Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Clean Urine' Bill Passes (in Arkansas, of course)
Reuters ^ | 1-28-2003

Posted on 01/28/2003 9:42:21 AM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; US: Arkansas
KEYWORDS: drugskill; wodlist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

1 posted on 01/28/2003 9:42:21 AM PST by Cagey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Cagey
So how would they check?
2 posted on 01/28/2003 9:46:26 AM PST by OXENinFLA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cagey
Reminds me of that old happy song from Arkansas, "Urine the money."
3 posted on 01/28/2003 9:47:36 AM PST by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cagey
Tax dollars at work again.
4 posted on 01/28/2003 9:47:45 AM PST by SandfleaCSC (Yes, I'm bad, but you all knew that anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cagey
I swear, some people will stop at NOTHING to pass a test. (Like one couldn't just quit for awhile.)

Seems like substituting someone else's sample would be more trouble than it's worth, given that you're frisked and monitored during alleged sample-providing.
5 posted on 01/28/2003 9:49:11 AM PST by Xenalyte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA
Logical considerations don't enter into many legislative decisions.
6 posted on 01/28/2003 9:49:16 AM PST by weikel (Round up the boys from the previous space thread)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cagey
Silly drug warriors and their silly laws... all your fluids are belong to us
7 posted on 01/28/2003 9:50:38 AM PST by Lexington Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lexington Green
Yes, "all your fluids are belong to us," said the Commissar or Urine.
8 posted on 01/28/2003 9:53:27 AM PST by henderson field
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA; Cagey
They will make everybody register their urine so that they would be able to track the perp. The previous statement just goes to show you how stupid this is, but just because it's stupid doesn't mean they won't try it.
9 posted on 01/28/2003 9:54:09 AM PST by HELLRAISER II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
That's why there's:

The Urinator!

10 posted on 01/28/2003 9:56:40 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cagey; 1tin_soldier; a-whole-nother-box-of-pandoras; Ahban; Arkansawyer; Arkinsaw; Asphodel; ...
Don't these people have anything worthwhile to do with their time?

..

PING!

11 posted on 01/28/2003 9:56:56 AM PST by sweetliberty (Go Al, go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cagey
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
12 posted on 01/28/2003 9:58:56 AM PST by Liberal Classic (Quemadmoeum gladis nemeinum occidit, occidentis telum est.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: henderson field
Doesn't matter. People will still find ways around it. I did.

Let's just set up cameras in everyone's home and then their would be no drug problem at all and everything will be prefect.
13 posted on 01/28/2003 9:58:58 AM PST by Desecrated
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: henderson field
Don't laugh. Some guy in North Carolina (I think) was busted for selling urine.
14 posted on 01/28/2003 9:59:18 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Desecrated
Oh my. Grammar surrenders.
15 posted on 01/28/2003 10:00:06 AM PST by Desecrated
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: *Wod_list
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
16 posted on 01/28/2003 10:08:29 AM PST by Free the USA (Stooge for the Rich)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Cagey
Aint that a pisser?
17 posted on 01/28/2003 10:11:04 AM PST by blackdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sweetliberty
Don't these people have anything worthwhile to do with their time?

The Arkansas General Assembly? HAHAHAHAHA. Um....no.
18 posted on 01/28/2003 10:12:23 AM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Cagey
As a freshman I'm going to get razzed anyway, but this bill just gave them added reason

No reason to get pissy about it.

19 posted on 01/28/2003 10:17:01 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandfleaCSC
Tax dollars at work again.

How so? It just makes lying and cheating on a drug test via substituted urine a crime. It doesn't mandate any enforcement techniques or other costs.

Why the upset? Are you in favor of allowing people to lie and cheat on a drug test?

20 posted on 01/28/2003 10:20:12 AM PST by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Wolfie; vin-one; WindMinstrel; headsonpikes; philman_36; Beach_Babe; jenny65; AUgrad; Xenalyte; ...
WOD Ping
21 posted on 01/28/2003 10:27:43 AM PST by jmc813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
And the motto is..."Just Say Go"
22 posted on 01/28/2003 10:44:58 AM PST by joey'smom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
Why the upset? Are you in favor of allowing people to lie and cheat on a drug test?

