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
