Drug Tests + Pot = ??

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
OK, so I may have to take a drug test soon for a job that I am wanting. I don't smoke pot, but a lot of my friends do, so I am exposed to the second-hand smoke. Will this cause the test to be positive?
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 37
    Depends how much second hand smoke we're talking about.





    In general, since THC is fat-soluble and doesn't leave your system very fast, it shows up.



    Trace amounts can be explained away, i'm sure. To be safe, might want to buy some redi-clean or something of the sort.





    see, this is why i stick to harder drugs. out of the system faster. less evidence.
  • Reply 2 of 37
    stroszekstroszek Posts: 801member
    [quote]Originally posted by Jonathan:

    <strong>see, this is why i stick to harder drugs. out of the system faster. less evidence. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Thanks, you're just full of info tonight.



    btw, I'll get rid of my friends and meet some crackheads. Second-hand crack pipe smoke, here I come!
  • Reply 3 of 37
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,419member
    Drinks lots of fluids.



    Drug tests are EVIL
  • Reply 4 of 37
    1.3.1 Passive smoke and positives:

    "Second hand marijuana smoke in a car can cause you to fail the next day" (Nightbyrd). It is possible that second hand [marijuana] smoke will raise someone to the 50 ng/mL level; however, *extreme* exposure is required. For instance, a closed car full of pot smokers and a non-smoker may render the non-smoker positive for both urinalysis and the hair test, provided that they are sealed in the car for a while. The Army did a case study where volunteers were put in a room pumped full of smoke for an hour, five time daily. Subjects started testing positive after the second day. The non-smoker would have to take in virtually as much second hand smoke as a smoker. Non-smokers are safe in a ventilated area, as long as they don't get a hair test. According to Clinton, simply blowing crack smoke on ones hair may cause a positive hair test. Second hand pot smoke doesn't affect the hair test results as much as crack smoke does mainly because exhaled smoke contains no THC. The only pot smoke that contains THC is the smoke that hasn't entered the lungs.



    <a href="http://www.cleartest.com/testinfo/1b.html"; target="_blank">http://www.cleartest.com/testinfo/1b.html</a>;



    There's nothing evil about drug tests. I for one feel better knowing that our transportation workers, law enforcement, military personnel, etc., are drug tested.
  • Reply 5 of 37
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,419member
    [quote] There's nothing evil about drug tests. I for one feel better knowing that our transportation workers, law enforcement, military personnel, etc., are drug tested. <hr></blockquote>



    If that's the truth then show me the results from the Head of these depts down. Drug testing is only done to the lower rung of employees. One would think that it would be MORE important to have the "Executives" tested....obviously the Enron Execs were on drugs <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
  • Reply 6 of 37
    [quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

    <strong>



    If that's the truth then show me the results from the Head of these depts down. Drug testing is only done to the lower rung of employees. One would think that it would be MORE important to have the "Executives" tested....obviously the Enron Execs were on drugs <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Anyone who takes someone else's life into their own hands, e.g., airline pilot, train engineer, military personnel; or is responsible for enforcing the law, e.g., police officers, FBI, etc.; should be tested IMHO. There's a balance between individual rights and collective rights to be found. To me it seems reasonable that those people listed in the examples above should be tested. And, as a matter of leadership, senior individuals in those organizations should be tested as well. You lead by example.
  • Reply 7 of 37
    pushermanpusherman Posts: 410member
    First of all, people grossly overestimate the effects that marijuana has on ones motor skills. Not only can I conduct myself perfectly fine on an everyday basis after smoking, there's nothing that would impair my ability to drive a car, or operate heavy machinery. It doesn't affect you the way alcohol does.



    And yes, drug tests are evil, because they disproportionally single out lower-rung employees. If someone's drug use is impairing their ability to do their job, they should just be fired, why bother with a drug test? but if you're not having any problems at work, there is no reason why you should be singled out because you might be doing something that happens to be illegal but doesn't affect your job performance at all. it's ridiculous. and i have declined jobs in the past because of their drug testing policy, even before i started smoking pot.



    that being said, stros, you can find products at GNC (i think these are nationwide, if not, your local health supplement, etc. store) that will clean out your system. Just tell the person that you've got to take a drug test, and they'll know where to direct you. It's not expensive and you might as well be 100% sure.
  • Reply 8 of 37
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    It's been my experience that those in upper management/leadership, calling the shots, gumming up the works and generally making life miserable for those under them, are the ones in need of drug testing.



