Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 10/23/2004 6:50:05 AM EST
I have to go for a drug test for my job on monday. (Urinalysis) I may have encountered some SECOND HAND pot yesterday. I left the building as soon as I began to smell it, but with a stuffed nose, I may have been in the room for a little longer. I didn't touch that stuff. But now I'm worried that it may show on my test on monday. Should I be worried? Can they tell the difference between a pot smoker and someone who got second hand smoke?
Please help me! Thank you!
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 6:57:18 AM EST
Most urine-based drug tests have about a 3-5 day window for a positive result. Since you didn't directly ingest the marijuana, you should be fine. However, if there is a pre-test questionnaire, I would recommend you tell them about the incidental contact.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 6:59:46 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:00:05 AM EST
Unless you were totally toking on that bong or doobie, I don't think you have much to worry about. A little second hand shouldn't show up.

I'd drink lots of fluids and try to pee a lot in the mean time...
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:01:00 AM EST
Depends on the concentration of the second hand smoke and your length of exposure.

Drug testing companies have set limits of allowable trace amounts (even the military) of illegal substances in a sample.

If I were you I would not worry about it.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:01:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By Lockedon:
I have to go for a drug test for my job on monday. (Urinalysis) I may have encountered some SECOND HAND pot yesterday. I left the building as soon as I began to smell it, but with a stuffed nose, I may have been in the room for a little longer. I didn't touch that stuff. But now I'm worried that it may show on my test on monday. Should I be worried? Can they tell the difference between a pot smoker and someone who got second hand smoke?
Please help me! Thank you!



It won't show. Now if you ahd been hanging out in Snoop-dogs living room for 24 hours that may have been enough exposure, but what you described forget it.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:02:58 AM EST
You're screwed!!!!!!

J/K


Don't fret. It won't show up. I ahave to go through the routine once a year for HAZMAT cert. My brother tokes that shit like there's no tommrow and I've never tested positive..
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:03:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By R0933C:
Most urine-based drug tests have about a 3-5 day window for a positive result. Since you didn't directly ingest the marijuana, you should be fine. However, if there is a pre-test questionnaire, I would recommend you tell them about the incidental contact.




Wrong. Pot will stay in your system for up to a month or longer. Other drugs such as coke will be out of your system in 48 - 72 hours. Talk about a reg flag, Uh I was in a room they were smoking pot, so I might test positive. Riiiight.

Lock,

You have nothing to worry about, unless you put your mouth on the bong and toked. You won't even register.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:03:23 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:04:40 AM EST
Depends on whether you just smelled it in the air or if you were trying to find the door through a blurr of bong smoke.......the later scenario could be a problem - just smelling Marijuana - which has a strong pungent order I wouldnt worry about - if you really are concerned - you could mention what happened prior to taking your urinalysis.......
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:12:20 AM EST
Do NOT, under any circumstances, mention that you were anywhere near anyone else smoking pot to anyone giving you a drug test...no good can possibly come from it.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:12:29 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/23/2004 7:13:07 AM EST by TheRealSundance]
Some of you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Cause you have no idea what you are talking about.

Drug Testing Information
Passive Inhalation Of Marijuana Smoke
And Urine Drug Test Results

Can a person passively inhale enough marijuana smoke, when in the company of marijuana smokers, to cause them to have a positive urine test?

The answer is; NO, it is very unlikely!

The following studies published in scientific journals show no instances where passive inhalation of marijuana smoke, even under extreme conditions, caused urine specimens of non-marijuana users to test positive for THC (the active ingredient in marijuana) using the screening and confirmation cutoff levels currently mandated by SAMHSA (the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration). Reference to the actual studies are given below so that the information can be admissible in court when this issue is raised.

1983:
The first study was conducted by Perez-Reyes and co-workers in 1983. (1-3) The study consisted of three different experiments; one conducted in an automobile, and two in a small room. Of the specimens collected for analysis, two specimens were found positive for THC metabolites by the EMIT screening test at a cutoff level of 20 ng/ml. One of these was measured by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC/MS) and gave only 3.9 ng/ml of the THC-acid metabolite. The conditions in these studies were relatively severe.

