It can be yes. I specifically said that as long there was sufficient suitable candidates after screening out users it wouldn't be a concern to the employer.

It goes without saying that if there aren't sufficient suitable candidates after screening that you'll need to go back and start looking at those screened candidates.

Your anecdote is an example of this happening; and I don't dispute that it happens; but that hardly makes it universally the case that what is true for one large organization and one (especially widespread) drug is true in all cases or for all drugs.

Not really. Perhaps I work as an employee under the table and my boss is a drug user. OR his wife who picks it up at the bank is. Or the manager who actually hands me my pay. Or maybe its even the bank teller at the business counter at the bank.

In any case, it would take several separate tests over a period of weeks to establish that I take cash regularly from a drug user. Otherwise, the money could be from pretty much anything... maybe he bought my kids bunk bed frame at our last garage sale...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=trade+dre...

Clearly its not tainted by any drugs you may have sold. You would have gotten the money before they took said drugs, and any residue from them taking the drugs would not appear on the money.

At worst they've proven you've transacted with a person who takes drugs. That's not even slightly illegal.

QED.

That said, yes, civil forfeiture is often abused. And as I've replied elsewhere in the thread a couple times -- if they are out to abuse civil forfeiture -- then it really doesn't matter what the outcome of this test is; they'll just take your possessions on some other flimsy pretext. (Simply having significant cash on you, within 100 miles of a border, irrespective of any drug evidence has been sufficient in the past for them to seize it....no need for a chemistry set)

Bottom line: this test really has no bearing on the problem of civil forfeiture.

Because they have evidence my money was handled by a sweaty drug USER? How is that even theoretically illegal? Why should it be seized?

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?