Pubdate: Wed, 26 Jun 2002
Source: Sun News (SC)
Copyright: 2002 Sun Publishing Co.
Contact:  http://web.thesunnews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/987
Author: Jennifer Holland, The Associated Press
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing)

S.C. HIGH COURT HEARS AD CASE

COLUMBIA - Attorneys for the former owner of a Richland County store say it 
is not a crime to advertise a legal product even if customers may want it 
to beat a drug test. "Speech doesn't make the crime," attorney H. Louis 
Sirkin argued before the S.C. Supreme Court on Tuesday.

Edward Rothschild III has been fighting his 2000 conviction of possessing a 
substance that can be used to defraud a drug or alcohol test, saying the 
law violates his commercial speech rights.

Sirkin said his client had a First Amendment right to run an advertisement 
in a local newspaper that read: "Taking a drug test? Want to cleanse your 
system?"

In 1999, the State Law Enforcement Division responded to the ad for Nicki's 
Novelty Store, where a clerk told an undercover agent a drink called Zydot 
would hide the presence of marijuana in a drug test, Sirkin said.

A Web site that sells Zydot says one hour after drinking it "your urine may 
be pure for four hours."

Sirkin argued the product Zydot is legal.

"It only becomes illegal when it is used in an illegal way," he said.

"The person who uses the product with the purpose of defrauding a drug test 
is the customer," Sirkin said.

But Assistant Attorney General Melody Brown said Rothschild ordered Zydot 
to be sold to defraud drug tests, not to quench thirst.

Justice Costa Pleicones asked Brown for the proof. "Where do the thought 
police stop?" he said.

Brown said Rothschild's advertisement shows his intent to sell the products 
for the purpose of defrauding drug tests.

"Moreover, the presence of additional products, with the same detoxifying 
purpose, indicates a lack of mistake or accident in the assessment of the 
intent," court papers said.

The justices will issue a ruling on the case later.

Last year, the justices said the state could ban urine sales intended to 
defraud drug tests.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom