Big Urine Wins Again:
Man Found Guilty of Selling Own Urine
by Joseph C. Hinson
December 18, 2001

Maybe you missed this news story earlier this year. An undercover South Carolina state police officer busted Kenneth Curtis, after Curtis allegedly delivered bottled urine at a gas station. Curtis, it was alleged, ran a urine-selling business over the Internet. As owner of Privacy Protection Services, said he started selling urine sample kits on his Web site after he grew tired of drug testing at work.

The urine, which is supplied by Curtis, is contained in a small pouch with tubing. The pouch can be taped to the body and buyers who operate it properly can use it without being noticed by someone monitoring a urine test, according to Curtis' Web site. The kit, which costs $69 plus shipping, also includes heat packets so the user can warm the sample to body temperature.

Authorities say Curtis is helping people cheat on drug tests. But Curtis denies the allegations. He says he's not a drug dealer but a urine dealer. Curtis contends he has a constitutional right to sell bodily wastes and says it's none of his business what people do with it.

A jury disagreed on December 14, 2001. A South Carolina jury found a man guilty on Friday of illegally selling his own urine to help people beat drug tests. He was sentenced to six months in prison, followed by five years of probation and fined $10,000. As part of the sentencing, Circuit Court Judge John Few told Curtis that if he is caught selling his urine again anywhere, he will be imprisoned for six years. His lawyers are currently appealing the case.

Said Curtis after his conviction, "I was greatly disappointed. I was hoping…. I don't expect much out of our law enforcement and judicial branches or the legislature. I never expected to get much of a fair shake in those regards. I was hoping that our jury system, which is something I grew up thinking was really the pillar of our system, would see it more clearly my way."

Obviously, Big Urine wins again. The long reach of Big Urine was more than Curtis could handle. Like Big Tobacco, Big Cola, Big Lawyer, Big Urine pulled out all the stops on this one.

Is South Carolina Pissing Away Good Money?

So here we have a man selling his own urine. He gets arrested which means the case was investigated. Which means that as taxpayers, our money was used for this sham. After the police wrapped up their case, it was sent to the prosecutors. More money, in other words. And why? Because some guy had found a niche in the market and was making money.

Was he helping people beat drug tests? Of course he was! Why else would someone buy another man's urine? Look, I think it's wrong for employers to take drug tests. I mean, when I got hired at Food Lion, I had to take a drug test. Can someone tell me why? Aside from the fact that it's company policy, were they afraid I was going to put the sweet potatoes in the baking potatoes bin? Maybe I was going to mix up the tangerines and oranges!

More About Random Drug Tests

Random drugs tests are another matter. What makes them random? The fact that no one knows when they're coming, for one thing. But who decides who gets the drug test and when? In 1999, U.S. Rep. Jim Rogan, a Republican from California, of proposed that all high school students -- with their parents consent, wink, wink, nudge, nudge -- be tested randomly for drugs. (H.R. 1642) A similar measure was proposed by U.S. Rep. John E. Peterson, also a Republican.

In other words, you are guilty until proven innocent. That's true in all drug testing scenarios, whether you were just hired to chunk out produce at a grocery store or you're a student in high school or college.

The argument then goes, "But if you're innocent, why protest?" Because it's unconstitutional, for one thing. It's an unreasonable search and seizure. Let's look at it this way. You're sitting in your home not bothering anyone or anything. Two cops knock on the door and say they're doing random house testing, do you mind if they come in?

"Well," you hammer and haw.

"If you've got nothing to hide, then why do you mind if we come in and take a look?" At this point you're wondering if they know about that Britney Spears poster in your closet. Which would be fine except that you're a 45 year old construction worker. You're also afraid they may find that nun's outfit. None of this is illegal, but if the neighbors found out...

So the point is getting lost? We as a nation should be up in arms about more and more of our rights flying out the window. But since most of the country does not do drugs, they feel this doesn't concern them. I say that we as a nation should stand up for any wrong we see, whether it be random drug testing or what.

Consider this statement: "A positive drug test does not indicate whether an employee was impaired or intoxicated on the job, nor does it indicate whether an employee has a drug problem or how often the employee uses the drug. Thus most tests do not provide information relevant to job performance." (1) Therefore, even though you have turned in a positive drug test, this does not mean you are ON drugs, addicted to drugs or that you are performing your job at less than optimal performance. But it does mean that you will almost certainly be fired and that this will go on your permanent record. Try getting a job chucking produce around after that!