    The irrational behavior, the false feelings of superiority, the disconnect from reality, lack of focus on what REALLY matters, the denying of their role in anything untoward, etc. All classic symptoms of drug abuse.







    [ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
  • Reply 9 of 37
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,419member
    I don't smoke pot nor do I take any drugs other than the occaisonal Advil. I just have a problem with unilateral idea that EVERYONE is on drugs and must prove their innocence to gain employment. I don't have evidence to support it but I'm sure that a vast majority of Execs are exempt from Drug Tests even though one could argue that their responsibilities are even MORE important to the well being of a company. I agree with Poor Taylor..Drug Testing weeds out individuals from the lower rungs.



    You mentioned that Samantha J Ollendale was "Paranoid" in another post but I counter that Paranoia is a very dominant trait in Americans. How many times to we help out that person stuck on the side of the highway? How many times to we just trust that the other person will come through.



    Alcohol is easily 10x worse than Marijuana. People don't smoke weed until they Puke are drop into Comas. Drug Testing IMO was a "Feel Good" program that spawned from the War against Drugs.



    Gattica..here we come.
  • Reply 10 of 37
    Drug testing? I would have thought that conservatives should be dead against this invasion of personal and individual privacy. Is this not another symptom of big, intrusive Government, one of the things that conservatives constantly rail against?



    If drug testing is here to stay, which looks likely, unfortunately, then hows about testing *everybody*? Why should this (abuse) be leveled mostly against those people at the bottom of the economic ladder? I have nothing against pilots, busdrivers etc being routinely tested...for obvious reasons. But to arbitrarily concentrate on those folk earning $6 an hour to see if they (for example) smoked a joint up to 2 weeks back smacks of that other F word.
  • Reply 11 of 37
    stroszekstroszek Posts: 801member
    Thanks for the info hmurchison, gobble gobble, and poor taylor.



    That being said, the job that I am looking at would have me working with at-risk and troubled kids, some of whom have drug problems. While I agree that some drug testing policies are problematic (I, for one, don't care if the guy that is bagging my groceries uses drugs, as long as he doesn't put the cans on top of the bread), in this case, I think it is justified.



    [ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: Stroszek ]</p>
  • Reply 12 of 37
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,419member
    [quote]Originally posted by Stroszek:

    <strong>Thanks for the info hmurchison, gobble gobble, and poor taylor.



    That being said, the job that I am looking at would have me working with at-risk and troubled kids, some of whom have drug problems. While I agree that some drug testing policies are problematic (I, for one, don't care if the guy that is bagging my groceries uses drugs, as long as he doesn't put the cans on top of the bread), in this case, I think it is justified.



    [ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: Stroszek ]</strong><hr></blockquote>





    Why? These kids are seeking counsel ...not an Angel. I'm sorry i'm just afraid of the world I will leave my children to if I don't attempt to stand up for the Majority(who don't take drugs).



    I just feel like the very ideals that I was taught in school mean nothing.



    We ARE NOT innocent until proven guilty.



    We DO NOT have protection from illegal search and seizures.



    the list goes on. The Blueprint was created over 200 years ago and now we're being told that they weren't good enough. I say Bollocks!



    A person is no longer judged on their actions. They can't be trusted we must finger print and test their bodily fluids in order to appease our doubt.



    Strozek...what do they think you're going to do...sit down and counsel the Teen with a joint in your hand?



    [quote] The Constitution of the United States of America



    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    <hr></blockquote>



    Everyone has their opinions but to me:



    1. The constant invasion of our Privacy does NOT establish Justic nor insure any tranquility.



    2. The larger our Gov becomes the harder it is to promote and secure the blessing of liberty to our posterity(future generations).



    Laws remind me of that old trick in which you give someone the option of accepting a large sum of money or accepting money that increases by an exponent of two each day starting with a penny. It's as if the avg American doesn't understand the cumlative effects of each contradictory law that is passed further bloating an already complex system.



    [ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: hmurchison ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 37
    [quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:

    <strong>Drug testing? I would have thought that conservatives should be dead against this invasion of personal and individual privacy. Is this not another symptom of big, intrusive Government, one of the things that conservatives constantly rail against?



