Alcohol & Drugs: DUI, DWI Biological Warfare Against Alcohol Offenders

[marcellus91872]

In January of 2005 I was sentenced to six months of Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring system (SCRAM),a relatively new and very effective program.The SCRAM bracelet, approximately 8 to 12 ounces,is worn around the ankle and tests for alcohol emitted transdermally. Unfortunately,SCRAM bracelets are subject to outside influences which leads to my first of three health concerns.
Upon installation a probationer is subject to a list of agreements,declining to sign would forfeit the probate's liberty,which includes "BANNED PRODUCTS-I understand that I am not to use or possess any product containing alcohol ,including,but not limited to: mouthwash,medicinal alcohol,household cleaners and disinfectants,lotoins,body washes,perfumes,colognes,or other hygiene products that contain alcohol."(House Arrest Services East pointe,MI,48021)Mouthwash I can understand but the underlined is a God given right.As a chef I understand the difference between cleaning and sanitizing and with my 2 year old daughter living with me I refuse to stop cleaning.I am aware that there are sanitizers that may not contain alcohol,but the majority of household products are considered contaminents such as Windex and Clorox Clean-Up my personal favorite.I not only admit to possessing them,I use them with caution due to the vulnarability of the device.The Judge recently dismissed a "confirmed alcohol consumption"that was actually a fuel spill,15 hours of witnesses saved me,but if I were alone at home I would lack evidence that I was cleaning and sanitizing my daughters dwelling.
Abrasions,infections and rashes are yet another concern.The bracelet is armed with a system that detects interference,for instance,a probate may insert a playing card between the bracelet and skin for delinquent purposes.Already subject to outside influences,this is another fallibility,for if the tether is loose obstructions can occur while the wearer is unaware and even during dormancy. This means that the bracelet needs to be fitted as tight as possible,to protect a person from false allegations.SCRAM units are usually used in cases involving alcohol,most commonly drunk driving charges,which means that most wearers do not have liscenses.Walking an average of 40 miles a week(to meetings,work,etc...),I began to develop abrasions that eventually became one infected wound,the wound took five weeks to heal leaving me with a permanent scar and damage to the underlying nerves.They switched legs and loosened the apparatus and I received a "confirmed obstruction" charge within 3 months.At a recent "standard equipment check" I had to insist the bracelet be tight.Again I am developing abrasions,and at my last equipment check the person fitting the bracelet didn't wear protective gloves,I didn't think about it until later but doesn't that jeopordize both of us?(H.A.S. possibly has video surveillance 9/1/05 after 6:00p.m.)I began research(some references below,unable to identify the source of my infections to date) to help me avoid these again by identifying and treating if possible without violating probation.I found that treatment can be relentless,and my daughter is at risk(2 yr.olds are prone to scrapes and cuts especially in the summer)if we use the same soap,towels ,facecloths etc...and Iam not able to switch legs again due to the permanent damage to my left leg.Added is a list of my symptoms maybe you can help me identify it:
1)Extremely red around immediate area,pink about 1"to 2" from area running right and north probably due to bracelet cut off.
2)Volcanic like opening in immediate center with a continual discharge of blood and/or clear fluid,if secretion was retarded upon resumption white to yellow depending on time lapse
3)Sharp pain in immediate area,bruise like pain from top of foot to lower knee
4)knee swelled to twice the actual size(possibly limping?)
5)delayed healing continued pain even after wound closed
6)permanent scar,possibly due to the depth of the abrasion,have read though that this can be the result of infection.
I thought I was the only one at risk when I was approached by another wearer who is experiencing the same complications,and as severe.While conversing we began to wonder who wore the bracelet before us,how was it cleaned,what is the time between removal and reuse?House Arrest Services claims that they send it to the proprietor AMS,but this doesn't mean these devices are sanitized.If a shared bar of soap could spread infection I would think that trapping dorment bacteria between skin and the bracelet would provide an excellent breeding ground,body heat,air,moisture from bodily secretion and toxins ETC...The bracelet is similar to a cast,itching and rashes I imagine are the most common complaints but any tear in the skin,even from scratching,could be vulnerable.A wearer is limited to immediate treatment due to the nature of the device,H.A.S. provides long hours but a wearer is subject to the same on the alternate leg.
As a chef I have had hundreds,possibly thousands of cuts,scrapes and burns and have never had to endure an infection until now,and now having seen the same thing on another subject I am left to wonder if the infection came from the bracelet itself and am I as well as others possibly at risk for other more serious disease?I am not afraid to be named for preventing public health risk is not only a part of my daily routine,it should be a part of everyones.
more on SCRAM at http://convictedinnocent.blogspot.com

 

[Michael Wechsler]

If I may take just a few sentences from your web site before I reply, here's a short quip on what "SCRAM" actually is.

Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor system is a relatively new and very effective alcohol monitor.SCRAM is used in nearly 30 states and is taking over the traditional methods of testing such as preliminary breathylizer tests (PBT)or urinalysis,but does not read blood alcohol content (BAC).Instead,the SCRAM bracelet (worn around the ankle),supposedly reads from vapors emitted through the skin.Unfortunately,it can detect everything from deodorant and hair spray to household cleaners.

In January of 2005 I was sentenced to six months of Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitoring system (SCRAM),a relatively new and very effective program.The SCRAM bracelet, approximately 8 to 12 ounces,is worn around the ankle and tests for alcohol emitted transdermally. Unfortunately,SCRAM bracelets are subject to outside influences which leads to my first of three health concerns.
Upon installation a probationer is subject to a list of agreements,declining to sign would forfeit the probate's liberty,which includes "BANNED PRODUCTS-I understand that I am not to use or possess any product containing alcohol ,including,but not limited to: mouthwash,medicinal alcohol,household cleaners and disinfectants,lotoins,body washes,perfumes,colognes,or other hygiene products that contain alcohol."(House Arrest Services East pointe,MI,48021)Mouthwash I can understand but the underlined is a God given right.As a chef I understand the difference between cleaning and sanitizing and with my 2 year old daughter living with me I refuse to stop cleaning.I am aware that there are sanitizers that may not contain alcohol,but the majority of household products are considered contaminents such as Windex and Clorox Clean-Up my personal favorite.I not only admit to possessing them,I use them with caution due to the vulnarability of the device.The Judge recently dismissed a "confirmed alcohol consumption"that was actually a fuel spill,15 hours of witnesses saved me,but if I were alone at home I would lack evidence that I was cleaning and sanitizing my daughters dwelling.
Abrasions,infections and rashes are yet another concern.The bracelet is armed with a system that detects interference,for instance,a probate may insert a playing card between the bracelet and skin for delinquent purposes.Already subject to outside influences,this is another fallibility,for if the tether is loose obstructions can occur while the wearer is unaware and even during dormancy. This means that the bracelet needs to be fitted as tight as possible,to protect a person from false allegations.SCRAM units are usually used in cases involving alcohol,most commonly drunk driving charges,which means that most wearers do not have liscenses.Walking an average of 40 miles a week(to meetings,work,etc...),I began to develop abrasions that eventually became one infected wound,the wound took five weeks to heal leaving me with a permanent scar and damage to the underlying nerves.They switched legs and loosened the apparatus and I received a "confirmed obstruction" charge within 3 months.At a recent "standard equipment check" I had to insist the bracelet be tight.Again I am developing abrasions,and at my last equipment check the person fitting the bracelet didn't wear protective gloves,I didn't think about it until later but doesn't that jeopordize both of us?(H.A.S. possibly has video surveillance 9/1/05 after 6:00p.m.)I began research(some references below,unable to identify the source of my infections to date) to help me avoid these again by identifying and treating if possible without violating probation.I found that treatment can be relentless,and my daughter is at risk(2 yr.olds are prone to scrapes and cuts especially in the summer)if we use the same soap,towels ,facecloths etc...and Iam not able to switch legs again due to the permanent damage to my left leg.Added is a list of my symptoms maybe you can help me identify it:
1)Extremely red around immediate area,pink about 1"to 2" from area running right and north probably due to bracelet cut off.
2)Volcanic like opening in immediate center with a continual discharge of blood and/or clear fluid,if secretion was retarded upon resumption white to yellow depending on time lapse
3)Sharp pain in immediate area,bruise like pain from top of foot to lower knee
4)knee swelled to twice the actual size(possibly limping?)
5)delayed healing continued pain even after wound closed
6)permanent scar,possibly due to the depth of the abrasion,have read though that this can be the result of infection.
I thought I was the only one at risk when I was approached by another wearer who is experiencing the same complications,and as severe.While conversing we began to wonder who wore the bracelet before us,how was it cleaned,what is the time between removal and reuse?House Arrest Services claims that they send it to the proprietor AMS,but this doesn't mean these devices are sanitized.If a shared bar of soap could spread infection I would think that trapping dorment bacteria between skin and the bracelet would provide an excellent breeding ground,body heat,air,moisture from bodily secretion and toxins ETC...The bracelet is similar to a cast,itching and rashes I imagine are the most common complaints but any tear in the skin,even from scratching,could be vulnerable.A wearer is limited to immediate treatment due to the nature of the device,H.A.S. provides long hours but a wearer is subject to the same on the alternate leg.
As a chef I have had hundreds,possibly thousands of cuts,scrapes and burns and have never had to endure an infection until now,and now having seen the same thing on another subject I am left to wonder if the infection came from the bracelet itself and am I as well as others possibly at risk for other more serious disease?I am not afraid to be named for preventing public health risk is not only a part of my daily routine,it should be a part of everyones.
more on SCRAM at http://convictedinnocent.blogspot.com

 

[Michael Wechsler]

If you'd like to submit an article that is of publishable quality to our editorial section, please feel free to do so, complete with any pictures. Our Help-Contact section will accept attachments. You'll get appropriate publishing credits and link to your site and the thanks of many who are struggling with this issue as well and our society's attempts to balance the contervailing interests of justice and personal liberties. Here is a link to the web site of the company that produces the "SCRAM" device that you are talking about. http://www.alcoholmonitoring.com

I took some time to peruse your site and others on this issue since biological technologies are increasingly finding their way into the law and security and present a whole host of troubling legal and ethical issues. I remember the uproar that was caused when there was a movement to periodically "sterilize" unmarried young welfare women having children out they couldn't afford with "remedies" such as Norplant. While I can't say SCRAM nearly approaches that level of bodily invasion, it raises a whole host of fascinating issues and facts that might lead people to wonder exactly what is the truth?

I haven't personally had to deal with SCRAM cases but I have dealt with other issues that concern products distributed by companies specifically created for the purpose of being picked up by our government and law enforcement authorities en masse. I'd like to think that most of the time these decisions are being made for the greater good and that there is significant scientific evidence to show that these are the best instruments we have to fight our increasingly difficult challenges in law enforcement. But what are we to think when there is one company that has a patent on a specific process -- are there true checks and balances for the approvals?

I'll say this much for the pros -- DUI/DWI is a real concern. Those who present such a danger on the road should be monitored if we can monitor because they have already presented a significant danger not just to themselves, but all of us motorists. Most who know that they are being watched have a tendency not to commit the bad acts they would because they believe they can "get away with it."

But at the same time, this might not be the "remedy" it seems to be. It won't necessarily prevent another DUI/DWI from occurring because law enforcement will not arrive within minutes to prevent a accident from occuring. And in most instances from my understanding, a person who has a real drinking problem will continue to drink in the same way other substance abusers are addicted to the substance/drug of their choice. It takes some time and rehabilitation to "kick the habit" and even knowing they are being monitored, those with an addiction will continue to pursue it regardless of the consequences. I have heard how powerful alcohol addiction can be, having heard from people whose marriages broke up because their spouse was even drinking the mouthwash to get at the alcohol present within. Sounds crazy but it's apparently true!

