wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) (01/20/90)
From the Letters page of the 1/18/90 New York Times:
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
To the Editor:
You report new compulsory drug testing requirements for private
employees in the transportation industry (news article Dec. 18). In
"Booming Business: Drug Use Tests" (Busines Day, Jan. 3) you discuss
the projected $400 million business in private-sector drug tests
predicted for the coming year.
The Department of Transportation says that random drug testing is
a deterrent. The Bush Administration endorses widespread testing as a
cornerstone of its fight against drugs. Unfortunately, the testing
procedures required by the Federal Government and the Department of
Transportation and the multimillion dollar industry it has spawned are
easy for drug users to beat. Two ounces of a particular diet soda
held under the arm for one hour will be accepted as a valid specimen
98 precent of the time. Adding a brand of eyedrops to a urine
specimen camouflages any trace of marijuana. These techniques are
common knowledge among substance abusers....
[lots of pro-drug-war blather deleted in the interests ofnot
inducing nausea]
Joel E.R. Ehrenkranz, M.D.
Morristown, N.J.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The remainder of the letter basically says that drug testing is a Good
Thing, but one which must be made cheat-proof in order to be effective.
My point in bringing all this up is: Okay, I know that the "certain
brand of eye drops" is Visene, but what "diet soda" is he talking
about that will be accepted in place of urine "98 percent of the time"
(I assume that other 2 percent represent cases in which the person
supplying the bogus sample forgot to let it go flat andinstead turned
in carbonated urine :-)?
--
William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>honig@ics.uci.edu (David A. Honig) (01/20/90)
In article <1990Jan19.201241.15186@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes: >My point in bringing all this up is: Okay, I know that the "certain >brand of eye drops" is Visene, but what "diet soda" is he talking >about that will be accepted in place of urine "98 percent of the time" >(I assume that other 2 percent represent cases in which the person >supplying the bogus sample forgot to let it go flat andinstead turned >in carbonated urine :-)? >William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu> -- David A. Honig signatures are no place for toad sexing.
honig@ics.uci.edu (David A. Honig) (01/20/90)
My previous posting got mangled... In article <25B779D9.18987@paris.ics.uci.edu> honig@ics.uci.edu (David A. Honig) writes: >In article <1990Jan19.201241.15186@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes: >>My point in bringing all this up is: Okay, I know that the "certain >>brand of eye drops" is Visene, but what "diet soda" is he talking >>about that will be accepted in place of urine "98 percent of the time" >>(I assume that other 2 percent represent cases in which the person >>supplying the bogus sample forgot to let it go flat andinstead turned >>in carbonated urine :-)? >>William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu> The soda is diet mountain dew I believe. -- David A. Honig signatures are no place for toad sexing.