Slashdot Mirror


Cocaine Found At Kennedy Space Center

An anonymous reader writes "For the second time in the last two years, a stash of cocaine has been found at NASA's Kennedy Space Center. 4.2 grams of the a powdery white substance were discovered on March 7, and field tests by law enforcement officials confirmed that it was indeed cocaine. A spokesperson was unable to provide additional details about where the substance was found, or how many employees and contractors are now being drug tested. An investigation into a similar discovery in January 2010 yields no results after all 200 NASA employees and contractors who had access to the area in which the cocaine was found tested negative for the drug."

276 comments

  1. Wouldn't doubt it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    NASA's a good place to be flyin high.

    But seriously, with their timelines... yeah, coke would help.

    -@|

    1. Re:Wouldn't doubt it... by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      I am hereby ruining all "field testing" jokes.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    2. Re:Wouldn't doubt it... by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      I guess that shit *really was* rocket fuel!

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    3. Re:Wouldn't doubt it... by flyneye · · Score: 2

      I'm gonna be hiiiiiiiiiiiiigh as a kite by then...
            I'm a rocket man...

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    4. Re:Wouldn't doubt it... by slick7 · · Score: 1

      I guess that shit *really was* rocket fuel!

      I guess it gives new meaning to the "high frontier"

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    5. Re:Wouldn't doubt it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet its some of that Space Coke...

  2. Explains.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This explains a whole lot.

  3. in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    found in congress nasa budget commities

    1. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back in the 80s, Ted Kennedy was a notorious coke head. On a couple occasions, he gave senate speeches while his face had an obvious dusting of coke powder.

    2. Re:in other news by spun · · Score: 1

      How in the hell does someone get coke all over their face while snorting it? Coke is difficult to obtain and expensive. Cokeheads, even rich cokeheads, do not waste coke by getting it on their face.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:in other news by Kosi · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of this: It was winter, slight snowfall. A co-worker of mine, on a job for a customer (larger firm), was already in the office, when a guy working there came in. He greeted him: "Good morning, Mr. XYZ, so it's snowing?". The guy flinched, and immediately wiped his nose while glancing around fearfully.

      Gave us many, many good laughs at after-work-meetings.

      Morale: when in public, always look in the mirror after snorting a line.

    4. Re:in other news by robthebloke · · Score: 1

      Depends how wasted they are. I do recall seeing a particularly drunk guy at a festival trying to spoon it up his nose - his face was covered in the stuff.

    5. Re:in other news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How in the hell does someone get coke all over their face while snorting it? Coke is difficult to obtain and expensive. Cokeheads, even rich cokeheads, do not waste coke by getting it on their face.

      35 seconds in, Tony Montana shows how it's done.

      It's real, I swear!

  4. Zero hour, 9 AM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    And I'm gonna be hiiiiiiiiighhh, as a kite by then.

    1. Re:Zero hour, 9 AM by xtracto · · Score: 1
      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  5. First post by f1vlad · · Score: 0, Troll

    I guess shuttle transporter is very slow like turtle, maybe drivers need it :)

    --
    o_O
  6. 4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

    Anybody else remember Richard Pryor and the "dollar and fifty cents worth of cocaine"?

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by srodden · · Score: 1

      I doubt you'd be singing the same tune if it was 4.2g of Plutonium 239. The unexplained appearance in a restricted area of any illegal substance is a cause for concern.

      --
      Why can't we let people believe whatever they like? It's not like a little religion has ever hurt anyone.
    2. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but according to RIAA numbers it would be worth 2.5 trillions in 2011.

    3. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because I know some people that use and research everything that crosses my path I have to say that is a pretty big guess you are making. Sure most people wont use 4.2g in a day, but purchasing in quantity is cheaper so a lot of people buy like that so they have a week or 2 supply. As far as use, coke is still used a good amt these days from what I have seen and heard.

      I have to wonder though if maybe it was part of a secret experiment to save on fuel costs, maybe tie a bunch of coked up birds to the shuttle and hope for the best lol.

    4. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That amount of cocaine is a little too much for one person to use(though Stevie Ray Vaughan used 4g/day peak) or carry, unless they were a dealer.

      Dude,it's just over an eightball, Charlie Sheen does single rocks at 7 grams.
      And back in the day I might head back for a refill after 4 grams, but I wasn't smoking it.

    5. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by jasomill · · Score: 2

      I doubt you'd be singing the same tune if it was 4.2g of Plutonium 239. The unexplained appearance in a restricted area of any illegal substance is a cause for concern.

      Only in a trivial sense. Reasonable security measures are at least somewhat threat-specific, and the Kennedy protocols most likely weren't implemented to curtail interplanetary narcotics trafficking. As for plutonium, I'd assume officials are more concerned with the substance leaving the premises than arriving.

      To me, that these things are discovered "after the fact" is a good sign that things are working right, given that random "preventative" drugscreening tends to catch at least as many recreational pot smokers as employees with serious, untreated drug/alcohol problems, in spite of the fact that the latter group pose an inarguably greater threat to both safety and security. On the other hand, for many reasons, it is important and useful to know when and if any substance abuse actually played a role in a serious workplace accident, as opposed to whether it could, in theory, do so.

      Regardless of one's moral views, it's difficult to argue with the fact that the "war on politically unpopular drugs" leads to serious resource misallocation, given that this viewpoint seems to be supported by virtually every study ever done, not to mention many if not most people working in state and local law enforcement.

      Cheers,
      Jason

    6. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      ... given that random "preventative" drugscreening tends to catch at least as many recreational pot smokers as employees with serious, untreated drug/alcohol problems ...

      Not to mention completely clean people with false positives, people who recently ate buns with poppy-seed topping, people who have recently been treated for pain or had certain medical procedures, people whose samples were mixed up or contaminated in the lab, ...

      Modern drug tests are WAY too sensitive and pretty much every process has SOME failure rate.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    7. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      4.2g could be construed as a very generous "eight ball," which is typically 3.5g. An eight ball is a pretty common amount to purchase. Maybe the owner is going to do all that themselves; that's totally feasible, especially if they only buy (say) once a week. That wouldn't even put them in the junkie category. Another option is that they just like to share it, so they get a little extra to spread around. Either way, the idea that one person would not be in possession of 4.2g of cocaine is pretty much just "cop think." It happens all the time, every day, in every city in America.

    8. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unexplained != inexplicable. It also doesn't mean dangerous.

      Somebody dropped it, and they almost certainly had it on them for personal consumption. While you might be concerned that having someone around using coke is dangerous, the powder itself is essentially harmless.

      There is no reason for anyone to just casually carry plutonium 239, legal or otherwise, and it is a radically different type of controlled substance.

    9. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it wasn't plutonium, so what is your point? They're not equivalent in the slightest way.

    10. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by Unkyjar · · Score: 1

      One person can blow away 4.2 grams in an evening like it was nothing. Oh sure, you SAY you'll save some for the next day, but when the morning comes you've got a stuffy nose and no coke.

    11. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should snort some plutonium and cocaine. You may notice some differences.

      --
    12. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by the_fat_kid · · Score: 1

      Where I live, that's like $350 worth of cocaine.
      Seems like enough for 1 or 2 Astronauts for a weekend in space.
      Drugs make me paranoid and talkative on earth. I think that outer space might just be a little too much.
      "Discovery, this is Kennedy. Please shut up now."

      --
      -- Sig under construction...
    13. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by wmbetts · · Score: 1

      To quote Charlie Sheen “I don’t know man. I was banging 7 gram rocks and finishing them because thats how I roll. I have one speed, I have one gear Go!”

      --
      "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
    14. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by Zibri · · Score: 1

      How is this a problem? An initial positive is not the final thing.

    15. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... or if it was 4.2g of anti-matter.

    16. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      How is this a problem? An initial positive is not the final thing.

      Not sure where you're at, but in the US, one failed workplace/employee/pre-hire drug test is all it takes for an employer to refuse to hire or to dismiss an employee. Most states have labor provisions that technically give the person the right to pay for another test, but employers will usually find some other reason if need be to not hire or to dismiss said applicant/employee anyway to avoid risk.

      They perceive any association with anything to do with even a mistaken perception of illegal drugs or drug use as unacceptable and go to great lengths to avoid even the most remote suggestion.

      It's not the employer's fault. It's the conditions and attitudes in US society. It's government/law enforcement and the laws and tactics used in the war on some drugs, along with the majority sentiments regarding recreational drugs that were largely formed by government policies and propaganda, intended to be used as one tactic to attack/suppress/drive out non-whites starting around the 1930s, and which we are just starting to awaken from.

      Besides the risk of involvement in some prosecutor's or enforcement agency's investigations, employers also face civil litigation risks and corresponding risk-control pressures from commercial workplace insurers.

      Decades of government-driven intra-societal warfare and government propaganda based on demonizing recreational drugs have resulted in a society-wide paranoia regarding even seriously discussing the concept of recreational drugs and/or responsible use.

      Employers are simply reacting in the only logical way they can for their own survival in a dysfunctional society and legal system. Without changing those things, hiring and workplace policies cannot improve.

      That said, if anyone was actually using drugs while working on or around something like a freaking ~180 ft tall bundle of rockets filled with enough liquid and solid explosives to do a good imitation of a tactical nuke, they're either criminally stupid or insane, and should be removed before their personal drive for a Darwin Award costs other people their lives.

      It's bad enough that all the tens of thousands of parts come from the lowest bidder*, let's not make Cheech & Chong the ground crew.

      Strat

      * Yes, I'm aware that there have been *some* procurement policy improvements/changes over the years. Not nearly enough though, IMHO as a former long-time worker in the aerospace industry in and around the KSC area.

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    17. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      "It's not the employer's fault. It's the conditions and attitudes in US society."

      Yup, fuck the employee is in full force here in the USA.... It's why I cant believe any person trusts their company or their boss. You dont trust them, ever. Because when it comes down to it, they will fry you to save themselves.

      and yes it IS the employers fault, they could be honest and educated instead of choosing to be faceless scumbags. I really hate it, but honestly we need strict laws to force companies to act in a civil manner.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    18. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      How is this a problem? An initial positive is not the final thing.

      Are you serious? You honestly think that in 99.9% of cases you have have a snowball's chance in Hell of getting the job after failing a pre-employment drug screening in the US? This is a HUGE problem. I mean, even if the drug test comes back as a legit positive, what business is it of an employer if someone likes to smoke a doobie or two on the weekends? Go out every night of the week and get fucking sloshed, and your employer couldn't care less, as long as you don't actually show up to work drunk. Smoke a joint or two on the weekend? GTFO you drug abusing piece of shit!!!!! It is completely insane, and totally contrary to every bit of medical evidence we have and all of the logic and reasoning we can apply to it.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    19. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 1

      Yes. This. I think the most egregious example of this is the accepted procedure for termination of employment. You, the lowly piece of shit employee, are expected to give your boss 2 weeks notice (at least) before you quit a job, to avoid inconveniencing them. The boss, however, has no such obligation. Even in our society where the vast majority of workers live paycheck to paycheck, and any loss of work can be devastating, it is totally legitimate for your boss to simply tell you not to come in the next day. WTF America?

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    20. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      what business is it of an employer if someone likes to smoke a doobie or two on the weekends?

      Because I don't want the guy who's running the forklift to have impaired functionality when he's moving a half ton (or more) of equipment.

      If you don't think there are any lingering effects from smoking a joint or two on the weekend when you come to work, you've obviously been smoking the stuff.

      Put another way, do you want the guy who's programming the software for your mother's heart monitor to be smoking that shit?* How about the guy who codes the braking software for your car?

      *This all depends on how wealthy your mother is and whether you want her around.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    21. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by thisnamestoolong · · Score: 2

      If you don't think there are any lingering effects from smoking a joint or two on the weekend when you come to work, you've obviously been smoking the stuff.

      Either that or I know how to read and care about the evidence. There have been many, many studies into this, and there is no evidence to suggest that what you say is the case. Would you be upset to find out that the guy performing surgery on you had shared a bottle of wine over dinner with his wife last Saturday? You clearly know absolutely nothing about what you are talking about, other than the lies and FUD you were told in your high school health class. It's time to grow up and think for yourself.

      --
      To the haters: You can't win. If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine
    22. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by trollertron3000 · · Score: 1

      Holy shit, where do you live? I'm heading up from Florida right now!

      --
      Tiger Blooded Bi-Winning Machine
    23. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2

      Put another way, do you want the guy who's programming the software for your mother's heart monitor to be smoking that shit?* How about the guy who codes the braking software for your car?

      Why not? It's lost in the noise. They don't test for the seriously impairing shit, like religion, insanity, or stupidity. Any chances that the programmer and all the people who checked his work, might have all been high while doing their jobs, is overwhelmed by both the possibility and consequences of other factors. You would have to be using a hundred heart monitors programmed by high programmers, to add up to all the routinely tolerated risks that nobody tests for.

      If drug testing were seriously about safety and quality control, they would also be testing for the much more common and severe things first. They don't. Hence, the rationale for it is bullshit.

      When NASA says they've stopped hiring people whose bank account audits have found transfers to Scientology, have stopped hiring people who watch Fox News for purposes other than comic entertainment, have stopped hiring people who who smoke a pack of tobacco cigarettes every day, then I'll believe they're serious when they include marijuana testing too, because they'll have shown they've already gone after all the low-hanging fruit.

      Current drug testing, though, is like a cop seeing a bunch of cars drive by a school at 100 MPH by with flat tires, as the drivers throw beer cans out the window, and ignoring it all and pulling someone over because they have a suspicious bumper sticker. Don't tell me you're motivated by safety; your criteria for selection shows that you're lying so no one is buying it.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
    24. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what unit tests are for. Duh!

    25. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by the_fat_kid · · Score: 1

      1 ounce = 28.3495231 grams
      4.2 grams is just more than an eightball.
      Now, it's been a few years, but I don't recall an 8ball ever costing more than $300.
      So, 1 paper bindle just big enough to ruin your night or get you back stage but not Tony Montoya big.

      --
      -- Sig under construction...
    26. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depending on how "stepped on" it is, and how many "users" would partake, 4.2 grams could be quite a party...

    27. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      There have been many, many studies into this, and there is no evidence to suggest that what you say is the case.

      Really? So I guess the medical community is completely wrong when they say residual effects of marijuana can stay in your system anywhere from 20 hours to 10 days, meaning you are impaired for that time, right?

      Smoke a joint on Sunday night, come in with the residual effects on Monday still in your system. Yeah, nothing wrong with that. I like having to deal with stoners in addition to the morons who can't follow simple directions such as don't press the red button.

      It's time to grow up and think for yourself.

      I did. I looked at the studies not done by High Times. The residual effects of marijuana use are real, whether you want to believe them or not. I don't need to deal with people who think it's okay to come in buzzed and not thinking clearly.

      How about you grow up and realize that doing shit like that affects those around you.

      For reference:

      WebMD>

      Disocery Health

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    28. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      I'm not at all sure that the war on "politically unpopular drugs" leads to "serious resource misallocation." If meth were legal we would experience an almost instantaneously stratospheric increase in divorce rates and child abandonment (and many other things (like road rage)). Those costs, while not direct, would be staggering and society would have to pay them instead of the drug enforcement costs.

      Some drugs are too destructive to the social network that we depend upon. Those drugs must be illegal.

    29. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anybody else remember Richard Pryor and the "dollar and fifty cents worth of cocaine"?

      I don't understand what that would have to do with this. That joke was about buying cocaine. This would have been a personal stash at work. 4 grams has got to be enough for a few decent sized lines. Am I missing something?

    30. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by parens · · Score: 2

      You just can't convince certain types of people that not everything their Gym teacher taught them in 8th grade was true. Do you drink coffee ? Caffeine's a drug, and it lingers in your system. Do you operate a motor vehicle ? CO, CO2, NOx, SOx, VOCs. All have lingering effects. Marijuana is not a boogeyman.

    31. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      If you don't think there are any lingering effects from smoking a joint or two on the weekend when you come to work, you've obviously been smoking the stuff.

      Put another way, do you want the guy who's programming the software for your mother's heart monitor to be smoking that shit?* How about the guy who codes the braking software for your car?

      Honestly - speaking from real experience here - there's probably more risk from employers requiring people to come to work sick (because you don't have any more sick days left) than writing code while high.

      In my own experience - while high - its just hard to concentrate on multiple things - on single things your mind is razor sharp I think. Reading a 400 page book in a single day is not a big problem (remembering any meaning what you read might be).

    32. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by Zibri · · Score: 1

      *I* don't mind people smoking on the weekends, but it's still illegal. Change the law if you want to. And from my experience, yes, an initial positive drug screening is not a final result.

    33. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      An initial positive is not the final thing.

      Bullshit.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    34. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Describe to cause and effect here, as if to a first grader. Would you?

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    35. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I already did idiot, you obviously never have even had a paper-route, let alone run a business in any way.

        I treat my 4 employees with respect and I get superior results. Now I prefer to play a lot so I only operate my business part time/seasonal, so the off time I have a job. This job is with a company that also is not ran by idiot duche bags like yourself. Guess what... we slaughter the competition. In the past 4 years, 10 out of 14 competitors all went out of business and bankrupt. We are still here. We are also told that we can tell a customer to fuck themselves. Yes that is right, I can look a customer in his face and say "Fuck you" if the customer is treating us in any manner that is abusive. WE are told to walk off a job site if a customer even raises his voice at us. Because the contract the customer signed says that "abuse of our employees is not tolerated" and they have to sign a line specifically about this. These kinds of companies are rare as hell and are only found in medium business and small business sizes. (we have only 1000 employees)

      You on the other hand are such a scumbag you probably would encourage the abuse of any imaginary employee you might have. Your minions in WoW are not employees BTW....

      So in closing, I know a shitload more about business and employees than you do. I'm betting I know more about EVERYTHING than you do. But then a Salad bar has been know to outwit you in a argument so that's not that much of an achievement to brag about.

      P.S. I have ran my personal business for 4 years now, that's about 4 years more than you have... 2 of my employees are still here from the beginning, returning each year simply because the job is fun and I treat them well.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    36. Re:4.2 GRAMS??? SRSLY??? by dogsbreath · · Score: 1

      While I agree that in many jobs there is no need for the employer to do drug tests because the private time activities don't infringe on work time, I believe you are being disingenuous. You sound like you've been around the block so you know that effects do linger and that many people learn to cope in a sober manner when they are at work, even though they are impaired. I've seen this and it has made the workplace unsafe.

