Pitting Jane Says and Terminator Gold 3000 - by Manhattan's Request

The BBQ Pit
41

jane - I’m suggesting (as are others) not that your experiences are false, but that you’re incorrectly attributing the results to the stuff you’re drinking.

I had plenty of clients try that stuff (and others) who were caught. I also had plenty of clients whom I knew were using test clean from time to time. And I also didn’t test every single sample.

so, your personal experience of having not gotten any notification of a positive result could be the product of:

  1. (your theory) the stuff you’re drinking.

  2. THe test itself may be a cheaper less accurate version.

  3. One of the ‘acceptable number’ of false negatives that are part of the planned system of drug testing.

  4. One that was (for whatever reason) not tested.

  5. the substance may have not been at the threashold for testing (if you’d indulged longer ago than the testing perameters or the quality of the stuff was lesser than would test positive etc.)

We’re saying it’s much more likely reasons #2 - 5 vs. # 1.

and, although you have the anecdotal info from your own life and various friends, the rest of us who are taking the opposite view have the results from thousands of people, thousands of tests, over the course of years and years.

But, go ahead and spend the money, it’s your call. I suggest that you not be too shocked at a point in the future when you do get the ramifications of testing positive. I might caution you seriously though - specifically do not rely on those items if you’re being tested through a criminal justice situation. You really would be risking quite a bit.

42

wring, though I appreciate your interest, I will no longer need to take a urine test, as I haven’t smoked in some time. Not because of my job, I just sort of lost interest. And yes, I agree that some false negatives might be chance, cheap tests, etc., I find it hard to believe that the guy I was dating years ago who worked for the same company as my dad, who was popped six times in a little over two years, had such good luck every time. A son of a friend, who doesn’t smoke pot but did buy prescription painkillers from someone else after a car accident (after he settled with the insurance company, he was left with no medical care due to lack of insurance) passed for opiates on a probation-ordered test.

43

well, jane if I were to speculate:

  1. the boyfriend - I suspect that they didn’t test as often as they asked for samples.

  2. the kid - either: A. the ‘prescription’ pain med he was sold wasn’t really what he thought it was or B. he was one of those false positives/he took it either long enough before or too soon before the test in order to have the amount be detectable.

The problem w/your belief in the tests is that the science it relys on is wrong (ie changing/diluting a substance from your urine via an ingested item). I understand your faith that of your personal experiences, people were not faced with consequences. BUt the number of specific instances you examine is low, compared w/the entire body of evidence available (ie while it’s low probability to get 10 straight even rolls of the dice, it’s certainly not at all impossible to happen), and you have no way of examining the possabilities of the other things I noted (for example, I know which samples I tested and which I tossed, but none of the folks tested would have been told).

44

I’m really not trying to be obtuse, wring; really, I’m not. The instances I’ve cited are only a few of the ones I can attest to personally. As for the “kid”, who’s actually a little older than me (28), he was getting Percocet 10 mg., 180 per month, the same medication I was taking at the time due to a back injury, and we “lent” each other pills when we ran low, so I can tell you they were legit. I understand that a certain percentage of tests are never run - as I mentioned before my dad is in charge of seeing they are administered “randomly” at his company, although he disagrees with the procedure as a whole.

The instances I’ve spoken of are nowhere near the total of the ones I’m aware of. I know folks who have used it for pre-employment, random tests, and law enforcement tests, and I know of no one who has failed. I do, however, know folks who have failed or have been declined employment because of postives or “negative dilute” results after using the gallons-of-water approach, goldenseal, and other herbal remedies. I have a strong belief that all these folks who passed were not just “lucky” and others were “unlucky”; nor do I believe it’s possible that ALL the results from those who used Terminator were tossed or false negatives. College statistics class tells me it’s extremely unlikely, and personal experience corroborates.

45

Well, everybody out of the pool except Broomstick and Qadgop, then. And they can sit around and agree with each other, without being bothered by us lowlifes who chose the wrong careers for being in this thread. :rolleyes:

Needless to say, I’m going to ignore my own advice. :smiley:

  1. There’s a world of difference between ‘You’re a reprehensible slime puddle’ and ‘I personally don’t agree with the neo-prohibition approach, but you should take into account that running afoul of the law can cause you definite problems.’ If I had a friend in the situation of the original thread’s OP, I’d tell him the latter - but not the former.

  2. I violated the law on the way into work this morning, along with pretty much everyone else on Maryland Route 4 and the Suitland Parkway. I don’t know if any of us tries to morally justify it, but we go out and do it every morning anyway.

The point being that there are a lot of reasonable moral perspectives about the law, and while there are serious violations of the law, there are many unserious ones as well. Where enjoying a joint at home on a weekend fits into that, depends on how you see things. But it seems no less valid, intellectually, to just smoke that joint without bothering to justify it, due to mentally classifying it as a not particularly serious or harmful breach of the law, as it does for me and my compatriots to go 70 in a 55 zone every weekday morning and evening.

And that, too, is a long way from being a “reprehensible slime puddle.”

Rolling the tape, with bolding mine:

This certainly made it sound as if you felt very strongly that anyone who flew even occasionally should almost never drink. (It really sounded like you had one of yourself up your ass, there. ;)) Your additional explanation fortunately makes more sense: I agree that you shouldn’t drink and drive, or drink and fly. (I don’t understand how the former essentially prevents you from drinking on weeknights, but that’s neither here nor there.)

46
47

Crap.

what I meant to say was:

your personal experiences constitutes one very small bit of the data involved in drug testing. even adding in all of the experiences of all of the people you know etc etc etc. You are at the ‘user’ end of the spectrum. The folks like the good doctor, the OP and myself are at the “administering” end of the spectrum. Which means, generally that we’re looking at (essentially) all of your personal experiences plus all of those behind you in the employment line, their friends etc.

You compare notes w/other test takers. I’m comparing notes with other test administrators.

so, sample sizes are exponentially larger from the test administrator side. Deviant results can and do happen quite regularly at the small sample end of the spectrum. IT’s expected. But at the large end of the spectrum, it all averages out. Surely your stats classes taught you about sample size.

You seem to focus on the one line of stuff. Do you honestly believe that one company has discovered the true ‘fountain of never drop dirty’ ? and has managed to simulatneously:

  1. Not get the formula stolen.
  2. not been forced into non production
  3. not gained 100% of the share of people who would buy such products

???

I can’t argue the chemestry angle, but when I’ve been advised by folks who can that ‘nothing taken orally can dispense a drug that is already in the system. nothing other than time can do that’, I’ll take their word for it.

I believe you and your friends were the recipients of a lifetimes worth of luck.

I’ll keep on placing my faith in science. YMMV.

48

'Kay, wring. Like I said, we’ll agree to disagree. Apparently, our mileage may, and certainly in this case, has, varied. Thank you for doing it respectfully. Perhaps others could take note - every time we’re not licking one another’s nuts in agreement doesn’t mean we have to go biting them off.

49

:wink:

50

Let’s talk about job-hunting.

Sometimes, there’s a time when you’re specifically looking for a job. You’ve just gotten out of school, or you’ve been laid off from a previous job (a lot of Dopers have been through that, this past year or so), or you’re dissatisfied with your current job, and are actively looking for something better.

In those situations, I agree: if you can’t stop smoking dope long enough to pass any drug-test hoops you have to jump through to get your new job, then there’s a problem.

But then there’s the other sort of job search: you’re in a job, and are basically happy with it (or at least not too miserable), but you still check the classifieds on Sunday mornings, or occasionally you’ll hear about an opening in your field through the grapevine.

One morning, you read the ads, and there’s an ad for what looks like a job you’d really want. But, dangitall, you got high last weekend. That shouldn’t be a problem in the interview; you were back to normal by the next morning. But suppose they have a drug test?

You can’t wait a month to apply for this job, while the drug works its way out of your system; the job will be gone by then. But it wasn’t exactly a moral failing on your part to be caught unprepared, unless smoking marijuana at all was a moral failing.

I don’t know how much job-hunting people do falls into the former category, and how much into the latter. But you don’t always know in advance that you’re going to be in a job interview situation, and when that happens, it’s damned hard to lay off the dope ahead of time.

51

Well, nobody was saying anything to the contrary. Go back and look at my post, then add the addendum of the poppe seed bagels, and then the concluding remark, “is it all covered.” Anywhere in there, do you see an allegation that marijuana is addictive, or a staunch declaration that more addictive drugs are all illegal? So why leap to defend this precious non-addiction against accusations that weren’t made?

Methinks the dopefiend doth protest too much :wink:

For the record, I don’t think marijuana is “addictive”, and I really don’t have any problem with its recreational use. But I have a pretty low opinion of habitual (daily) users, and since this is the Pit I have absolutely no concerns about voicing that opinion in a sarcastic reply. If you’re a marijuana user, I’m sure you’ll deal with that the way those people always do, by saying “Fuck it, man” and lighting up a bowl. At that point, you run the risk of failing a drug test, and your potential employer can lawfully discriminate against you.

And lest you be allowed to continue your vain and ridiculous cries of persecution, perhaps you should understand something about the law of employment. It is perfectly legal to discriminate in hiring for any reason not related to a protected class. Race, gender, religion, etc., are protected classes. Marijuana usage, alcohol usage, even having a fondness for poppe seed bagels, those are not protected. An employer can discriminate in hiring by refusing to hire people who enjoy Micheal Bolton music if he really wants to (unless that has a disparate impact on people of a particluar race, and I’d like to see the Court TV where the attorneys cite racial demographics for Bolton’s listeners.) An employer could decide before any interviews that he would hire the 5th interviewee regardless of who that was and simply draw lots for order. He could pick in any totally random method he chose, including roulette wheel or a 1D20 roll if he’s a Dungeons and Dragons fan. Employers have no obligation to you in hiring other than to avoid making their decision based on membership in a specifically protected class.

I support the legalization of marijuana. When it comes to a public vote in a few weeks, I’ll be voting in favor of the initiative to make possession of small amounts a municipal offense here in Columbia, punishable by fine but never jailtime. But I don’t have much sympathy for people who know the law and just continue to break the law, and then whine and moan when there are negative consequences like the world is out to fucking get them.

52

You have it in your mind that perhaps you really might want a different job but you’re still getting high anyway? Obviously you’re not thinking ahead too much. Why even look through the want ads when you know that you aren’t going to be able to pass a drug test? Why needlessly frustrate yourself?

I know I will sound heartless, but all I can do is shrug. If you think you really want a job in the near future then perhaps you need to prepare. For certain jobs you need to plan ahead by getting certain training, or you have to have other qualifications (like knowing how to use Photoshop or Quark, for instance). You don’t go applying for certain jobs unless you have all your ducks in a row. And being able to test clean is part of that, I should think.

You make a choice. That’s all. It’s either the dope, or the potential of a new job. If it’s so damned hard to lay off the dope for a few weeks when you are actually at the point where you are looking through want ads, then there’s a problem, isn’t there?

53

Exactly. My younger brother was on pseudo-probation and taking drug tests a few years back (non-drug-related offense.) He knew quite clearly what the consequences of a positive could well be, he would get tossed out of the special program he was in and possibly get jail time and a mark on his record. Yet he still risked the possibility of failing that drug test, and scrambled around using these preposterous methods like “flushing” or these aforementioned dimestore products. If your desire to smoke a joint is so great that you would face a high risk of jail time rather than abstain, that’s a problem. That may not be addiction, but it’s a screwed up valuation of priorities. To risk even a job opportunity would be foolish.

Marijuana may not be addictive, and as I said I don’t think it’s really even so bad occasionally (go ahead and have a good time at the rock concert), but it does cause problems in some people. Its habitual users eventually lose the desire to do anything but sit around and use it all day, and hold down some scummy job just to keep buying more pot, and complain endlessly about the need to hold down that scummy job. Some of them, luckily, grow out of it as they get older and manage to use it more occasionally, more moderately, or even give it up altogether, and can actually be responsible adults. Some don’t, they just keep on lightin’ up every day and sitting around like slugs. Live your life the way you want to, but don’t come complaining like the world is out to get you. It’s your choice, deal with the consequences.

54

BTW, I never thought I’d find myself on the same side of an argument as yosemitebabe, after the Male Abortion debacle and assorted other threads. But hey, good common sense is good common sense, no matter where it comes from :wink: Keep it comin’ babe.

55

Problem being…that’s the only legal alternative. What if one wants to be inebriated, but hates alcohol?

That’s the part I’ll never understand. “Tough - you have to be sober forever?” People who can’t have sugar can still eat sweet things. People who are allergic to wheat have pasta alternatives. What are we supposed to do if we hate alcohol?

56

And this may sound heartless, but maybe you should learn to read.

I was specifically describing situations where one isn’t thinking one really needs a job in the near future.

Let me explain, and I’ll use really small words. Just because I care about you.

Many people look through the classifieds on an ongoing basis, whether they consider themselves to be looking for a job or not. So there’s no point where they’re “actually at the point.” There’s no point where the timer starts running on those “few weeks” that y’all keep going on about. Until it already did, but that was three weeks back.

I want to make the point that I’m not bitching because life is unfair. Life is unfair, and if someone sees the job of their dreams in the classifieds a mere week or two after having smoked, then if the job comes with a drug test, they can drink lots of water, or use that stuff jane_says recommends, or whatever. But if they don’t get the job on account of a positive on the drug test, their only reasonable response is to shrug their shoulders and move on. I’m OK with that.

But what I’m not OK with is that you are saying that such a person Has A Problem, and that’s where you haven’t made so much as a shadow of a case.

Why, exactly, do they have a problem? Because they don’t abstain from looking at the classifieds for three weeks after each time they smoke? I agree, that’s a sign of real moral weakness; they can’t lay off the stuff - the classifieds, I mean. Gawd, what rotten moral fiber they must have - they didn’t properly prepare for reading the friggin’ classifieds. Next thing you know, they’ll be reading the comics without drinking their Ovaltine first, and then the moral decay of this once-great nation will be complete. :rolleyes:

57

I’d just like to stick my nose in here and point out that this is utter crap.

As for “perspective,” try this on for size: Marijuana may make you feel paranoid, out of control, and cause serious derealization. Alcohol can make you feel peaceful, comfortable, and slow. That’s perspective.
As for the larger debate, I pretty much agree with what RTFirefly is saying. As far as I’m concerned the whole Problem lingo could certainly stand to be taken down a notch.

58

pretty much on the side that anything which stays in your system for 3 weeks is not going to be flushed out by ANYTHING.

but also, on the side that if i’m NOT HIGH AT THAT PARTICULAR MOMENT my employer has no business enquiring into my personal life and what i chose to ingest (personally, i don’t smoke) last weekend.

just like they can’t ask about who i chose to spend my time with, or who i choose to sleep with, whether we use protection, any of that stuff.
especially if i was in the 'dam at the time, where it’s all nice and legal.

:slight_smile:
so maybe put some more effort into developing tests which are more sensitive and can pinpoint the drug usage to within hours rather than weeks.

59

NOWHERE do I call ANY drug “evil”. Drugs are tools - they are neither good nor evil. It’s the uses to which they are put that may be good or evil. Morphine used to relive cancer pain is moral use. Morphine used to get high and aid in causing a 5 car wreck on the freeway is an immoral use of the drug.

I think it’s fucking shame marijuana can’t be objectively studied for it’s effects on things like glaucoma and wasting syndromes and such. And - I don’t know how many times I have to say this before you people fucking LISTEN - I don’t give a damn what you do in your own private home. Got that? My biggest concern is people who get high and start driving, followed by people stealing to support their habits. Frankly, I view whores who fuck to support their habits on a much higher level than thieves and muggers even though they’re breaking the law, too. Maybe it’s just that I’m not ever likely to pay a whore for services, but muggers and thieves arrive both unannounced and unwanted.

I realize that this argument would be a whole lot easier for the users looking to justify their lawbreaking if they could put me in the “Boring Prude” camp but that just ain’t the facts

OK, we’re going to try this thing called an “analogy”.

MOST people can drink alcohol in moderation and do so their whole lives without ever hurting anyone (other than themselves with a hangover) or having it cause social, financial, or legal problems. HOWEVER – SOME people can’t. They get really fucked up on alcohol, destroy their health, to terrible things to their friends and family, and spend the food and rent money on booze. Yes, my friend, it happens.

Here’s the analogy: MOST people can smoke marijuana in moderation and do so their whole lives without ever hurting anyone or having it cause social, financial or legal problems. HOWEVER - SOME people can’t. They get really fucked up on marijuana, destroy their health, do terrible things to the friends and family, and spend the food and rent money on pot. NOW do you get it?

If YOU, personally, can toke in moderation and do so in manner that puts no one at risk but yourself - that’s just damn skippy. Enjoy yourself. But don’t stick your head in the sand and say “Hey, I’m OK - everybody else must be, too.”

Hey, dimbulb, I worked in drug rehab for four years. Who the fuck do you think we had in our little practice? I’m probably a hell of a lot more aware of who’s toking than the average human being, and much more aware of it being a genuine cross-section of humanity than 90% of the assholes walking the street. Don’t preach to the choir.

60

Don’t hold your breath.

Guess you haven’t read any of my other pit posts if you call THAT outrageous!

The right thing is not to offer an insincere apology. I don’t apologize unless I’m truly sorry. I’m not sorry, therefore, you will not get an apology.

Yes, I do think you’re a sleezball. You are welcome to think ill of me as well, of course. You may also Pit me as well if you are so inclined - it’s a free message board, after all. Just don’t keep breaking the rules unless you want to get banned.