Researchers Test Urine to Track Drug Use

Hello everyone!

I'm back for another edition of Rob Comments on the News! For those out of the loop, this is where I, Rob, repost a news article with my own comments thrown in for schist and giggles. Let's get right to today's article, shall we?

Researchers Test Urine to Track Drug Use

Wait a minute. Aren't they already doing that?

By SETH BORENSTEIN

WASHINGTON - Researchers have figured out how to give an entire community a drug test using just a teaspoon of wastewater from a city's sewer plant.

Oh, I see. They're testing us all at once. I guess I'll have to start peeing in the backyard again.

The test wouldn't be used to finger any single person as a drug user. But it would help federal law enforcement and other agencies track the spread of dangerous drugs, like methamphetamines, across the country.

Really, you don't have to go through all that trouble. Just look for very thin people with bad teeth, open sores, and bugged-out eyes walking down the street or riding a (most likely stolen) bicycle, all the while shaking and twitching uncontrollably.

Oregon State University scientists tested 10 unnamed American cities for remnants of drugs, both legal and illegal, from wastewater streams. They were able to show that they could get a good snapshot of what people are taking.

Leave it to OSU. At least they're giving me a valid reason to not like them instead of the usual "They suck because I go to U of O!"

"It's a community urinalysis," said Caleb Banta-Green, a University of Washington drug abuse researcher who was part of the Oregon State team. The scientists presented their results Tuesday at a meeting of the American Chemical Society in Boston.

A community urinalysis? That almost sounds like a fun local event.

Radio Announcer: Come on down to the community urinalysis this Friday at the county fairground! Tickets are available at all Ticketmaster outlets or at the box office. Sponsored by Lipton Iced Tea.

I would imagine they'd have to have one of those trough urinals for something like that.

Two federal agencies have taken samples from U.S. waterways to see if drug testing a whole city is doable, but they haven't gotten as far as the Oregon researchers.

Maybe if the federal agencies weren't headed up by unqualified people such as a former Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association, they'd have better luck.

On a side note, Brownie now works for a private company that offers "disaster relief and data-mining for government agencies and other customers." I hear they do a heckuva job.

But I digress.

One of the early results of the new study showed big differences in methamphetamine use city to city. One urban area with a gambling industry had meth levels more than five times higher than other cities. Yet methamphetamine levels were virtually nonexistent in some smaller Midwestern locales, said Jennifer Field, the lead researcher and a professor of environmental toxicology at Oregon State.

Well, there's a surprise. Every time I go to Las Vegas "an urban area with a gambling industry", everyone seems healthy, wealthy, and happy.

The ingredient Americans consume and excrete the most was caffeine, Field said.

"The ingredient"? Really, is the AP afraid of losing advertising dollars from Starbucks if they call caffeine what it really is: a drug?

Maybe the next time I get picked up for possession of pot (not that I ever have, mind you, but the joke works better if you just go along with it), I'll tell the cops, "It's not a drug--it's an 'ingredient'".

Cities in the experiment ranged from 17,000 to 600,000 in population, but Field declined to identify them, saying that could harm her relationship with the sewage plant operators.

Even the plant operators must know that some people in their towns would be pissed (no pun intended) if they found out that their pee was being tested without their consent.

She plans to start a survey for drugs in the wastewater of at least 40 Oregon communities.

The science behind the testing is simple. Nearly every drug--legal and illicit--that people take leaves the body. That waste goes into toilets and then into wastewater treatment plants.

Let's see, the drugs leave the body, go into toilets, and end up in wastewater treatment. Was this article written for children? Seriously, I feel like I'm back in fourth grade reading a Weekly Reader.

"Wastewater facilities are wonderful places to understand what humans consume and excrete," Field said.

As someone who occasionally works around a wastewater plant, "wonderful" is not the first adjective that comes to mind.

In the study presented Tuesday, one teaspoon of untreated sewage water from each of the cities was tested for 15 different drugs. Field said researchers can't calculate how many people in a town are using drugs.

She said that one fairly affluent community scored low for illicit drugs except for cocaine. Cocaine and ecstasy tended to peak on weekends and drop on weekdays, she said, while methamphetamine and prescription drugs were steady throughout the week.

You mean rich people go on coke binges over the weekend but tweakers tweak all week long? Wow, there's a shocker.

Field said her study suggests that a key tool currently used by drug abuse researchers--self-reported drug questionnaires--underestimates drug use.

Drug users lie about their drug use? Another shocker. I've always known drug users to be completely truthful--the more drugs, the more honest.

I swear this study should be called the "no duh" study. Maybe I can get a big government research grant to write a report about the obvious.

"We have so few indicators of current use," said Jane Maxwell of the Addiction Research Institute at the University of Texas, who wasn't part of the study. "This could be a very interesting new indicator."

Jane sure loves her indicators, if you know what I mean. I hope you do know what I mean because I don't.

David Murray, chief scientist for U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, said the idea interests his agency.

Of course it does.

Murray said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is testing federal wastewater samples just to see if that's a good method for monitoring drug use. But he didn't know how many tests were conducted or where.

Of course he didn't.

The EPA will "flush out the details" on testing, Benjamin Grumbles joked. The EPA assistant administrator said the agency is already looking at the problem of potential harm to rivers and lakes from legal pharmaceuticals.

Benjamin, I laughed at your name but not your joke. People like you are testaments to the idea of the need for requiring people to pass a test to get a license to be able to tell jokes.

Also, the EPA shouldn't even waste their time. If the FDA already approved it, what makes the EPA think they'll be able to do anything? It's not like either group is adequately funded or anything.

The idea of testing on a citywide basis for drugs makes sense, as long as it doesn't violate people's privacy, said Tom Angell of the Students for Sensible Drug Policy, a Washington-based group that advocates legalizing most drugs.

It may not violate people's privacy the way they're doing it now, but don't worry, that will probably change soon enough. I mean, how hard would it be to lift a manhole personhole cover and go to the junction where, say, a school's outflow connects to the system and take a sample right from the line? Then they could use that to justify searching the whole school (not that they'd really need to these days).

"This seems to be less offensive than individualized testing," he said.

But at least you have to voluntarily pee in the cup (unless you're on parole or whatever).

A service of the Associated Press(AP)

The Final Word:

While this particular form of testing is supposedly for research purposes only, it's tough to imagine it will stay that way, especially considering that the Feds have already tried it. Once OSU's research methods are fine tuned, it will become yet another example of personal privacy being a thing of the past on our way to becoming a Police State. It's already legal for the police to search though a person's garbage without a warrant, so I can't see how testing the sewage in a public utility would be any different. Like the school I mentioned earlier, it's probably not very difficult to isolate a line from a specific house, depending on the particular configuration of the sewer system, of course.

However, I think public schools' sewage outputs will most definitely be tested. Students around the nation are already being randomly tested--meaning they're also being taught that something as personal and private as their pee is subject to someone else's examinations, even though studies show they don't do anything to stop drug use. But one thing the tests certainly do is train kids to grow up with no understanding of the right to privacy and to be seen as guilty until proven innocent. And people still wonder why so many of today's kids are apathetic, angry, and/or violent.

Anyway, I've decided that if somebody is going to be investigating my sewage, I'm going to make it as revolting as possible for that person.

Rob

Americans tired of Iraq war, split on withdrawal

Hello everyone!

Look, I know I said I'd try to do a new Rob Comments on the News every week or so, but I've got to level with you: I don't think it's going to happen. Sorry.

I'm finding that I just don't have more than a sentence or so of commentary about most news stories. Usually, it's one word sentences such as "Idiot," or "Dumbass," or "StupidAmericans."

However, I recently came across an article that almost caused me to throw my coffee cup at my monitor when I read it. Good old Reuters. I have plenty to say about this one.

So without further ado, here it is. Enjoy!

