This method works for every urine test, every time (provided that some conditions are met). You simply give them clean urine (not yours). This works very well if you're not supervised. If you are going to be supervised, try to talk them out of it. Someone told me they were going to be monitored, and they said "I don't want you to fuckin' watch me piss!" So the supervisor waited outside; probably with his/her ear to the door to listen for opening containers. Members in active duty are often watched as the urine flows from source to destination (but substitution will even work on this test, as you will find out). Abbie Hoffman, author of "Stealing This Urine Test," suggested leaving a few drops of urine on the seat or on your shoe for as "an added measure of authenticity."
9.1 Substitution methods:
There are three methods, but two of them are painful, and you have to be determined to use them. The most common way to sneak in urine is in a concealed container.
9.1.1 Concealed container:
Simply conceal the urine. The first time you're alone with the container they give you, dump in your concealed urine. Be sure you can quietly open the container; the lab personnel may be just outside the door listening. You may be required to change into a gown. If so, a condom or douche bag holding the sample and taped around the thigh can be concealed under the gown. You can also run a plastic line from a flexible container and tape it to your urination equipment (to be gender neutral), and even piss under supervision. Females have been known to keep a condom with the urine sample in the vagina, and prick it with a sharp fingernail to piss under supervision. Be sure to keep the sample between 91 and 97 degrees.
There's a way to use substitution even when you're under the strictest supervision. Athletes trying to pass tests for anabolic steroids have been known to empty their bladders, and have the substituted urine injected directly into their bladders via needle. It was shown in a motion picture like "Wildcats" or something. While theoretically possible, it's painful and subject to infection. It would certainly be the most senseless way to get clean urine into the testees bladder. If this must be done, catheterization should be used.
First void your bladder as you would with injection. Run a thin plastic tube to the bladder. (Males must insert the tube into the opening of the penis, go through the urethra and into the bladder.) Catheterization done on females is not as unpleasant as it is for males. Then inject the clean urine into the bladder via catheter. Catheterization is less painful, safer, and more effective. Infection is still possible.
9.2 Where to get clean urine.
9.2.1 Urine from a donor:
You can substitute someone else's urine. Ask your urine donor (hopefully a friend you can trust) what drugs they've taken in the last month. They may have taken a false positive (or a true positive for that matter). Before the test, the examiner will likely ask you to list everything you've taken. If the urine ages beyond 18 hours, deterioration becomes noticable and the lab may suspect something.
9.2.2 Powdered urine:
If you don't trust your friend's sample, or don't have any clean friends, you can get powdered urine from Martha Butterfield-Jay Foundation. It's produced by Byrd Labs, and supposedly works perfectly; however, I got MBJF's powdered urine, and it did not specify the age or gender of the original sample. Powdered urine must be prepared ahead of time. If there is a period of time that you are clean, you can make powdered urine from your own supply.
220.127.116.11 Making your own powdered urine:
Urinate in a glass container. Let it evaporate. Then scrape the inside for the concentrate. Just mix it with water before the test, and the sample will have the correct specific gravity, pH, color, etc.
9.2.3 Dog urine:
I heard from Dr. Grow that dog urine (of all things) can be substituted, and will pass the test! However, I don't know how an age, gender, pH, or creatinine test would result. Someone was able to use dog urine for several months to pass the test. This subsection assumes you have a clean dog. I know my dog's urine wouldn't pass; he eats more weed than humans do. It would make more sense to use human urine, but dog urine provides a workable substitution in an emergency.
10. STEALING URINE
Speaking of stealing, people have been known to get away with stealing their sample from the tray among many other urine samples. In the case that I heard, the person being tested never got the test results, and was hired for the job that he was tested for. They wouldn't dare ask someone to re-test because they "lost" his/her urine sample. Don't expect this method to work if you are being tested for the military or if you're on parole; they have no problem violating your rights repeatedly.
11. IF YOU FAIL
If you fail the test, raise hell. Failing the drug test has been known to make a quiet person go ballistic. You will be interviewed by a medical review official (MRO), who would try to find out why you tested positive. MRO's are NOT impartial. An MRO is an employee of the lab, and is there for quality control. They are also there to protect the lab by coercing the court into thinking that the person who failed is a drug abuser. "Anything you say to an MRO can and will be used against you" (RDW). If you fight it, your lawyer can subpoena the proficiency testing records of the laboratory for review" (anon1). These questions should be asked about the lab you are challenging:
How does the lab handle samples? Are they NIDA/CAP certified? Do they participate in appropriate proficiency testing? Whay is their track records in the proficiency testing program? Have they ever failed a proficiency test? What are the qualifications of the technical staff performing the test? What technologies do they use to screen and confirm?
"Conquering the Urine Tests" provides additional legal advice that will help you before taking a test, and if you fail a test.
