The September, 1986 issue of HIGH TIMES magazine contained an article that listed a few of

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

The September, 1986 issue of HIGH TIMES magazine contained an article that listed a few of the over the counter (and prescribed) drugs that 'cross-react' (cause false positives) when users of these 'legal' drugs are tested using the EMIT Cannabinoid Assay method. This method (I don't know the details of how it works) is used by both the companies who are manufacturing urinalysis testing devices. The drugs mentioned are: Advil Nuprin Motrin & Naprosyn The article goes on to point out that Naprosyn is manufactured by the Syntex drug manufacturing company, which solely owns the Syva company which merchandises . . . you guessed it, EMIT Cannabinoid Assay! So, here we have a company which made $26,200,000 on sales of EMIT in 3Q86, and also made $122,800,000 selling a drug that would show up on said machine as marijuana (also in 3Q86). This situation has been going on since 1980. The other company that manufactures testing machines is the Hoffman-Laroche/Roche Diagnostics company of N.J. A different article in the same magazine describes that neither company feels 'responsible' for "..thousands of people (who) have been deprived of their the determination of these machines that these people were 'using' illegal drugs." The companies point out that actual testing is done by "..hundreds of different private commercial labs and local hospitals..." and that there is " way to determine if the lab techs are operating the equipment properly and proficiently. The article lists the following categories of 'drug detection' for the given over-the-counter medicines: OPIATES: Nyquil Dorcol Childrens cough syrup Comtrex Pedia-care Benylin [anything containing dextromethorphan] AMPHETAMINES: Alka-Seltzer Plus Quadrahist Pediatric Syrup Dexatrim Dietac [anything with phenylpropanolamine] (also anything with ephedrine): Primatine Quadrinal Tedral Bronkotabs Contac Also revealed, is that in 1984 DoD figures showed a steady 49% rate of unconfirmed urinalysis positives when the testing was done by Mead Compu-Chem, and up to 100% false positives in labs elsewhere. Mead was advised that if they wanted to keep the contract, they would have to switch from Syva's EMIT gear to Roche's Abuscreen radio-immunoassay drug test. This touched off a battle between the two companies which resulted in both firms pointing out many basic flaws in the testing machine's design, the lab technician's operation, and the DoD's drug testing program in general. Any one who would care to eliminate the chance of a false positive while on these OTC medications should know that the testing device looks for a ph factor between 3:00 and 4:00. By changing the ph (with 6 grams of salt [NaCl], or smaller ammounts of ammonia or Draino) you cause the machine to reject the sample as urine, and yields a 'clean' result. What gets me about the whole thing is that anyone can now be considered guilty, and must provide proof that (s)he is innocent. This does not only occur in the workplace, but in our homes. Here in Chicago, if I don't like someone, all I have to do is call the Crime Hotline and make an anonymous tip, and soon the police will be giving them the thumbscrews. People who have the attitude that since I have nothing to hide I should hide nothing, are missing the point of protection against illegal search and seizure. How would these same people react if the police asked to perform "A house to house search to detect (with drug sniffers) any controlled substances, paraphernalia, or manufacturing devices.". And while they were at it they could keep their eyes open for any deviate sexual material or practices, anti government literature or attitudes, or unpaid parking tickets. Where will it stop! If anyone runs afoul of this grossly inaccurate method of persecution can contact NORML for a referral to a local lawer. NORML Suite 640 20001 S St. NW Washington, DC 20009 Indiscriminate drug testing of ANYONE should be actively opposed for the following reasons: 1. If a requirement to urinate at a time I would rather not, in front of another person, is not an invasion of privacy, then the strip search is also not invading privacy. The notion of privacy and personal freedom is a great American invention, and we should not allow it to vanish. I do not like slippery slope argument, but random testing proposal is a part of a major effort to diminish an individual for the sake of purported good of the society. It includes the trend to allow illegal tactics by police (provided that the police is not knowing what it is doing (?!)), censorship for the current and former federal employers, copying the notes made abroad while one return to the country, attacks against the right to abortion, advocating public school prayer, etc. etc. The slippery slope is here, and is damn slippery. In couple of years we may be forced to signed clauses allowing random searches at your home (to eliminate rampant misuse of office supplies): if you have something to be afraid about, then may be you are a thief! 2. It is worth to notice that the current drug hysteria is caused by so called crack epidemic. However, cocaine is one of the least vulnerable drugs: it tests negative several days after use. What the testing does it makes cocaine preferable to marijuana, and designer drugs preferable to cocaine. 3. In spite of the recent ruckus, the drug problem seems to be receding, and not because of enforcement. America became health crazy, the consumption of alcohol, tobacco and many other drugs goes down. Students cherish more the job prospects and health than counter-culture values. Enforcement in the meantime is a pathetic side of the equation. One should concentrate more on the things which may be effective (like education, prevention, rehabilitation), instead of throwing money in a showy and ineffective fashion.


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank