BEATING DRUG TESTS: BUSINESS BRIMMING

Here's a little-known fact about the drug tests given to thousands of
truckers, youth counselors, peace officers, bus drivers and other
California professionals as a condition of getting or keeping their jobs:
Cheating isn't illegal, officials say.

If you're caught, you won't be prosecuted.

And there's a wide variety of products to help you cheat -- from tablets to
capsules to drinks -- that come with money-back promises and eye-catching
advertisements:

"Pass Any Drug Test -- Guaranteed."

"Never Worry About a Drug Test Again."

One manufacturer says its formula is "constantly changed to keep ahead of
the bladder cops."

The products carry names like Quick Fix or Clear Choice or The Urinator,
the latter a small electronic module to maintain correct testing
temperatures for water that mixes with concentrated, store-bought urine to
produce a toxin-free sample.

Assemblyman George Runner, R-Lancaster, sees such products as a loophole in
California law and a way for opportunists to make money by mocking a system
designed to enhance public safety.

Runner has proposed legislation, Assembly Bill 154, to outlaw the
manufacture, sale or advertising of products designed to alter drug tests.

"Right now, it's flaunted," he said of cheating. "When somebody advertises
that they'll help you fool a drug test, it strikes at the core of what
public and private employers are trying to accomplish."

But critics say Runner's approach is filled with enforcement problems,
including:

The California legislation would not affect national Internet sales, so
drug cheaters could simply turn from stores to computers.

Many substances used to cheat drug tests also have legitimate uses -- as
herbs, bleaches or shampoos, for example.

AB 154 targets only the makers and sellers of test-cheating products, not
the users, so it would not reduce demand and could spawn a black market.

"My first response was to laugh," said Dr. Kent Holtorf, a Southern
California physician and outspoken opponent of drug-testing programs. "We
keep piling on to the drug war by making more and more laws that aren't
enforceable."

AB 154 is a simplistic solution to a complex problem, he said.

"Manufacturers would just say that their product is meant to prevent a
false positive test for hempseed oil," he said. "Hempseeds are legal, but
they have a small amount of THC (a substance found in marijuana). So test
results can be indistinguishable."

The products are readily available at everything from smoking paraphernalia
shops to more mainstream vitamin outlets.

The manager of one Sacramento-area smoke shop, which sells a toxin-flushing
product that promises to help users "test pure," said not every buyer is a
drug user trying to evade detection.

"Some people take these things regularly just to cleanse their systems,"
said the manager, who identified himself only as Jim. "It has nothing to do
with drug testing."

In cases in which a test-cheating product also has legitimate uses, Runner
said, his bill would limit how it could be marketed.

"They'd have to advertise for that legitimate function," he said.

But critics say free-speech rights are violated when restrictions are
placed on how legal products can be marketed.

Runner concedes his legislation would not eliminate cheating.

"Will there be people who get around it? Sure," Runner said. "But what
we're saying is that this state feels (test integrity) is an important
issue. A vote against this bill is a statement that it's OK to sell
products in California that help you cheat on drug tests."

Gov. Gray Davis has not taken a position on AB 154, which is customary for
legislation that has not yet passed both houses, spokesman Roger Salazar said.

Currently, many employers treat an altered drug test as they do a positive
test: Applicants typically are disqualified. Employees who are already on
the job can face sanctions ranging from drug treatment to firing.

Cheaters are not subject to arrest, however, unless their actions violate
probation or parole conditions stemming from previous crimes.

Runner said he has not ruled out amending his bill to include users of
test-cheating substances, but such a clause could increase the burden and
cost to local police agencies, he said.

Quest Diagnostics, a national provider of drug-test services, reported
finding about 4,500 adulterated or substituted urine samples during general
work force testing from January through June 2000.

Experts say extensive sample-testing procedures can reduce -- but not
eliminate -- test cheating.

Joe Crespillo, 20, was scouring a Sacramento smoke shop last week for a
product to flush marijuana from his system. He's preparing for a military
drug test.

"I've been drinking vinegar and taking cayenne peppers," he said. "I hear
that helps."

Crespillo said he quit smoking marijuana three weeks ago. He opposes AB
154, saying it would wrongly punish people for what they do on weekends or
off duty.

"If people choose to use drugs, that's their business," he said.

AB 154 was inspired by Lisa Williams, a Saugus mother who learned about
test-cheating products -- cleansers or maskers -- while attending a
counseling class at which experts advised parents to test children
suspected of using drugs.

"But how do you protect your child if these (cheating) kits are available?"
she said. "I couldn't believe these could be sold. What does it tell our
children -- that if you do something illegal, you can just go to the store
and buy something to pass your drug test?"

Critics say the real issue should be drug testing itself, which they say is
unreliable and unnecessary, and invades privacy, increases workplace
tension and can produce false-positive tests that jeopardize jobs and ruin
lives.

Eliminating drug testing, they say, would kill the market for maskers.

"We're harming too many people for no legitimate purpose," said Holtorf,
the doctor who opposes testing. "Drugs are bad. But is drug testing good?"

Supporters of drug testing say the process is a necessary, and effective,
response to studies showing that drug users cost U.S. businesses billions
of dollars annually in lost productivity and health-care costs.

Graham Boyd, director of the Drug Policy Litigation Project of the American
Civil Liberties Union, said the group has not taken a position on AB 154,
but "my first impression is that I think the Legislature would have better
things to do."

But Los Angeles County Sheriff's Sgt. Wayne Bilowit, the department's
legislative advocate, said AB 154 could help end an "arms race" in which
experts devise a method for detecting one masker, then another surfaces.

"You end up with laboratories trying to outsmart the people who are trying
to outsmart the drug tests," Bilowit said.

Chris Conrad, a spokesman for the Family Council on Drug Awareness, which
supports the decriminalization of marijuana, said AB 154 is overly broad
and not economically feasible.

"It's understandable that people who find a drug test morally repugnant do
not have a moral problem in trying to bypass it," he said.

Should California arrest and jail them?

Conrad thinks not.

"If a student cheats on a college entrance test, and that test is required,
there should be consequences," Conrad said. "But should it be criminal?"