Drug Tests
Products to Defraud Drug Use Screening Tests Are Widely Available Gao ID: GAO-05-653T May 17, 2005This testimony discusses the ease with which the public can obtain products that are marketed, designed, and sold to defraud urine drug use screening tests such as those administered in the Federal Workplace Drug Testing Program. For purposes of this testimony, these products will be referred to as masking products and ways in which some businesses peddle them on the Internet will be discussed. Masking products fall into one of four categories: (1) dilution substances that are added to a urine specimen at the time it is collected or are ingested before an individual submits a urine specimen; (2) cleansing substances that detoxify or cleanse the urine and are ingested prior to the time that an individual submits a urine specimen; (3) adulterants that are used to destroy or alter the chemical make-up of drugs and are added to a urine specimen at the time that it is provided for testing; and (4) synthetic or drug-free urine that is substituted in place of an individual's specimen and provided for testing. This testimony today summarizes our findings.
In summary, we found that products to defraud drug tests are easily obtained. They are brazenly marketed on Web sites by vendors who boast of periodically reformulating their products so that they will not be detected in the drug test process. In addition to an array of products designed to dilute, cleanse, or substitute urine specimens submitted to testers by drug users, approximately 400 different products are available to adulterate urine samples. The sheer number of these products, and the ease with which they are marketed and distributed through the Internet, present formidable obstacles to the integrity of the drug testing process.
GAO-05-653T, Drug Tests: Products to Defraud Drug Use Screening Tests Are Widely Available
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-653T
entitled 'Drug Tests: Products to Defraud Drug Use Screening Tests Are
Widely Available' which was released on May 17, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Testimony:
Before the Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations,
Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 9:30 a.m. EDT Tuesday, May 17, 2005:
Drug Tests:
Products to Defraud Drug Use Screening Tests Are Widely Available:
Statement of Robert J. Cramer, Managing Director:
Office of Special Investigations:
GAO-05-653T:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the ease with which
the public can obtain products that are marketed, designed, and sold to
defraud urine drug use screening tests such as those administered in
the Federal Workplace Drug Testing Program.[Footnote 1] For purposes of
my testimony, I will refer to these products as masking products and
will discuss ways in which some businesses peddle them on the Internet.
Masking products fall into one of four categories: (1) dilution
substances that are added to a urine specimen at the time it is
collected or are ingested before an individual submits a urine
specimen; (2) cleansing substances that detoxify or cleanse the urine
and are ingested prior to the time that an individual submits a urine
specimen; (3) adulterants that are used to destroy or alter the
chemical make-up of drugs and are added to a urine specimen at the time
that it is provided for testing; and (4) synthetic or drug-free urine
that is substituted in place of an individual's specimen and provided
for testing. My testimony today summarizes our findings.
We began our work by searching the Internet to obtain an overview of
the array of products available to mask drug use and located several
Web sites that tout products that are used to mask the presence of
illegal drugs when a urine drug test is administered. Then one of our
agents, posing as a federal employee in a sensitive position who uses
marijuana and cocaine and was looking for products that would allow him
to pass an impending drug test, placed telephone calls to businesses we
identified in our Internet search and purchased drug masking products
from them. Through our Internet search, we also identified and visited
a retail store in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area that sells
these products. Additionally, we interviewed officials at the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA) of the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to obtain information on
the operation of the Federal Drug Testing Program and the types of
products or methods that are used by individuals to deceive drug tests.
Finally, we obtained information from the Department of Justice (DOJ)
and the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and about federal laws relating
to the sale of masking products and researched state laws on this
issue. We conducted our investigation from August 2004 through March
2005 in accordance with quality standards for investigations set forth
by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency. We are
referring the results of our investigation to appropriate law
enforcement authorities and thus are not naming the sources from which
our purchases were made.
In summary, we found that products to defraud drug tests are easily
obtained. They are brazenly marketed on Web sites by vendors who boast
of periodically reformulating their products so that they will not be
detected in the drug test process. In addition to an array of products
designed to dilute, cleanse, or substitute urine specimens submitted to
testers by drug users, approximately 400 different products are
available to adulterate urine samples. The sheer number of these
products, and the ease with which they are marketed and distributed
through the Internet, present formidable obstacles to the integrity of
the drug testing process.
The sales representatives of the businesses we contacted assured our
investigator that the products they sold would enable him to pass an
impending drug test despite his purported use of marijuana and cocaine.
While all of the businesses offered products designed to defraud drug
tests, the sales representatives recommended different types of masking
products based on how frequently our investigator purportedly used
drugs, whether he was subjected to drug tests that are announced or
conducted randomly, and whether testing administrators closely
monitored the collection of urine specimens. When our investigator said
that he occasionally used marijuana and cocaine, the representatives
recommended he purchase herbal supplements and minerals to be taken
orally prior to the drug test. According to the sales representatives,
these products act as cleansers or detoxifiers. When our investigator
reported that he used marijuana and cocaine on a daily basis and that
he was subjected to random drug tests, they recommended that, if he
would not be closely monitored when he provided a specimen, he purchase
synthetic urine or adulterants that are added to a urine specimen. The
prices of the products that the sales representatives recommended
ranged from about $30 to $79.
Currently, there are a variety of laws related to the sale of drug
masking products. Under federal law, if such products are determined to
be "drug paraphernalia," an individual may be prosecuted for selling
them pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 863.[Footnote 2] However, we have not
found any reported federal cases in which individuals have been
prosecuted for such sales. In contrast, some states specifically
prohibit the manufacture, marketing, or distribution of drug masking
products. For example, New Jersey, Florida, and Kentucky broadly outlaw
the sale of any product designed to defraud or falsify a drug screening
test.[Footnote 3] In some states, such as Louisiana and Texas, it is
illegal for an individual to knowingly or intentionally deliver or
manufacture substances designed to falsify or alter drug test
results.[Footnote 4] Additionally, at least nine other states
(Arkansas, Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia)[Footnote 5] have outlawed
the sale of urine or adulterants for the purpose of passing drug tests.
Of the nine states, only one--South Carolina--has prosecuted at least
two individuals for marketing and selling masking products: one who
sold urine substitution kits over the Internet[Footnote 6] and another
who advertised that his store carried products that are used to pass
drug tests by cleansing the system.[Footnote 7] Also, of the nine
states, Illinois and Kentucky have made the offense punishable as a
felony; South Carolina and North Carolina have made a second offense
punishable as a felony; and it is a misdemeanor offense in the
remaining states.
Background:
Pursuant to Executive Order 12564, dated September 15, 1986, the
federal government established the Federal Workplace Drug Testing
Program. It is administered by SAMHSA for the purpose of preventing and
deterring the use of illicit drugs in the federal workplace, and to
ensure that as the federal government maintains employee productivity.
In 2004, SAMHSA revised the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace
Drug Testing Programs to require that specimen validity tests be
conducted on all urine specimens collected.[Footnote 8] Noting that
there has been a recent increase in the number of chemical adulterants
that are marketed on the Internet and in certain magazines, SAMSHA
officials stated that validity tests are intended to produce accurate,
reliable, and correctly interpreted test results and to decrease or
eliminate opportunities to defeat drug tests. According to SAMHSA,
approximately 400 different products are available to adulterate urine
samples, and companies that market masking substances periodically
offer new formulations of their products to avoid detection.
Internet Businesses Tout Success of Masking Products:
To determine how businesses market drug masking products on the
Internet, our investigator conducted an Internet search using the words
"pass drug test." He quickly found many Web sites that brazenly tout
products and related information that enable users of illegal drugs to
pass drug tests. For example, one Web site claimed that "passing a
urine drug test has never been easier," while another boasts that it
offers a "variety of detox products [that] will beat the drug test or
you'll get 200% of your purchase price back." Yet another site advises
prospective customers that its product formulas change approximately
every 6 to 9 months to stay ahead of new validity tests performed by
drug testing laboratories. These Web sites offer a full array of drug
masking products.
Additionally, our investigator found some Web sites that provide an
interactive format for prospective customers to find out which products
best meet their individual needs. For example, one Web site provides a
question and answer format for prospective customers and then
recommends certain products based on the responses. Among these
questions were:
How many times per week do you smoke or take other substances?
Are you watched when providing the sample?
Will you have at least an hour to prepare?
Are you taking a Department of Transportation regulated test?
After a purchaser clicks on the most appropriate responses to these
questions, the site presents pictures and descriptions of recommended
products that are available for purchase. This Web site offers a "one-
price-fits-all" approach and charges $32 for each of its products. It
also provides a store locator that helps prospective customers find out
whether retail stores in their local area carry these products.
To further investigate how these businesses market drug masking
products, our investigator placed telephone calls to some of them.
Posing as a federal employee looking for ways to hide his purported
cocaine and marijuana use in an impending drug test, our agent asked
the sales representatives for each of these vendors for information on
products that would enable him to pass a drug test. While each vendor
offered a number of products, most of the sales representatives
tailored the particular type of masking product they recommended to
information they elicited from the investigator about his purported
drug use. They asked, for example, how often he used drugs and when he
had most recently used them. They also asked about testing procedures,
such as whether tests are conducted randomly or are announced in
advance, and whether individuals providing urine samples are closely
monitored.
When our agent described himself as a casual cocaine and marijuana user
who undergoes announced drug tests, sales representatives recommended
that he purchase cleansing products that are ingested orally prior to
the test. According to the vendors, these substances detoxify or
cleanse the urine if taken before a test is conducted. For example, one
of the sales representatives said to our investigator, "if you can stay
clean for at least two days, we have a detox drink that you would drink
on the day of the test. It will keep you clean for five hours." For
$35,[Footnote 9] our investigator purchased the "detox drink." After
telling another sales representative that he had used cocaine during
the past week and had a drug test scheduled the following week, the
representative told him "— the good news is we have a detox program. —
It's a four day program, and basically if you do that, you'll be OK for
the test." For $79, our investigator purchased the "detox program,"
which came with a urine test kit that a buyer can use at home to
conduct a pre-test before submitting a specimen for a drug test.
When our investigator told the sales representatives that he uses
cocaine and marijuana on a daily basis and undergoes random drug
testing, they recommended that he purchase either synthetic urine or
adulterant products. Recommending a synthetic urine product, a
representative told our investigator, "you won't have to be as careful
with our product. But you can still get away with it and people do get
away with it." Our investigator purchased the product for $32. Another
representative told our investigator that his company sells synthetic
urine and that it is "better suited for random situations because the
urine is premixed in the bag, sealed off, and irradiated so that it
won't go bad." Our investigator paid $49.95 for this product.
At the suggestion of two other sales representatives, our investigator
placed orders for two adulterants. For $29.95, he purchased one
adulterant that is designed for people who use drugs daily and are
subject to random drug testing. This product consists of two small
vials containing liquids that are added directly to the urine specimen
before it is submitted for drug testing. Additionally, he spent $32 for
another adulterant that is designed to be used at the drug test
location. This product is a bag that contains two chemicals: one
chemical is supposed to destroy the drug toxins and another purports to
destroy traces of the first chemical. According to the product
instructions, a urine specimen should be poured into the bag, mixed
with the chemicals, and then poured into the specimen cup.
Using the store locator function on one of the Web sites, we identified
a store in the Washington, D.C. area that sells drug masking products.
Posing as someone needing information on products that would ensure
passing an impending drug test, we visited the store and observed a
variety of masking products displayed for sale. The owner of the store
told us that he has sold masking products for the past 11 years, and
that on some days he sells up to 4 detox products. Additionally, he
told us that he has repeat customers. For one of his customers, he
special orders certain products. While the store also carries synthetic
urine, the owner advised us that the detox drinks are more popular and
sell better.
Laws Regarding the Sale of Drug Masking Products Vary:
Under federal law, it may be illegal to sell drug masking products if
the products are determined to be "drug paraphernalia." Specifically,
under federal law, it is unlawful for any person to sell drug
paraphernalia, which is defined as any equipment, product, or material—
primarily intended or designed for use in — concealing — a controlled
substance.[Footnote 10] The following factors may be taken into
consideration in determining whether an item constitutes drug
paraphernalia, including the instructions provided with the item
concerning its use; descriptive materials accompanying the item which
explain or depict its use; national or local advertising concerning its
use; the manner in which the item is displayed for sale; and the
existence and scope of legitimate uses of the item.[Footnote 11]
However, officials from DOJ and DEA advised us that there have not been
any federal cases in which an individual has been prosecuted for
selling drug masking products under this statute and our independent
research of federal case law databases did not find any.
In contrast, some states have statutes that specifically prohibit the
manufacture or distribution of drug masking products. For example, a
New Jersey statute specifically prohibits individuals from
manufacturing, selling, or giving "— any instrument, tool, device, or
substance adapted, designed or commonly used to defraud the
administration of a drug test."[Footnote 12] Under the New Jersey
statute, a person may be prosecuted if he or she submits a substance
that purports to be from a person other than its actual source or
otherwise engages in conduct intended to produce a false or misleading
outcome of a drug test.[Footnote 13] Similarly, in Florida and
Kentucky, it is illegal to manufacture, market, or distribute products
intended to defraud any lawfully administered urine test designed to
detect the presence of controlled substances.[Footnote 14] In some
states, such as Louisiana and Texas, it is illegal for an individual to
knowingly or intentionally deliver or manufacture substances designed
to falsify or alter drug test results. [Footnote 15]
In some other states, laws relating to drug masking practices are
narrower. For example, in Nebraska it is illegal to provide bodily
fluids for the purpose of altering the results of tests to determine
the presence of drugs. In some states, such as Pennsylvania and
Virginia, it is illegal to sell drug-free urine, but there is no
specific prohibition on the sale of adulterants. In contrast, in some
states such as South Carolina, Arkansas, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
Illinois, and Maryland, it is illegal to sell urine or adulterants.
However, of these states, only Illinois and Oklahoma prohibit the sale
of synthetic urine.
In our research of reported cases we found two cases in South Carolina
in which individuals have been prosecuted for the sale of masking
products. In one case that was decided in August 2002, the South
Carolina Supreme Court upheld a conviction for violation of a statute
that prohibits the possession of adulterants intended to defraud a drug
test. In that case, the vendor placed an advertisement in a magazine
for a novelty store he owned which read: "Taking a drug test? Want to
cleanse your system? We carry Readi-Clean, Carbo-Clean Plus, Quick
Tabs, One Hour, Zydot, One Hour Klear, Body Flush." An undercover agent
purchased an adulterant Zydot after the store clerk assured him that
the product would allow him to pass a drug test for marijuana. In
upholding the conviction, the Court relied on, among other things, the
advertisement the defendant placed rather than a determination whether
the product effectively masks drug use.[Footnote 16] Additionally, the
South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the conviction of another vendor
who sold urine substitution kits on the Internet.[Footnote 17] Included
on the defendant's Web site were claims that, "Our Complete Urine Test
Substitution Kits allow anyone, regardless of substance intake, to pass
any urinalysis within minutes."
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. We will be pleased to
respond to any questions that you or the other members of the
Subcommittee may have.
Contacts:
For further information regarding this testimony, please contact Robert
J. Cramer at (202) 512-7445 or Paul Desaulniers at (202) 512-7435.
(601266):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Drug tests can be performed on urine, saliva, perspiration, hair,
and blood. Currently, the federal government relies solely on urine
drug tests, which have a high degree of accuracy, low costs, and
relatively unobtrusive method of collection.
[2] Drug paraphernalia is defined, among other things, as any
equipment, product or material—primarily intended or designed for use
in — concealing — a controlled substance. 21 U.S.C. § 863.
[3] N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2 C:36-10 (West 2004); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 817.565
(West 2000); and Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 516.108 (Michie 1999 & Supp.
2004).
[4] La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §14:133.3 (West 2004) and Tex. Health and
Safety Code Ann. § 481.133 (Vernon 2003).
[5] Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-201 (Michie 2003);; 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 5/
17-28 (WESTLAW through 2004 legislation); Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 10-
111 (2003); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1908 (2002); N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-
401.20 (2003); Okla. Stat. Ann. Tit. 63, § 7002 (2005); 18 Pa. Cons.
Stat. Ann. § 7509 (West 2000); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-13-470 (Law. Co-op.
2003); and Va. Code Ann. § 18.2-251.4 (Michie 2004).
[6] State v. Curtis, 591 S.E.2d 600.
[7] State v. Rothchild, 569 S.E.2d 346.
[8] Initial validity screening of a urine specimen includes tests for
color, odor, creatinine level, specific gravity, and pH level. When
these test results do not fall within an acceptable range, more
comprehensive testing is undertaken to assess the general validity of
the specimen and confirm the presence of adulterants such as oxidants,
nitrites, glutaraldehyde, chromate, and surfactant.
[9] For purposes of our testimony, we are providing the actual price of
the product, which does not include shipping and handling costs.
[10] 21 U.S.C. § 863.
[11] 21 U.S.C. § 863(e).
[12] N.J. Stat. Ann § 2 C:36-10(b).
[13] N.J. Stat. Ann § 2 C:36-10 (a).
[14] Fla. Stat. Ann. § 817.565 and Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 516.108.
[15] La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §14:133.3 and Tex. Health and Safety Code Ann.
§ 481.133.
[16] State v. Rothchild, 569 S.E.2d 346.
[17] State v. Curtis, 591 S.E.2d 600.
