Men sentenced over Whizzinator, a device to beat drug tests

[phr]

Men sentenced over Whizzinator, a device to beat drug tests
The AP
4.8.10


A California man today was sentenced to six months in federal prison for running a company that sold a male prosthetic called the Whizzinator that helped men cheat on drug tests.

Gerald W. Wills, 67, of Los Angeles, sold the device and a product called Number 1 that could be used by either men or women, along with a synthetic urine to fill the devices.

Mr. Wills' since-disbanded company, Puck Technology Inc., of Signal Hill, Calif., advertised the devices on the Internet as a way for pilots, truck drivers and others whose safety is regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation to beat drug tests.

The Web site even included testimonials from those who used it.

Mr. Wills' partner, Robert D. Catalano, 65, of Huntington Beach, Calif., was sentenced Tuesday to three years of probation.

The men pleaded guilty in 2008 to conspiracy to sell drug paraphernalia and conspiracy to defraud the United States, because the products were specifically marketed to beat federal drug tests.

The devices were sold from October 2005 through May 2008. The men disbanded the company and surrendered $300,000 in cash and all other assets as part of their plea agreement. As a result, U.S. District Judge David Cercone did not fine either man.

Link!

 

[Damien]

The men disbanded the company and surrendered $300,000 in cash and all other assets as part of their plea agreement.

I would say that seems fair right there.

 

[morbiddoctor]

^no, it's not fair until they really fuck you.

 

[MikeHawk]

Seems like a reasonable trial to me. Although urine tests are immoral in my opinion, blatant defiance of the law is going to land you in trouble.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Jail time, seized assets, AND national media attention, without even selling anything explicitly illegal?? Fucking amateurs, I say! Didn't these guys take Grey Market Business 101?

They were really dumb to blatantly market the Whizzinator as a device for beating drug tests. If I were them, I would have marketed it as a device for guys with penis insecurity, to help them get over public pissing problems and similar phobias. Or as a sex toy for lesbians with a fetish for golden showers. I mean really, if crack pipes can be sold in any convenience store under the pretense that they're 'artificial roses' or 'romantic gifts', how hard would it be to come up with some kind of paper-thin cover for marketing the Whizzinator as something other than drug paraphernalia? Just pepper the webpage with VERY subtle, ambiguous drug references, kind of like the names of stores that sell 'tobacco pipes'. Word would catch on quickly among the right crowd. If need be, insert some legal boilerplate on the webpage forcing each buyer to agree not to use the product for any illegal purpose, and waiving the company of any responsibility for acts committed using it.

I betcha one of these things, especially a new one in the original packaging, sells for a very high price on eBay, now that the company is gone.

 

[JahRed24x]

"I would have marketed it as a device for guys with penis insecurity, to help them get over public pissing problems and similar phobias. Or as a sex toy for lesbians with a fetish for golden showers"

^^ lol that's a funny idea.. good one

 

[phr]

Jail time, seized assets, AND national media attention, without even selling anything explicitly illegal?? Fucking amateurs, I say! Didn't these guys take Grey Market Business 101?

They were really dumb to blatantly market the Whizzinator as a device for beating drug tests. If I were them, I would have marketed it as a device for guys with penis insecurity, to help them get over public pissing problems and similar phobias. Or as a sex toy for lesbians with a fetish for golden showers. I mean really, if crack pipes can be sold in any convenience store under the pretense that they're 'artificial roses' or 'romantic gifts', how hard would it be to come up with some kind of paper-thin cover for marketing the Whizzinator as something other than drug paraphernalia? Just pepper the webpage with VERY subtle, ambiguous drug references, kind of like the names of stores that sell 'tobacco pipes'. Word would catch on quickly among the right crowd. If need be, insert some legal boilerplate on the webpage forcing each buyer to agree not to use the product for any illegal purpose, and waiving the company of any responsibility for acts committed using it.

I betcha one of these things, especially a new one in the original packaging, sells for a very high price on eBay, now that the company is gone.

Yup. I don't know if it's sad or funny that marketing got this guy busted. But that's the war on drugs, anything will be used against you.

Yeah I made up my mind, it's just sad.

 

[Ason Unique]

Is the fake urine still available, that's alll I would care about, fill a small spray bottle up or some shit.

 

[Volcano]

Even if I wasn't a drug user I have a problem:

- I can't pee in public when someone else is in the room. I just can't do it. Well, I can, but rarely.


I'm betting plenty of men bought this to get jobs that required a pisser even if they didn't use drugs. Not the intended audience, but...

 

[phr]

- I can't pee in public when someone else is in the room. I just can't do it. Well, I can, but rarely.

Well, there are always other testing options. Blood, saliva, and hair tests work.

 

[JoeTheStoner]

- I can't pee in public when someone else is in the room. I just can't do it. Well, I can, but rarely.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paruresis
i had this problem when i was on probation n' random UA's. shit was kinda funny cause i told em it wasn't happening lol so at the start my PO would like step out for a second until i started then come back in n' id freeze up n' get piss on the floor. i mean a fucking grown man is staring at ur damn dick watching u pee uncomfortable. so whatever once they realized it wouldn't work they put me on this "sweat patch" i wore 24-7-365. they didn't like it tho cause it takes more time to take off n' put a new on than jus pissin in a cup n' i held em up when there was like 20 other ppl waiting and more expensive. but whatever fuck em i look back and laugh at those times cause id hate my fucking life if my job was to look at another guys dick while they piss. CLEAN MY PISS UP FAGGOT!

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

Yeah I think fingerstick blood testing (like for diabetics' blood sugar) and buccal mucosa (the inside of your cheek) swabs are going to eventually become the mainstay of drug testing. They'll both soon be able to get highly accurate and nearly instantaneous results. They're a lot harder to fool (especially the blood test), and a lot less invasive to administer (especially the oral swab). You can't really argue against a parole officer fixing his full attention on you as you put an instrument into your cheek, the same way you can against him watching you tinkle.

Hair testing is too expensive, and doesn't prove current use. Blood, on the other hand, can show BOTH current AND recent past use, by testing for both active drug and 1st and 2nd pass metabolites, making it even better than urine.

My guess is that once personal use amounts of most drugs are legal to possess and use in private, it'll be the full force of the free market, not the government's drug war, driving the research, development, and sales of drug testing technology, because it'll be employers and insurance carriers, not law enforcement bodies or other government agencies, doing most of the testing. And believe you me if personal use amounts of drugs become legal, MANY respectable employers, and MOST insurance plans worth having and within the reach of most people, WILL refuse people who test positive for any of a whole list of substances, probably including nicotine. Drug use will turn more than ever before into one of those things you do to your heart's content when you're young, and quit abruptly, and for most people probably for good, a couple weeks before getting your first 'real job' and leaving your parents' insurance plan. It'll be a two edged sword to be sure. But still, under such an arrangement, people who wanted to use drugs still could without fear of legal repercussions, depending on what sacrifices they were willing to make.

 

[phr]

Hair testing is too expensive, and doesn't prove current use. Blood, on the other hand, can show BOTH current AND recent past use, by testing for both active drug and 1st and 2nd pass metabolites, making it even better than urine.

I'm not sure how viable blood testing would be. The detection time is very narrow, at least for most drugs of concern -opiates, cocaine, amphetamines. (Can't comment about metabolites in blood testing though.) Also, I've never seen on the spot blood tests. The only ones I've seen required a bit of blood, more so than a pin-prick, and that's quite more invasive and expensive.
I'm surprised saliva tests aren't more common, although their detection time is shorter than urine tests as well.

And believe you me if personal use amounts of drugs become legal, MANY respectable employers, and MOST insurance plans worth having and within the reach of most people, WILL refuse people who test positive for any of a whole list of substances, probably including nicotine.

Really? Aren't there discrimination laws? I can't imagine that someone could legally not hire you, or fire you, because you use a legal substance, unless it has an impact on your performance. I swear I read a recent article about Wal-Mart taking shit for firing a medicinal marijuana patient, with Wal-Mart's reasoning being that it's still against federal law.
As for insurance companies, I thought the new healthcare bill forbids stuff like that. Well, at least getting rid of someone for pre-existing conditions. Isn't drug abuse a medical condition? Even now, a lot of the major insurance policies provide some sort of coverage for substance abuse issues.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

^ But I think many employers and insurers will have an interest in making sure their employees are not on anything that could compromise their performance, before this compromise of performance has actually occurred and the damage is done, especially if people's safety is at stake on that particular job. I bet these interests will lobby for the legal rights to test for substances that have a proven link to turning people into liabilities.

Employers and insurers picking up the tab for all injuries, illnesses, and other mishaps caused by employees using drugs, in a system where drugs are legal to possess and use, is burning the candle at both ends. You can't compare this to the new laws against discriminating based on preexisting health conditions. You do not choose to catch rheumatic fever and suffer kidney failure. You do, arguably, choose whether or not to become a heroin addict.

Another option I can see, in a nation where drug possession and use has become legal, is that regulation takes place at the level of social sanction. That is, enough mishaps happen to the unlucky few who take their newfound liberties with drugs too far, that the use of most 'hard' drugs becomes completely stigmatized and socially unacceptable in short order.