Yes. Just as I am pulling for the tax protesters and the Canadian gun-registry protesters. Illegal and unfair laws and business practices deserve our contempt.
23 posted on 01/28/2003 10:47:25 AM PST by SandfleaCSC (Yes, I'm bad, but you all knew that anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: SandfleaCSC
So do you think it is wrong for Clinton to lie, but ok for someone to lie on a drug test?("Its just about drugs")
24 posted on 01/28/2003 10:52:13 AM PST by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SandfleaCSC
So do you think it is wrong for Clinton to lie, but ok for someone to lie on a drug test?("Its just about drugs")
25 posted on 01/28/2003 10:52:14 AM PST by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA
"Hold muh ---" whatever. Only in Arkinsaawww . . .
26 posted on 01/28/2003 10:52:59 AM PST by mywholebodyisaweapon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
Hey Rush Jr., exactly what does Clinton lying under oath have to do with this thread? Let it go my little 'Pubbie, not every evil in your mind can be traced back to Bubba.

In this country, we have a right to fudge resumes, tell cops we only had one beer, and deceive any tests administered by private enterprise. In a sorta-free country, we are only compelled to be honest under oath, not during a drug test.....so far.
27 posted on 01/28/2003 11:05:18 AM PST by SandfleaCSC (Yes, I'm bad, but you all knew that anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SandfleaCSC
Funny, in another post you belittle me for namecalling, then turn around and engage in such yourself. I think my posts have exposed your self-serving hypocrisy.

OBTW, there are laws against making certain false representations for material gain. You are free to be an idiot, but not always free to defraud.

Further, often those drug-tests are there for a reason. So are you arguing that someone using drugs should be able to fake a drug test for a potentially dangerous job? For example, an airline pilot or a railroad engineer(who runs a train that may carry 10,000 tons of explosive material on tracks that run less than 100 feet from homes and heavily populated neighborhoods)?
28 posted on 01/28/2003 11:17:52 AM PST by Diddle E. Squat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sweetliberty
Don't these people have anything worthwhile to do with their time?

Yes, they want to stop people from cheating on drug tests.

29 posted on 01/28/2003 11:29:14 AM PST by AxelPaulsenJr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Enterprise
I cant resist this:

Once urine is out lawed only out laws will have urine.

You can have my urine only when....nevermind!

30 posted on 01/28/2003 11:38:07 AM PST by oyez (Is this a great country...........Or what?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

Is it unreasonable to (for your own protection) assure that your employees are likely to be clean and sober? Let the users apply for employment where there is no drug screening...

I think the restriction applies to the government, anyway; not to private organizations or individuals.

31 posted on 01/28/2003 11:50:38 AM PST by JimRed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: oyez
You can have my urine only when....nevermind!

Was the next line about "prying it from my cold, dead hand? ;)

32 posted on 01/28/2003 11:53:28 AM PST by JimRed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
Are you in favor of allowing people to lie and cheat on a drug test?

I have to agree with you on this. I am NOT in favor of people being allowed to lie or cheat on a drug screening test.
OTOH, I AM in favor of certain drugs being legalized.
IMO, if you want to use illegal drugs of ANY type you run the risk of being caught on a urinalisys test, IF there is a valid reason.
If an employer wants to have a drug test to be employed by them that is a valid reaseon.
If a drug test periodically is deemed, by the employer, to be needed that's a valid reason.
A drug test, out of the blue, with no warning, when the test is not advertised as part of the employment contract does NOT a valid reason make.

33 posted on 01/28/2003 12:09:44 PM PST by Just another Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: oyez
Well, look at the bright side. Undercover cops can run stings and lurk around drug rehab clinics and testing facilities. "Psst - Hey buddy - you wanna buy some clean fresh urine?" Another example of something legal which can be criminalized. I'm so proud.
34 posted on 01/28/2003 12:17:10 PM PST by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JimRed
If a person is taking drugs and the effect of those drugs is not so noticeable as to cause concern or to impact the person's job performance, in my opinion, it really isn't any of anybody's business. I can understand employers wanting their employees clean, but I personally believe it is more out of concern for potential lawsuits than over any real issue regarding a person's drug use.