Laura Gibson, a medical doctor, tested positive and was not hired. She had a poppy seed bagel that morning, not knowing it was a false positive. She fought it to the point where they just decided to throw out the results and hire her anyway. But don't go taking it to court; it's virtually impossible to win this case.
If you're an adult, contact ACLU. If you're a child, don't bother; ACLU won't do anything for children who fail the drug test. Then mail me and tell me what you tried so I can use that to help others. Many people ask for advice before the test, then don't report back.
There is a way to fight drug testing. If you ever serve as a juror for a case where someone is being charged for a drug offense, and a drug test is used as evidence, be aware of jury nullification. If sufficient evidence is submitted supporting a law you consider unjust, you have a RIGHT to vote not-guilty, simply because you disagree with the law. You may agree with the law, yet disagree with the punishment for that particular crime. If you feel the punishment will be too harsh, you also have the right to vote not-guilty. Vote your conscience. The court never tells the jurors of this hidden right, but it's there. The Fully Informed Jury Association is a good source for this information.
Many employers no longer show lab results to employees. They just get rejected if seeking employment. Elderly employees are getting fired for failing the test; incidentally losing all of their pension benefits.
12. WHO DRUGTESTS?
Employers, parole officers, police, health insurance companies, the military, and as of recently, high school athletic coaches drug test. Many of these people are insensitive, unscrupulous, and could care less about constitutional rights. Some are forced into drug testing, like coaches for example. Parents who can't parent their children adequately have pressured high school coaches to enforce their drug-free values at the expense of civil rights. I do not know the methods these people use. It would be a full time job keep track of testing procedures of different organizations. Please don't email me asking if or how your health insurance provider will drug test you. I don't know. If you have such a question, I suggest posting it to the relevent newsgroups or the mailing list.
12.1 Which companies test, and which don't?:
There used to be a usenet 'Just-Say-No-To-Piss-Tests Project' keeping an updated list of companies that either invade or respect your privacy. If you have first person experience with a company, you would report it to . They would provide bad publicity for companies that test by adding it to the list. If you report a company for not testing you, they would add it to the good list (companies that respect your privacy). (see 14.2.3) Whoever maintained this list may have dropped out of the scene because many are having trouble getting a list. Those who do get the list, find that it's a old one. A couple people in the mailing list discussed starting a new one, but at the moment it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
13. POLITICS AND ETHICS OF DRUG TESTING
(I'll keep this brief, this is not a position paper) I believe drug testing is an unreasonable search
, and that it forces people to incriminate themselves. Many who take the same position believe drug testing violates the 4th and 5th amendments. The counter argument is that the Constitution doesn't apply to private organization
It comes down to these values. An employer's right to know who s/he is hiring stands in conflict with an individual's right to privacy. I wrote this paper because I value the right to privacy more.
I also believe people SHOULD have the right to consume any substance they want without limits given that they are knowledgeable about that chemical. Employers, like anyone, have been effected by the Reefer Madness Movement. The government pushed massive amounts of misinformation throughout communities and schools, and I don't believe that employers are well informed enough yet to dictate what drugs will harm the workplace.
The only effective way to select workers is to evaluate their performance on the job. Drugs can actually improve performance. Aspirin relieves pain, allowing a worker to continue. Marijuana (when consumed on the job) makes repetitive factory oriented work more interesting, which lengthens a worker's attention span. Marijuana will actually make some people more alert. After intensive testing, someone I know can solve the Rubik's Cube 20 seconds faster when stoned. (not scientific proof, yet interesting). Stimulants will keep workers productive at the end of long work days. If the negative effects of drug use begin to show in the worker's performance, their employer has a number of options for dealing with it.
Phil Smith summarizes an article in March 1990 Scientific American:
The article suggested that workers who tested positive for marijuana only: 1) cost less in health insurance benefits; 2) had a higher than average rate of promotion; 3) exhibited less absenteeism; and 4) were fired for cause less often than workers who did not test positive. Since marijuana is the most common illicit drug used by adults, and the one detected in up to 90 percent of all "positive" drug tests (half of which are false), this fact has radical implications for current public and employer policies.
I could hardly believe what I was reading, but this article did carry sufficient statistical evidence.
I see greater negative effects in drug testing than in drug use. In my opinion, drug testing is un-American because guilt is assumed until the test proves innocence. Our current conservative totalitarian Congress is extremely irresponsible, and the peoples' civil liberties are suffering. This particular privacy violation costs businesses $1.2 billion a year for urinalysis of their workers. The military is notorious for their strict drug tests. (note that marijuana helped soldiers in times of war). If you test positive in California, your driver's license is automatically suspended for 6 months. Nightbyrd has "counseled several, very straight, elderly workers - close to retirement - who were fired and lost their pension benefits because they 'failed their drug test'" (Jeff Nightbyrd).