1984:
Law et al. (4) performed a passive inhalation study in a room approximately 10 x 12 x 8 ft., four nonsmokers played cards over a 3 hour period, at the start of which six other males each smoked marijuana. The concentrations found in the passive inhalers did not exceed 7 ng/ml of total THC metabolites. The authors concluded that the amount of THC metabolites detected in the urine is clearly dependent on the size and ventilation of the room and on the amount of marijuana smoked.

1985:
Morland et al. (5) performed a study in which subjects in a car smoked either marijuana or hashish mixed with tobacco, equivalent to 90 mg THC in the presence of naive passive inhalers. Analysis of the urine samples from the passive inhalers showed no detectable levels of THC metabolites in the subjects involved in the hashish study, but the subjects passively exposed to marijuana smoke did show occasional urine specimens that were positive at concentrations ranging from 14 to 30 ng/ml of total THC metabolites. The author noted that "the discomfort caused by the heavy cannabis smoke during the exposure period was universal among both active and passive smokers."

1985 - 1990:
Cone and co-workers (6-8) performed a series of rigorous double-blind marijuana passive inhalation studies. The maximum urine concentration of the THC-acid metabolite obtained by GC/MS analysis was 12 ng/ml. The conditions during this test were so extreme, that all the subjects wore goggles to protect their eyes from the dense smoke in the room. The exposure conditions of these studies were more severe than would be expected under "real world" conditions of passive exposure.


1988:
Mule' et al. (9) conducted a study involving eight marijuana smokers (each smoking four cigarettes with 27 mg THC per cigarette) and three nonsmokers passively inhaling the marijuana smoke in a closed 10x10x8 ft. room with no windows. He consistently reported less than 10 ng/ml of THC metabolites as a result of passive inhalation.


CONCLUSIONS:
These studies showed that although it is true that passive inhalation of marijuana smoke results in absorption of THC in the body, none of the THC levels from the non-marijuana users were high enough to cause a positive result using the current screening and confirmation cutoff levels mandated by SAMHSA; 50 ng/ml cutoff for the screen test and 15 ng/ml for the confirmation test.

REFERENCES:
( 1 ) A.P. Mason, M. Perez-Reyes, A.J. McBay, and R.L. Foltz.Cannabinoid concentrations in plasma after passive inhalation of marijuana smoke. J. Anal. Toxicol. 7: 172-74 (1983)

( 2 ) M. Perez-Reyes, S. DiGuiseppi, and K.H. Davis. Passive inhalation of marijuana smoke and urinary excretion of cannabinoids. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 249: 475 (1983)

( 3 ) M. Perez-Reyes, S. DiGuiseppi, A.P. Mason, and K.H. Davis. Passive inhalation of marijuana smoke and urinary excretion of cannabinoids. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 34: 36-41 (1983)

( 4 ) B. Law, P.A. Mason, A.C. Moffat, L.J. King, and V. Marks. Passive inhalation of cannabis smoke. J.Pharm. Pharmacol. 36: 578-81 (1984)

( 5 ) J. Morland, A. Bugge, B. Skuterud, A. Steen, G.H. Wethe, and T. Kjeldsen. Cannabinoids in blood and urine after passive inhalation of cannabis smoke. J. Forensic Sci. 30: 997-1002 (1985)

( 6 ) E.J. Cone and R.E. Johnson. Contact highs and urinary cannabinoid excretion after passive exposure to marijuana smoke. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 40: 247-56 (1986)

( 7 ) E.J. Cone, R.E. Johnson, W.D. Darwin, D. Yousefnajad, L.D. Mell, B.D. Paul, and J. Mitchell. Passive inhalation of marijuana smoke; urinalysis and room air levels of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol. J. Anal. Toxicol. 11: 89-96 (1987)

( 8 ) E.J. Cone. Marijuana effects and urinalysis after passive inhalation and oral ingestion. In Research Finding on Smoking of Abused Substances.C.N. Chiang and R.L. Hawks, Eds. Natl. Inst. Drug Abuse Rs. Monogr. Ser 99: 88-96 (1990)

( 9 ) S.J. Mule', P. Lomax, and S.J. Gross. Active and realistic passive marijuana exposure tested by three immunoassays and GC/MS in urine. J. Anal. Toxicol. 12: 113-16 (1988)

(10) Journal of Analytical Toxicology, Vol. 19, October 1995 pp. 450 - 453
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:15:30 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:16:40 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/23/2004 7:16:49 AM EST by Lockedon]
Awesome! Thanks guys! I'm gonna chug two gallons of water and a gallon of cranberry juice tomorrow just to be safe.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:17:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By QCMGR:

Originally Posted By Lockedon:
I have to go for a drug test for my job on monday. (Urinalysis) I may have encountered some SECOND HAND pot yesterday.




Maybe you need to be more judicious about the people you hang out with.




I didn't know those people....College life can be confusing.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:17:44 AM EST
I did some research on this & and a one time smoker will clear traces of pot from their system in as little as two days. I would say that since you didn't actually smoke any the concentation would be very low to begin with ... do a google search
It can take as long as six weeks to clear the system of a chronic pot smoker.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:19:28 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/23/2004 7:22:47 AM EST by TheRealSundance]
Initial Test Cut-off Level Confirmatory Test Cut-off Level
Marijuana Metabolite (1) 50 ng/ml 15 ng/ml



Lockdon,

If you have a diluted specimen, you will have to give another sample, so don't bother drinking alot of water and juice.

Look at the studies I posted and the cutoff levels above. You won't even register.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:21:46 AM EST
I'd eat a bunch of poppy seeds and don't worry about the pot. They will be trace amounts of opiates in your urine they won't even ask you about the pot.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:23:06 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:25:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheRealSundance:

Originally Posted By R0933C:
Most urine-based drug tests have about a 3-5 day window for a positive result. Since you didn't directly ingest the marijuana, you should be fine. However, if there is a pre-test questionnaire, I would recommend you tell them about the incidental contact.




Wrong. Pot will stay in your system for up to a month or longer. Other drugs such as coke will be out of your system in 48 - 72 hours. Talk about a reg flag, Uh I was in a room they were smoking pot, so I might test positive. Riiiight.

Lock,

You have nothing to worry about, unless you put your mouth on the bong and toked. You won't even register.



There is nothing "wrong" in what I said. The upper limit of 30 days is correct for users of marijuana. I was pointing out the usual tolerances set in tests.

As for the "red flag" comment, he can choose to be honest or not, he has to live with the consequences if they test to a low tolerance and notice the unexplained presence.

And before you jump out there and declare others "wrong," maybe you should consider that they may have more experience in the area than you do. I've investigated several people for drug abuse, interviewed nationally-recognized drug experts with PhDs, and reviewed GC/MS results. What's your experience, a little toking perhaps?
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:25:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/23/2004 7:26:11 AM EST by Lockedon]

Originally Posted By QCMGR:

Originally Posted By Lockedon:

Originally Posted By QCMGR:

Originally Posted By Lockedon:
I have to go for a drug test for my job on monday. (Urinalysis) I may have encountered some SECOND HAND pot yesterday.




Maybe you need to be more judicious about the people you hang out with.




I didn't know those people....College life can be confusing.




Maybe you need to be more judicious about where you hang out.




Those bitches was in my block! I wuz gunna pop a cap in them asses but them brothas ran fo da shit! So I banged da ho from they hood. I wuz represent'n yo. Back off my shit!
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:27:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By hamptonyellowdog:
I'd eat a bunch of poppy seeds and don't worry about the pot. They will be trace amounts of opiates in your urine they won't even ask you about the pot.



Negative.

