Ian & Stuart's Australian Mac: Not for Sale/Another.not.for.sale (Australia).iso/hold me in your arms/ES Cyberama/Beating Standard Drug Tests

Internet Message Format | 1994-09-07 | 76KB

From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs,misc.legal,misc.misc
Subject: Drug Testing FAQ! Beating Tests, Info About Tests, etc.!
Date: 19 Nov 91 20:20:42 GMT

------------------------------------------------
Frequently Asked Questions -- Beating Drug Tests
Version 0.90 (Released as a Beta-Test Version)
------------------------------------------------

This is a compilation of nearly everything that has been said on the subject
of creating a false negative from a drug test (otherwise known as beating a
drug test) from alt.drugs and various other sources.  If it seems the
format of this FAQ is different from other FAQs, you're right, since this
FAQ started out as a collection of headerless extracts from alt.drugs,
which needed to be combined to collect all relevant information into one
file.  All information contained within this FAQ is correct to the best of
my knowledge, and several pieces of information have been backed up by
replies to my inquiries on alt.drugs.  An effort has been made to leave out
questionable material, so if its not here, chances are I either (a) didn't
know about it (and please tell me about it, regardless of how stupid it
is), or (b) its among the questionable material (and should be checked out
with me before posting about it).

  Basically, everything presented here is to allow people with the need of
beating a drug test to do so without having to read through pages and pages
of irrelevant material, since it is assumed that the person will have very
little time before having to beat a test.

And now, to begin the "Beating A Drug Test" FAQ, a quote from Paul Hager,
one of the better debaters on alt.drugs:

-----
I think it is time to take the semantic high ground in the
metabolite testing vs impairment testing debate.  This means
redefining the terms to our advantage.

Thus, when the issue of drug testing comes up, those of us
who favor impairment testing can say, "oh, yes, I'm in favor
of drug testing: safety testing, of course, and not lifestyle
testing."  A short definition would follow with metabolite
testing == "lifestyle" testing and impairment testing == "safety"
testing.  Immediately puts the other side on the defensive.

--
paul hager              [e-mail]
--

------------------------------------------------
The Liquid Plumber Method One: If You Have A Week Or Two To Spare...

Since many people enjoy utilizing illicit drugs for home entertainment and
mind-expansion techniques in this time of random and interview drug tests,
it becomes necessary for a method to remove the nasty metabolites and other
garbage drugs leave behind for tests to pick up on.

Here is such a method (but which does not involve the popular drain-clearing
fluid mentioned in the title).

To remove the stuff drug tests detect, it is necessary to flush the system
and dilute the material, therefore making the stuff pass out more readily
through the urinary tract.  In other words: you drink a lot of water and
piss a lot.

-----
The following is a fairly accurate list of time periods required to flush a
particular metabolite:

   Marijuana                     --  3-4 weeks, see below
=================================================================
"Half-Life" of THC

%  100%  *   (time 0 days, 100%)      THC concentration halflife = 7 days
T                                     %THC means % THC metabolites
H   90%                                      in bloodstream.
C
    80%
                                                21 - 28 days'll do-ya
    70%

    60%

    50%             *  (7days,50%)

    40%

    30%
                              *  (14days, 25%)
    20%
                                       *  (21days,12.5%)
    10%
                                                *  (6.75%)
     0%                                                  * 3.375  *  1.687%
       0 days     7days    14days    21days   28days   35days   42days
            (time)
--
James
 jprice   The reactions and behavior of those who try to control
   @      alcohol-drug using/abusing people create MORE damage to
jove.cs   society, relationships and children than the users themselves.
pdx.edu                        - Beverly "there were _none_" Cadotte
=================================================================

   LSD, standard drug tests      --  N/A (5 minutes)
   LSD, $1000 drug tests         --  1 week

Obviously, the times listed are not absolute.  Some companies use tests so
outmoded or weak that a mere three days is required for most drugs
(including marijuana), so you may have more time than you think.
-----
Directions:

  [1]  Start out by drinking your average daily 8 glasses of water a day,
       plus a few more (this includes food moisture and such).  You don't
       have to be exacting, just don't drink gallons of water.  Drinking a
       large quantity of water well above safe limits can cause nasty things,
       like over-hydration and swelling of the brain;  use your best
       judgement and drink what you feel to be a safe amount, yet still
       above your regular water intake.