      So a store clerk can be hung over or moderately impaired from the night before and it doesn't matter. Other jobs it does. The local railroad is hiring and they make it extremely clear in the hiring conditions that for the first two years or so while the employee is effectively on call 7/24, there is to be no drug or alcohol consumption. They basically said "go away we don't want you if you can't give up booze for a couple of years". I agree with this because the job is just too dangerous to have someone in the yard who is even a bit impaired.

      I'm not naive. There are still going to be impaired people on the job but I don't blame them for applying this filter at the hiring point. When they made the statement during the hiring session, about half the guys started looking extremely uncomfortable and a bunch left at the break.

      Personally, I'm OK with it when they are upfront with the issue and have a legitimate reason for the hard line. Like: it might be my ass that is burnt by the impaired idiot I'm working with.

  7. To the moon. by SquirrelDeth · · Score: 1

    Looks like someone was trying to fly to the moon.

    1. Re:To the moon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha yesss get to the moon FASTER! =p

  8. Bi-Winning by macara · · Score: 0

    Obviously means on Earth and in space.

  9. Dare you not to read this in Shatner's voice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And I'm gonna be... HIGH... as a KITE by then.

  10. TSA involvement by Binky_the_Zakalwe · · Score: 5, Funny

    This shows a clear need for TSA screenings of all astronauts prior boarding.

    1. Re:TSA involvement by tgrigsby · · Score: 5, Funny

      This shows a clear need for TSA screenings of all astronauts prior boarding.

      "I have to take off my boots, too? OH COME ON, ARE YOU SERIOUS?!"

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
    2. Re:TSA involvement by Cwix · · Score: 1

      +5 Funny

      --
      You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
    3. Re:TSA involvement by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      This shows a clear need for TSA screenings of all astronauts prior boarding.

      "I have to take off my boots, too? OH COME ON, ARE YOU SERIOUS?!"

      Obligatory WKRP payola reference: I've got a monkey on my foot.

    4. Re:TSA involvement by Teun · · Score: 1
      After the fact discovery makes just as guilty, screen them upon return!

      Ahh, angel dust from the ISS :)

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
    5. Re:TSA involvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL What an image that paints. Good one!

    6. Re:TSA involvement by gVibe · · Score: 0

      I am voting this "comment of the year" 2011!!

      --
      Keywords for the NSA overthrow oppressive regime true believers marathon Manhatten the financial district blueprints I
    7. Re:TSA involvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make them take their boots off when they re-enter the craft from the moon walk?

    8. Re:TSA involvement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This shows a clear need for TSA screenings of all astronauts prior boarding.

      "I have to take off my boots, too? OH COME ON, ARE YOU SERIOUS?!"

      Obligatory WKRP payola reference: I've got a monkey on my foot.

      "Honest to God, I thought turkeys could fly." - Les Nessman

  11. mjh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mjh

  12. Impact on work performance? by timeOday · · Score: 1

    I was under the impression there are a lot of high-functioning professionals secretly addicted to cocaine because it doesn't adversely affect your performance short-term like, say, alcohol does. True or false?

    1. Re:Impact on work performance? by TheOV · · Score: 1

      Not that it really counts as fact, but Sherlock Holmes would always turn to cocaine when he needed a boost during particularly grueling cases.

    2. Re:Impact on work performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nice try, narc.

    3. Re:Impact on work performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize Holmes is a fictional character, right?

    4. Re:Impact on work performance? by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Informative
      It really depends on the person. Somewhere between 10-25% of coke/meth users don't get addicted and use it to self-medicate their ADHD or similar problems.

      If you look at the history, cocaine wasn't banned because it was dangerous (back in the day, most housewives were taking it via mystery medicines). It was banned because people were afraid coked up negroes would rape their white women. It still has medical uses and is occasionally prescribed today.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    5. Re:Impact on work performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realise that he said "Not that it really counts as fact", right?

    6. Re:Impact on work performance? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Cocaine does have the virtue of being a stimulant, so it will make you more alert, and whatever stupid mistakes it may induce will be pretty similar to the ones all your coffee-and-sleep-deprivation coworkers will be committing.

      I suspect that its lack of telltale smell is a fairly large factor, though: A fair few alcoholics will(outside of formal reflex tests, or high precision machinery operation) barely feel the first few drinks. Even a single shot of something with no added scent(ie. vodka, rather than a hoppy beer) will be easily noticeable in face to face contact or confined areas for a while. Nearly all the alcohol that your liver doesn't get ends up being exhaled as a very noticeable vapor.

    7. Re:Impact on work performance? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      Huh? He used cocaine when there was a lack of interesting cases.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    8. Re:Impact on work performance? by Stradenko · · Score: 0

      False. Alcohol doesn't adversely affect short-term performance.

    9. Re:Impact on work performance? by mt2e · · Score: 1

      my gf is a surgical tech and they use it every week, its very common, its used in liquid form

    10. Re:Impact on work performance? by nebaz · · Score: 1

      It depends on how much alcohol and how short-term.

      --
      Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    11. Re:Impact on work performance? by __aagujc9792 · · Score: 1

      Freud was a coke fiend. With his buddy Fleiss, the nose fetishist. Honest, I couldn't make this up.

    12. Re:Impact on work performance? by markass530 · · Score: 2

      You got that kinda right. People START using it, because they self medicate. They are the most likely to get addicted, because the shit works. I'd say almost all day, to different levels (Full disclosure, I've had my fun with both, and have ADD)

    13. Re:Impact on work performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As if they legitimately found any coke. It's just a ploy to do a random test on everyone again so a few prudes can bust the one guy they know who likes to blaze weed.

    14. Re:Impact on work performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Using cocaine to medicate ADHD? Isn't that like using gasoline to fight a house fire?

    15. Re:Impact on work performance? by Redlazer · · Score: 1
      You are correct, except perhaps for meth. The amphetamine family, for sure, but if I understand correctly, the "meth" part of methamphetamine changes the drug to skew away from people seeking self-medication. I also think it's far too addictive to say anyone can self medicate with it.

      However, nearly all stimulants are used to self medicate ADHD. From nicotine, to caffeine, to sugar, marijuana, and cocaine, it isn't terribly unusual for someone to have found something that works for them.

      I am aware that marijuana is not a stimulant - but it's certainly something people with ADHD self medicate with, and would be a much better fit in your example than meth.

      Your friendly neighbourhood ADHD nerd.

      --
      Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
    16. Re:Impact on work performance? by catmistake · · Score: 0

      I was under the impression there are a lot of high-functioning professionals secretly addicted to cocaine because it doesn't adversely affect your performance short-term like, say, alcohol does. True or false?

      Len Bias might disagree.

      From my experience with it, which is by proxy through people I knew that used the drug, cocaine turns people into complete lying shitheads, though maybe they were always lying shitheads. From what I can tell, cocaine induces a manic state, and that can often be adverse to performance. Even if the user feels their elevated state is one of hyperperformance, it can be unsettling to witness, and, contrary to what the user believes, it is rather easy to tell if someone is high on cocaine.

    17. Re:Impact on work performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if it's (badly) mixed with amphetamines (speed) that exacerbate ADHD. It's pure form affects dopamine receptors, which control seratonin uptake, a totally different physiological process.

    18. Re:Impact on work performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the person, from my extended experience:

      Alcohol, in moderation, no. But 3-5 units daily, yes! You suffer from concentration problems, insomnia, mental instability. Also cannot (or should not) work while on it.

      Coke, in moderation, no. Daily, yes! It affect your focus, as a daily user it consumes your thoughts. I could not work on it, it makes thoughts scattered, sitting down quietly becomes a chore, and you'd rather do something else. Then when you go without you get edgy, unsocial and very ansi, a nervous wreck around normal people, as it messes with your brain's happy chemicals it releases during normal, happy and social situations.

      So glad I'm not on that anymore. God that was horrific. Humankind should not fuck with brain chemicals without knowing what it *really* does. Honestly, we have no idea. You gain so much insight into how the brain works, just by fucking it up.

    19. Re:Impact on work performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As somebody's whose marriage was destroyed by cocaine and alcohol (my ex-wife was hitting upwards of $100/day on coke), anybody using cocaine in serious amounts runs the risk of turning in to an emotional basket case and pathological liar, and they won't even be aware of it.

    20. Re:Impact on work performance? by pitje · · Score: 1

      ah, just like anybody _not_ using cocaine, then

    21. Re:Impact on work performance? by justin12345 · · Score: 1

      Stimulants and the Air Force (and probably NASA) go hand and hand. The Air Force has been using dextro-amphetamine pretty much since the beginning. Cocaine is slightly different, but it doesn't last very long and it distorts your perceptions more. It's not the sort of thing that you would really want someone working under the influence of, though I'd say it probably a lot less problematic then alcohol. I could see a person that was desensitized to dextro moving up to blow.