Bernard Williams of the Philadelphia Eagles failed the drug test for marijuana. He was suspended from the NFL for six games for using a drug that doesn't enhance performance. If anything, marijuana would detract from an athletes performance. Let the coach judge Williams' performance.
Now it's becoming popular for parents to drug test their children. Perfect; let's break up the families; cut down those lines of communication and sneak around spying on our kids. Let's violate the child's privacy. We use DARE like the salem witch hunts - to get children to turn in their parents. Now with DrugAlert, parents have a weapon to use on their kids.
The U.S. Supreme court just ruled June 1995 that public high schools can require drug test for all student athletes. Many high schools already do random searches on students; not for weapons, but for drugs. After all, the Constitution has failed to protect children in the classroom, why not expand? Students have lost 1st, 4th, and 5th amendment rights, and I think it's absurd. We have patriotic history teachers telling children of their Constitutional rights, yet children aren't given these rights on campus. Kids get kicked out of school for questioning rules that violate the Constitution.
We are sacrificing too many important rights by allowing drug testing to continue. Until this unjust drug testing frenzy is put to an end, children, workers, military service people, and parolee's need to learn how to protect themselves from the drug test.
14. ABOUT THE AUTHOR
I have no medical or legal credentials. I haven't even been drug tested myself (because I refuse to). I use the internet to research drug testing, and compiled this paper from that information. I've talked to several knowledgeable people who either drug test, or get drug tested. I'm an activist against the War on Some Drugs, and I think that the government has taken the drug war to a ludicrous level. Laws created by the legislature to protect me from myself demonstrate how totalitarian this country has become. NORML reports that every *9* seconds someone gets arrested for marijuana posession. Incidentally, I've taken an interest in methods for 'beating the system'; although I would only implement methods for beating an unjust system (such as drug testing). I may find out how to beat the breathalyzer test (and publish it), yet I remain strongly opposed to DUI. That goes into my belief in freedom of information. The government bans lots of information that should be public access.
14.1 Contacting the author:
You may e-mail comments/corrections/suggestions to me. Send questions to the urine-test mailing list. This way several people including me will get the question, and I won't be burdened with having to reply to all the mass mail that I get. I probably won't be able to answer questions that this paper doesn't answer, but I can direct them to a more knowledgeable source. Here is my public key:
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Comment: Top Secret Underground Transmittal
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
I encourage everyone to use encryption, Uncle Sam is watching! I also encourage everyone to use anonymous accounts, like anon.penet.fi. If you don't have an anonymous account, I promise to keep your identity confidential. I would never disclose my sources, even to a badge. E-mail firstname.lastname@example.org to get an anonymous account. I will assume everyone wants to be anonymous, so I default to not publishing your name or address in the credits. If you provide me with information and want to be cited in the sources, tell me explicitly. Many of my readers are experts in the field. If you want to be available for consulting directly to the public, let me know and I'll add your address to the sources.
Snail-Mail: 17950 Lassen St., 11-302, Northridge, CA 91330
(anon1): an anonymous toxicologist. Details in section 16. Made reference to Clin Pharmacol Ther 38 (85) 572-578 and Pharmacol Rev 38 (86) 151-178.
Thanks to everyone who contributed information! Many of my contributors use anonymous accounts, or have requested that I keep them totally anonymous.
anon1: Anonymous contributor #1 is a clinical biochemist/toxicologist working as the non-medical director of a small clinical laboratory. S/He holds three degrees: a masters in biochemistry, a bachelors in chemistry and an associates in medical laboratory technology and is certified as a Clinical Laboratory Scientist by NCA. S/He has worked in the clinical laboratory field for 18 years and specifically in drug testing labs for over fives years. In addition, s/he has been recognized as a expert before several states and the federal courts in matters relating to drug and alcohol testing and it effects on driving performance. S/He has testified for both the prosecution and defense so his testimony has been recognized as unbiased.
California NORML: helped with information on detection times.
Clinton (not Bill). Clinton has worked as a lab assistant in two drug testing lab's, and has other family members in the field. In usenet, Clinton is known as ZZYZX.
Dr. Grow . Dr. Grow studies molecular biology.
Nightbyrd, Jeff (founder of Byrd Labs): Nightbyrd is the author of the "Conquering the Urine Tests" pamphlet. His 11th edition was updated in 1996 and is out via snail-mail for $5. The pamphlet provides some more elaborate information, and includes statistics and stories. Nightbyrd has worked several years on protecting workers civil rights, and a majority of my information comes from all the free consulting he has provided (he's practically a coauthor). If anyone has a related law suit underway, Mr. Nightbyrd has one of the most extensive libraries of materials in the country. E-mail ; Voice 800/480-2468; FAX 512/478-7706.