If a company has reason to suspect that that an employee is using drugs, that is a different story. In that case there is a liklihood that his behavior or job performance is suffering. Beyond that, I believe very strongly that it is an invasion of privacy, and especially when it comes to off hours. A company doesn't own its employees; only rents them for a certain number of hours per week and if they want to spend their off time sh*tf*ced on the floor somewhere, that is THEIR business as long as they're not doing it in the company name or at company expense.

Many drugs stay in a person's system for years and from what I understand will cause a positive result many times long after an individual has ceased to use the drug. As far as I'm concerned that puts drug-testing right up there with lie detector tests as being both unreliable and invasive.

I have refused to work for a company that did routine drug testing, not because I do drugs (I don't), but because I believe it is wrong. In my current job, I am authorized to drive company vehicles, but that authorization is not based on testing clean for drugs, it is based on having a clean driving record. In that case it was reasonable for them to check my driving record. I have yet to be convinced that there is any reason that justifies routine drug testing beyond a very narrow scope.

35 posted on 01/28/2003 12:18:27 PM PST by sweetliberty (Go Al, go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Cagey
Unenforceable laws merely breed contempt for the law.

Well...let the war on urine begin.
36 posted on 01/28/2003 1:31:37 PM PST by The FRugitive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Desecrated
"Doesn't matter. People will still find ways around it. I did.

Let's just set up cameras in everyone's home and then their would be no drug problem at all and everything will be prefect."

This is a good idea. We could also have daily group excercises to keep costs low on the state health plan.
37 posted on 01/28/2003 1:34:58 PM PST by The FRugitive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Diddle E. Squat
"It doesn't mandate any enforcement techniques"

Then what is the point? Unenforced/unenforceable laws breed contempt for the law.
38 posted on 01/28/2003 1:36:53 PM PST by The FRugitive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Cagey
Clean Urine Bill. Sounds like he could be a kid-friendly cartoon mascot for WOD. Like Smokey the Bear.
39 posted on 01/28/2003 1:39:26 PM PST by Semaphore Heathcliffe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Semaphore Heathcliffe
LOL ....Very good.
40 posted on 01/28/2003 1:41:48 PM PST by Cagey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Semaphore Heathcliffe
aka CUB
41 posted on 01/28/2003 1:42:34 PM PST by Cagey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Semaphore Heathcliffe
Clean Urine Bill says "Only users have sh!t in their piss. Just say no to drugs*!"

*except for nicotine, ethenol, and paxil

42 posted on 01/28/2003 1:43:37 PM PST by The FRugitive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Cagey
yes!
43 posted on 01/28/2003 1:44:01 PM PST by Semaphore Heathcliffe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Desecrated
Oh my. Grammar surrenders.

I have not yet begun to fight!

44 posted on 01/28/2003 1:47:16 PM PST by The Grammarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: The FRugitive
Clean Urine Bill sez: If I say it's bad, well, then it MUST be bad! It's that simple, kids!
45 posted on 01/28/2003 1:48:33 PM PST by Semaphore Heathcliffe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: sweetliberty
Of course not. But then again, my first thought was, "Gee, why didn't I think of selling my...," then I came to.
46 posted on 01/28/2003 1:52:35 PM PST by Budge (God Bless FReepers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Semaphore Heathcliffe
The Clean Urine Act - endorsed by Pee Wee Herman.
47 posted on 01/28/2003 1:55:13 PM PST by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Cagey
First the Clean Air Act, and now this.....
48 posted on 01/28/2003 1:58:54 PM PST by tracer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Semaphore Heathcliffe

49 posted on 01/28/2003 2:04:53 PM PST by The FRugitive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: The FRugitive; Semaphore Heathcliffe
ROFL!
50 posted on 01/28/2003 2:10:19 PM PST by Cagey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-63 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson