Riding the bus from his apartment to downtown Chicago, Kyle carried a jar of artificial urine between his breasts. A few days earlier, a client had required that all counselors working with him at the firm be drug tested. Now he was on his way to the clinic for a urine test two days after smoking pot.
In the clinic bathroom, he pulled the synthetic urine out of his pants (where he'd been hiding it) and prepared to pour it into the cup provided. But there was a problem: During the 30-minute trip, the heat in his pants had overheated the sample. The bottle had a thermometer on the side that showed the range of average urine temperature; he was so hot it didn't even reflect on the device.
«I was a little nervous and sweaty because I have hot artificial urine in my pants. So I had to sit there for a few minutes and pretend to be embarrassed until the synthetic urine cooled down» — Kyle tells the BBgate forum.
When the temperature finally dropped again, he poured the urine into a cup and held it out to the experts. It passed the test.
In fact, the artificial urine market is pretty saturated with legitimate companies with names like UPass, Clean Stream, Whizzinator, Quick Fix Synthetic, Xstream, Monkey Whizz, and so on.
In the clinic bathroom, he pulled the synthetic urine out of his pants (where he'd been hiding it) and prepared to pour it into the cup provided. But there was a problem: During the 30-minute trip, the heat in his pants had overheated the sample. The bottle had a thermometer on the side that showed the range of average urine temperature; he was so hot it didn't even reflect on the device.
«I was a little nervous and sweaty because I have hot artificial urine in my pants. So I had to sit there for a few minutes and pretend to be embarrassed until the synthetic urine cooled down» — Kyle tells the BBgate forum.
When the temperature finally dropped again, he poured the urine into a cup and held it out to the experts. It passed the test.
In fact, the artificial urine market is pretty saturated with legitimate companies with names like UPass, Clean Stream, Whizzinator, Quick Fix Synthetic, Xstream, Monkey Whizz, and so on.
The existence of these companies is already an integral part in drug policy. Widespread drug testing in the workplace began in the «Just Say No» era of the late 1980s. By one estimate, today 56% of employers require pre-employment drug testing. At the same time, marijuana policy is slowly moving toward legalization, so drug-tested and drug-using employees have been left in a quandary — and many are relying on the ethically and legally questionable synthetic urine market to remedy the situation.
What is fake urine and how does it work?
In 1828, chemist Friedrich Wöhler created the first example of synthetic urea, a chemical compound found in urine. He did it by accident while trying to synthesize ammonium cyanate.
Little did he know that this would be one of the first discoveries to contradict vitalism, the popular scientific theory of the time, which held that organic compounds could not be created in a laboratory. Vitalists argued that nothing but the kidneys could produce urea. Wehler's discovery was one of the preliminary results that disproved this whole theory, since he was able to create urea inorganically.
What is fake urine and how does it work?
In 1828, chemist Friedrich Wöhler created the first example of synthetic urea, a chemical compound found in urine. He did it by accident while trying to synthesize ammonium cyanate.
Little did he know that this would be one of the first discoveries to contradict vitalism, the popular scientific theory of the time, which held that organic compounds could not be created in a laboratory. Vitalists argued that nothing but the kidneys could produce urea. Wehler's discovery was one of the preliminary results that disproved this whole theory, since he was able to create urea inorganically.
Let's move to the present: the words «synthetic urine» do not sound like groundbreaking chemistry, but rather like a humorous gift.
Synthetic urine is made from a mixture of water, urea, creatinine, pH balance and/or uric acid. Synthetic urine may have the same density as urine, as this is also tested in laboratories.
Urinalysis clinics use a method called gas chromatography-mass spectrometry to analyze urine. Gas chromatography is used to separate and identify compounds in a mixture and then determine their purity, and mass spectrometry is used to measure the mass of the sample. Together, they help determine what compounds are in the mixture. Most companies use five-panel drug testing, meaning they look for traces of THC, opioids, PCP, cocaine, and amphetamines.
They also analyze the color, odor, and temperature of the urine. This means that when you buy synthetic urine to take a drug test, your job is twofold: to discreetly sneak it into the restroom/lab and to make sure it's the right temperature. Most synthetic urine kits include a heating pad, so once you've put the mixture in the microwave, all you have to do is shake the heating pad and tie the bottle around it to keep it warm. If your fake urine has the same pure compounds and density as real urine, testing companies may not detect that it is a fake sample.
Ethical aspects of drug testing
Drug testing in the workplace became widespread in 1986, when President Ronald Reagan began requiring testing of all federal employees. That same year, he signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which established mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain drug offenses, including possession of marijuana.
The law was later seen as racist because data showed that people of color were prosecuted on suspicion of drug use more often than white people (according to the ACLU, black people are four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than white people).
There was also a significant difference between the minimum prison sentences required for those who smoked crack and those who used powder cocaine. Crack users, 80% of whom were black, received much longer prison sentences than those who used powder cocaine, most of whom were white. This led to prisons being disproportionately filled with non-violent black drug offenders.
Drug testing in the workplace became widespread in 1986, when President Ronald Reagan began requiring testing of all federal employees. That same year, he signed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, which established mandatory minimum prison sentences for certain drug offenses, including possession of marijuana.
The law was later seen as racist because data showed that people of color were prosecuted on suspicion of drug use more often than white people (according to the ACLU, black people are four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than white people).
There was also a significant difference between the minimum prison sentences required for those who smoked crack and those who used powder cocaine. Crack users, 80% of whom were black, received much longer prison sentences than those who used powder cocaine, most of whom were white. This led to prisons being disproportionately filled with non-violent black drug offenders.
When Reagan began his drug testing plan, many courts ruled the practice unconstitutional. A New Orleans judge even called it an «unreasonable search» conducted in the «complete absence of probable cause or even reasonable suspicion». Nevertheless, drug testing proliferated. In 1987, the American Management Association found that only 21% of employers surveyed conducted drug testing. By 1996 that number was 81% but by 2004 it had dropped to 62%.
Today, the conversation about the existence and effectiveness of drug testing continues as marijuana nears full legalization and the country is devastated by the opioid crisis. According to a 2017 New York Times article on how drug testing affects the economy, about half of the applicants at the Columbiana Boiler plant in Youngstown, Ohio failed a drug test.
Regina Mitchell, co-owner of Warren Fabricating & Machining in Hubbard, Ohio, says four out of 10 applicants fail mandatory drug tests, half of which test positive for marijuana and the rest are opiates and other drugs. Because the company provides health insurance, she said, drug tests can be a way to avoid future medical expenses. When one of her employee's family members had a baby addicted to opioids, the company paid $300,000 for three months of treatment in the neonatal intensive care unit.
Today, the conversation about the existence and effectiveness of drug testing continues as marijuana nears full legalization and the country is devastated by the opioid crisis. According to a 2017 New York Times article on how drug testing affects the economy, about half of the applicants at the Columbiana Boiler plant in Youngstown, Ohio failed a drug test.
Regina Mitchell, co-owner of Warren Fabricating & Machining in Hubbard, Ohio, says four out of 10 applicants fail mandatory drug tests, half of which test positive for marijuana and the rest are opiates and other drugs. Because the company provides health insurance, she said, drug tests can be a way to avoid future medical expenses. When one of her employee's family members had a baby addicted to opioids, the company paid $300,000 for three months of treatment in the neonatal intensive care unit.
Imagine the money we could save or invest as a company if employers could hire employees who don't use drugs? Alas, that is simply not the universe we are in. Besides, sometimes drug use has a positive effect on an employee.
But some argue that because drug testing, especially for marijuana, is a relic of the war on drugs, it should no longer be practiced. Add to that a 2014 academic review that examined 23 studies on whether drug testing reduces drug use and accident or injury rates, and found that drug testing does not significantly improve workplace safety (except for one study that found that random alcohol testing reduced fatal accidents in the transportation industry).
In researcher Michael Frohn's book, «Alcohol and Illicit Drug Use in the Workforce and Workplace» Frohn says — drug testing doesn't discourage avid drug users, it just discourages casual drug users from applying for jobs that require drug testing.
But some argue that because drug testing, especially for marijuana, is a relic of the war on drugs, it should no longer be practiced. Add to that a 2014 academic review that examined 23 studies on whether drug testing reduces drug use and accident or injury rates, and found that drug testing does not significantly improve workplace safety (except for one study that found that random alcohol testing reduced fatal accidents in the transportation industry).
In researcher Michael Frohn's book, «Alcohol and Illicit Drug Use in the Workforce and Workplace» Frohn says — drug testing doesn't discourage avid drug users, it just discourages casual drug users from applying for jobs that require drug testing.
What influences the marketing of synthetic urine?
Like the legality of pot, the legality of fake urine varies from state to state. Eighteen states have outlawed the manufacture, delivery, use, or sale of synthetic urine to falsify drug tests, but of those, only one state, South Carolina, has ever prosecuted a urine seller, and only twice.
In each of those cases, the seller was accused of selling fake urine for the express purpose of passing a drug test. Illinois and Kentucky made the sale of urine punishable as a felony, and North Carolina and South Carolina made it punishable as a felony on a second offense. In all other states, it is a misdemeanor to sell or use counterfeit urine.
Companies producing and selling urine can act as a legitimate business by claiming that their products are not intended to be used to falsify drug tests. Similar tactics are used with some other drugs and drug paraphernalia: glass pipes are often sold «for tobacco use» but are primarily used with marijuana; alkyl nitrites, also known as poppers, are sold as indoor deodorizers but are commonly used as a recreational inhalant.
Some synthetic urine manufacturers simply add a line at the end of the product description that says, «This product must be used in compliance with all local state and federal laws and should not be used for legitimate drug tests». Meanwhile, on the product's testimonial page, people often write about using the product to pass drug tests («Got the job done!» — says Riley from California).
Like the legality of pot, the legality of fake urine varies from state to state. Eighteen states have outlawed the manufacture, delivery, use, or sale of synthetic urine to falsify drug tests, but of those, only one state, South Carolina, has ever prosecuted a urine seller, and only twice.
In each of those cases, the seller was accused of selling fake urine for the express purpose of passing a drug test. Illinois and Kentucky made the sale of urine punishable as a felony, and North Carolina and South Carolina made it punishable as a felony on a second offense. In all other states, it is a misdemeanor to sell or use counterfeit urine.
Companies producing and selling urine can act as a legitimate business by claiming that their products are not intended to be used to falsify drug tests. Similar tactics are used with some other drugs and drug paraphernalia: glass pipes are often sold «for tobacco use» but are primarily used with marijuana; alkyl nitrites, also known as poppers, are sold as indoor deodorizers but are commonly used as a recreational inhalant.
Some synthetic urine manufacturers simply add a line at the end of the product description that says, «This product must be used in compliance with all local state and federal laws and should not be used for legitimate drug tests». Meanwhile, on the product's testimonial page, people often write about using the product to pass drug tests («Got the job done!» — says Riley from California).
There are some special brands that stand out for their creativity. Frank Avalos is the general manager of Alternative Lifestyle Systems, a company that manufactures and sells fake urine. Avalos says ALS products are not designed for drug tests. Instead, he says, they are fetish products for those who want to engage in so-called «wet sex», which is sex that involves urinating on their partner.
For example, the Whizzinator Touch comes with a prosthetic penis (available in six skin tones), leg straps and a belt to hold the prosthesis in place, as well as a plastic «bladder» bag, one syringe, four heating pads, and a fake urine formula called «Golden Shower Synthetic Urine» (this formula is actually a powder of dehydrated fake urine that must be mixed with water). It sells for about $129.
There's also the Prodigy Kit. It's a reusable bag and tube system that includes an artificial urine sample and two warmers. According to Avalos, you attach the urine-filled pouch to your lower back with a strap, and then connect the attached tube to your buttocks so that the opening of the tube hits where your urethra is, giving the impression that you're peeing through your urethra. The Whiz Kit is a little cheaper: it costs about $50.
In general, the best sellers for such systems are synthetic urine replacement parts, not prosthetics or kits. Once people get the device, he explains, they will have to buy replacement parts, so the difference in sales makes sense. He also tells me that the main distributors of such kits are tobacco stores and stores selling supplies related to tobacco and cannabis use, but not usually sexual aids.
For example, the Whizzinator Touch comes with a prosthetic penis (available in six skin tones), leg straps and a belt to hold the prosthesis in place, as well as a plastic «bladder» bag, one syringe, four heating pads, and a fake urine formula called «Golden Shower Synthetic Urine» (this formula is actually a powder of dehydrated fake urine that must be mixed with water). It sells for about $129.
There's also the Prodigy Kit. It's a reusable bag and tube system that includes an artificial urine sample and two warmers. According to Avalos, you attach the urine-filled pouch to your lower back with a strap, and then connect the attached tube to your buttocks so that the opening of the tube hits where your urethra is, giving the impression that you're peeing through your urethra. The Whiz Kit is a little cheaper: it costs about $50.
In general, the best sellers for such systems are synthetic urine replacement parts, not prosthetics or kits. Once people get the device, he explains, they will have to buy replacement parts, so the difference in sales makes sense. He also tells me that the main distributors of such kits are tobacco stores and stores selling supplies related to tobacco and cannabis use, but not usually sexual aids.
Who can become a monopolist in this market?
If «Whizzinator» is at all familiar to you, you may remember its unlikely collision with fame after it was found in the luggage of former NFL player Onterrio Smith back in 2005. The league requires players to submit to regular drug tests, and Smith already had two substance abuse violations. A third such offense would have earned him a one-year suspension.
He claimed the device was intended for his cousin (possession of drug test tampering equipment is not against NFL rules, but using it is), and he was not charged with another violation. Less (https://www.nflpa.com/active-players/drug-policies) than a month later, he failed a drug test and was dismissed from the Minnesota Vikings team.
Suddenly Whizzinator was in all the major sports chains (four years later, Smith's was even auctioned off and bought by the owner of a sports memorabilia bar in Minnesota).
Just four days after the contents of Smith's luggage made headlines, Whizzinator was at the center of a congressional hearing on undermining drug testing. Although the hearing concerned the widespread use of fake urine, Whizzinator itself was mentioned 20 times. The Smith incident seems to have brought recognition to the Whizzinator name and found Congress guilty. Before this product was discovered in Smith's luggage, it seemed ridiculous and not worthy of attention, but now there is high-profile evidence that people were actually buying it and using it to cheat on drug tests.
During the hearings, those who use fake urine were labeled a population unfit for labor. Joe Barton, then chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said that while the name was undoubtedly funny, the harm it caused was not.
It's not really funny when the truck driver coming at you from behind is the guy who used the Whizzinator to falsify his test result. Or if the air traffic controller directing your pilot is suffering from drug use disguised by these products, would you be scared by that?
If «Whizzinator» is at all familiar to you, you may remember its unlikely collision with fame after it was found in the luggage of former NFL player Onterrio Smith back in 2005. The league requires players to submit to regular drug tests, and Smith already had two substance abuse violations. A third such offense would have earned him a one-year suspension.
He claimed the device was intended for his cousin (possession of drug test tampering equipment is not against NFL rules, but using it is), and he was not charged with another violation. Less (https://www.nflpa.com/active-players/drug-policies) than a month later, he failed a drug test and was dismissed from the Minnesota Vikings team.
Suddenly Whizzinator was in all the major sports chains (four years later, Smith's was even auctioned off and bought by the owner of a sports memorabilia bar in Minnesota).
Just four days after the contents of Smith's luggage made headlines, Whizzinator was at the center of a congressional hearing on undermining drug testing. Although the hearing concerned the widespread use of fake urine, Whizzinator itself was mentioned 20 times. The Smith incident seems to have brought recognition to the Whizzinator name and found Congress guilty. Before this product was discovered in Smith's luggage, it seemed ridiculous and not worthy of attention, but now there is high-profile evidence that people were actually buying it and using it to cheat on drug tests.
During the hearings, those who use fake urine were labeled a population unfit for labor. Joe Barton, then chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, said that while the name was undoubtedly funny, the harm it caused was not.
It's not really funny when the truck driver coming at you from behind is the guy who used the Whizzinator to falsify his test result. Or if the air traffic controller directing your pilot is suffering from drug use disguised by these products, would you be scared by that?
At the end of the hearing, three purveyors of fake urine were called to testify. All asserted their Fifth Amendment rights. At the time, Whizzinator was owned by Puck Technology; three years later, Puck Technology co-owners Dennis Catalano and Gerald Wills were indicted on fraud charges against the U.S. government for helping to falsify drug test results.
In 2010, Wills, who also owned the Whizzinator patent, was sentenced to six months in prison. Catalano received three years of probation. That same year, ALS bought the Whizzinator trademark. And just like that, thanks to an unusual marketing tactic, Whizzinator stayed on the shelves.
In this period of gradual legalization of marijuana, it makes sense that fake urine has become a marketable commodity, but one can imagine that full legalization may simply lead to a drop in demand.
In 2010, Wills, who also owned the Whizzinator patent, was sentenced to six months in prison. Catalano received three years of probation. That same year, ALS bought the Whizzinator trademark. And just like that, thanks to an unusual marketing tactic, Whizzinator stayed on the shelves.
In this period of gradual legalization of marijuana, it makes sense that fake urine has become a marketable commodity, but one can imagine that full legalization may simply lead to a drop in demand.
