Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar
From: mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: Urinalysis...Lie Detectors...all th
Message-ID: <168@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 17-May-86 01:23:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: sphinx.168
Posted: Sat May 17 01:23:40 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 19-May-86 06:17:44 EDT
References: <402@bu-cs.UUCP> <108@gumby.UUCP> <1239@dual.UUCP> <287@gumby.UUCP> <923@puff.UUCP> <188@mit-amt.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: mmar@sphinx.UUCP (Mitchell Marks)
Organization: U Chicago
Lines: 26

In article <188@mit-amt.MIT.EDU> gerber@mit-amt.MIT.EDU (Andrew S. Gerber) writes:
>It's also interesting to note that any of the commercial urine tests
>will fall apart under a court challenge due to their uncertainess.
>Also, any of the tests can be foiled by the addition of 5 grams of
>salt to your urine sample, or an even smaller amount of bleach or
>drano.  The test for THC is a simple yes/no assay, and if you taint
>the urine sample enough, the test cannot even assay it as urine, and
>returns a "no" result.  
>
>				Andy

Tampering with samples is something that the people who like to give these
tests are well aware of.  That's why the proposals or contracts calling for
drug testing like to specify *supervised* urine samples.  You don't bring
it in from home, you don't even step into a cubbyhole and take your time to
produce the sample in privacy.  No, you step into a cubbyhole with a technician
who watches carefully to make sure you aren't dropping anything in it or
substituting anything.  
     So besides the issues of (1) inherent invasion of privacy in the basic
idea; and (2) dubious accuracy of the tests; we should add (3) additional
invasion of privacy involved in collecting the sample.  When's the last
time you tried to urinate into a beaker under supervision?  
-- 

            -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago 
               ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!mmar