    If drug testing is here to stay, which looks likely, unfortunately, then hows about testing *everybody*? Why should this (abuse) be leveled mostly against those people at the bottom of the economic ladder? I have nothing against pilots, busdrivers etc being routinely tested...for obvious reasons. But to arbitrarily concentrate on those folk earning $6 an hour to see if they (for example) smoked a joint up to 2 weeks back smacks of that other F word.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    You're confusing conservatives with libertarians. Conservatives support drug testing as part of the War on Drugs, strong law enforcement, and the idea that if you're not guilty you have nothing to worry about.



    Libertarians object to drug testing (and the idea that drugs should even be illegal) as an unnecessary intrusion of the state into the life of the individual.



    Having said that, let me also say that there are different flavors of conservatives and libertarians.



    [ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: gobble gobble ]</p>
  • Reply 14 of 37
    [quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

    <strong>



    If that's the truth then show me the results from the Head of these depts down. Drug testing is only done to the lower rung of employees. One would think that it would be MORE important to have the "Executives" tested....obviously the Enron Execs were on drugs <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I don't thing the head of the transportation department drives a bus with 100 people on it. In general I agree with you though.
  • Reply 15 of 37
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,419member
    Yeah Scott. I think I wouldn't mind Drug Testing in the context of Drivers, Pilots etc. But when you start testing people that answer phones???? Sheesh.
  • Reply 16 of 37
    thoth2thoth2 Posts: 277member
    [quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

    <strong>Yeah Scott. I think I wouldn't mind Drug Testing in the context of Drivers, Pilots etc. But when you start testing people that answer phones???? Sheesh.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That might not be such a bad idea for techsupport phone workers...



    Seriously though - something caught my eye in an earlier post - you said that we aren't protected from "illegal" searches and seizures. The word illegal meaning "unreasonable" in the constitutional sense - the 4th Amendment states:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



    The operative word in there is obviously "reasonable." Note that the warrant clause is not necessarily part of the unreasonable bit and this is how the Supreme Court has interpreted it. So, we're left with what is reasonable? Your definition of what's reasonable may be different from mine, or my office mate's, but the point is "reasonable" does not itself have content. That's why courts interpret the law. Unfortunately, that means what the courts find to be reasonable are also what is legal. So, in the strictest sense, you are disagreeing with how the courts interpret the Constitution, not that we aren't actually protected from rampant illegality on behalf of the local constabulary. Maybe its too fine a point, but I think its important to realize that the people who are doing the interpreting feel that they are adhering to the constitutional ideal, and generally, in good faith. You just disagree on the content and what furthers the underlying purpose of the document as a whole.

    Sorry for the long discourse. I'm a lawyer...





    Thoth
  • Reply 17 of 37
    stroszekstroszek Posts: 801member
    [quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:

    <strong>Strozek...what do they think you're going to do...sit down and counsel the Teen with a joint in your hand?

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I'm not saying that I disagree with you, hmurchison, I completely agree that drug testing is out of hand, and that, in most cases, drug testing policies are ridiculous. In general, if I use drugs, but perform my work duties acceptably, then there should be no problem. But, if I use drugs, and this affects my ability to perform my duties at work, then I should be fired because I cannot perform my duties, not because I use drugs.



    Now, I think that there are exceptions to this rule. I don't want my bus driver or airline pilot sucking on a crack pipe, regardless of whether they are able to perform their duties while doing so. I also don't want the people caring for my children (assuming I were straight and had children) using drugs while caring for them.





    The job in question is more than just counseling kids. It involves living with the kids, spending 24 hours a day with them for extended periods of time. It involves being responsible for their safety. I won't have evenings off so that I can go home and smoke up. And if I am hired, then I can't exactly be the role model that the kids need when I am hiding behind a tree at night smoking up. It's just one of those jobs that I mentioned above.
  • Reply 18 of 37
    To beat the drug test, drink lots of different kinds of fluids for about 24 hours before hand.
  • Reply 19 of 37
    pushermanpusherman Posts: 410member
    When I think of drug tests, I just think of the other lame (but scarier) reasons why people are denied jobs. Using pot is just as arbitrary as not hiring women, or certian ethnic groups, or gays. I won't lie about my life so i can work somewhere that doesn't hire gays, and I won't lie so i can work somewhere that doesn't hire smokers. While one is more serious, it's unfortunately legal for employers to do both, and I regard them with the same gravity.
  • Reply 20 of 37
    buonrottobuonrotto Posts: 6,368member
    Watch out for anything with poppie seeds too.
Sign In or Register to comment.