Americans tired of Iraq war, split on withdrawal

By Andrea Hopkins Thu Jul 12, 1:50 PM ET

Americans are tired of the Iraq war and doubt victory will ever come, but remained split over President George W. Bush's vow on Thursday to stay the course in Iraq despite a report showing limited progress.

If you doubt victory will ever come, why stay? Oh yeah, it's not your kids over there fighting--it's someone else's.

"I can't stand it anymore. What are we going to succeed at?" asked Cincinnati restaurant manager Stephanie Laycock, 36, who said she had opposed the war from the beginning.

Well, we'll have succeeded in funneling billions of tax dollars to Halliburton through no-bid contracts. And our country will have succeeded in singlehandedly spending almost as much as the rest of the world's 200+ nations combined spends on military. We'll also have succeeded in handing over Iraq's oil to U.S. oil companies (you know, the ones that have been bringing in record profits for the last 3-4 years--hey, how long have we been in Iraq?), leaving the Iraqis with a destroyed country and nothing to sell. Isn't that enough for you, Stephanie? With a name like your's, you should be in porn.

A USA Today/Gallup poll this week showed more than seven in 10 Americans favor withdrawing nearly all U.S. troops by April, and several surveys show the approval ratings for Bush, a Republican, are at the lows of his presidency.

How could it get any lower? Is he polling in negative numbers now?

Bush told a news conference his troop buildup in Iraq had made limited progress but said he would wait for a September security report by Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker before considering a change of course.

Stall, stall, stall.

"We'll ... have a clearer picture of how the new strategy is unfolding, and be in a better position to judge where we need to make any adjustments," Bush said.

Here's an "adjustment" we should make: different president.

Americans were divided over the president's stand.

"I'm not terribly surprised; he's been a stubborn leader on this subject and I don't think he's going to listen to anyone," said Tom McAuliffe, 57, a banker from Columbus, Ohio.

Well, he is the decider. Unfortunately, there are some people who think "stubborn" is a good thing.

Hospital volunteer Sally Kessler, 74, disagreed.

"I think he's doing a wonderful job. These people are out to get us and if we back off they'll come after us here," said Kessler, a Cincinnati Republican who voted for Bush.

We're not even half way through the article and there it is: "these people". She probably also thinks "those people" from Mexico are here to steal her Social Security number, spread leprosy, sell drugs to her grandkids, and make Spanish the official language of Cincinnati.

Sometimes I wish I could go around thinking I know what the desires of each person within a nation or ethnic group are simply because of where they come from. But that would make me a racist asshole.

Yes, I know she's old, but that's no excuse.

Chicago musician Dave Cavalier, whose 24-year-old brother is in Iraq with the U.S. military, said the United States should make plans to bring troops home safely.

"Chicago musician Dave Cavalier"? Come on, that can't be his real name. Dave, maybe, but Cavalier? No way!

"It's just getting more and more dangerous every day," said Cavalier, 20. "I think we're all coming to the conclusion that we've lost this war."

But wait, wasn't the mission accomplished over four years ago?

DANGEROUS AND CHALLENGING

An interim White House report found the Iraqi government had made only mixed progress in meeting political goals. It said conditions were still dangerous and challenging, six months after Bush ordered a U.S. troop buildup.

"Dangerous and challenging"? Wasn't "The Eliminator" event from American Gladiators "dangerous and challenging"?

If you're going to use adjectives to describe the situation in Iraq, use more accurate ones such as "harrowing", "catastrophic", "pointless", "atrocious", "gruesome", "nonsensical", "barbaric", or my personal favorite, "blood-spattered".

Iraqi-Americans in Detroit echoed the report's findings, saying friends and family back home faced daily violence and crushing shortages of water, electricity and gasoline.

You mean there Iraqi-Americans here that are not being held indefinitely without charges?

"Things are worse," said Abbas Al-Daraji, a truck driver who has lived in the United States for 10 years but whose siblings and mother remain in Iraq.