Wide spread drug testing began in 1986 when President Ronald Reagan made it mandatory that Federal employees refrain from the use of illicit drugs. In 1988, the Drug Free Workplace Act was implemented and covered employees of any company that supplies products, materials or services, valued more than $25,000, to the Federal government. This is how the private sector was forced into mandatory employee drug testing, costing millions of dollars a year in additional expense. After all of these years, it has failed to be a deterrent. It is a failed policy, but it's still enforced. Are drug tests a violation of your privacy and constitutional rights? Of course! But it doesn't matter. Afterall, we must stamp out the evil insurgence of drugs! This is a war afterall!

What's worse is the, well, randomness of random drug tests. A boss can "suggest" you take a "voluntary" drug test. If you don't voluntarily take this voluntary test, then you're fired. If you take it and fail it, you're still fired. If you take it and pass it, chances are that you've still got the stigma associated with being a hardened drug user. It's hard to prove a negative, too.

Of course, drug tests have never been known to be one hundred percent accurate. You could take that "voluntary" drug test and fail it even though you haven't done any drugs since that one night at college with the guy in the gorilla suit all those years ago. But that's another story. Consider this from Dr. Dean Edell: "Eating a poppy seed bagel or muffin will cause you to test positive for heroin, and now scientists at the Addiction Research Center in Baltimore have presented evidence that hemp seed oil can lead to positive urine tests for marijuana." (2)

While the reliability of the standard urine drug test is aggressively asserted by the companies that make money off the testing, the tests, as administered, are not scientifically assessed for reliability. The legal community has a term for procedures that pretend to be science but can't stand up to scientific scrutiny: junk science. Some now claim that drug testing is a perfect example of it.

One such person is Dr. Kent Holtorf, who gives plenty of ammunition for his views in a book with the quirky title, Ur-ine Trouble, published by Vandalay Press and now in its second edition. Holtorf begins by pointing out the myriad ways in which drug testing laboratories can and do make mistakes. Holtorf also deals with an even more troubling aspect of drug testing: the false positive. A false positive occurs when a test erroneously indicates the presence of an illegal substance. For instance, a test can come out positive for marijuana as the result of ingesting ibuprofen, found in Advil and Motrin. A number of over-the-counter medications may produce a positive test result for amphetamines.

Holtorf claims that more false positives than accurate tests are reported by drug testing laboratories. He devotes an entire chapter to the various substances that have been shown to cause false positives for various substances. Holtorf also points out that secondhand smoke from marijuana and crack cocaine is taken up in a person's hair, which produces a positive test result when hair is sampled for drugs. The more melanin in a person's hair, claims Holtorf, the greater the concentration of the illegal substance. And since African-Americans tend to have higher concentrations of melanin in their hair, the chances are also great that they are at much greater risk than whites of testing positive when their hair is tested -- even if the substance got there through secondhand smoke. (3)

OK, let's wrap this up. Chances are I'm not reaching you anyway. Either you were already a believer before you read this or you weren't. Chances are I didn't change your mind. Am I saying that no one should be required to take a drug test? I'm not sure. I mean, what about airline pilots, train engineers, high school custodians and other important people? There has to be some measures to provide for the safety of the public. But there also has to be some common sense at work here.

Do you really want to drug test your high schooler? If you think he or she is on drugs, chances are, he or she is! It's your child, you should know. But what lesson are we teaching our children? Give them drug tests now and they will expect them in the workplace. If they expect random drug tests in the work place, them maybe when those two cops come up and want to search their home, they wont think too much about that either.

The boys in Washington and our state capitals have rolled up our Constitution, stuffed it with the money they're making on this and are smoking it at our expense. When do we wake up and take our country back?!

Relevant URLs:
Congress Proposes Drug Testing All High School Students
High Court to Rule on Student Drug Tests
NORML: Random Drug Testing Articles
Employee wins for firing after refusing drug test
Random Drug Testing in Schools is a Tragedy
How To Pass A Random Drug Test
Drug Testing Your Child: A How To Kit
Protect yourself and those you love! Random drug testing discourages usage!

(1) Source: Lewis Maltby, Vice President, Drexelbrook Controls, Horsham, PA, as cited in Report of the Maine Commission to Examine Chemical Testing of Employees, (December 31, 1986).

(2) Source: Forensic Drug Abuse Advisor; Vol. 12 (9), October 2000

(3) Drug Tests: Junk Science?

to my next rant (when posted)
My Rants and Raves
The Joseph C. Hinson Home Page