Pearson, Anne Watters (founder of Martha Butterfield-Jay Foundation): Pearson is devoted to counseling and coaching people faced with piss testing. E-mail .
Smith, Phillip. Phillip Smith is a Portland NORML member who has helped edit this paper, making corrections on grammar and content.
16.2 Works cited
Scientific American, "Science and the Citizen". March 1990. pp.18 & 22
Thein, Lori A.; Thein, Jill M.; Landry, Gregory L. "Ergogenic Aids.
Special Series: Pharmacology." PHYSICAL THERAPY. May, 1995. p. 426
16.3 For additional information:
American Civil Liberties Union: 212/944-9800
Austin Nutritional Research: http://www.realtime.net/anr
Byrd Labs: Jeff Nightbyrd's creation. Byrd labs has run more than 2,000
tests on urine and additives. 800/333-2152
California NORML: 415/563-5858; e-mail .
CAPP: Hi tech workers rights organization. 512/448-4804
Carson, Ed. JUST SAY NO TO DRUG TESTS - How to Beat the Whiz Quiz.
Conquering the Urine Tests: see Jeff Nightbyrd (16.1)
Digit Press (GA) Info Line: 404/924-1393
Drug Testing Hotline in California: 900/844-test
Fully Informed Jury Association: For free Jury Power Information Kit, call
800/TEL-JURY. FIJA national snail-mail: PO Box 59, Helmville, MT
59843. 406/793-5550. Mr. Peyman (FIJA affiliate) 714/838-2896.
Hoffman, Abbie. STEAL THIS URINE TEST.
J&J Enterprizes (aka Freedom Wholesalers): Distributes The Stuff and
Naturally Klean Herbal Tea Direct questions to 800/883-3869. FAX
orders to 303/765-5732. Snail-Mail: PO Box 102311, Denver, CO 80250.
Klear: 40 4th Street #216, Petaluma, CA 94952 800/661-1357
Legal Action Center: 212/243-1313
Martha Butterfield-Jay Foundation (Oklahoma NORML): MBJF sent me free
literature, and a brochure on of their products. If you call, a
machine will answer. Calls will be returned collect. P.O. Box 57214,
Oklahoma City, OK 73157 405/521-URIN
National Lawyers Guild: 212/614-6464
NORML: NORML operates a Drug Testing & Information Hotline. I don't
recommend this hotline. People have called this line needing important
drug testing information in a hurry, only to get a recording. For the
price, I would expect a live person. The charge is $2.95 per minute.
900/97-NORML. 1636 'R' St. N.W., 3rd Floor, Washington D.C. 20009
NORML Legal Referral: 202/483-5500
Party Hut Enterprises: Distributor of Carbo Clean, Whizzies, and Klear.
If you would like to have more information about this product or a catalog
of the 100's of other products that they carry just e-mail Charles
Alvis. or . They also have an
online headshop located at http://www.paranoia.com/~partyhut
Performance Factors: Makes video imparment test. 415/769-8300
PharmChem Laborities Inc.: Boycott PharmChem for supplying the sweat
patch. Jay Whitney or David Asheim can be reached (harassed) at
Sampson Health Products: E-mail: email@example.com. Snail mail: 901
Rhode Rd., Kyle, Texas 78640. http://www.sampson.com. Call 512/376-2537
anytime to speak to an operator, leave message, or automated fax.
Testing Expert Witness: Good for legal cases. 615/579-5425
Zydot Unlimited, Inc.: 800/725-2481
16.3.1 Drug testing consultants on the net:
If you want to be listed here as a free consultant, let me know.
firstname.lastname@example.org: These people are looking to answer tough questions. They say if they don't know an answer, they'll research it for you.
Me: I'll make an effort to answer questions. If I can't answer something, I'm in contact with toxicologists and other experts who choose to remain anonymous. I will direct questions to them.
Jeff Nightbyrd: Consult Nightbyrd with any drug testing question. Legal issues are his specialty.
16.3.2 Drug testing mailing list:
E-mail with "subscribe urine-test Firstname Lastname" as the body. Nicholas Merrill maintains the mailing list as well as a WEB page saturated with information and links. http://www.calyx.com/urine-test.html.
16.3.3 Sites and Internet sources:
A list of sites relating to drug testing.
My page has a rolling version of the drugtesting faq, meaning it's updated continuously without a version number.
16.2.4 Newsgroups: newsgroups of interest.
17. I'm taking the Phillip Zimmerman approach. Our rights are in the line of fire, and I think everyone should have free access to this information. I want it to become widespread before the government has a chance to react. Our current Congress is a threat to civil liberties, and they have been launching anti-expression policies - targeting the internet. Non-profit users/orgs may distribute unmodified versions of this text freely. I regret that I cannot sign this document because there seems to be a bug where the signing process tampers with my public key in section 14.1. Profitting from this text is prohibited.