      Maybe one of the flyboys wanted to get the Russians on the ISS high. From what I hear the Russians do a stim called methacathinone, which is nowhere near as good. Probably just a case of international goodwill getting all mucked up by the bureaucrats. Imagine, at the rate they are orbiting, that party could last a shuttle month instead of an earthly few days.

      --
      Cool art gallery, if you're into that sort of thing.
    22. Re:Impact on work performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To put it all in context; For alcohol, I drink a fair bit and started off with a 6-pack of 50cl 3.5% beers (They aren't allowed to sell with higher alcohol content here, thank god?), mainly due to depression as it severely affected the amount of work I do. After a while I started drinking 8 or more, several times a week. You need to find a sweet spot, after maybe 2-3 beers where you get an infusion of motivation and fall into a deep focus, but you can never stop there, you always need to go a bit higher where you start losing focus and begin to feel that other things are more important. That short-term benefit of alcohol is very short-term.

      With coke, the cycles are shorter (About 20 minutes at a time) but you can go through several of them. You don't know when you're entering the high with coke, or that you are high, so the usage is based on psychological expectations prior to taking it. There are other things that bug you during the high and you can't fall into that deep focus such as when you're reading a book in the evening, or duing a sunny and calm day. When you hit the low, that's something you don't want to experience but the transition from the "normal" you feel from coke, to the low, is highly noticeable so it gets people to continue taking it. People that are just starting off with this hoping to get a performance boost, those are the people you get the impression from that they're "doing coke and playing games." or whatever; It isn't sustainable.

      The absolute best performance booster is not to push yourself to the limit 24/7 and even use substances to push yourself further, that will only work in the short-term, but to get enough sleep, eath healthy, exercise, and get into a custom daily cycle. Doesn't work for everyone, though, such as myself that will fall into depression at unpredictable times.

    23. Re:Impact on work performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great let's throw some anit-white sentiment into this conversation about the Kennedy space center and cocaine.
            White people are responsible for all the racial hatred, misogyny, and wars that go on anywhere on the planet at any given time. That is why when I look around me it is getting harder and harder to find a white person, and why my apartment building MIGHT? have 15 white people living in it out of several hundred.

      -Proud member of the white race, which has systematically oppressed all other races and minorities for all of time. (Personally i think i a doing a piss poor job of it)

    24. Re:Impact on work performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, you are actually saying that there is no link between taking psychoactive substances and developing psychological problems. Denial much?

    25. Re:Impact on work performance? by Guido+von+Guido · · Score: 1

      You realize Holmes is a fictional character, right?

      Which is true, but his use of recreational drugs wasn't out of line with the times.

    26. Re:Impact on work performance? by jittles · · Score: 2

      I can tell you that as a child I tripped and gashed my forehead open badly. At the hospital, they applied cocaine to the wound to reduce bleeding so that they could stitch the wound up. For the size of the gash, and number of stitches I had, there is no significantly noticeable scarring. I was quite impressed.

    27. Re:Impact on work performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      coked up negoes, nice...

    28. Re:Impact on work performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IDK man, my roommate in college became highly addicted to this stuff and went into a crazy downward spiral both behavior and health-wise. I had to move out. I hadn't seen him in about 15 years and just ran into him a few months back. It was clear he's still on it and either has had permanant damage or some serous problems because of it. I also met a few of his coke-addicted friends in college and none of them looked particularly healthly or as if they were "going places."

    29. Re:Impact on work performance? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that there are a lot of high-functioning professionals who are only-slightly-secret occasional-to-regular cocaine users who were not addicted. I got that impression from working with a bunch of them. Brilliant engineers and scientists. Not one addict between them.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    30. Re:Impact on work performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? I thought cocaine stopped you from getting an erection because it is a vasoconstrictor. You sure you aren't making things up?

    31. Re:Impact on work performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see it as modern day natural selection. I've done about 4 dozen substances recreationaly (which to me means no more than a few days to a week at a time, with at least a full month [sometimes longer] between uses to ensure a complete comedown and recovery, as determined by the specific substance) and to keep notes on at what points my mind breaks, how it breaks, etc - usually leading to a new paradigm in programming, I credit drugs almost in full for my ability to program very complex things that a mere description of makes most dev's eyes get glassy. I have no addictions and have never done anything in the sense of "its been a month, I can go get high again" or had the most faint desire to do so - to me once I see how to control the path my thoughts take from one task to the next while using a particular substance it loses all interest. I have Asperger's Syndrome, so that might have something to do with the ability to look at my own thoughts from an objective standpoint throughout the process - though this is something highly intelligent people tend to have in greater numbers than the general population. IF you get a bunch of drug addicts from drugs, so be it, the ones who don't fall prey to what could be a very valuable tool will be even more successful, likely offsetting the lack of productivity so long as the addicts are allowed to fail and stop reproducing along with the rest of us. We NEED drugs, there is simply no other moral way to provide for rapid natural selection in modern society that will ultimately benefit the minds of our offspring.

    32. Re:Impact on work performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you think that?

    33. Re:Impact on work performance? by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      Like nearly all drugs there is a difference between using and abusing. Drinking a glass of wine a day is using. Stashing a bottle of vodka in the car so you can slam it everyday at lunch is abusing.

      Your wife was clearly abusing and likely had other psychological issues that the coke was helping her forget about or cover up. Obviously she would have been better off seeing a therapist instead of abusing drugs, but don't think that she was perfectly fine until the coke showed up.

    34. Re:Impact on work performance? by fatphil · · Score: 1

      and what's being performed.

      One of the post popular alcohol-abuse-including jobs in the part of the world near me is truck driver.

      --
      Also FatPhil on SoylentNews, id 863
    35. Re:Impact on work performance? by Unequivocal · · Score: 1

      Nope. Ritalin is closely related to amphetamines such as cocaine and meth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylphenidate

      Some types of ADHD are caused by neurotransmitter problems - adding an amphetamine like Ridalin can actually alter the receptor/neurotransmitter balance inducing more focused and calmer behavior. For people with "normal" neurotransmitter mixes, adding amphetamines can result in "amped up" behavior..

      The brain is weird.

    36. Re:Impact on work performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to wikipedia:

      According to a study of 1081 US residents aged over 11 years who had used cocaine for the first time within 24 months prior to assessment, the risk of becoming cocaine-dependent within 2 years of first use (recent-onset) is 5-6%; after 10 years, it increases to 15-16%.

    37. Re:Impact on work performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you don't say is that it will definitely reduce your lifespan and increase the likelyhood of developing degenerative disease. And as the poor fool that thinks to follow your advice begins the slide into illness he faces a diminished mental capacity, increased fatigue and overall decrease in "quality of life".

      I just can't say in more plain english how freakin stupid you must be.

      Hey, are you Steve Jobs?

      Cocaine/hallucinogenic drug use + Steve Jobs = cancer at 50 years old.

      What don't you understand?

    38. Re:Impact on work performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember clearly (quite a feat considering), that it came to me that coke was better at making you want more than making you feel good. I asked at the time if they put something into it to make it do that. Then I just got it, it's cocaine. It is the only drug I cannot do. I had to promise god no more in this lifetime, and it's been 27 years. For what it's worth...

    39. Re:Impact on work performance? by the_womble · · Score: 1

      Why do you say they are more likely to get addicted. I know a study of morphine (I read a summary in print form many years ago) found that those taking it as a medication (legally prescribed) were much less likely to get addicted than those who took it for fun.

    40. Re:Impact on work performance? by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Wrong, he was into opiates.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    41. Re:Impact on work performance? by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Ballmer peak, anyone...

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    42. Re:Impact on work performance? by markass530 · · Score: 1

      You are comparing about apples and oranges. I Was talking about people who use street drugs in part to alleviate a problem, and you are talking about people getting prescribed something. People with ADD get prescribed Ritalin/Dextro/Adderal all the time, and I would agree with your study that they are less likely to get addicted then someone who takes those things for fun.

    43. Re:Impact on work performance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exception ENOTMUTUALLYEXCLUSIVE as e: ....raise GOOGLEISYOURFRIEND

      Google cite index:
      freud morphine -cocaine 94000
      freud cocaine -morphine 604000

  13. Welp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cocaine's a hell of a drug.

    1. Re:Welp. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck, Yo, Couch, Niggah!

  14. Blame Congress by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's the only way they could get anywhere high on the budget Congress gave them

    1. Re:Blame Congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the sad thing is this will just hurt there budget more

    2. Re:Blame Congress by hawkingradiation · · Score: 1

      Coopyright Afronaught

      I was gonna go to the moon
      Until I got high
      I was gonna go up real soon
      But then I got high
      NASA is still messed up
      And I know why
      It's the congressmen
      Who are the ones who are high
      I was going to go to class
      Before I got high
      They could have cheated
      And let the Ares plans pass
      But I got high
      Were letting the Chinese pass us
      And I know why
      Cause' I got high cause I got high
      Cause' I got highigh
      I sensible plan was taken apart
      Before I got high
      That The Republicans were not gonna support
      But then I got high
      The Chinese took our paychecks
      And I know why
      Cause' I got high cause I got highigh
      I was gonna run for office
      But then Obama got elected
      He was gonna try to stop this mess
      But I was high
      Now we're an economic parapalegic
      And I know why
      Cause' I got high Cause' I got high
      We were gonna beat the Russians too
      But then I got high
      I was gonna beat the Chinese too
      But then I got high
      Now I'm messing up and I know why
      Cause' I got high Cause I got high
      Obama's focused on protecting ip law
      Because the country is high
      I follow Joseph Biden
      And I know why
      Cause' I g1ot high Cause I got high
      Now we're writing fake cheques
      And I know why
      Cause I got high Cause I got high
      I'm gonna stop singing this song
      And if I sell one copy
      I'll be suprised
      In fact it's the astronauts
      Who won't fly
      They won't get high
      They aren't the one's on drugs
      And they will never get highigh

      --
      Society use your Sciences
  15. Traffic by ylt · · Score: 1

    I bet the space station is the new way to traffic coke into the US!

    1. Re:Traffic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Martian Coke baby...it's got a kick that will knock you out of this planetary orbit.

    2. Re:Traffic by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Pepsi to retaliate on friday, news at 11.

  16. Fly high... by vvaduva · · Score: 1

    Fly high my friends...fly high...

  17. Illegal Alien Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Must be brought in by illegal aliens!

  18. 4.2 grams? by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Funny

    The actual amount was probably about 2 pounds. You know how bad NASA is at imperial to metric conversion.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
  19. I, for one... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am utterly shocked that a facility with a large concentration of people exposed to deadline pressures might be found to contain an alertness-enhancing recreational alkaloid stronger than caffeine...

    That goes double if the NASA employee population skews a little older: children raised during/after Prozac and Ritalin became mainstream would be somewhat more likely to be expected to use some mixture of Provigil and one of the common prescription amphetamines for a mood and alertness boost, while powder cocaine is a venerable classic.

    1. Re:I, for one... by jandersen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I am utterly shocked that a facility with a large concentration of people exposed to deadline pressures might be found to contain an alertness-enhancing recreational alkaloid stronger than caffeine...

      The problem with cocaine is that it can have some rather devastating effects of your body - which isn't a good idea when you are out there, where not only you, but others depend with their lives on you.

      On the other hand, isn't it becoming more and more clear that using recreational drugs is something people in general want to do? IMO, it would be a lot better if those in power recognised this and decided to allow the development and marketing of a set of drugs that offer what peolpe want with the lowest possible risk - and with clear, well thought-out guidelines about how to use them. It might even be possible to develop drugs that you could "switch off" quickly if you got into a situation where this was necessary.

    2. Re:I, for one... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I doubt that the mission crews themselves can get away with it(and, were alertness aids needed, they'd probably just prescribe them amphetamines as the Air Force does); but I agree that having somebody in the position to fuck things up, even on the ground, doing lines to make deadlines is probably not the best of ideas. I'm just not at all surprised that people would be doing it anyway.

    3. Re:I, for one... by Velex · · Score: 3

      When Grandma down the street and that crazy guy whose kids won't talk to him anymore because of his batshit religious beliefs are the only ones who honestly believe in this superstitious delineation between "good" drugs (like celexa/paxil/prozac/caffeine/tobacco/alcohol) and "bad" bad drugs (like marihuana/cocaine (Freud used cocaine from what I understand)/psilocybin/salvia/exctacy (which was designed to be used in a clinical setting, only reason it's illegal is because it was being used on the street before FDA approval, so that ironically got it scheduled instead of approved, since anything that's used on the street can't possibly have any redeeming value))....

      Anyway, it's a show of power, plain and simple. It's no different than the book burnings of old. It's a show of power. Big pharma would lose TONS if marihuana were accessible. We have medical marihuana here in Michigan, but from what I understand it's still a boondoggle, and the way the law is written, you have to find your own dealer and buy on the black market anyway, and law or no law, the feds can still go after you if they wanted.

      Unfortunately, not enough voters in California got off their asses to legalize marihuana there (I know someone like that--wholeheartedly thinks marihuana should be legal, but couldn't get his ass to the polling station to vote, and if I could reach through the internet, he'd have black eye). So now we have to listen to shit from the right like, "See, the AMERICAN people don't want to legalize marihuana! See! See!"

      This country isn't a fascism yet, but nothing will change if nobody votes for their principles.

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
    4. Re:I, for one... by nyctopterus · · Score: 1

      Big pharma would lose TONS if marihuana were accessible.

      Err, dude, big pharma would make an absolute killing if these sorts of recreational drugs were legal. Who do you think would be making them?

    5. Re:I, for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dumbest thing I've heard all day.

      big pharma only makes a killing on things based on Patents. You can't patent plant based drugs.

    6. Re:I, for one... by Threni · · Score: 1

      If it were legal, you'd hardly be buying weed "made" by anyone; rather, it would be grown by friends or small businesses.

    7. Re:I, for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if they made special patented monsanto-weed, generics would dominate the market. I'm fairly certain they'd rather sell you patented drugs at $1-$10/pill with effectively zero marginal production cost.

    8. Re:I, for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, isn't it becoming more and more clear that using recreational drugs is something people in general want to do?

      When the fuck was this ever NOT clear?!

    9. Re:I, for one... by Urkki · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, not enough voters in California got off their asses to legalize marihuana there (I know someone like that--wholeheartedly thinks marihuana should be legal, but couldn't get his ass to the polling station to vote

      I think it's worth a few moments to think about above text... He and others who'd want that, why didn't they manage to get their asses to the polling station, while those who don't want that managed to vote?

    10. Re:I, for one... by the_womble · · Score: 1

      It goes much deeper than that.

      Why are American employers who have no stake in any of that test employees - and Americans are far more likely to test that Europeans.

      This even applies to jobs where cocaine is likely to improve performance, so the employer would benefit from employees taking it.

    11. Re:I, for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "(I know someone like that--wholeheartedly thinks marihuana should be legal, but couldn't get his ass to the polling station to vote, and if I could reach through the internet, he'd have black eye)"

      I wuz gonna go to the pollin station,
      but then I got high
      I wuz gonna go and cast my vote
      but then I got high
      Now the feds are on my back
      So I'm gonna have to change my track
      Because I got high, because I got high, because I got high...

    12. Re:I, for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMHO natural drugs should be legalized. I keep a stash of goodness (marijuana) at home for personal use, but to be honest I do it about once a month or every other month. In the mean time I am destroying my liver because sour mash whiskey is legal. =P

    13. Re:I, for one... by PastaLover · · Score: 1

      The only thing I find a little bit disturbing about this story is that they apparently found cocaine in a secure area last time, where they are supposed to know who has access, and yet nobody tested positive (or is cocaine one of those that you can break down pretty quickly?). Seems they have somewhat of a security problem.

  20. Drug Trafficking by spyder-implee · · Score: 1

    So now we are in the business of trafficking drugs over not only national borders but interplanetary borders too.

    --
    Take what ye can. Give nothing back!
  21. I can't help but feel.. by nanospook · · Score: 1

    Someone is fscking with them..

    --
    Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
  22. hmmmm.... by anglico · · Score: 1

    I wonder if it has anything to do with the worker that fell the other day?

    1. Re:hmmmm.... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Drugs, mysterious deaths. I'm thinking Outland. Somebody check the airlocks!

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  23. No kidding by Demonantis · · Score: 2

    If you are testing them now and they have any common sense it is going to be long gone from their system. The only drug that has a chance of being found would be pot. The metabolites can stay in the body for a month. Never mind the fact that people try to thwart the test as best they can.

    1. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about LSD?

    2. Re:No kidding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I thought traces can be found in hair for 6 months after cocaine use.

    3. Re:No kidding by Demonantis · · Score: 1

      I have no idea about the hair test or how it works. I know they use it for alcohol, but that is about it as far as I know. I was more talking about the more tried and true urine test.

  24. Hilarious Joke by RobDollar · · Score: 2

    Has anyone said "space dust" yet? There's a joke in that somewhere.

  25. Easy answer: Charlie Sheen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems Charlie Sheen is winning at NASA as well. Man this guy is everywhere!

  26. NASA officials relieved by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After testing the substance was found to be powdered sugar laced with LSD. The NASA officials were relieved it wasn't Cocaine after all.

    1. Re:NASA officials relieved by mewshi_nya · · Score: 1

      In other news, when faced with a strange glass vial of liquid originally thought to be some sort of explosive, NASA officials were relieved to discover it was actually the essence of pure flavor (plain water supersaturated with LSD).

  27. Cokehead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone knows who the cokehead is at work. You just have to be polite about it because he's your boss.

  28. Occam's razor by dFaust · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why is the assumption that the employees are themselves using cocaine? CLEARLY they're taking the coke to space. To sell to aliens. Sheesh.

    1. Re:Occam's razor by fragMasterFlash · · Score: 1

      How else do you expect NASA to secure funding?

    2. Re:Occam's razor by segfault7375 · · Score: 2

      Man, that's some good Nyborg! Oh, too obscure?

    3. Re:Occam's razor by virgnarus · · Score: 1

      Spaceballers, yo.

    4. Re:Occam's razor by arielCo · · Score: 1

      NOTHING geeky is too obscure for Wikipedia!
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fictional_medicines_and_drugs

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    5. Re:Occam's razor by AlienIntelligence · · Score: 1

      Man, that's some good Nyborg! Oh, too obscure?

      Not at all, thank you...

      oblig vid clip
      [ http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/81035801/ ]

      Just showed this to my younger gf who wasn't brought
      up in the decade of Heavy Metal.

      -AI

      --
      For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion
    6. Re:Occam's razor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, that's some good Nyborg! Oh, too obscure?

      Oh, yaaaa! SUCK my Jagon!!! SUCK IT!!!!

    7. Re:Occam's razor by khr · · Score: 1

      Nah man, go for broke!

    8. Re:Occam's razor by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Wait 'till they find the thionite.

    9. Re:Occam's razor by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Good joke, and all, but a serious application of Occam's razor leads us to only conclusion. Just like last January, all employees and contractors with access to the area where the drug was found checked out. That only leaves one class of people who could have been in the area to leave cocaine behind: Visiting politicians.

    10. Re:Occam's razor by cool_arrow · · Score: 1

      that will lead to another version of "alien vs alien" when the space aliens start getting credit, don't pay their bill, and the cartels in the usa go after them.

    11. Re:Occam's razor by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Probably half of slashdot knows what you're talking about, but you killed that joke dead when you thought you were cleverer than the rest of us.

      When you explain a joke, god kills a domo-kun.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  29. Anal probes by MrQuacker · · Score: 1

    Why do you think the aliens always do the anal probing?

    1. Re:Anal probes by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

      Airport security?

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    2. Re:Anal probes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They want to work for the TSA?

  30. DUh! by Ozlanthos · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Someone who has it together enough to work at NASA doesn't have such a terribly bad habit that they are going to test dirty....Not going to happen. Although, if they'd found a bag of Cannabis, it would be a different story. The truth is that the only drug that you can detect more than 72 hours after total seccation of use via urine tests is Cannabis. THC can store in your fat for up to months after chronic use. Now, if they were really serious about busting the perp, they'd administer a hair test! Of course the cape would go dark for lack of employees shortly thereafter, but they'd have fired the idiot who left the stash....

    -Oz

    1. Re:DUh! by syousef · · Score: 2

      Someone who has it together enough to work at NASA doesn't have such a terribly bad habit that they are going to test dirty....

      Astronauts can lose the plot too. Just look at that crazy one that put on a nappy, drove across the country with rubber tubing and tape and wanted to get her ex boyfriend's new girlfriend.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    2. Re:DUh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      more than 72 hours after total seccation of use

      Wait. Is that a typo, or is that what the kids are calling it these days? :-/)

    3. Re:DUh! by binkzz · · Score: 1

      Now, if they were really serious about busting the perp, they'd administer a hair test! Of course the cape would go dark for lack of employees shortly thereafter

      I'm thinking the Captain Picard look would pick up quickly among NASA employees.

      --
      'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
    4. Re:DUh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What would you do if have to do a task without access to a bathroom for 12 hours? Maybe the same...

    5. Re:DUh! by jittles · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that certain narcotic based drugs can take 10-30 days to completely clear the system after chronic use, whether prescribed or otherwise. Am I misinformed?

    6. Re:DUh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She didn't wear diapers. They were in the back of the car for a couple years, for one of her own kids. They were baby-sized anyways, and would not have fit.

    7. Re:DUh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not THC which is stored in fat tissue, its inactive metabolites of THC which are not psychoactive and yet they test for this not to see if you are high just if you have used it in the past weeks or months, depending on how often you smoke cannabis. The psychoactive THC itself is not in the body for long (detectable for 24-48 hours).

    8. Re:DUh! by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      Someone who has it together enough to work at NASA doesn't have such a terribly bad habit that they are going to test dirty

      You mean like the guy that thought it was a good idea to bring his stash to work? Presumably so he could do it at work? You don't think that guy is gonna test dirty?

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    9. Re:DUh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. You are misinformed. Heroin has one of the shortest clearance times. Methadone, on the other hand, will stay in you system for some time after habitual use. Cocaine will clear out within 48 hours or less. A bigger variable is the test method used. Cheap urine (pregnancy style) tests are easier to pass than a GC/MS test (gas chromatograph/mass spectrometry). Cannabis has a very long clearance time.

      I have to wonder if someone isn't planing the coke for some reason. Real cokeheads don't "lose" cocaine. They consume it. And then look for more.

    10. Re:DUh! by syousef · · Score: 1

      She denied it. I would too. It doesn't mean it's not true.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    11. Re:DUh! by Ozlanthos · · Score: 1

      The last time someone did it, no one came up dirty. And we are talking about cocaine here, so I assume that (just like (last time) whoever did it will have time to clean up before the UA. Besides, as we are talking about cocaine here, I am sure whoever brought it to work with them probably noticed that it was missing. When they remembered where they left it, they did a palm to forehead slap, called in sick the next day, and refrained from using any more knowing that the hammer would soon fall, and they would have to pee in a cup.

      My point is that coke doesn't stay in your system long enough for a UA to be an effective means of detection for anything other than Cannabis use. As such users of harder drugs tend to slip by, even when they do something stupid...like leave their stash at work. If NASA were serious about rooting out all users of illicit drugs, they would do hair tests. But (as I am sure they are well-aware) if they did, they'd end up having to fire people who would be difficult if not impossible to replace.

      -Oz

  31. Ground Control to Major Tom by Device666 · · Score: 1

    “This is Major Tom to Ground Control
    I’m stepping through the door
    And I’m floating in a most peculiar way
    And the stars look very different today

    For here
    am I sitting in my tin can
    Far above the world
    Planet Earth is blue
    And there’s nothing I can do
    Though I’m past one hundred thousand miles
    I’m feeling very still
    And I think my spaceship knows which way to go
    Tell my wife I love her very much (she knows!)
    Ground Control to Major Tom
    Your circuit’s dead, there’s something wrong
    Can you hear me, Major Tom?
    Can you hear me, Major Tom?
    Can you hear me, Major Tom?
    Can you hear....

    1. Re:Ground Control to Major Tom by sincewhen · · Score: 1

      Ashes to ashes, funk to funky...

      --
      -- Braden's law of data: All data spends some of its lifetime in an excel spreadsheet.
    2. Re:Ground Control to Major Tom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ashes to ashes funk to funky
      We know Major Tom's a junkie
      Strung out in heaven's high
      hitting an allllll tiiiiime lowwwwww

    3. Re:Ground Control to Major Tom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We know Major Tom is a junkie.

  32. Is this really news? by hawguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thousands of people work at Kenned Space Center - wouldn't it be more surprising if no drugs were ever found there?

    1. Re:Is this really news? by asylumx · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that thousands more visit every day... No, I don't think this is news either. I said as much when i saw it on CNN earlier and now seeing it on Slashdot... in the SCIENCE section and not in Idle? WTF?

    2. Re:Is this really news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. NASA isn't special. In fact, their largest problems have arisen from *thinking* they were special, and being catastrophically reminded they are not.

    3. Re:Is this really news? by pinkushun · · Score: 1

      Agreed, it's unjust bad news. Don't doubt many other companies, non profit, commercial and private, have this issue come up.

    4. Re:Is this really news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thousands of people work at Kenned Space Center - wouldn't it be more surprising if no drugs were ever found there?

      Not suprised at all: cocaine is a high society drug.. it's not a drug for your average streetbum.
      Invade any local party, see how many of them have cocaine.
      Invade any high society party ( celebs, politics, business) , see how many of them have cocaine.
      Nuff said...

    5. Re:Is this really news? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not really any more. In my country it is very commonly used by people who are not "high society" in any sense. I struggle to find the polite word, because I know I will be on the receiving end of some righteous anger if I say "chavs", "white trash" or "underclass", but "working class" really isn't the right description at all... hmm, actually I'll just post as AC.

      The reason is simple. It's an aspirational thing. With nothing to look forward to, no employment and no education, they find meaning and purpose by thinking of themselves as important people - gangsters, celebrities. So they adopt behaviours associated with such people.

      The result is that the typical British cocaine user doesn't actually work in advertising, the media or at an investment bank. He or she is actually an unemployed petty criminal, somebody who probably would be a streetbum or in prison if they lived in a less progressive country.

    6. Re:Is this really news? by Threni · · Score: 1

      Exactly. According to Bamford's book "the Puzzle Palace" the NSA has to deal with rape charges from time to time. We shouldn't really be surprised if humans act like humans occasionally...

  33. bmw mobile phone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.cellphonebeta.com/electronics/cell-phones/bmw-1622.html

  34. Ubiquity by degeneratemonkey · · Score: 2

    Cocaine use is all over the place. Poor, wealthy, young, old - on-the-job use permeates every industry and every culture. The only time it really makes any difference is when someone gets caught with some in their pocket, or someone who lacks self-control fucks up their life with too much of it. There are a lot of ways to fuck up your life, but most of them aren't illegal.

    1. Re:Ubiquity by degeneratemonkey · · Score: 1

      Addendum: Its illegal purchase also funds violent drug cartels, of course. If only there were some way to make that problem go away...

  35. Probably planted by... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... some republican trying to pull an "NPR" on NASA...

  36. The Right Stuff by buckadude · · Score: 1

    It seems that "The Right Stuff" is actually cocaine.

