And all it takes to resolve that is using individually wrapped soap packets.

I don't disagree with the rest of your post vis a vis privacy, invasiveness, etc.

Non-use does imply they are not actively addicted though. So selecting non-users effectively screens the problem addicts out.

The fact that it screens out users who aren't addicts as well? I don't dispute it. But what employer cares? As long as they get enough good candidate applicants from the non-using pool to hire from, the fact that they screened some potentially good candidates from the using but not addicted category isn't much of a concern.

But if they are willing to do that, then it really doesn't matter what this fingerprint test reveals, wouldn't you agree?

Fair enough. I maintain that controlled tests can relatively easily determine if a chemical is being excreted vs simply being contaminated by external sources.

But it certainly means you can't draw any conclusions from a fingerprint obtained without those controls.

Still makes the test useful potentially useful for employment screening. Less so in other scenarios.

The abuse of civil forfeiture is well documented; but this test isn't really relevant. If they intend to abuse civil forfeiture to take your stuff, this test isn't going to be their go-to.

And if they don't intend to abuse civil forfeiture, all this test does is establish evidence that you've taken cocaine.

They need evidence of drug related crimes. Technically, past drug *use* isn't even illegal.

It's pretty trivial to develop procedures to isolate what you might be transferring to your fingers from things you handle to what you are literally secreting from your fingers.

You linked to an article about the detection of surface cocaine; which amounts to evidence that you have handled cocaine -- and the well known miscarriage of justice where they use evidence of surface cocaine as evidence of handling cocaine, when we know that traceable amounts of cocaine is on our currency.

This however is a test that establishes whether or not you USE cocaine. A little surface cocaine on your money isn't going to have you sweating out these chemicals in any significant quantity. So your thesis that this test is going to lead them to confiscating your money doesn't really add up.

Further, this test, a chemical test showing that you've recently TAKEN cocaine ... how does that amount to evidence that the money in your wallet is from the drug trade and therefore evidence of crime and subject to confiscation? It doesn't even sort of kind of add up.

Your post:

vs the summary

Sure. Unless simply handling money doesn't result in your body absorbing enough cocaine to synthesize and excrete " benzoylecgonine and methylecgonine".

In other words, you are probably entirely wrong.

Well I would, but copyright ter,s aren't long enough to motivate me yet. I just don't have enough incentive. Maybe if they were just bit longer, more people like me would switch to working on art. /sarcasm ;)

And this would be bad because?

I don't get paid again for the work i did last week, but you need to keep getting paid for something you did at 15 when you are 85 years old? Seriously? WTF?

The purpose of copyright is to provide a limited monopoly to provide incentive to create. Are you SERIOUSLY arguing there are 15 year old artists and authors that are sitting there thinking... I was going to create a new work of art today, but then i realized i wouldn't still be getting royalties in my 80s and realized I couldn't make ends meet like that, and went to work on an assembly line instead...

And therefore less art is created, and the world is poorer for it.

Really?

I use firefox with adblock on my mobile. I'm guessing your on iphone maybe?

It is but ONE form of murder, ONE of MANY.

Yet, if his parents had executed him when he got home, for precisely the same reason: "as punishment for that cold, calculated act [...]" it would be murder again, right? So... apparently that "reasoning" isn't what makes it "not murder". What makes it "murder" is the trappings of legality and due process... its purely semantics.

murder is premeditated homicide that the state has declared illegal
execution is a specific premeditated homicide that the state has declared legal

Make no mistake the ONLY difference between them is the writing on paper that makes one legal and the other not. The writing is the difference. In some cases it is a sufficient difference to justify it being different.

If we execute an innocent person... though... is there any difference at all?

After he's captured, in handcuffs, in prison, and under guard... Any threat he poses is well and truly neutralized. So, no, killing him at that point is NOT self defense.

I wasn't even going to attempt addressing the morality of the death penalty. I personally think the death penalty should be abolished because innocents are killed. I don't really object to it in principal as system of removing dangerous criminals that cannot be rehabilitated from society... but since there is no way of reliably determining those put to death are even actually GUILTY it is senseless to use it on anybody.

But its really beside the point.

The point of prison IS... no... scratch that... SHOULD BE to rehabilitate the prisoner, and to protect the public from prisoners who cannot be rehabilitated.

Desiring the imprisonment to be physically or mentally cruel to the prisoners serves no legitimate purpose; only sadism.

Why? To inflict as much anguish, stress, despair, and pain on him as you legally can get away with? That says more about YOU than anything else.

If he is imprisoned for life it should be simply because he is a threat to society.

One leather key fob with manufacturer's crest.
One car key.

I have a 2nd keychain with house key, mailbox key, spare car key, wife's car key, but I don't generally go out with it. And I usually use my wife's keys to drive her car or get the mail; so it mostly sits on my bedside table.