'Clean Urine' Bill Passes (in Arkansas, of course)

Reuters ^ | 1-28-2003

[Cagey]

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (Reuters) - Something smells funny in the Arkansas drug-testing business, and a state legislator thinks it might be the urine.

Jay Martin, a freshman state representative, won passage through the Arkansas House of Representatives last week of his measure that will make it illegal to sell or use urine to falsify a drug or alcohol screening test.

Martin said he is confident the first bill he ever sponsored will become state law.

Martin said he was urged to introduce the "clean urine" bill by a local drug-testing company that complained of widespread trafficking in urine untainted by drugs. Many of the sales in the market are made over the Internet, he said.

Maximum penalties for violating the law will be up to 90 days in jail and a $500 fine.

"As a freshman I'm going to get razzed anyway, but this bill just gave them added reason," Martin said on Monday of his fellow representatives.

Indeed they did. When Martin took to the Arkansas House floor on Friday to explain his bill, he was greeted by a chorus of hiss-like noises from many of the other 99 members.

As the first vote was taken, scores of members hit the "P" button -- signifying present -- rather than the buttons to vote "yes" or "no."

When the guffaws subsided, a second vote was taken and the legislative body passed the clean urine bill with only one dissenting vote, which came from a lawmaker who complained the bill was an invasion of privacy.

Martin said South Carolina and other states had recently enacted similar legislation. He added that enforcement of the laws to thwart the use of drug-free urine has been difficult.

One typical Internet-based company offering clean urine boasts that its samples are free of illegal drugs, alcohol and nicotine and pre-screened for medical conditions.

A deluxe kit that includes four ounces (119 ml) of urine, an odor-proof transport system, chemical heating pads and gloves sells for $49.95.

The bill is headed to the Arkansas senate, where action is expected soon.

[TheBattman]

Clarification....

If my lifestyle/activities in no way present a danger to others, especially relating to my employment, the the government and my employer have no business in MY business.

On the other hand, if my activities DO present a danger to others, particularly at work, then the government/my employer DOES have a business knowing about it.

Certainly, privacy is important. I realize that the big issue is where to draw the line. I still feel that safety of others is the key. If you are smoking dope/shooting-up/snorting junk/etc. and you get behind the wheel of a big rig, school bus, or just plain automibile, you have endangered me and anyone else that is around. You have just violated my freedom. Remeber, your rights end where mine begin.

My statement "what do you have to hide" was in reaction to what I see all the time as a school teacher. Those students most inflamed when the drug dogs come for a visit, complaining about privacy/etc. are 99% of the time the exact same ones who have drugs or other contriband on them/in their lockers/in their cars. Certainly this is a generalization, but it comes about as close to the truth as any I have ever heard -

No I am not for a surrender of our privacy.

[SandfleaCSC]

On the other hand, if my activities DO present a danger to others, particularly at work, then the government/my employer DOES have a business knowing about it.

So, under your line of reasoning due to the myriad of assaults in the workplace involving firearms, its okay for your employer/government to inquire whether or not you own firearms and then deny you employment based on your answer. Let's not leave out periodic checks of your car and residence for those firearms.

If you are smoking dope/shooting-up/snorting junk/etc. and you get behind the wheel of a big rig, school bus, or just plain automibile, you have endangered me and anyone else that is around. You have just violated my freedom. Remeber, your rights end where mine begin

When you support urine tests, no-knock raids, property confiscation before a guilty verdict, and tax money thrown away on the WOsD, you violate more than just drug users' rights, you violate everyone's rights. The thought of my lawn guy being high three weeks ago scares me a whole lot less than the abuse that could be visited on me by one of the "alphabet agencies".

My statement "what do you have to hide" was in reaction to what I see all the time as a school teacher. Those students most inflamed when the drug dogs come for a visit, complaining about privacy/etc. are 99% of the time the exact same ones who have drugs or other contriband on them/in their lockers/in their cars. Certainly this is a generalization, but it comes about as close to the truth as any I have ever heard

There are no junior high students on this forum. The majority here have been voting, tax-paying adults for over a decade. Many here like myself have also served in the US Armed Forces. It's a little insulting to be generalized with a pre-teen demographic. :)

I may not agree with you, but it's nice to find that there's an educator left with some good old classic Republican values......even if they are wrong. ;)

Sandflea

[TheBattman]

Exactly how does the ownership of firearms translate directly to danger to the workplace? Mental incompetence on the part of those committing the crimes maybe, and in some cases drug use. The ownership of firearms in-and-of itself does not directly connect to workplace assaunts.

Drug tests for those who, DIRECTLY through drug use, are likely to be a danger, yes.

No-nock raids are an extremely dangerous and questionable tactice used by law enforcement. I have a very hard time with the use of no-nock raids unless there is CLEAR and compelling evidence that it is the only method to control a situation. I think "no-nock" raids should require a specific instruction set forth in the search warrant. That way, there is more accountability when it is used. Again, this would go back to the idea of a "clear and present" danger.

I in NO WAY support property confiscation before a guilty verdict and never have. Nothing I have said should have led you to any other conclusion.

Does a drunk spell or light-up of some pot last week by your yard man cause a clear danger to you, your family, or community?

The War on Drugs has taken on a far too political tone. I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever that drug use is harmless, or that we would be better off if drugs were legalized. I HAVE seen the dangers of drug use. I have seen people die because someone used drugs/alcohol and killed others. A DIRECT correlation. There is no such thing as "responsible" drug use. Drugs are a scourge on society, not even including the senseless deaths from drug lords/gangs, or the senseless deaths when the WOD has gone sour.

I had not intent to include you in a "pre-teen" generalization. I am going on my own experience. Honestly, many (notice I didn't say all) that do get up-in-arms when it comes to privacy are indeed engaged in activities that they bear some guilt about - even when it's legal activity. I am certain, to be quite honest, that I would be extremely upset if the police burst into my home to search my house on suspicion of anything - I am not and have not been engaged in any illegal actvities (that I know of ;-) I honestly can't think of anything I have to hide (other than the underwear I probably should have thrown away months ago because they are so worn out). Yet I would be incredibly upset - and justified. What evidence/probable cause would they have for their invasion.

On the other hand, if I were cooking meth in my realoading room, and the police had direct evidence of such, then I would have no grounds at all for a complaint if they search my home. I would probably still be mad, but would have no "grounds" to complain.

My "good old classic Republican values" have come at a price - I spent many years blind to the truth about politics and regret every minute I spent supporting DeomocRATS. Of course, I can thank my Mom for that - she is a bleading-heart to please bleading-hearts.