Law: The Invasion

The Right to Privacy is waived when one is sentenced to probation, an alternative to jail where there is no privacy, one can't deny the alternative is better, and usually a more constructive approach. The problem is that Rule 702 allows for-profit companies to sell their proclaimed "state of the art" or "spot-on accurate" devices to the court without peer review, it is these devices that they use to monitor one with. In fact, the modern marvels have no federal guidelines and in most states there is no state law delineating how the science is to be used. More often than not, when technology reaches the court questions of reliability surface, and the solution-make it legal to use the device anyway (hence Breath Test Machines). I was recently informed of another science that appears to be falling apart, and while my research is in its infancy, the little information I have found is alarming, the consequences real, and again the Bill of Rights rendered to a two-hundred year old scripture. The following post is an effort to shed some light on how the invasion is reaching, and now liscensed professionals are losing their liscense to work after signing an "abstinence contract", and falling victim to the ever so fast paced wonderful world of "Daubert" Science-

Law: Is EtG testing the Answer?

During my research for a defense against allegations from SCRAM, I stumbled across a toxicology test that would be the perfect defense. Ethyl glucuronide, also known as EtG, a metabolite that is produced during the metabolism of alcohol. The study I found was on a hair testing procedure(Dr.Groppi), and the claims of the longevity, three weeks, far exceeds the time it takes them to notify a defendant. The problems however, were that the hair test hadn't reached the U.S. and it would take a significant amount of consumption to be able to be detected in the long term, hence another defense rendered useless.
The metabolite is detected in urine and this test has been used in the States for a brief period of time. Much like any other science in its' infancy, the reliability is in question, and the cries of false-positive deafened by the propaganda that surrounds it. Claims such as:
" Other biomarkers of alcohol use can be problematic since they can be influenced by age, gender, a variety of other substances and non-alcohol-associated disease. Fermentation may lead to false positives for alcohol since glucose and yeast may be present in the urine. This is especially possible if a urine sample is stored or shipped without refrigeration in warm weather. Since EtG is only created during the metabolism of alcohol, there is no potential for a wrong result due to external contamination. (1)" have not detoured the legal or medical community from using the test, but further exposes endogenous alcohol as becoming a factor in modern scientific alcohol testing methods.
In light of recent contacts, I have found that this very test may just be vulnerable to outside influence as well. At first skeptical, then the thought of painting can create erroneous reads on a PBT, alcohol emits transdermally, we have all heard of the nicotine patch, it was definately worth researching. The contact informed me of a forum (2), supposedly created by Dr. Skipper, who brought the test to the States, and is now addressing the issues. In the forum I found the Dr. saying," People who rely blindly on lab tests are inviting disaster.",(understatement of the year) but the test was propelled into the legal and medical community saying it is an absolute biomarker of alcohol consumption. The forum is headed "This egroup was developed as a forum to discuss EtG testing, benefits, risks, sensitivity, specificity, pros, and cons, and so forth."

I say," RISKS, SENSITIVITY, SPECIFICITY and CONS should be addressed before launching the program, and Rule 702 is the open door that invites disaster!

Another display of for-profit companies in our courts, however, this test is being used to detect alcohol use in licensees who have signed abstinence agreements. A host of professionals are losing their livelihood for what this Doctor quotes,"...we are advising Medical Review Officers that "incidental exposure" to alcohol can cause low level positives in some individuals. We still haven't clearly characterized the validity or possible source, if valid, of "false positive" EtG tests, except as mentioned, (testing for EtG utilizes LC/MS/MS technology which is highly specific) we know that "incidental exposure" to ethanol can cause weakly positive tests (<500ng/ml),> probably don't result in any significant alcohol exposure if used according to directions. The incidental exposure that appears to rarely cause weak positive EtG tests in some individuals are foods with significant alcohol, hygiene products like mouthwash with higher concentrations of alcohol, and OTC meds high in alcohol...(3)"
Using opinionated and obfuscating words, then proceeds to cite there has been no proof of a false-positive.....then why the memo? They are referring to them as "innocent positives", a sugar coating that obfuscates reliability (hence false or innocent), and only lightens the severity of the problem and its consequences. The term innocent almost makes the people advocating the science seem wholesome and good, when in reality they are willing to jeopardize ones liberty and well being (not to mention the host of repercussions false-positives create) for -the almighty dollar! The thing that really has me wondering is that this test is notorious for false-negatives, EtG is masked naturally, how can this be the better alternative(4)? So now back to Rule 702- the judge acts as the gatekeeper, that is he/she decides the reliability of the scientific evidence being submitted, taking into account the known or potential rate of error- What is the known or potential rate of error?
I admire the Dr. himself is addressing the issues. Problem is, they're using the test and as it seems right now, as I am limited in research, there is an unknown rate of error. This unknown costs people a great deal of anguish, bereavement and purloins one of the ingredients of a good life, and results are ,more often than one could assume, relapse, violent crime, stealing, and/or suicide. These are just some of the repercussions of false-positive, nothing innocent about it!
I hope the integrity of the investigation doesn't fade, and a solution is easily resolved, I am counting on it for it is the best defense against SCRAM, should we ever get the legal community to use it in a Constitutional manner. Dr. Skipper cites the testee should be warned to stay away from products with alcohol---so a truck driver (DOT) has to stay away from gas, a nurse has to stay away from a disinfectant, sometimes, a peaceful revolution is not an oxy-moron, othertimes "we the people" need to display our outrage as they continue to "sweep it under the carpet" and proceed! My report on endogenous was to show it is not a myth, when external contaminents cause reads, cease and desist is the only way justice can be fully acheived!
Maybe this is why our forefathers granted "The Right to be Presumed Innocent" and "The Right to Privacy" for without corroborating evidence, the test is just a map, the map is not the territory. Without the invasion, the innocent would not be convicted!

REFERENCE:
(1) http://www.firstlab.com/services9.asp
(2) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ethylglucuronide/
(3) http://ethylglucuronide.homestead.com/BoardLetterReEtGTesting.pdf
(4) http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/

LAW: The Invasion

If the onslaught of e-mails I received over the course of two days is a preview of what is to come, this may just hit main stream. Should we be really worried about what people do in their personal lives? Why do they feel the need to constantly monitor one to a specific substance, and that substance being legal? Can a shop-lifter still shop, a fraud write a check? I have already explored how they lowered the bar on excessive drinking so if no crime (that is something that can harm another) is committed, do we really need to prohibit Nurse Betty from having a glass of Pinot Noir with her Osso Bucco? More importantly, should the courts, government, etc... be allowed to monitor our behavior at all? This is the reason our forefathers cited The Right to Privacy! For now, at least we still have the First Amendment, you know Freedom of Speech, Press, Assembly etc...