Illegal Pee


No doubt Jacob Sullum already knows this, but I was astonished to learn that several states make it illegal for someone to give away, distribute or sell their urine. Apparently, in South Carolina one can be thrown in the pokey for up to 3 years and fined $5000 for selling "clean urine." Other states outlawing pee include North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Nebraska, Texas, and Arkansas. Is there no indignity to which the drug warriors will not stoop?


NEXT: Lawyer Crows Lynne Saga

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No, I don’t think so – licking certain kinds of frogs is illegal in South Carolina, for instance. Enforcement of that one takes a major lack of dignity.

  2. “Is there no indignity to which the drug warriors will not stoop?”

    You’re kidding right?
    I mean have you been awake at all in the past 20 years?

  3. I’ve taken my share of illegal pees. Those mostly involved a public street and inviting tree, however.

  4. Hey aren’t those lab’s that test urine for drugs in essence selling the urine?

  5. What about giving away clean urine for free? Is that illegal. Reminds me of one of the guys in my dorm that never did anything illegal, he’d pee for free.

  6. Maybe they could disguise the fact that they’re selling clean urine by putting it in a jar with a Jesus statue and calling it art.

  7. Yeah if it was illegal to give it away for free, then wouldn’t it also be illegal to give it to the drug busters for free?

  8. How do they deal with abusive sober people? Why is it any different?

  9. In one of my previous lives I was a probation officer. When it became vogue to use breathalyzers and urine tests (yuck) to check a person every time you saw them, I got out. The focus changed overnight to detecting the presence of chemicals and ignored the painstaking, personal work it takes to deal with whatever behavior is occurring.

  10. I’d be pretty angry if, for instance, my former spouse was under judicial order to abstain from using narcotics prior to possession of our children, but was using and buying clean urine and taking possession of the children anyway.

    The Court generally gets pretty angry, too, as a matter of fact, but it still happens all the time. In my experience, it’s hard to get a parole or probation revoked in Texas on a dirty piss test (the criminal aspect seems to be the focus of this post), but it’s also damned hard enough to get visitation limited because someone is endangering a child due to impairment relating to substance abuse. If you had a spouse that was a heroin, coke, or meth addict or otherwise habitually used one of the above (self-medicating, just having a good time, whatever you want to label it),would you want them taking possession of the children if their pee came up dirty (and take note, while THC is an oil, fat-soluble, can stay in system depending on body type for 3 – 6 weeks, coke, meth, and heroin are water-soluble and out of system much quicker)? With family cases, the drugs you’re typically worried about, if they show up in a sample, indicate usage in close proximity to possession of the child. That’s generally indicative of a problem greater than someone just “going on a toot.”

    So I think it’s good law, regardless. And, I’d bet research would turn up few prosecutions based upon the illegality of buying or selling urine.

  11. Good law? Yikes. Custody should be based on if the children are being HARMED, not what’s in the urine. We seem to get by just fine with dealing with abusive alcoholics without resorting to such ludicrous infringements upon an individual’s rights.

    My god. Sell your pee, go to jail. If it weren’t so damned sad I’d be laughing my ass off.

  12. Hey maybe you shouldnt have had kids with a drug addict in the first place.

  13. One of the techniques for dealing with abusive alcoholics is ordering that they have a saliva test prior to taking possession of the children. If there’s alcohol in their system, they don’t get to take the kids.

    I’m not aware of any similar test to look for proximal drug use prior to possession of children. So generally what’s done is that you give them weekly urine tests.

    As far as “harm” to the children, if someone can’t refrain from drug usage when they are well aware that they are under scrutiny of the Court, that would be indicative of a panoply of problems which probably *are* harming the children. And even if your position is “my coke problem isn’t harming my children,” disregard of the Court’s orders *is* still a problem on its own merits, nonetheless.

    I would agree that it’s best not to procreate with drug users (or psychotics, etc., etc.), butthat’s hardly the children’s fault. Aren’t they still entitled to protections?

  14. There’s a simple way around the drug test for child custody (airline pilots, physicians, and whatever other persons for whom you feel this is necessary)…have them be witnessed, ahem, producing the sample. This is standard practice in many (if not most) testing labs anyway.

    Banning the sale or distribution of piss is just plain silly…but what about the drug war isn’t?

  15. EMAIL:
    DATE: 02/27/2004 06:08:20
    You are free and that is why you are lost.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.