120 lines
7.1 KiB
Plaintext
120 lines
7.1 KiB
Plaintext
|
|
||
|
|
.
|
||
|
|
.:::::. .::::::::.
|
||
|
|
...:::::::::.. ::::::::::::
|
||
|
|
..:::::::::::::::::.. ::::: ::::
|
||
|
|
.::: ::::::: :::. :::::. :
|
||
|
|
:: ::::: :: :::::::.
|
||
|
|
: ::: : :::::::::.
|
||
|
|
::: ::::::::
|
||
|
|
::: :::::
|
||
|
|
::::: : ::::
|
||
|
|
::::: oxic :::......:::: hock
|
||
|
|
.:::::::. :::::::::::
|
||
|
|
::::::::::: :::::::::
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
presents
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
INSIDE URINALYSIS
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
By Dean Latimer
|
||
|
|
SOURCE: High Times, p34 (issue unknown at the present time)
|
||
|
|
Typed by Fetal Juice
|
||
|
|
Toxic File #81
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
*Drug urinalysis is a fraud and a swindle.* This month we're
|
||
|
|
running a thoughtful, lucid, even-handed piece on the legal
|
||
|
|
developments surrounding drug testing, written by San Francisco
|
||
|
|
attorney Steven Rhoads, as a public service. Readers who haven't
|
||
|
|
followed every issue of HIGH TIMES for the last five years will
|
||
|
|
undoubtably have missed some of this information, and so Mr. Rhoads'
|
||
|
|
article provides a good opportunity to re-present these important
|
||
|
|
legal data in one place.
|
||
|
|
I feel, however, that Attorney Rhoads is almost *too* even-handed
|
||
|
|
in addressing this issue. He courteously gives the promoters of drug
|
||
|
|
urinalysis credit for at least being honest in their basic
|
||
|
|
motivations: to benevolently protect society from a perceived "drug
|
||
|
|
epidemic" by testing people with what they believe to be accurate,
|
||
|
|
reliable methods and instruments. And to be sure, many urinalysis
|
||
|
|
promoters undoubtedly do cherish the delusion that drug use in America
|
||
|
|
is at "epidemic" levels, and are so ignorant of technology and basic
|
||
|
|
human physiology that they think wholesale urine testing is a rational
|
||
|
|
response to their fantasy of a drug epidemic.
|
||
|
|
The loudest prompters of drug urinalysis, though - most signally,
|
||
|
|
current and former "scientists" associated with the National Institue
|
||
|
|
on Drug Abuse - are perfectly aware of the basic falsehoods they spout
|
||
|
|
to promote the testing racket. They know that the national incidence
|
||
|
|
of drug use as dropped dramatically for every year throughout the
|
||
|
|
'80s, with the single exception of cocaine use. Since even the
|
||
|
|
coke-use statistics aren't really *drastically* higher then the
|
||
|
|
former, there really is no drug epidemic raging in this country at
|
||
|
|
all. To go by NIDA's own statistics, in fact, people in the '80s -
|
||
|
|
and *especially* teenagers and young adults - have been pretty
|
||
|
|
sickeningly well-behaved all through this decade. This rather
|
||
|
|
depressing development is nowhere better illustrated then in NIDA's
|
||
|
|
annual survey of drug abuse terends among teens and young adults, the
|
||
|
|
"Monitoring the Future" series, available free from NIDA to anyone
|
||
|
|
skeptical of what they're reading here. All the drug-use indicator
|
||
|
|
graphs go *way* down throughout the '80s, with the single exception of
|
||
|
|
cocaine use. So they're all lying when they bleat about an American
|
||
|
|
"drug epidemic," and therefore no reason exists to give them credit
|
||
|
|
for honesty.
|
||
|
|
As for the truly sorrowful prevalence of cocaine nowadays in the
|
||
|
|
American workplace, street market, and schoolyard, the piss-test
|
||
|
|
profiteers also know perfectly well how drug urinalysis does *worse*
|
||
|
|
then nothing to ameliorate this supposed epidemic. Cocaine is
|
||
|
|
virtually undetectable in urine less then 36 hours post-ingestion,
|
||
|
|
providing a virtually useless "catch window" for urine monitors.
|
||
|
|
Moreover, anyone deft enough to toot a line of coke through a
|
||
|
|
rolled-up dollar bill is certainly deft enough to palm a litle salt or
|
||
|
|
ammonia into his or her urine sample (regardless of whether anyone's
|
||
|
|
"watching" or "taking the sample temperature" or whatever) to blank
|
||
|
|
it. Therefore, the only people who most often get in trouble with
|
||
|
|
cocaine urinalysis are victims of false positive reading.
|
||
|
|
The piss-test profiteers know how easily *that* happens, too.
|
||
|
|
Every year, hundreds of thousands of people have to take
|
||
|
|
over-the-counter patent medications containing *atropine*, an
|
||
|
|
all-purpose drugstore nostrum employed for the alleviation of
|
||
|
|
everything from asthma to diarrhea to seasickness. Since it's closely
|
||
|
|
related in basic chemical structure to the cocaine molecule, atropine
|
||
|
|
*can* cross-react with cocaine on simple urinalysis screenings,
|
||
|
|
causing a "positive" test result. The non-druggie thus becomes a
|
||
|
|
victim of an imprecise technology, suffering loss of employment,
|
||
|
|
intense confusion and personal anguish, and ostracism by *his*
|
||
|
|
non-drug-using peers. Proof that this happens is not hard to come by,
|
||
|
|
and it's known to all the primary pushers of urinalysis testing.
|
||
|
|
However, the fact is that no one can hazard even the remotest
|
||
|
|
guess as to how *often* it happens. The various professional services
|
||
|
|
that monitor the reliability of respectable licensed laboratories -
|
||
|
|
such as the national proficiency-testing program of the College of
|
||
|
|
American Pathologists in Chicago - simply do now bother to include
|
||
|
|
atropine among the drugs they send to the labs for testing.
|
||
|
|
Therefore, since no one can possibly calculate how *often* atropine is
|
||
|
|
mistaken for cocaine in routine urinalysis testingnoke-testing is
|
||
|
|
"safe" for the piss-test profiteers: no one can sue a lab for ruining
|
||
|
|
their life with a false "cocaine" positive, because there just aren't
|
||
|
|
any statistics on false coke positives to begin with.
|
||
|
|
But the profiteers, just as they know perfectly well that there's
|
||
|
|
no drug epidemic in America, also know that *some* of the people
|
||
|
|
ruined by "cocaine" positives were really only takeing hay fever
|
||
|
|
medications. They know it, but they don't mention it. And whether
|
||
|
|
they supress this information because they're personally prepared to
|
||
|
|
have these innocent people crucified for the greater good of their
|
||
|
|
stated social ideal - a "drug-free workplace" - or whether it's just
|
||
|
|
because the truth would certainly get them sued, and just possibly
|
||
|
|
*jailed*, is immaterial.
|
||
|
|
These peoples are lying. They're perpetrating a pernicious
|
||
|
|
fraud that makes money for them: a swindle. There is no sense in
|
||
|
|
kindly giving frauds and swindlers credit for having basicaly good
|
||
|
|
intentions even when they *do* have good intentions. In fact, unless
|
||
|
|
you come straight out and call them criminals, you leave them an
|
||
|
|
unobstructed field for their criminality.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
(c)opied from some High Times..Fetal Juice/Toxic Shock July 1990
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|