So what is the remedy to deal with DUI/DWI? Should something like SCRAM be a choice of the defendant as some type of plea bargain for the promise not to abstain and ability to ensure that promise is kept? How accurate is or can SCRAM be in that meaningful results can be obtained? What other remedies do we have and are suggested?

This is a very hot topic and I have placed this in the "drugs and alcohol" section because I think it is most appropriate there and others with this issue are likely to find it there.

 

[marcellus91872]

Remedies

SCRAM definately has not reached the level of bodily invasion that "sterilizing" young welfare mothers reached, the concern with this is precedent. First this, then what branding (they are using identifyable liscense plates and reserve the right to use it as probable cause), we've all heard or used the phrase,"Give 'em an inch!". I am currently following a SCRAM case, another false positive which will help conclude the article I am currently writing for your site, until then I put my thoughts to your questions in words:

1)So what is the remedy to deal with DUI/DWI? 2)Should something like SCRAM be a choice of the defendant as some type of plea bargain for the promise not to abstain and ability to ensure that promise is kept? 3) How accurate is or can SCRAM be in that meaningful results can be obtained? 4)What other remedies do we have and are suggested?

(1)Murder,sexual assault,etc... what is the remedy for any crime?Has there ever been a type of crime that was rendered extinct? If so I'll bet it wasn't due to harsh punishment.(2)Unfortunately,SCRAM is not offered as a plea bargain,the defendant can not opt to other forms of punishment,and if it were people ignorant to the sensitivety of the device would think this is a perfect choice,I did.(3)Any Daubert issues with the device may be remedied with a constructive,constitutional procedure and then meaningful results could be obtained.There will be false positives, but simply giving the defendant a chance to prove innocents by contacting them, leave it on them to finance the procedure and they could secure their liberty for a couple hundred as opposed to fighting it. (4)I would suggest that a probation department use SCRAM,with skepticism,my case for instance:If the prosecution had investigated further they may have found my paper trail which leads to me purchasing a gallon of water,gatorade and iced tea which was purchased while I was WORKING for a landscaping company,(GASOLINE) during the alleged episode.If there was a police dispatch there could have been a visual of the dwelling, proof that I did not even have possession,and a PBT!Had they contacted me earlier I could have offered actual toxicology tests which could have saved me thousands and prevented the overall regression that resulted from the litigations.Had the prosecution done due dilligence, they would have found all of this and I could have offered the affidavits of the witnesses and litigations would not of existed.If justice were the actual goal rather than marketing,they would have addressed the possibility of false positives and thought out a policy for use that achieves the goal.As far as the obstruction,they were aware of this at 1:00 am and 2:30 am(plus any other random times the device communicated),a simple phone call and I could have removed any obstructive objects and given an updated download which would have cleared me.A police disbatch again would have been a great alternative for both sides. According to AMS, 40% of wearers drink or tamper with it, that is 3% lower than the average of PBT's,had they addressed false positivese they would have found their device has had much greater success.Who comitts a crime while the police are watching, they cannot convince me that 40% of wearers purposely forfeit their liberty!The two counties I have found that use this device with a thought out process,Penn Services Kansas and Milwakee county have less than a 1% recidivism rate!
Suggested,speaking from my experience,all that was necessary was revoking my liscense for a year.After walking over 3,000 miles through sub-zero temps,rain,basically every type of weather,I certainly would choose a 2 hour walk home over that anyday.It got to the point that finding work was nearly impossible,and while I was sleeping in a home so cold I could see my breath and living off rice and green beans (lot of ways to cook them) I served my jail time which seemed better than summercamp.In short,the loss of my liscense made jail a far better option than liberty for there was heat,food,laundry service,cooks,and dishwashers.Lets not forget that this manner of punishment fits the crime,and as in my case was worse than jail,I believe the recidivism rate could be cut,plus an alcoholic could not opt to remain in jail rather than be on probation with such a device on him.In essense,it turns his disease into a crime,and being an addict into guaranteed extra punishment beyond his actual crime.