I'm sure the Department of Homeland Security is watching this guy. How dare he come here and speak his mind!

"People are not happy and not safe. I give the U.S. government and the Iraqi government very poor marks. The Iraqi government, they are better people than Saddam. It's good we got rid of Saddam. But they have not done anything after that," said Daraji, 32.

Seriously, this guy is either in Guantanamo by now or on his way for saying that.

In Atlanta, small business owner Helen Robinson said she saw no sense to the war.

"I have not seen anything else but death and bloodshed .... I still feel that we have got time to pull out of there and not cause any more senseless deaths," Robinson said.

I'm sure someone will blame the "liberal media" for only reporting the "death and bloodshed". Why can't they do stories on all the Iraqis who haven't been blown to bits today?

But security officer Roshad Lyons, a Democrat, said Iran will take over in Iraq if U.S. troops pull out.

"I don't see any reason to go there and not complete the job. The priority should be getting the (Iraqi) military up and running. It's almost done," said Lyons.

By "almost done" he must mean half the benchmarks not being met.

In Bisbee, Arizona, construction worker Frank Cvitkrovic was skeptical.

"It's bunk, more spin. They want to keep this going as long as possible," he said. "It's all about weapons sales and high energy prices. Bush is just the enabler for the billionaires."

Hooray for Frank Cvitkrovic (what is this, wacky name day?) and his voice of reason! It's good to know somebody gets it, and that the mainstream media is reporting it, although it's probably too little, too late.

Renae Simpson, vacationing on the Texas resort of South Padre Island, said she and her husband Randy are Democrats, but totally support the war.

"We went in there with open eyes knowing it would not be easy," said Simpson.

Well, we certainly made a 180 degree turn, didn't we? I guess "open eyes" means being lied to about Iraq having a connection to 9/11, a connection to terrorism in general, nukes, chemical and biological weapons, the ability to attack us, the desire to attack us, and them not allowing UN inspectors in.

And the worst thing about this is that the phrase "open eyes" caused the song "Open Arms" by Journey to get stuck in my head. Damn Steve Perry and his pop-rock sensibilities!

"They came over here on our land and took down the twin towers. People forget that," Randy, a Vietnam veteran, added.

That's it, you two are officially the stupidest couple in the nation! You represent everything that is wrong with this country--too many people with money but no intelligence! I hope you're enjoying your South Padre Island vacation while singing the praises of over 3,600 dead American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead, the majority being women and children!

And for the last time:
Iraq and its citizens had nothing to do with 9/11!

Take a friggin' Geography class and learn the difference between Iraq and Saudi Arabia--yes, Saudi Arabia, one of our biggest suppliers of oil and home to 15 of the 19 hijackers! Sheesh!

A Newsweek poll released last week found 41 percent of Americans still believe Saddam Hussein was directly involved in financing, planning or carrying out the September 11 attacks, though no such connection has been found.

41 percent! 41 percent! Words fail me!

$100 says that those same people know all the details of Paris Hilton going to jail.

Oh wait, that was last week's news.

(Additional reporting by Kyle Peterson in Chicago, Jui Chakravorty in Detroit, Matt Bigg in Atlanta, Tim Gaynor in Arizona and Ed Stoddard in Texas)

One to Grow on

Man, it sure is difficult to be an optimist these days.

People keep talking about how incompetent Bush is in his handling of Iraq. I don't buy it. I think things are going exactly as planned. I think Bush (well, actually Cheney) wanted to put just enough soldiers in there to make things into enough of a quagmire that we'd have to stay. Meanwhile, the oil would start flowing out and the money would start flowing in for the oil companies, the defense contractors, and the Halliburtons. And there would be just enough idiots like the ones quoted here to think it has something to do with 9/11.

Actually, it does have something to do with 9/11. Osama bin Laden himself said that they attacked because of our unilateral support of Israel and our military presence in the Middle East. I'm sure the building of permanent military bases in Iraq will make them think twice before attacking us again!

