere with theology? theology is a study not a belief. "fuking with yer darwinism" is just Changes broadcast war cry. I don't think it's directed at you personally Bardo, but maybe I'm missing something... Could Theology be the study of belief ? Excellent discussion here, pardon my interjection. *get's coat*..... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Anodyne Posted June 9, 2017 On 08/06/2017 at 6:27 PM, etherealdrifter said: be polite and tell em the truth - that is, ie - i dont smoke or do drugs because i'm a bible abiding mormon Corb Lund gives the best advice for dealing with highway cops since Fear and Loathing... ..."round these parts that hair alone'd make probable cause..." 8 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bardo Posted June 10, 2017 On 9/06/2017 at 1:33 PM, freakazoid said: "fuking with yer darwinism" is just Changes broadcast war cry. I don't think it's directed at you personally Bardo, but maybe I'm missing something... Could Theology be the study of belief ? Excellent discussion here, pardon my interjection. *get's coat*..... Yep theology, study of the nature of god and religious belief, but theology its self is not a belief because it does not require faith or trust etc. for it to exist. I don't like the official definition of faith because I have faith but my faith is a knowing not a faith in believing and what I know can only be accessed through self and can not be defined, can not be taught, it is mine and we all have access to our faith, it is from within, the inward eye. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyAmine. Posted October 15, 2017 (edited) Im no legal eagle but from what I picked up if you have blood and cuts in your mouth (chomp), have recently consumed alcohol or have another reason for having a compromised oral membrane and/or a gag reflex issue that will prevent you scraping your tounge without vomiting you will more than likely get taken back for the drager test or a blood test. (But that is far more likely to come up positive). But, if they DO continue with saliva testing you may have a defense that the test results were not reliable. If you do get the full saliva testing make sure you get a second test done for independent testing!!!! Your demeanor, the cop and your luck on the day play a huge role in how it plays out and they are experts at tricking you into thinking you have to answer and manipulating you. But basically, no comment.. no comment.. no comment. to everything. You are a good citizen who does not use illegal substances and anything that is there is without your knowledge or consent. If you wish to plead not guilty I'd suggest that you deal with it via a submission or pretrial mediation because depending on your state/territory trying it before a mag will be FAR less likely to go in your favour. Take all of that with a grain of salt and Im not telling snyone to break the law Edited October 15, 2017 by AndyAmine. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waterboy 2.0 Posted October 15, 2017 Yep... Lol.. Name, address, D.O.BIs all you should be pushed for.... Owner of vehicle if its not registered to you. Always be polite, anything ya say is potential evidence. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites