----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2007 1:13 PM Subject: Re: Water Allows Drug Testing Of Whole Cities
> > On 8/25/2007 12:55:45 PM, Martin Lewis ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > wrote: >> On 8/25/07, Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Yes, I see the similarity in method. The only difference I see is >> > that >> > the Oregon study looked at several drug traces and the UN report >> > looks >> > only at cocaine. >> >> Yeah, I just knew >> I'd seen the method used elsewhere. Strange the >> Oregon study didn't name >> the cities. > > Apparently this has been going on since 2005 or so and without wide > attention, so it's somewhat newsworthy. > BTW, thanks for passing on the link! It widens the scope on this > sort of activity. > > I suppose the cities were not named in order to prevent the sort of > ruckus where city officials complain that their towns are being > unjustly tarred. You see a good bit of that over here. (such as when > some magazine lists the 10 fattest cities or the 10 most polluted > cities.......) > > >> >> > I think also this could impinge upon 5th amendment debates. >> > > Part of the 5th amendment protects one against being forced to > testify against ones self. (some would say against > self-incrimination) > There are people who claim that urine testing for drug use (as a > requirement for employment for example) violates the 5th amendment. > I'm not a fan of the piss test, but I also recognize that the same > arguments could be used to invalidate DNA testing or even > fingerprinting if one were to gravitate to the extreme. > > xponent > A Pee Moderate Maru > rob > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