Rob

Energy Bill Gets Senate Nod

Hello everyone!

Welcome to the first edition of Rob Comments on the News. On this blog, I'm going to select a news story and repost it with my smart ass comments intermingled. My plan is to do at least one a week, but plans can and do change.

Let's get right to today's story:

Energy Bill Gets Senate Nod
Friday, Jun. 22, 2007

Democrats celebrated a step toward reducing U.S. dependence on oil as the Senate approved a bill calling for more ethanol and the first boost in gas mileage in decades.

It's a step alright. One small step for man. One... small step for mankind. Get used to it because we'll be taking lots of steps when we can't afford to drive anywhere anymore.

Now the House plans to follow suit, perhaps as early as next week.

The Senate late Thursday voted 65-27 to pass the first energy bill since Democrats took control of Congress in January. But it was far from a complete victory.

Well, it's about time the Democrats had some sort of victory, even if it's a partial one.

Resistance to the new auto fuel economy standards threatened passage until the final hours. Democratic leaders held off a vote until shortly before midnight as senators were called back to the Capitol to assure the votes needed to overcome a threatened filibuster by opponents of the tougher fuel regulations.

I can see why they'd want to filibuster. I mean, tougher fuel regulations? Sure, regular people might be able to afford gas again, but what about the poor oil companies? How will they survive?

The bill finally passed even as Republican senators grumbled that it did virtually nothing to increase production of traditional domestic fuels such as oil and natural gas.

Of course, increasing "production of traditional domestic fuels such as oil and natural gas" is code for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I love it when senators grumble.

Democrats saw it differently.

There's a surprise.

"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., proclaimed.

Apparently, it's a path that we'll be taking steps on.

The legislation would require ethanol production for motor fuels to grow to at least 36 billion gallons a year by 2022, a sevenfold increase over the amount of ethanol processed last year.

Well, enjoy your tortilla chips now because they'll be $20 a bag in 15 years when all the corn that is grown goes toward producing ethanol. But hey, there's always those delicious genetically modified Tostitos chips for half price. You know, the ones made from corn that has clam DNA so it grows in shells under the ocean. It would be even cheaper except lobsters keep getting caught in the corn traps. I understand Monsanto is developing lobsters with human DNA that are smart enough to avoid the traps.

And it calls for boosting auto fuel economy to a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 40 percent increase over current requirements for cars, SUVs, vans and pickup trucks.

Let's do some math. I said "math", not "meth". Anyway, a 2007 2WD Ford Expedition with a 5.4 Liter 8 cylinder engine and an automatic transmission is rated by the EPA at 12 MPG city and 18 MPG highway. We'll split the difference and call it 15 MPG. A 40% increase would make it 21 MPG. Wow. That's about as good as a 2007 Ford Escape SUV (not the hybrid one). And it's only going to take them 15 years to get there.

How long is 15 years? Well, 15 years ago I had just graduated high school. I wasn't even old enough to legally buy cigarettes (though I never had any problem doing so).

The legislation also calls for:

—Price gouging provisions that make it unlawful to charge an "unconscionably excessive" price for oil products, including gasoline. It also gives the federal government new authority to investigate oil industry market manipulation.

Good old "unconscionably excessive". That means...well, whatever they want it to mean. And hey look, the federal government now has the authority to investigate things. Will the feds be able to use illegal wiretaps and torture on the oil companies, too?

—New appliance and lighting efficiency standards and a requirement that the federal government accelerate use of more efficient lighting in public buildings.

Question: how many Senators does it take to change some light bulbs? Answer: 65, but it takes an official act of Congress.

—Grants, loan guarantees and other assistance to promote research into fuel-efficient vehicles, including hybrids, advanced diesel and battery technologies.

But Democrats had wanted more for renewables than they got.

Earlier in the day Reid could not hide his displeasure as Republicans blocked one of the Democrats' top priorities, a $32 billion tax package aimed at boosting renewable fuels, energy efficiency and clean energy programs. The Republicans didn't like the $29 billion in additional taxes on oil companies that the plan required to pay for the new alternative energy subsidies.