Or even better, vaccinations and other addiction treatments that are long lasting or permanent, and biochemically keep the addict from ever enjoying their drug of abuse again, will be developed and readily available (or even mandated!) for employees or insurees who've been found to have an addiction, and intend to keep their job or insurance plan.

Bottom line, people on certain substances are statistically very likely to be serious liabilities and drains on the coffers of employers and insurers, and in any discussion of loosening of drug laws, this fact is not lost on such institutions, especially as their bottom lines have shrunk and their tight fists have been pried open by new laws.

Murphy's Law: if a drug is abusable, some WILL abuse it. These people will suffer, and those associated with them and counting on them WILL SUFFER TOO. Drug laws that punish use and possession may not be a deterrent to use or abuse at all (indeed, I tend to think the effect is weak at best, if it exists at all.) But such laws DO effectively provide institutions with a means of washing their hands of people who would be dead weight to these institutions if they ever became addicts. What will take the place of this function, if these laws are removed?

Don't get me wrong, I am all for repealing laws against drug use and possession. But I am a realist in saying that doing so will remove a weight-bearing pillar that will need to be somehow need to be replaced, if the structure is to remain standing.

 

[phr]

But I think many employers and insurers will have an interest in making sure their employees are not on anything that could compromise their performance, before this compromise of performance has actually occurred and the damage is done, especially if people's safety is at stake on that particular job. I bet these interests will lobby for the legal rights to test for substances that have a proven link to turning people into liabilities.

I certainly agree with you, and I'd ask for the same testing if I held a position responsible for such things. But, they would be legal. It's in their interest now to test for alcohol, which is used much more than illicit drugs, and arguably causes more impairment and harm. But they don't, not even for pre-employment. Why? Well, because it's legal. Why aren't you calling for alcohol testing?

Employers and insurers picking up the tab for all injuries, illnesses, and other mishaps caused by employees using drugs, in a system where drugs are legal to possess and use, is burning the candle at both ends. You can't compare this to the new laws against discriminating based on preexisting health conditions. You do not choose to catch rheumatic fever and suffer kidney failure. You do, arguably, choose whether or not to become a heroin addict.

You also choose other health conditions that are covered now. You're comparing apples to oranges. You'd have to compare something like a sedentary overweight lifestyle, or smoking/drinking, to drug use. Not rheumatic fever or kidney failure, which probably weren't directly caused by bad choices someone made over and over again.

Another option I can see, in a nation where drug possession and use has become legal, is that regulation takes place at the level of social sanction. That is, enough mishaps happen to the unlucky few who take their newfound liberties with drugs too far, that the use of most 'hard' drugs becomes completely stigmatized and socially unacceptable in short order.

Well, drugs are stigmatized heavily here and they're still used. Always have been used. So I don't think that will sway use rates. At least not significantly. Darwinism might change things quicker than that. :D
What will sway use rates, at least in my opinion, is education.

Or even better, vaccinations and other addiction treatments that are long lasting or permanent, and biochemically keep the addict from ever enjoying their drug of abuse again, will be developed and readily available (or even mandated!) for employees or insurees who've been found to have an addiction, and intend to keep their job or insurance plan.

They're already being developed. Isn't going to happen for opiates, at least not while we still use them as analgesics. Cocaine maybe, but all the studies I've seen have been easily defeated by taking more of the drug and the vaccine wears out after some time.

Bottom line, people on certain substances are statistically very likely to be serious liabilities and drains on the coffers of employers and insurers, and in any discussion of loosening of drug laws, this fact is not lost on such institutions, especially as their bottom lines have shrunk and their tight fists have been pried open by new laws.

I agree with you, from a business and safety pov. But I'm still not a fan of testing other than pre-employment, post accident, and at predetermined times.

Murphy's Law: if a drug is abusable, some WILL abuse it. These people will suffer, and those associated with them and counting on them WILL SUFFER TOO. Drug laws that punish use and possession may not be a deterrent to use or abuse at all (indeed, I tend to think the effect is weak at best, if it exists at all.) But such laws DO effectively provide institutions with a means of washing their hands of people who would be dead weight to these institutions if they ever became addicts. What will take the place of this function, if these laws are removed?

Don't get me wrong, I am all for repealing laws against drug use and possession. But I am a realist in saying that doing so will remove a weight-bearing pillar that will need to be somehow need to be replaced, if the structure is to remain standing.

What will take their place? Well, I think people should get fired based on performance. If you're not performing, whether it's because of your drug use or whatever, that's it. You're probably thinking "you said you're for drug testing, though." Yes, I am as long as everything is tested. Testing doesn't necessarily deter drug use/addiction, but it shows that you're somewhat in control. At least pre-employment and predetermined tests do.


I agree with you on a lot of points, but I still have issues with a situation where all drugs are legal, but they're not all treated the same. Specifically alcohol.