Myth Busters: Marijuana aka Pot aka Mary Jane aka etc.

[Xelent]

I have always been one to question "conventional wisdom" as it can get you in trouble if you follow it too often. This is an example and I would like if anyone knew the correct answers to my questions.

-How long do you have to stop smoking before it will not show up in a standard company urine test? What about a more advanced one that takes a hair sample?

-Does it matter what kind of pot you smoked or how long/ how much you have been smoking?

For example, if a pot head that smokes every day for a year and stops for a drug test, does he have to wait longer than someone who smoked for lets say a month? A week? Just one day?

I'd google it. Sounds like someone is facing a drug test in the near future.
Shooby

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I have always been one to question "conventional wisdom" as it can get you in trouble if you follow it too often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not following it often enough can also get you into trouble.

[Xelent]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have always been one to question "conventional wisdom" as it can get you in trouble if you follow it too often.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not following it often enough can also get you into trouble.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please elaborate.

[evil_twin]

Looks like it's up to 2 weeks in blood, up to 90 days in hair, and up to 12 weeks in urine if you're a habitual user. The times reduce if you're just a casual user.

Sourced from here. Good Wiki.

[benkahuna]

Never trust rumors about illicit drugs. The lack of research by the government (or even allowing of research) and sensationalist commercials by non-scientific morons like Partnership for a Drug Free America and the overadjustment by drug subculture has resulted in a very large amount of misinformation. This information comes in overzealous warnings and inadequte concerns. It's shameful because people are not allowed to make informed decisions and genuine health concerns (from the few drugs that cause physical health problems) are overlooked. Even Dr. Drew has his BS. He's solid as far as I've seen except for LSD which he claims causes MDMA type neurotoxicty despite there being no research to indicate that's the case at all. (and additionally recent problems surfacing with the MDMA research as well).

Try to find a source backed by peer-reviewed, double-blind, placebo-controlled research. Look for citations from reputable scientific journals.

Marijuana is quite fat soluble so it has a tendency to linger in the body as fat soluble materials are not rapidly circulated out of the body. They should almost not call it drug testing and just call it marijuana testing.

Marijuana detection is dose and frequency of use dependent. There are a variety of tests with differing levels of sensitivity. The results cited from wiki, based on my loose recollection of reading a few sources on the matter, sounds like the upper limit for a habitual user.

People have experienced mixed results with a variety of counter-detection methods, including diuretics. Your best bet is to make friends with the tester or produce a clean sample (remember they typically test the temperature as well). I'm normally not an advocate for defrauding people, but in this case it's pretty much discrimination. While people may forget things with a greater frequency and be less motivated. Also, beware chocolate as it has a number of cannibinoids in it as well. It could cause false positives (and could also be a good excuse if you fail a test). I don't know, but it seems unlikely that marijuana detection assays would be specific enough to delta-9-tetrahydrocannibinol (THC) that other cannibinoids wouldn't be detected. Maybe I should take that back. GC/MS (gas chromatography, mass spectrometry is pretty damn specific).

Many people perform well under the influence of pot. NASA doesn't drug test because they have a "unique workforce." And Kary Mullis, a habitual pot user and advocate for its use, came up with PCR, one of the most useful techniques for work in genetics ever. Users are probably around you and working compentently under the influence and you don't even know it.

[Xelent]

Good stuff. Didn't the government actually test it in the 60's, and then the Nixon administration threw out the results or something similar to that?

[benkahuna]

It wouldn't surprise me terribly, but the actual dumping of results of a government study sounds odd. There was a lot of experimentation during the 60s (both in labs and outdoors and at planetariums, etc. :P ) and I think the legality of these studies was seriously hampered in the 70s because there was almost no molecular neurobiological research until a couple studies in the 90s and maybe a few in the 80s. They also rewrote the entire drug code from scratch in 1970. It's an incredible pain to do studies on a Schedule 1 drug because you have to get approval from the DEA, FDA, and a host of other agencies and it becomes this big, ugly political monster.

[FlFishOn]

" I'm normally not an advocate for defrauding people, but in this case it's pretty much discrimination. "

In the USA we allow private employers to discriminate. Not in allt he ways I believe to be fair game but at least in regards to drug use, alcohol and tobacco.

Grow up and quit smoking dope or get a job on your own, perhaps growing or dealing.

[benkahuna]

I'm aware it's legal. But, I disagree with the policy on ethical grounds.

I don't smoke. I have asthma and it's bad for me. THC functions for a few hours as a bronchodilator, but the smoke functions for about a week as a bronchoconstrictor.

Arm yourself with information: NORML's info on drug testing