  [2]  Exercise and diet.  Metabolites and other drug "littering" tend to
       hide inside human body fat, which means the best way to rid your
       system of them is to dump the fat into the bloodstream, where it can
       then be separated and diluted for easy urination disposal.

  [3]  Urination.  Pissing cannot be overemphasized.  Piss two or three
       times a day, more if possible.  The more you pee, the more will pass
       out.  Taking a diuretic will help A LOT; here are some known
       diuretics: coffee, cranberry juice, some teas, beer, Golden Seal
       (powdered root, available at health store, flushes system quite
       effectively).  See the post in "Other Diuretics" for other diuretic
       examples.

       Some Fake Diuretics (i.e., they won't work as a Diuretic no matter
       what people tell you): Vinegar, phenylpropanolamine (the active
       ingredient in Dexatrim).

**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**
 --> Diuretics can be harmful to people with kidney dysfunctions,     <--
 --> pregnant women and diabetics.                                    <--
**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**

Now, on the day of the test:

[Urine-Coloring]

     Drug testers tend to get suspicious of the watery, clear piss that
results from the above three directions.  Therefore, you really need to
color it.  Two ways that work: taking a 50-100mg tablet of vitamin B2 will
give it a nice yellow color, or through eating asparagus (or similar foods
you discover through experimentation).

     Pee two or three times before pissing in the cup they give you.  The
first piss of the day contains the most metabolites, so peeing first when
you get up is the best way to go [no pun intended].

     Pray.  (or Hope if you don't believe in the existence of a Higher Power)

Hopefully, the drug will be wiped clean from your system, and you will be
free to enjoy another nice weekend with Uncle Sydney or Mary Jane...
---
The Liquid Plumber Method Two: The Really Really Quick Way...

    IF YOU HAVE A SHORT NOTICE, take an 80-milligram dose of
prescription diuretic Lasix (furosemide), take a hefty drink of water,
piss two or three times and take the test.

**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**
 --> Diuretics can be harmful to people with kidney dysfunctions,     <--
 --> pregnant women and diabetics.                                    <--
**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**WARNING**
---
Other Diuretics

[Another Anonymous E-mail]
> Okay, people, some simple questions:

> Sixth, what is Golden Seal?  I currently have it listed as a diuretic for
> lack of a better description; if its really something else (like a drug
> screen) please tell me!

Golden Seal is an herb which grows about a foot tall; it has leaves which
are similar in shape to a maple, flower is greenish-white, and fruit
somewhat resembling a raspbery.  However, it is the rootstock which is
used, powdered or like a tea.  1 tsp. in one pint boiling water, let stand
until cold.  Take 1 or 2 tsp 3-6 times/day.

This information is from _The_Herb_Book_ by John Lust.  Listed within are
hundreds of plants and their uses.  There are 190 entries listed under
diuretic...  I have another book called _Back_to_Eden_ by Jethro Kloss,
which talks about using the inner bark of the birch, linden, or ironwood in
a tea to purify the blood (of alcohol, junk food, and fatty diet).  I got
both of these in a health food store.  I was given the impression that they
were pretty well-known among naturalists.

> Eighth, everyone think of diuretics and post em.  I've got: coffee, tea,
> beer, Lasix.  Feel free to post more, or to disagree with already posted
> diuretics.  Apparently vinegar is not a diuretic, so I now have a list of
> non-diuretics believed to be diuretics included.  Also, medical
> information about Lasix would not be out of the question, either.

Well, at first I told myself I wasn't going to do it, but then I did --
typed in all 190.  You can have the file if you really want, but I was just
going to pick out some of the more recognizable names which seemed to be more
prominently spoken of as diuretic...

alfalfa: make a tea from the leaves
asparagus: eat the shoots
bean pods: steamed & eaten, or dried & as a tea
wild carrot seeds: 1 tbs in 1 cup water as a tea or brew
celery: eat it or juice it; The Herb Book says it is a strong diuretic.
chicory: brew the ground root like coffee, 1 tsp per 1/2 cup water
cucumber: eat it or juice it (juice can be mixed w/ apple, carrot, celery)
dandelions: whole (before flowering), leaves (during), root (in the fall);
  you can make a tea, eat it, juice it, extract it (1/4 lb in 2 pints water,
  boil down to 1 pint; or soak 2 tsp in 1 cup water overnight).
garlic: 1/2 tsp of juice in a little water
leek: eat fresh or lightly steamed
onion: 1 tsp of juice 3-4 times/day
radish: several ounces of juice

these tree barks can be done as a tea (steeped) or a brew (boiled for 20m)
birch: 1 tsp inner bark or leaves in 1 cup of water
european ash: 1-2 tsp leaves in 1/2 cup of water
elm: 1/4 lb inner bark in 4 pints water, boil down to 2 pints
willow: 1-3 tsp spring bark in 1 cup water, soak 2-5 h, bring to boil & cool

Augh!  I give up!  This list is still not complete (even given my attempts
at narrowing it down).  Just tell them to go buy the book.

---
Other Methods

    DRUG SCREENS, drugs which mask traces of drugs in urine, are
undocumented although many claim sucess.  These might be unreliable, but
I'm putting them in here anyway.

     Zinc Sulfate, available from pharmasists and in a health product Zinc
Challenge, should be taken twice, once the night before and once a few hours
before the test in 250-milligram doses.  WARNING- DON'T TAKE ANYMORE THAN
THIS BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL TOXIC EFFECTS.  Take this in the morning when
loading up on fluids for the test.  Also, avoid taking in too many solids
because it may dampen the effect of the chemical.

     Two products, Test Free and Naturally Klean, claim to clear any drug
testing for a few hours after taking.  The companies recommend abstaing
for a day or two and drinking lots of fluids.  Both companies claim to
have FDA safe ingredients although they are secretive about the formula.

        You can contact the companies @
            Test Free- Zydot Unlimited Inc., Box 9485 Tulsa OK 74157
                        [phone]
           Naturally Klean- Houston Enterprises, PO Box 27776, Tempe AZ 85285
                        [phone]

---

    DOPING AND DILUTING PISS TESTS, is a last resort method if you are
really desparate.

     You can spike the test with certain chemicals, but this only
works on the standard EMIT test and not on RIA or GC/MS tests.  6-10
drops of bleach detergent or blood, a few bleach or Draino crystals
concealed under the fingernails should work, or three tablespoons of
iodized salt to the piss which will sucessfully mask for *all* substances.
Make sure that you mix/stir it in good. Also possible is hydrogen peroxide
for dilution.  These methods are going to effect the urine noticably and
could be detected, so be warned!

     Dilution is also possible. Take vitamin C tablets to darken your
urine so that after dilution it isn't too mellow yellow. Then, depending
on the circumstances fill half the specimen jar with piss and the other
half with water, shake, and use hands to warm to correct temperature. If
it ain't possible to use the tap, use toilet water. If the toilet water
is dyed (i.e. blue), open the tank quietly, press down on float, and get
clean H20.

     If someone is supposed to watch you piss, claim that you can't piss
with someone watching (an actual medical condition known as blushing
kidneys which afflicts approximately 5 percent of the population).

-----
CROSS-REACTIVE SUBSTANCES

The following information is taken from "Steal This Urine Test"
by the late Abbie Hoffman. I highly recommend the book...

One way to help cover yourself is to list some of the cross-
reacting substances. The problem of cross-reactivity is when
legal drugs register as false positives for illegal drugs. Thus,
if there is a form which asks you what medications you are taking,
list some of the cross-reactors. This method is not a panacea, of
course but everything helps.

_____________________________________________________________________
DRUG/METABOLITE                           CROSS_REACTIVE
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphetamine                      Phenylpropanolamine (found
                                 in OTC cold meds: Nyquil, Vicks
                                 nasal spray, Neosynephren, sudafed)
                                 Ephedrine (found in prescription
                                 asthma meds)
Barbituate                       Mephobarbital
                                 Barbituric acid (rarely prescribed
                                 substances, no luck friend)
Cannabinoids                     Ibuprofen (Advil, Nuprin, Motrin,
                                 Mydol, etc..)