  37. Traffickers of the future by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Any idea what a gram of coke is worth in orbit? If you think running stuff up from Mexico is lucrative, just imagine supplying the ISS.

    How long does that stuff keep? Maybe the cartels have a secret deal to piggyback some on shuttles, and stash it in LEO.

    Running coke to Mars, just imagine!

    And then the Mars Colony Authority will be doing everything they can to get Earth to control the growers, to no avail.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    1. Re:Traffickers of the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well a completely unscientific Google search turned up the figure of shuttle cargo costing around $50,000/kg to get to orbit. Since 4g = .004kg, and $50,000 * .004 = $200, (which is pretty darn close to the equivalent street price of 4g of good blow), I'd say space coke is worth about twice as much in orbit as it is on earth!

  38. Very inefficient field tests by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

    Field tests proved that the substance was indeed cocaine, but there was none left after said field tests.

    1. Re:Very inefficient field tests by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      Yes, much like the Customs agent who was asked what was done with confiscated Cuban cigars. He answered, "We burn them... one at a time."

  39. *Random* drug tests? What the h*** is that? by Provocateur · · Score: 0

    A. Were you born in the 60's? They currently use it in the outside world, yknow, where they have this thing called business casual or evencasual Fridays, and even Nonsmoking areas! In California, for cryin out loud! They even have restaurants that have tanks of pure oxygen, out in freakin L.A.

    --
    WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  40. Employees: 13,500 (2008) by seifried · · Score: 3, Insightful

    According to Wikipedia: Employees: 13,500 (2008) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Space_Center). The national US average of cocaine us is reported as 0.5% or higher (multiple sources but the low end says around 1.5 million users in the US, assuming they are mostly adults that's at least 0.5%, probably more), so statistically speaking that's about 67.5 (assuming one of then only uses one nostril my numbers work =)cocaine users at the Kennedy Space Center.

    1. Re:Employees: 13,500 (2008) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well they believe only 200 people have access to the location. And they were all tested. I suppose it is possible a person who has access to the location is not using cocaine, but hiding it for another person. But even so, 0.5% of 200 works out to a nice clean number. More likely is that there are some smart people beating the drug tests.

    2. Re:Employees: 13,500 (2008) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Might be less that that now. Back in 1995, it was like 20,000+ people.

      Some minor facts folks. Not everyone at KSC works directory for NASA. KSC has several contracts and several contractors working on site, including USA. These contracts cover everything from painters (huge job at KSC), plumbers, security (fun...it's federal land with nice fully automatic guns), fire (nifty toys), electricians, alarm techs, fuel techs, to the guys who work on the tiles for the orbitors, to the guys who assembly the thing in the VAB, to the guy who drives the crawler.

      Unfortunately, like everything else, with that many people, a few bad apples do get in. It's a small city.

      But just because cocaine was found...don't assume it wasn't being used by a janitor.

    3. Re:Employees: 13,500 (2008) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Statistics fail. Statistically speaking, while general population use (according to you - haven't verified) is 0.5%, it says nothing about the population at Kennedy Space Center which is a drastically different demographic (educated, probably upper middle class, etc). You can only compare population statistics if the populations are comparable.

    4. Re:Employees: 13,500 (2008) by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      You make the supposition that NASA workers are equally likely as any other adult to be cocaine users.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    5. Re:Employees: 13,500 (2008) by seifried · · Score: 1

      Granted, but my point was more along the lines that this isn't a small lab with 6 people, it's a town sized institution.

  41. Damn smugglers... by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

    Damn smugglers. When cargo boats wouldn't do it, they got jet boats. Then they started using planes. Then submarines. How the hell is the Coast Guard supposed to interdict the shuttles or especially the Russian Soyuz capsules? ;-)

  42. It wasn't cocaine by michaelmalak · · Score: 2

    It wasn't cocaine. It was Ketracel White

    1. Re:It wasn't cocaine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope we are not on our way to being Dominion Citizens.

    2. Re:It wasn't cocaine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd put money on the bag having a label on it with the words "MOON DUST"...

      CAPTCHA word: divine

  43. LOL field test by Hojima · · Score: 3, Funny

    *snort*. Yep, it's coke.

    1. Re:LOL field test by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Everyone tested negative? uh-ha, something stinks like like fish, 3 days in the sun, to me.

    2. Re:LOL field test by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      *snort*. Yep, it's coke.

      Officer's partner: I think you might have been a bit hasty there, let's double check.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  44. I'm fairly sure it's Gonzo by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 1

    Maybe the Space Shuttle brought back a little bit of Hunter S. Thompson's remains - which are mainly cocaine.

  45. They tested all the human employees by mysidia · · Score: 1

    But did they go to the cages and test the space chimps/chimp "astronauts" ?

  46. They're doing it wrong. by mysidia · · Score: 2

    They shouldn't have "tested everyone with access to the area".

    Police should have covertly affixed tracking devices in the bag, put it back right where they got it, and waited until someone collected the bag.

    1. Re:They're doing it wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've been watching too many bad hollywood movies.

    2. Re:They're doing it wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They shouldn't have "tested everyone with access to the area".

      Police should have covertly affixed tracking devices in the bag, put it back right where they got it,
      and waited until someone collected the bag.

      I think they should actually confiscate it and go find something more useful to waste their time with.

  47. I'm glad I'm not subject to drug testing by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

    I had an eye exam today, and would test positive for cocaine from the eye dilation drops. I eat poppy seed bagels and thus might test positive for opiates. And so on. People who are subject to those tests must live in constant fear.

    1. Re:I'm glad I'm not subject to drug testing by BluBrick · · Score: 0

      I doubt that people subject to such testing regimes would live in constant fear - that is, unless they are actually doing drugs in violation of whatever agreement left them subject to such testing. It's true, some perfectly legal, innocent activities would trigger positive results on initial screening tests, but further testing can tell the difference between that sort of false positive and genuine drug use. There's no way you'll hide a drug habit behind claims of a visit to the optometrist and there's no way that a weakness for poppy seed bagels will land you in rehab.

      --
      Ahh - My eye!
      The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
    2. Re:I'm glad I'm not subject to drug testing by sgtrock · · Score: 1

      It's true, some perfectly legal, innocent activities would trigger positive results on initial screening tests, but further testing can tell the difference between that sort of false positive and genuine drug use.

      And you're assuming that (a) drug labs never make mistakes, (b) a company will actually be willing to pay for follow up tests rather than just fire the individual in question, and (c) regardless of the outcome of the follow up tests, will not treat the individual as a pariah. Sadly, people being people my guess is that in most cases the reverse is true. If you are in a job that requires regular random drug testing, for your sake I sure hope you stay away from poppy seed bagels and optometrists.

  48. Last flight by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    So, this is what the brought in on the shuttles last flight. Is that what they are making on thye ISS?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  49. Another attempt to discredit someone? by geekprime · · Score: 1

    Of course the LAST time this happened everyone tested negative, it's amazing that drugs would magically show up somewhere that no one actually uses drugs.

    "An investigation into a similar discovery in January 2010 yields no results after all 200 NASA employees and contractors who had access to the area in which the cocaine was found tested negative for the drug."

    I guess they will keep trying to discredit NASA till they figure out some way to actually do it.
    I wonder when the last time a politician and his "entourage" got a tour through that area?

    So many of the comments about this here strike me as astroturf.

  50. Dupe by kilo242 · · Score: 1

    C'mon, this article was posted back in 2005: http://science.slashdot.org/story/05/04/06/2320243/Crack-Found-in-Shuttle-Tank OH, you mean that kind of crack...

  51. 200 Tests All Negative for a reason! by MoldySpore · · Score: 1

    Most likely because cocaine is out of your system within approx. 72 hours for light to medium users in urine tests. Unless they were a huge coke head, or they happened to find that coke and test the people within that 72 hours, they wouldn't be testing positive. It would be hard to catch someone with a drug test for a light coke habit, especially if they had just lost 4.2g of blow and the investigation before the drug testing took a couple weeks...unless they were doing hair follicle tests. In which case they'd have to wait a month or so before testing.

    --

    "I hope you know how very lucky you are to know me, because I am so incredibly incredible."

  52. I don't use cocaine. by sootman · · Score: 1

    I just like the way it smells. :-)

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  53. i'm happy hope you're happy too by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 1

    Ashes to ashes funk to funky
    We know major tom's a junky
    Strung out on heaven's high
    Hitting an all time low

    My mama said to get things done
    You better not mess with major tom

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  54. Warlocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They gave Charlie Sheen access to NASA?

  55. Why a stash? by destroygbiv · · Score: 1

    Why stash it? Why not keep it in your pocket? Car? Home? Vick's Inhaler? In a bag inside a peanut-butter sandwich? Nah..! The ceiling of the lunch room is the best. Ps. Who turns in cocaine? Someone who gets caught with it?

  56. Huh... by atomicbutterfly · · Score: 1

    I didn't know Charlie Sheen was an astronaut.

  57. only 2 scenarios by chef_raekwon · · Score: 1

    only 2 real scenarios that my feeble mind can comprehend from this.

