I notice that it's circumcised. I wonder if they do one with a "realistic foreskin" for those of us who prefer the hooded look ...

But where does the wee come from? Am I the only one getting the Withnail & I reference here?

Surely user is at fault, not manufacturer?

just like ehow security researchers are banned from making hacking tools because of the few people that break the law, now we have people making fake cocks accused of breaking the law rather than those who actually use them...

not sure as I see the point though. I'm assuming that the bag attached to the fake schlong has to be filled by a clean and sober friend before the test.

I'm not sure as anyone could force you to whip it out in front of them, so surely a jar of your mates piss stashed in your pocket would have a similar effect?

OK, first off I agree that radar detectors are only used by people to avoid speed traps, and the only people who need to avoid speed traps are those that have a tendency to speed.

However, the argument for radar detectors being legal goes something like:

Speed cameras are only placed in areas of increased danger*

Radar detectors give advanced warning of areas of increased danger thus allowing the user to be forewarned of said danger**

Therefore:

Banning radar detectors increases the overall danger***

No equivalent argument can be made regarding urine tests****

*We know this is not true, but this is the line the authorities take, leaving them only the choice between maintaining the lie or admitting the lie. So officially cameras are only in dangerous places.

**Danger of crashing, not danger of fines and points.

***You can see the headlines now: "Driver sues authorities for taking his safety detector and causing him to crash"

****It amazes me that companies make employees take piss tests. Seems a little, well, wrong to me. OK, if you think someone is pissed / stoned at work then give them a sobriety test and deal with the results appropriately.

I think the idea is that its *only* purpose is to defraud, not that it *can* be used to defraud. If they'd been smart enough to come up with some plausible uses (say, 'great for shooting movies with urinal scenes...') and not have quotes from people saying, "I CHEATED MY DRUG TEST WITH THIS!" they'd have a better case.

That said, I don't like the idea that a physical object used to commit some kind of crime is itself illegal. It sets a lot of really uncomfortable precedents.

The product was advertised, to be used for the fraud (faking drug test results). It is the same reason the commercial bit torrent companies lose in court. They advertised the product was for illegal acts and therefore for were conspiring to commit them.

Selling items capable of committing crimes is not conspiracy. Advertising that they should be used for committing crimes is conspiracy.

As for faking the drug test being a "legal" issue, think along the lines of drug testing of government employees. Providing fake urine would be the same as lying on an application.

The difference is this...

The computer has many legitimate uses and is not sold under an ad saying: "Buy a computer and hack* the world".

If these people had sold the device under some more legitimate advertising they'd probably be OK. eg as a drink dispenser for hen parties or as a halloween gag. The real advertising would be some blogger on a dope forum saying "hey I found these nifty party gags and used one to pass a piss test.".

Then when told that their devices get used to fake tests they could act suprised.

Footnote:

(*) Screw all you hacker vs cracker tards.

But a bit of a faff to take out on a night out, fully loaded if you will. Just don't drive, dufus!

It's like getting caught carrying a crack pipe around – you'd have to work pretty dang hard to prove that you had a legitimate, legal reason for having it. In this case, the only* use for it to fake drug tests, and it is marketed as such: "the ultimate solution for a drug testing device". Thus manufacturing and selling it is conspiracy to defraud.

@ Brent Gardner:

The charges say nothing about defrauding the state in particular. Trying to cheat on drug tests administered by the government, companies, sporting agencies, etc. are all covered.

@ Duncan Hothersall:

By definition, a conspiracy is a plan to commit a crime, irrespective of whether or not that crime is actually carried out, so no specific instances are needed. (If there were, they'd be charged with fraud itself, not conspiracy.) VCRs can be used to record copyrighted TV shows, but they also have legal uses. Copyright violation is not their primary use, nor are they marketed on their ability to do so. In this case, there is no legal use, their primary use is to commit fraud, and they are marketed on their ability to commit fraud. Hence conspiracy.

*Well, F2M transgender folks might want something like this before SRS. However, they'd need something that uses the natural source of piss, not an artificial reservoir.

So another golden stream of big brothers outflow pours all over the rights of the common citizen.

STOP VOTING FOR THESE MOOOOOOOOORONS WHO PASS THESE 'LAWS' !!!!

Does it come in different colours and sizes?

Your comparison is not even close. I could technically use a pen to commit crime if I stuck it into a persons eye or used it to write out my ledger of tax evasion. But, like a computer, a pen has millions of completely legitimate uses and are not advertised as tools to assist you in breaking the law.

Aside from perhaps as a stag/hen night jape, I can't think of any legitimate use for a realistic fake penis and bag of synthetic piss, considering I have real ones of both at my disposal.

I do agree with Brent Gardner to a point, that it is not really your employers business if you drink or take drugs in your own time if it does not affect your work. I'm not sure if tests like these will ever be introduced in the UK (or indeed if they already have) but it would require some change to your contract of employment in order to implement.

Personally it doesn't bother me, as I don't use illegal drugs and only very rarely drink, but I can see that some view it as a breach of their right to privacy.

The possession of any item, no matter how innocent, which is in your possession in order to commit an offence under the Theft Act is covered by the offence 'Going Equipped To Steal' Includes fraud ie fixing drug tests in order to continue paid employment etc

Their big mistake was to market as a way to pass drug tests... Sell it as a sexual device for those who like golden showers but also "hygiene" and Bob's your uncle!

Myself and others enjoy the drug tests we get at work. We get to sit around for an hour or more talking and not working while getting paid. I could have pee'd in the cup earlier, but dragging it out to cost my company more for the insult makes me feel better.

Anon because my company still sucks and why ruin a good thing for everyone else too.

Speaking as an IT consultant in the US who has been subjected to several piss tests as a condition of employment over the years I wholeheartedly agree with Brent Gardner and Andy Worth. It is an invasion of privacy because it is none of my employer's business what I do on my own time as long as it does not affect my performance at work. Since I am an IT whore I begrudgingly submit to these tests.

The last time I 'inhaled' was during my university years so I pass these tests easily aside from the fact that I can't enjoy a few pints of lager the night before the test. (I have always had minimum 48 hours notice prior to the piss test).

A recruiter once told me that the main reason for drug screening is to protect the company from liability. If you are hired by a company as an employee and it is later discovered that you had a pre-existing drug/alcohol addiction you cannot be terminated. In the US alcoholism/drug addictions are considered 'disabilities'. Moreover, it is now your employer's responsibility to see that you receive proper treatment (employer must now pay for de-tox and rehab) in addition to holding your position for you until you are better.

Even though I am a consultant I am typically an employee of the agency that recruited me as are many others. I do not think this scenario applies to those that are 'corp-to-corp'.

I'm just curious if anyone with expertise with US employment laws can confirm or deny the above.

-Just another IT Whore

it is all in the advertising

uses

:prosthetics's , laughs/gages , sex toy , fetish

features:

real look and feel and use

options :

motors, colors , sizes ,

extras:

synthetic ,real and flavored piss

or various lotions for the motion

disclaimer

ADULT USE ONLY

use of this product is [ fill in legalize here ]

it is all in how they advertised , they advertised circumventing the [drug ] laws , instead of advertising the pursuit of happiness [ an usa civil right ]