Cocaine                          Amoxicillin (unconfirmed)
Methaqualone                     None known
Morphine                         Codeine (in any prescription form)
                                 Dihydrocodeine bitartrate/Levorphanol/
                                 Oxycodone (found in presc. analgesics)
                                 Poppy seeds, Hydromorphone (found in
                                 presc. antitussives)
PCP                              Dextromethororphan (found in some presc.
                                 cough meds)
LSD                              Methysergide maleate, Eronovine maleate,
                                 Tryptophan (all of thses are rarely
                                 used medicinally, so no luck)

[sources: US Congress Office of Technology Assessment; Syva; Roche
Diagnostics; Byrd Labs]

EDITOR'S NOTE:  The drugs most easily detected seem to have the most
common cross-reactives, so do not despair if you cannot find a cross-
reactive for LSD or a similar drug without easily-available cross-
reactives.
-----
URINE SUBSTITUTION

      Probably the most effective and fail safe method is to get some
clean urine and substitute it, if this is feasible. Hoffman recommends a
Bard Dispoz-a-Bag (tm) Drainage Bag made for use by ambulant patients.
The clean urine is put in the bag and then the bag is taped to the
stomach or leg for later use. Use is accomplished by poking a hole in
the bag w/ a pin or sharp fingernail and allowing it to piss like a
racehorse.  If clean urine is not available, Diet Mountain Dew at the
correct temperature will work for some tests, since it matches the pH
balance of urine (however, this is recommended only as a last resort, and
is not backed up by any references).  Do not use Diet Mountain Dew in place
of urine for the method described below!

      Another method, though rather difficult to perform safely, involves
a catheter, clean urine, and a free, private hour or two before the test.
Basically, clean urine is obtained first.  Then, insert the catheter
and drain the bladder of its contents.  Finally, refill the bladder
with the clean urine.  A common athletes' trick to avoid being tested
positive.  Obviously, have the urine tested first, as this is rather
dangerous as far as diseases are concerned.

-----
Kinds of Drug Tests
-----
---
Urine
---
RIA    --  A type of drug test.
EMIT   --  The name of a type of test, not a single specific test.
           There are at least 30 different EMIT tests that each screens
           for different specific substances.  EMIT stands for Enzyme
           Multiplied Immuno-assay Technique. To my knowledge, EMIT tests
           are pretty cheap, so it's not surprising that they're easy to
           beat. To find out more, you might call a pharm. company posing
           as a potential customer.
           (EMIT Info from: Greg Miller, [e-mail])
GC/MS  --  A type of drug test.
---
Other Tests
---
blood  --  Most effective test; can actually detect the drug, not just
           the metabolites found in urine as well.  Would be an effective
           impairment test, should the person exhibiting an impaired state
           agree to one.  Its currently used most often in determining
           Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) for drunk driving.

hair   --  Mostly endorsed by BlockBuster Video.
-----
Drug Testing Information From A Drug Testing Lab

You wrote:
> Okay, people, some simple questions:

> First off, what substances can an EMIT test detect (I know there are about
> thirty) and how does it work chemically?

Hmm, not too familiar with EMIT. We don't use that test here.

> Second, what is an RIA test, what can it detect, and how does it work
> chemically?

RadioImmunoAssay. They usually use an Iodine isotope. I'm not sure on the
chemistry, but I will be learning to use that format of assay this week.
They are supposed to be extremely sensitive, and are available for the
usual drugs - cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, etc. I don't know about THC.

> Third, are there any more urine tests other than those two; if so, what
> are they called, what can they detect, and how do they work chemically?

Yes. The first is called ELISA - Enzyme Linked ImmunoSorbant Assay. It's
based on an antibody specific to the drug(or metabolite) you're interested
in. The usual procedure is to bind your drug-specific Ab to the bottom of a
96 well microtiter plate. Add sample, add enzyme-drug conjugate. Drug in
the sample and the enzyme drug conjugate compete for the available Ab's on
the bottom of the plate. Wash away excess sample/enzyme conjugate, add a
substrate. The substrate reacts with the enzyme-drug conjugate(if there is
any there) to produce a color reaction. The less color, the more positive a
sample is. Usually the enzyme is a peroxidase and the substrate is a
peroxide solution, resulting in a pretty blue color for negative samples.