    1 - someone dislikes the NASA program, enters Space center .. places bag at nice sorta easy place to be found .. bam, discredit.
    2 - astronaut wants to take some coke to space, as he/she cannot stand sleeping in space (is that a pun?), or having the latest Russian/American/(insert country here, really) creep watch you sleep. at the last second before take off .. said astronaut loses nerve, ditches the drug, hops on the shuttle .. and heads into the history books. bam, someone who dislikes NASA program finds coke.

    my 2 cents.

    --
    We're like rats, in some experiment! -- George Costanza
  58. 4.2 Grams... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only someone at NASA would leave 4.2 grams just lying around...

  59. A guest stash? by miffo.swe · · Score: 1

    Maybe it was just put there for possible visitors? if you get celebrity from outer space, you want to impress them. With them being bored by even Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters cocaine is the way to go.

    --
    HTTP/1.1 400
  60. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did Charlie Sheen visit there recently?

  61. Cocaine + g-force simulator ftw! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the coke elevates astronauts blood pressure so they can pass the g-force test? Just an idea.

  62. If anyone can... by boommboomm · · Score: 1

    If anyone can beat a drug test it's the smart folk at NASA

  63. Shhh, it's a plot! by macraig · · Score: 1

    It's a right-wing plot trying to discredit NASA and divert funds to really important stuff like, ya know, empire-building, fighting piracy and fattening the wallets of Halliburton and Big Media cronies.

  64. dont they all use it ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets get serious, its huge empty and its black, its a boring place "space".
    But when you see it on TV it seams far out, cool fantastic super etc..

    How to turn dull places into something like that, without coke ?

    I got not much agsainst it, its a bit sad if you need it, and it makes you look old aged while your still a young person.

  65. Owner Located by Geminus · · Score: 1

    Charlie Sheen 'was' slated to be a Mission Specialist?

  66. Plutonian Nyborg by rhook · · Score: 1
  67. Space Coke by rhook · · Score: 1

    When did NASA hire Cheech & Chong?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhTKuZ5S_oA

  68. Also found...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crack in the space shuttle fuselage....

  69. dumb conclusion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course nobody tested positive, if they found drug. You must test your employees when you don't find it, for it's then when they are high.

  70. Loooks like somebody... by vodevil · · Score: 1

    Is trying to create Coke M.U.L.E.

  71. Proper Field Tests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I like how it says "field tests by law enforcement officials". Somehow I suspect those tests involved a credit card, a mirror, and a slight reduction of exhibit weight.

  72. perspective? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    4.2 grams is a "Stash"? lol

  73. Simpsons quote... by spyd4r · · Score: 1

    Scientist: Sir, how would you like to get higher than you've ever been in your life?

    Barney: Be an astronaut? Sure!

  74. Who Cares? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what?? I frankly don't care if anyone at NASA is doing coke. Investigating this matter is nothing but a waste of my hard-earned tax dollars.

  75. Can we /please/ just stop this hysteria? by Velex · · Score: 1

    A guy had an accident, so obviously, obviously he was hopped up on goof-balls. Because accidents don't happen on their own. And because all drug users are all stupid enough to get high 5 minutes before working. Oh, and while I'm at it, let's not forget that, you know, that stuff that gets you high (or used to when you first started taking it, but now you're so hopelessly addicted that you might suffer seizures or a psychopathic episode if you don't wean yourself off of it under a doctor's supervision) called celexa/paxil/prozac/etc, well, that's not a drug, it's medicine.

    That being said, ok, so what if the guy was hopped up on goof-balls. If that's the case, let's give him a Darwin award and get on with life. If he wasn't, let's think of what the family must be going through while the media is implying that he was on "drugs" because they found some other guys coke.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Stay away entirely Feb 10 thru Feb 17! Close all tabs to prevent autorefresh!
  76. YO DAWG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I herd u like getting high so I put some coke in ur shuttle so u can get high while u get high!

  77. addicted??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That implies a physical need for a substance. Lets leave that to the various barbituates, opiates, nicotine and booze, Cocaine is not physically addictive.

    Habit forming, yes addicitve no..

  78. Let's get real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was banned because people were afraid coked up negroes would rape their white women.

    I think we all know the REAL reason for drug prohibition: billions of dollars per year. Drug prohibition is a business worth billions per year, and the executives in this business know exactly why: because it will never work, and therefore it will rake in the money indefinitely.

    Racism was merely an excuse for the real goal: money.

    1. Re:Let's get real by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Racism was merely an excuse for the real goal: money.

      It always is. Well, that's an exaggeration, but it usually is. For all the supposedly irrational haters out there (and ok, there are some), most of the time when I talk to a racist, I find out that it's really just an excuse to treat anyone else like shit for financial gain. They would stab their own race in the back too, if they only had a socially-acceptable cover excuse for it. "A nigger took my job" is code for "That job paid more than the effort that goes into doing it, and I had a damn good racket going on before competitive pressures made someone think." If fellow white-trash takes their job instead, they are just as furious, but don't have as easy of a way to put it into words as "a nigger took my job."

      Assholes. They're not stupid; they're evil.

      --
      "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  79. BS, big time... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Everyone will get tested, and no one will bust, so it must belong to the guy that fell, and yes that must be the reason he fell, he was high....so we are all off the hook, ok, back to work people, we have mission launches to worry about......talk about sick, I hope it is just my imagination running wild, but if this ends up being their cover, I have to say CSI wants their episodes back....

  80. justification for a little space trip? by logandr · · Score: 1

    4 grams should be enough to justify a trip to the ISS for the drug enforcement agency...and the dogs! bring the dogs!

  81. Aliens need to get high too by OrangeMonkey11 · · Score: 1

    in all seriousness though cocaine does not stay in the body that long, so my guess is they would never find this casual user base on how long it typically take to go through all the employees during the drug test

  82. Everybody knows... by BigSes · · Score: 1

    ...Major Tom's a junkie.

  83. At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least they're not on Sheen.That stuff will make you think you're from Mars.

  84. In other news, Cheech & Chong visit Kenndy cen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DAVE'S NOT HERE MAN

  85. Of course they tested negative by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Cocaine doesn't stay in your system very long. 3-7 days and you'll piss clean on a UA (depends on how regular your habit is.)

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  86. Newsworthiness? by Kosi · · Score: 1

    How many people work there, several thousands? So, it's not much of a surprise that there are some drug consumers among them. And only such a little amount, if it had been 4.2 kg, I'd understand why this made it into the news, but 4.2 g? That doesn't survive a weekend with buddies and some girls.

  87. False positive? by plcurechax · · Score: 1

    While entirely possible that there are illicit drug usage at the Kennedy Space Center, it is also entirely possible that it was a false positive given that it was a field tests by law enforcement officials, it does not confirm anything. AFAIK there are a number of substances that produce false positives for most illicit drug field tests (which are merely quick and simple tests). And if you want a work place with possible mundane usage of unusual chemical substances that most street thugs don't have in their kitchen, then KSC is the place to be.

    While the initial report is newsworthy, it isn't particularly interesting until the substance is at least confirmed in an analytic laboratory.

    Maybe I'm going to have to write a math test module for the Slash code, testing basic statistical knowledge before to post stories and comments.

  88. Funny... by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    An investigation into a similar discovery in January 2010 yields no results after all 200 NASA employees and contractors who had access to the area in which the cocaine was found tested negative for the drug.

    Doesn't mean someone isn't selling it. "Never get high on your own supply."

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  89. Err soo... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    90%-75% to get addicted to Meth/Cocaine?

    That doesn't sound very good.

    Also there are medical uses for probably most illegal drugs in one form or another, just look at Opium and Heroin. Oxycontin I hear is another as is morphine.

    Just because Morphine is used medically doesn't exactly justify Heroin use... Heck if you really want to stretch I hear a common over the counter allergy medicine was used to actually make Meth...

  90. Sheen maybe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im surprised no Charlie Sheen jokes so far...

  91. lol by rockfistus · · Score: 0

    Did Steve Ballmer visit NASA lately?

  92. Warlocks from outer space ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... attacking the Earth.

  93. COPS' next chapter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The next chapter on COPS will be a raid on the ISS with ET being tazzered.

  94. I'm Dr. Rockso! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    I'm Dr. Rockso, and I work at NASA, K-K-K-K-Yeah!!!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  95. This is what passes for news these days? by lpq · · Score: 1

    Lame.

  96. Finally, a cargo worth $10,000/kilo! by bmcraec · · Score: 1

    If the cartels have invested in submarines, then what could be next but orbit delivery? Plenty of scifi smugglers in the literature for inspiration! Hey, Han, what's that white powder under your nose?

    --
    "Sufficiently complicated financial instruments are indistinguishable from fraud." --bmcraec
  97. Cocaine Found at Kennedy Space Center by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the cocaine is needed in the space or what do you think?

  98. Cocaine Found at Kennedy Space Center by efoghorjos · · Score: 1

    It is needed for space performance; don't you think so?

    --
    Efoghor Joseph Ezie is a Registered nurse, Christian author and business manager
  99. cocaine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so that's where the moon rocks ended up?

  100. "Worker falls to death at Kennedy Space Center" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm, a stash of cocaine is found at the Cape. A worker "falls" off the launch pad a week later. Related???

    http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-14/us/florida.space.center.death_1_kari-fluegel-launch-pad-39a-united-space-alliance?_s=PM:US