Who needs a Whizzinator?

May 22, 2001 9:41 AM

Who needs a Whizzinator? Apparently they aren't fooling parole officers. What happened to the good old herbal tea workaround?
posted by suprfli (24 comments total)

I kinda like the "don't be a fuckin junkie in the first place" workaround. This Wizzantor company should be stopped, they're putting people's lives in danger.
posted by tiaka at 9:47 AM on May 22, 2001

i think the guy in the news story was using a home-made device. Not the whizzinator. Is this some sort of subtle advertisement for the whizzinator? Use us or get caught?
posted by th3ph17 at 9:53 AM on May 22, 2001

tiaka, saying that anyone who fails a drug test is a junkie is like saying anyone who drinks beer is an alcoholic.
posted by MegoSteve at 10:19 AM on May 22, 2001

How come that guy keeps splashing pee all over the place?
posted by rodii at 10:24 AM on May 22, 2001

My initial reaction is the same as tiaka's - take the hard line. But you're right, calling anyone who fails a drug test a junkie probably isn't correct. So how about this?

If you work at a place that administers drug tests, or you have to take one to get a job, don't do drugs when you know you are going to be tested! If you are alcoholic, get help. If you are on probation for a drug offense, get help, for God's sake!. And yes, I agree, smoking marijuana is a victimless crime, and it's probably a stupid law to make it illegal. However, just because you (in the general sense) might think it's ok does not change the federal, state, or local job policy about it not being ok, so if you do you and get caught you pay the piper.

Is that better?
posted by starvingartist at 10:26 AM on May 22, 2001

Perspective from the geek at your friendly U.S. Probation Office--

Officers have a helluva lot of experience watching people pee. It's nasty, but it's true of necessity. We always have a little bit of fun here when someone gets caught, and we have to take a picture of all the periphernalia. The last one was using a penis-shaped squirt gun.

Additionally, other ways of detecting drug use, such as a sweat patch, are being tested. If you evade the pee-test, another method will be used.

Bottom line: the officer is always going to find out if you're using. Even if you escape the test, they'll know by talking to you, and they'll dig in and find out. Yeesh. Just stay clean.
posted by frykitty at 10:26 AM on May 22, 2001

so tiaka, do you think that people who smoke herb should be prevented from working jobs which they are capable of simply because they smoke?
posted by gnutron at 10:26 AM on May 22, 2001

paraphernalia

Note to self: use spell-check on those ten-dollar words.
posted by frykitty at 10:28 AM on May 22, 2001

do you think that people who smoke herb should be prevented from working jobs which they are capable of simply because they smoke?

i'd say no, but that is not my decision. it is up to the individual employers to decide. if they feel drug tests are something they need to do, they can do that.

the simple way to do this would be to just not apply at places that drug test. either that, or just not smoke. what is it...14-30 days or something? that's not too much of a sacrifice to get a job you want.
posted by coma eroticism at 10:41 AM on May 22, 2001

Also, there's the question of whether or not people really need to be drug tested to work at, say, Wal-Mart. I think it's come up in other threads before, but drug testing is often a way to make people who work at low-wage jobs feel even more under the control of their employer....
posted by binkin at 10:42 AM on May 22, 2001

i think the best policy would be to only drug test for jobs in which being under the influence would be a safety concern to the worker themselves or to others around them in the workplace...be it co-workers, customers, etc.

if that were the way, the question of whether being under the influence impairs the workers ability to perform that job would still come up. workers would be inclined to say no and employers would be inclined to say yes.

it would be completely pointless to argue that question with any employer. you just can't win that one.
posted by coma eroticism at 11:07 AM on May 22, 2001

Ohh Jebus, who the fuck are you people?

Marijuana should be decriminalized, not legalized. You want to smoke in privacy of your own home, fine do that. You mess up, you go to jail. However, I don't want you smoking at the job I'm giving you, because you can not honestly say that marijuana is fully, 100% harmless, be it abuse or mixing or your own body. The same goes for alcohol, I don't want you drunk and I don't want to inhale the smoke from your goddamn cigarettes. Ohh, I also don't want to hear your cell phone chime, but that's taking it to the extreme. heh.
posted by tiaka at 11:13 AM on May 22, 2001

tiaka, i agree!

speaking of....

there is an interesting piece concerning decriminalizing marijuana that i read a while back.
posted by coma eroticism at 11:26 AM on May 22, 2001

Tiaka, alcohol is legal, not decriminalized, and we don't have a rash of people working drunk. There are also laws concerning smoking indoors, which enable us to keep cigarettes legal AND not have us breathing people's smoke.
If a law is wrong we should not feel compelled to follow it. I say more power to these people who are using these devices. Because, after all, a drug test doesn't tell you if a person is ON drugs, but rather that they have, in the somewhat recent past, used drugs. Which should be not be the business of our employers.
posted by Doug at 11:34 AM on May 22, 2001

Right, thank you, because I so totally support these testings and the loss of privacy. Yep, that's what I've said, I luv big brother. I also drive an SUV.
posted by tiaka at 11:43 AM on May 22, 2001

ohh, metafilter : we'll assume you oppose our viewpoints
or
metafilter : every issue is black and white and we're always right.
or
metafilter : all your views are belong to us.
posted by tiaka at 11:48 AM on May 22, 2001

Tiaka, look at your first post. You are clearly implying that this device is hurting people, and that if you don't want to be tested for drugs you're a junkie. It's not like we're twisting what you wrote.
posted by Doug at 12:00 PM on May 22, 2001

right. the moral compass of metafilter sets us on a wild course yet again.

anyway, is anyone out there with a sense of humor reminded of Withnail & I? here's a realaudio clip describing the early version of the Whizzinator(note RealAudio blows and i couldn't get the clip to work, but perhaps you can....).
posted by donkeysuck at 12:10 PM on May 22, 2001

Notice that the cartoon picture on the website shows a construction worker taking a test.
posted by tomplus2 at 12:10 PM on May 22, 2001

I agree with what starvingartist and tiaka have said.

Doug, said: we don't have a rash of people working drunk.
Umm, I've worked several low-wage jobs where people frequently come to work drunk, high, or under the influence of other drugs (drugs meaning mind-altering substances). It is a problem.

Also, you said: a drug test doesn't tell you if a person is ON drugs, but rather that they have, in the somewhat recent past, used drugs.
What's the difference? Perhaps when you say someone is ON drugs, you mean that they're addicted.
I think that anyone who can't stay clean for three weeks before a drug test, and therefore has to resort to the devices in question, has a drug problem.

As for what is and isn't our employers business:

Employers obviously don't have a right to control what we do in our free time. However, illegal or regulated drugs are virtually always addictive--psychologically or physically. The type of person who can use illegal drugs recreationally without impacting the rest of their life is the exception, not the rule. Therefore, the chances are good that if someone uses drugs in their free time, eventually their drug use will impact their productivity in the workplace. I think it is reasonable for employers to know whether a potential employee has a drug problem before they invest in that person.

Of course, as a college freshman, most of my work experiences have been with low-wage jobs. Perhaps in the white-collar workplace, drug use is better concealed.
posted by ktheory at 12:24 PM on May 22, 2001

What's the difference? Perhaps when you say someone is ON drugs, you mean that they're addicted.
I think that anyone who can't stay clean for three weeks before a drug test, and therefore has to resort to the devices in question, has a drug problem.

The difference is: did I come to work all coked up, or stoned, or drunk, or did I smoke a joint two weeks ago that still has traces in my system?

So last weekend I'm at a wedding and I puff like a Magic Dragon. The following tuesday, let's say, I find out there will a "random" drug test within the next week or two. Should I lose my job because trace elements of THC are lingering in my piss from a good time I had outside of work?
posted by Awol at 1:15 PM on May 22, 2001

Is this some sort of subtle advertisement for the whizzinator? Use us or get caught?

i posted this b/c i thought the whizzinator is sorta funny and the story about someone getting busted when taking a piss test seemed appropriate. i've never seen this thing before and thought others would get a laugh out of it. nothing more and nothing less. i never expected so much debate and so many posts. heh.

personally, i think if you smoke some pot recreationally in the privacy of your own home and then want a job at the local Foo-Mart(tm) then you shouldn't have to take a drug test and if you do have to take a drug test then there should be some way to get around it. i don't think a plastic dick w/heating pads is the answer though. lol.
posted by suprfli at 1:47 PM on May 22, 2001

to bad they didn't have an alcohol whizzinator back when alcohol was illegal. Then they could have imprisoned and fired all the alcohol junkie's
posted by Wicker at 2:06 PM on May 22, 2001

However, illegal or regulated drugs are virtually always addictive--psychologically or physically.

This is war-on-drugs propaganda with no basis in fact.

i never expected so much debate and so many posts

Welcome to MetaFilter.
posted by sudama at 2:20 PM on May 22, 2001