How are they supposed to keep having record profits if they have to pay taxes?

"Big Oil seems to do pretty well here on Capitol Hill," Reid told reporters, making no effort to hide his sarcasm.

Are you really that surprised, Harry? Regular people aren't.

Democrats also failed to get a provision that would have required electric utilities to produce at least 15 percent of their electricity from wind, biomass or other renewables after Republicans refused to allow the measure to come up for a vote.

"Electricity from wind, biomass or other renewables", what a horrible idea. Nope, lets build more coal and nuk-yoo-lur plants. Haven't you heard, coal is clean now! Just ask a coal miner. And don't forget clean, affordable nuclear power. Nuclear waste: coming soon to a neighborhood near you. And if there's a meltdown at the plant, well, Ringling Brothers can always use someone with three nostrils for their freak show. Thank God for Republicans.

Intense negotiations among a small group of senators produced a compromise on the auto fuel economy matter that emerged as the crown jewel of the Senate-passed bill.

It requires automakers to make a 40 percent increase in the fuel efficiency of their vehicles by 2020 and for the first time puts SUVs, vans and small trucks under the same regulation as passenger cars.

You mean SUVs, vans and small trucks won't get special treatment anymore? That's it--the terrorists have officially won!

Under the bill each vehicle group must achieve a 10 mpg increase in fuel economy by 2020 with an overall average requirement for a manufacturer's fleet increasing to 35 mpg. Currently cars must meet a fleet average of 27.5 mpg; light trucks — including SUVs and vans — must achieve an average of 22.2 mpg.

"We've been fighting to reach this day for over 20 years," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who was involved in the negotiations that led to the compromise. "For the first time in a generation we've overcome powerful opposition to make our cars more fuel efficient."

Well, 20 years ago, this would have made sense. Now it's a bit of a joke.

Congress last passed a federal auto fuel economy standard in 1975 and the current requirement for cars of 27.5 mpg has not changed since 1989.

Hmm, 1975. Wasn't everyone freaking out about gas prices back then, too? I don't remember because I was too busy BEING BORN!

Here's a novel idea: why not pass laws like this BEFORE things get bad?

The House has yet to act on its energy legislation. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has said reductions in auto gasoline use are needed and Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., said he plans to work "to ensure that the House matches the Senate's action."

"It's clear the political movement to increase our nation's fuel economy ... has shifted out of neutral into drive," said Markey, responding to the Senate action Thursday.

"Shifted out of neutral into drive"? WORST. PUN. EVER. This guy should never be allowed to talk again. Ever.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who opposed the Senate provision and had fought to instead pass a more auto industry-friendly fuel economy measure, said one reason for his effort's failure was growing public concern about global warming.

"The public wants action, rightfully so, on global warming," Levin said in an interview. And he added, the auto industry is "a juicy target."

Well, he is from Michigan. Still, it's not like too many cars are made there anymore. That's just where all the executives live. Hmm.

My Final Thoughts

This whole biofuel debate is stupid, pointless, and a real waste of time. Yes, I have a bioethanol sticker on my car, but I'm fully aware that it's only a temporary quick fix and that we need to completely get away from the internal combustion engine for transportation. It's 150+ year old technology. Put it this way, my cellphone is about the size of a well-used bar of soap. Not only can I use it as a phone, but I can also store a bunch of CD quality songs on it, there's a digital still camera as well as a digital video camera. This is not some James Bond model, either, it's a very common model that was free after a rebate when I signed up for my calling plan. Just 10 years ago, it would have seemed like science fiction. But with transportation, why are we still dependent on thousands of tiny explosions per minute inside a cast metal engine? In a 3000 pound car, almost all the energy goes to moving the car itself, and only a fraction goes toward moving the passengers. That don't make no sense.

We need something like this instead.

Anyway, I hope you've enjoyed the first edition of Rob Comments on the News. See you next time!

Rob