Concerning the proposed “saliva test” as a condition for a retail market, the Legislature should consider the following questions:

How can a saliva test be seriously considered when a positive result has no relationship to impairment and there is no measure for impairment? After any impairment has worn off, a person can still test positive up to 30 days.

Secondly, why didn’t the governor make this a provision when he legalized an ounce or less and a couple of plants last year? Why does a retail market make a difference now?

Thirdly, those with a prescription will always show a positive result. Do they get a pass or not ever dare drive?

Finally, in the event that “saliva test” becomes law, does the state get to keep our DNA, etc., forever?

These questions should be answered before such a test becomes law.

Jerry Kilcourse


(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.