Application of New Drug Testing Opiate Threshold Levels Not Uniform in Non-Federal Programs



On December 1, 1998, DHHS-certified laboratories implemented new drug testing threshold values for opiate testing in Federal Drug Testing Programs. These changes, which are a result of recent amendments to the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Drug Testing Programs, raise the initial and confirmatory testing levels from 300 to 2000 ng/ml and require the use of the 6-acetylmorphine (which comes only from heroin) confirmatory test.

These changes were implemented because studies showed that MROs were reporting 87% of opiate-positive drug tests as "Negative" because of the influence of poppy seed ingestion and prescription medication.


Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:28:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By Fenian:
Do NOT, under any circumstances, mention that you were anywhere near anyone else smoking pot to anyone giving you a drug test...no good can possibly come from it.




I work in a clinical lab at a hospital. I recommend that you follow the DON'T Tell advice. Not that the person taking your urine cup will be the same person running your test, but you'd be suprised at how many stoners come in with that same excuse. Oh... and the guys being tested for opiates with the "I had a couple of sandwiches at Arby's with poppy seeds on them" excuse...
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:38:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/23/2004 8:08:46 AM EST by TheRealSundance]

Originally Posted By R0933C:

Originally Posted By TheRealSundance:

Originally Posted By R0933C:
Most urine-based drug tests have about a 3-5 day window for a positive result. Since you didn't directly ingest the marijuana, you should be fine. However, if there is a pre-test questionnaire, I would recommend you tell them about the incidental contact.




Wrong. Pot will stay in your system for up to a month or longer. Other drugs such as coke will be out of your system in 48 - 72 hours. Talk about a reg flag, Uh I was in a room they were smoking pot, so I might test positive. Riiiight.

Lock,

You have nothing to worry about, unless you put your mouth on the bong and toked. You won't even register.



There is nothing "wrong" in what I said. The upper limit of 30 days is correct for users of marijuana. I was pointing out the usual tolerances set in tests.

As for the "red flag" comment, he can choose to be honest or not, he has to live with the consequences if they test to a low tolerance and notice the unexplained presence.

And before you jump out there and declare others "wrong," maybe you should consider that they may have more experience in the area than you do. I've investigated several people for drug abuse, interviewed nationally-recognized drug experts with PhDs, and reviewed GC/MS results. What's your experience, a little toking perhaps?




Do you know what an "MRO" is?

Telling your employer that you were exposed to pot will not keep you from losing your job. It's a Giant flag.


ETA: Most companies follow the federal threshold guidelined so anything that falls under the 50mg/ml would not be reported and the test would come back negative.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:41:47 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:42:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheRealSundance:

Originally Posted By hamptonyellowdog:
I'd eat a bunch of poppy seeds and don't worry about the pot. They will be trace amounts of opiates in your urine they won't even ask you about the pot.



Negative.

Application of New Drug Testing Opiate Threshold Levels Not Uniform in Non-Federal Programs



On December 1, 1998, DHHS-certified laboratories implemented new drug testing threshold values for opiate testing in Federal Drug Testing Programs. These changes, which are a result of recent amendments to the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Drug Testing Programs, raise the initial and confirmatory testing levels from 300 to 2000 ng/ml and require the use of the 6-acetylmorphine (which comes only from heroin) confirmatory test.

These changes were implemented because studies showed that MROs were reporting 87% of opiate-positive drug tests as "Negative" because of the influence of poppy seed ingestion and prescription medication.





Damn don't Joke with this guy he knows his sh*t
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:47:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By Fenian:
Do NOT, under any circumstances, mention that you were anywhere near anyone else smoking pot to anyone giving you a drug test...no good can possibly come from it.




The man is right.THIS is the post you should heed.There is no other.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 8:01:34 AM EST
That would be like getting on an airliner and joking about hijackers
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 8:05:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheRealSundance:



Do you know what an "MRO" is?

Telling your employer that you were exposed to pot will not keep you from losing your job. It's a Giant flag.




Yes, I know what an MRO is. Informing the MRO via a pre-screening questionnaire is SOP for my police agency's drug testing. We have been able to clear officers using information declared in advance on the form.

Of course, any presence of cocaine cannot be explained away very easily. Poppy seeds still trigger a positive on our test. A recreation of the conditions (another officer of similar body mass and gender acting as a control subject) cleared that officer.

I understand what those above have been saying about pre-test "red flag" responses. I'd bet that almost all are bullshitters just trying to cover their tracks. If the original poster is legit, I still recommend being truthful in advance. It has pros and cons.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 8:13:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By Paul:
You took one passing sniff - no way in hell.

You went to a concert and the two dopers in front of you smoked a couple of bags and you came home reeking like mad - very very very slim chance.

You sat in a phone booth with three other guys who were all smoking joints possibly but not likely.

You took a couple of hits off of a joint - probably but not for sure.

You've been smoking an ounce a week for the last couple of months - oh yeah.



+1.

Speaking for the military, it takes A LOT if merijuana to thit the desgnated threshold. You could actually SMOKE pot and get away with it. ANY amount is detectable, but the bar is set high to protect the innocent. This is why many people falsely believe that products designed to "clean" them out, work. They then get cocky and keep at it - the levels in their urine increase, and they get hit.

They always try to claim innocence, but the threshold is set so high only real pot smokers have anything to worry about.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 8:17:06 AM EST

Originally Posted By R0933C:


Yes, I know what an MRO is. Informing the MRO via a pre-screening questionnaire is SOP for my police agency's drug testing. We have been able to clear officers using information declared in advance on the form.

Of course, any presence of cocaine cannot be explained away very easily. Poppy seeds still trigger a positive on our test. A recreation of the conditions (another officer of similar body mass and gender acting as a control subject) cleared that officer.





Just a question. Do you use the federal guidlines of 50ng/ml or is a positive registered at 1ng/ml in your department?

FYI: As late as 1986 an herbal tea sold under the name of "Health Inca Tea" contained enough cocaine to cause positive urine test results.

That's why they raise the threshold limit back in 98
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 8:18:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By Adam_White:


This is why many people falsely believe that products designed to "clean" them out, work. They then get cocky and keep at it - the levels in their urine increase, and they get hit.

They always try to claim innocence, but the threshold is set so high only real pot smokers have anything to worry about.




Most masking agents are tested for and the presence of them in your system results in a positive test.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 8:18:57 AM EST
Do Not say that you were around it but you didnt smoke!!!! Every pot head that has had to take a drug test says that. You got nothing to worry about. Even if you smoked just a little and you do not smoke regular then it will be out of your system in a couple.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 8:30:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheRealSundance:

Just a question. Do you use the federal guidlines of 50ng/ml or is a positive registered at 1ng/ml in your department?

FYI: As late as 1986 an herbal tea sold under the name of "Health Inca Tea" contained enough cocaine to cause positive urine test results.

That's why they raise the threshold limit back in 98



We are "zero tolerance," so any positive on cocaine is a fail. I don't remember the lower limit off-hand right now, but 1 ng/ml is probably it. We still investigate the situation, and there have been excusable cocaine exposures (processing large amounts without sufficient protection, like gloves - duh).

The last positive had to be measured in ug/ml (micro gram) a scale 1,000 times larger than normal, because he had so much in his system. Embarassing for a PD, but at least we caught it and he left the department.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 8:32:01 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/23/2004 8:32:58 AM EST by TheRealSundance]
Locckedon,

Ask your employer for a result print out of your drug test. Then post the levels recorded for scientific posterity.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 8:37:48 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/23/2004 8:38:15 AM EST by TheRealSundance]

Originally Posted By R0933C:

Originally Posted By TheRealSundance:

Just a question. Do you use the federal guidlines of 50ng/ml or is a positive registered at 1ng/ml in your department?

FYI: As late as 1986 an herbal tea sold under the name of "Health Inca Tea" contained enough cocaine to cause positive urine test results.

