DRUG TESTING OPTIONS SOUGHT

GAITHERSBURG -- In front of a chuckling Frederick County courtroom, a
prosecutor suggested that a convicted drug-dealer tried to evade a urine
screening by wearing a fake penis rigged with a thermometer, a belt and
reconstituted urine crystals.

Quite possibly he was using the Whizzinator, a product ordered on the
Internet for $150.

Over the years, officials have become hip to the old bait-and-switch trick
of using somebody else's clean urine in place of one that might fail a drug
test.

To help users pass these tests, an Internet industry has sprung up,
profiting by helping those with drugs in their system produce a drug-free
result.--

Law enforcement is trying to keep one step ahead of drug-users, and if the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is successful in its
study of alternative ways to screen for drugs, such creativity may be moot.

A recently released report from NIST revealed an aggressive program to use
saliva and sweat instead of traditionally invasive methods.

Using saliva or sweat allows noninvasive, on-the-spot collection of
specimens, lessening the chance that samples might be altered.

Susan Ballou, forensic sciences program manager for NIST, agreed that this
might be a good way to stymie attempts to alter urine. More than that, she
said, it's noninvasive.

"Saliva and sweat collection is the least-invasive method. It doesn't get
any more mundane than that," she said.

"If this works out like we think it will, it will be the way to go," Ms.
Ballou said.

But Montgomery County State's Attorney Douglas F. Gansler believes that
current urine testing is not overly invasive and is very efficient.

"Each defendant has jail hanging over their head. If they try to get around
drug-testing, they are brought back before judge who can punish the
defendant as he or she sees fit," Mr. Gansler said.

"Clearly the alternative of drug-testing for defendants is preferable to
being in jail," he said.

Sweat, the NIST report states, has the potential to estimate the actual
circulating concentration of drugs. Also, it is less complex and is more
easily prepared for analysis, leading to a potentially new tool for law
enforcement. Preparations are now being made for a full field test at the
D.C. Pretrial Services Agency.

Frederick County State's Attorney Scott L. Rolle said he supports
alternative and noninvasive drug testing.

"An on-the-spot test would be great, especially if you don't have to wait
for results," he said. "My only concern is that defense attorneys will
fight it until they are assured that it is accurate."

Mr. Rolle said he can't remember the last time a urine drug test was
challenged in court. No laws would specifically punish somebody trying to
outmaneuver a urine test, he said.

But Mr. Gansler said that it could be argued that such people are in
contempt of court.

"It would be a stretch, but a person who is complying with the conditions
of their release would have no reason to circumvent the test," Mr. Gansler
said.

Urine samples now are collected under a very strict protocol. Those being
tested are given a sterile cup to urinate in, which is then sealed and
labeled with identifying information and sent to a laboratory, with results
returned in about two weeks. All of this is observed by a law enforcement
agent.

Racine Winborne, spokeswoman for the Maryland Division of Probation and
Parole, said many precautions are taken with urine-testing to avoid
receiving fraudulent specimens.

"We generally require observed specimen collections in order to make sure
that samples are handled, identified properly and not adulterated. When we
observe, males observe males and females are assigned to females," she said.

Ms. Ballou touts that in addition to convenience, saliva and sweat testing
have an added safety bonus.

"There are issues with transmission of diseases through both urine and
blood testing and saliva or sweat testing would eliminate that safety
hazard for the collector," she said.

"If we can do this and get the exact same data without the risk, why not?"
Ms. Ballou said.

According to NIST documents, sweat-testing seems to be much more accurate
than saliva. In a sweat test, a patch is applied to a person and when the
patch is worn, sweat is absorbed into it, depositing drug evidence along
with liquid perspiration. The cost of sweat testing is about the same as
urinalysis testing, making it a viable option in the future.

Ms. Winborne, though, is not concerned at this point with alternative
testing because for the large majority of the time, urine testing is working.

Although urine testing is still the method of choice, Ms. Winborne and
others acknowledge that it is not infallible and people occasionally do try
to scam their way through the test.

"People will try many things to circumvent the system, so anything's
possible. Most of the offenders will use money to buy drugs, so somebody
who would use expensive products to defraud the system has got to be an
offender with resources. If they had $100 in their pocket to spend, it
would be on drugs," Ms. Winborne said.

Mr. Gansler said it is very difficult to thwart tests.

"If they can do it in the short term, they won't be able to do it for
long," he said.

Mr. Rolle agreed and said he has seen cheaters try many methods to produce
clean urine.

"I've seen them consume large quantities of lemon juice and drink herbal
teas," he said.

"If this guy (that appeared in Frederick court last week) spent as much
time and effort with his recovery and living a good life, he would set the
world on fire. Instead he's in big trouble," Mr. Rolle said.