That's why they raise the threshold limit back in 98



We are "zero tolerance," so any positive on cocaine is a fail. I don't remember the lower limit off-hand right now, but 1 ng/ml is probably it. We still investigate the situation, and there have been excusable cocaine exposures (processing large amounts without sufficient protection, like gloves - duh). I hate when those bags break open and the power gets into my nose.

The last positive had to be measured in ug/ml (micro gram) a scale 1,000 times larger than normal, because he had so much in his system. Embarassing for a PD, but at least we caught it and he left the department.WOW. He was feeling no pain.


Link Posted: 10/23/2004 8:48:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheRealSundance:

We are "zero tolerance," so any positive on cocaine is a fail. I don't remember the lower limit off-hand right now, but 1 ng/ml is probably it. We still investigate the situation, and there have been excusable cocaine exposures (processing large amounts without sufficient protection, like gloves - duh). I hate when those bags break open and the power gets into my nose.

The last positive had to be measured in ug/ml (micro gram) a scale 1,000 times larger than normal, because he had so much in his system. Embarassing for a PD, but at least we caught it and he left the department.WOW. He was feeling no pain.




The exposure was through the skin of a narcotics officer. Luckily for the officer, the test was soon enough after the exposure that there were no metabolites showing on the test, meaning it was an extremely recent exposure, and she had witnesses to the drug arrest and subsequent handling of the bricks.

Yes, he felt no pain.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 8:54:53 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 8:55:38 AM EST
Come on admit it, everybody does it. Next time come up with a better excuse.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 8:57:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
You should have no problem if you test positive because you can show a copy of the police report you filed when you called the police to report the contact with drugs you encountered.

This should exempt you.



That's a good one.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 9:01:51 AM EST
If your worried just drink bucket loads of water from now till you go in for the piss test. My dad's company does piss tests and we all have to take em and if it comes back positive we give you I think 2-3 days off with pay and then send it off to a lab where they really tell us whats up. If its neg you come back if its still pos your out the door.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 9:07:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By Vermilion:
If your worried just drink bucket loads of water from now till you go in for the piss test. My dad's company does piss tests and we all have to take em and if it comes back positive we give you I think 2-3 days off with pay and then send it off to a lab where they really tell us whats up. If its neg you come back if its still pos your out the door.



Sounds like a presumptive field test. They are pretty accurate - parents are even doing it on their kids, and/or sending vials of thier kids' urine off to a lab. I guess that's "tough love."

I've never used any drugs myself. I even hate taking medicine. I should become so discriminating about what and how much I eat.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 9:18:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/23/2004 9:37:08 AM EST by GeneralGenocide]
boards.cannabis.com/showthread.php?t=5990


Oh man, I'm totally screwing myself over. I was clean for two weeks. Then smoked the past two nights.


Hey Lockedon that avatar SURE does look familiar!!!

ETA - This was the first result when I googled "THC in fat cells"...I wanted to do a bit of research before posting about it. since noticing noone had covered it. Still making sure it's not some myth I picked up along the way somewhere...but I'm quite sure LONG-TERM tokers need a bit more than 30 days to burn off the THC that has been stored in their fatty tissue.

ETA - 1) Doesn't marijuana stay in your fat cells and keep you high for months?
No. The part of marijuana that gets you high is called `Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol.' Most people just call this THC, but this is confusing: your body will change Delta-9-THC into more inert molecules known as `metabolites,' which don't get you high. Unfortunately, these chemicals also have the word `tetrahydrocannabinol' in them and they are also called THC -- so many people think that the metabolites get you high. Anti-drug pamphlets say that THC gets stored in your fat cells and then leaks out later like one of those `time release capsules' advertised on television. They say it can keep you high all day or even longer. This is not true, marijuana only keeps you high for a few hours, and it is not right to think that a person who fails a drug test is always high on drugs, either.

Two of these metabolites are called `11-hydroxy-tetrahydrocannabinol' and `11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol' but we will call them 11-OH-THC and 11-nor instead. These are the chemicals which stay in your fatty cells. There is almost no Delta-9-THC left over a few hours after smoking marijuana, and scientific studies which measure the effects of marijuana agree with this fact.

www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~verdant/Marijuana_FAQ/X0025_1_Doesnt_marijuana_s.html
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 9:19:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By R0933C:

Originally Posted By Vermilion:
If your worried just drink bucket loads of water from now till you go in for the piss test. My dad's company does piss tests and we all have to take em and if it comes back positive we give you I think 2-3 days off with pay and then send it off to a lab where they really tell us whats up. If its neg you come back if its still pos your out the door.



Sounds like a presumptive field test. They are pretty accurate - parents are even doing it on their kids, and/or sending vials of thier kids' urine off to a lab. I guess that's "tough love."

I've never used any drugs myself. I even hate taking medicine. I should become so discriminating about what and how much I eat.



Link Posted: 10/23/2004 9:22:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By GeneralGenocide:
boards.cannabis.com/showthread.php?t=5990

Hey Lockedon that avatar SURE does look familiar!!!

ETA - This was the first result when I googled "THC in fat cells"...I wanted to do a bit of research before posting about it. since noticing noone had covered it. Still making sure it's not some myth I picked up along the way somewhere...but I'm quite sure LONG-TERM tokers need a bit more than 30 days to burn off the THC that has been stored in their fatty tissue.



Link Posted: 10/23/2004 9:32:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/23/2004 9:34:58 AM EST by TomJefferson]
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 9:37:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By Matthew_Q:
Unless you were totally toking on that bong or doobie, I don't think you have much to worry about. A little second hand shouldn't show up.

I'd drink lots of fluids and try to pee a lot in the mean time...



thc in pot stays in your fat and protien that is in your urine....eat low fat /protien foods and drink alot of liqiud....will not show up....also drink low sugar lemonade made with the real lemonjuice will clean it out also if any there
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 9:42:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheRealSundance:

www.dominopower.com/issues/issue200401/00001213-a.gif



Hey, how'd you get a picture of my house? Wait, I'll be right out...
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 9:42:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheRealSundance:

Originally Posted By Adam_White:


This is why many people falsely believe that products designed to "clean" them out, work. They then get cocky and keep at it - the levels in their urine increase, and they get hit.

They always try to claim innocence, but the threshold is set so high only real pot smokers have anything to worry about.




Most masking agents are tested for and the presence of them in your system results in a positive test.



I can't speak with any authority on masking agents - but it would be interesting to see how they would prove drug use - since the agent itself would be legal, no? I could see them triggering a different test, though. Otherwise, I could see lots of potential for abuse with that.

I was referring mainly to diuretic type products that claim to dilute or outright flush away the trace amounts.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 9:45:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
I asked our company Doctor about exactly this--he said yes, it will show up, but we "have the threshold set high enough it won't matter." With an absolute zero tolerance policy, I found little comfort in that.




It's not going to show up!

Hell, I smoked 3 days prior to an Army eval and passed.


You got nothing to worry about. You sound more paranoid then if you smoked the whole baggy yourself!


SGatr15
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 10:45:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By Adam_White:

Originally Posted By TheRealSundance:

Originally Posted By Adam_White:


This is why many people falsely believe that products designed to "clean" them out, work. They then get cocky and keep at it - the levels in their urine increase, and they get hit.

They always try to claim innocence, but the threshold is set so high only real pot smokers have anything to worry about.




Most masking agents are tested for and the presence of them in your system results in a positive test.



I can't speak with any authority on masking agents - but it would be interesting to see how they would prove drug use - since the agent itself would be legal, no? I could see them triggering a different test, though. Otherwise, I could see lots of potential for abuse with that.

I was referring mainly to diuretic type products that claim to dilute or outright flush away the trace amounts.



Diuretic type products make you piss more or you can drink a boat load of water for the same effect. Test comes back diluted and you go again. Maybe you will be clean, maybe you won't 24 hours later.

Masking agents are easily detected and are treated like being caught putting Drano in you pee. Just like when they catch all the Olympic athletes with masking agents in their system.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top