Another testing system typically used in hospitals is the TDx or ADx
system. This system uses an automated format where a machine does all of
the sample and reagent manipulation. If you can find someone to explain
"fluorescent polarization" to you, then you'll know how this format works.
I don't know. I was supposed to go to a training class last fall, but got
sick and had to cancel.

Another format is called PCFIA - Particle Concentration Fluorescence
Immuno-Assay. I would go into details, but it's a pretty shitty test and
not used very widely.

> Fourth, how about this weird hair test?  (Give information like listed
> above for the urine tests)  BlockBuster video wasn't too cooperative...

As far as I know, the drugs are supposedly extracted from the hair, and the
extract is tested via whatever method the lab prefers. Last I heard, this
type of testing was *not* supported by the FDA or whoever is supposed to
regulate testing on humans in this country.

> Sixth, what is Golden Seal?  I currently have it listed as a diuretic for lack
> of a better description; if its really something else (like a drug screen)
> please tell me!

Never heard of it. But then, we usually don't hear about brand names, just
the official drug name.

> Seventh, does making the urine really acidic make all urine tests fail?

> Somebody sent mail claiming that drinking a quart of vinegar to make one's
> piss acidic, the day before the test, would make a false negative appear
> as if by magic.

As far as ELISA assays go, acidic samples give false *positives* like you
wouldn't believe. But if a sample shows up suspicious on a bunch of tests,
the lab will check the pH of the sample, adjust it towards neutral, and
rerun all the assays(at least if they're worth a shit, they'll recheck it).
The TDx system seems to be pretty pH independent. PCFIA's are all supossed
to be extracted(unless the lab is real lazy), so pH doesn't matter there.

> Eighth, everyone think of diuretics and post em.  I've got: coffee, tea,
> beer, Lasix.  Feel free to post more, or to disagree with already posted
> diuretics.  Apparently vinegar is not a diuretic, so I now have a list of
> non-diuretics believed to be diuretics included.  Also, medical
> information about Lasix would not be out of the question, either.
>

Ethacrynic Acid, but I don't know a brand name. I think coffee and tea make
you piss just because of the caffeine. If that's the case, you might as
well take a Vivarin or two.

> Ninth, anybody know exactly what test can be used to detect LSD in the
> body up to one week after intake?  Please give information as to how the
> test works.
>

Hmm, I've never even heard of an LSD test period, but then I guess nobody's
worried about trainers giving it to dogs or horses.

>Tenth, does anyone know what substances the Armed Forces check for, and
>(if you know this for certain) what tests they use?  I was given to
>understand that they are so strict, that they even test for LSD; so
>including the Armed Forces drug tests on the FAQ seems a good idea.

The CAP (College of American Pharmacologists) has a regimen of drugs you
have to test for if you want to do human testing. Last year this list
included:

Amphetamine, Methamphetamine, Cocaine (the test is actually for the
metabolite), THC, Opiates (morphine based drugs, including codeine), and PCP.

CAP also lists concentrations in urine to use as cutoff levels to decide
whether or not to pursue a sample further. They are:

Amphetamine/Methamphetamine:            500 ng/ml
Cocaine metabolite (benzoylecgonine)    350 ng/ml
THC metabolite                           20 ng/ml
Phencyclidine(PCP)                       25 ng/ml
Total Morphine group                    350 ng/ml

Note that these are concentrations in urine.

All labs the test humans have to test for these drugs, but may include
others.

How do I know all this, you may wonder? :-)

For the past two years I've supervised a lab that does immunoassay testing
on horses and dogs from race tracks. We also dabbled in getting certified
for human testing, but(gladly, for me :) decided not to mess with it.

Feel free to post any info here, but I'd appreciate it if you said I was an
anonymous source. The school administration might not appreciate my use of
lab resources(this computer, for instance) to tell the world all about how
drug testing works. I have loads more info(like sensitivities and such) if
you want it, but no time to sit and type it all right now. Just mail me
with specific questions, that'll probably work best.

later

[As per his instructions, the lab attendant is anonymous.]

-----
Drug Testing Anecdotes & Alt.Drugs posts (from UseNet NEWS)

---
This article is a keeper! [Otherwise, I would not have typed it in. :-)]
It provides hard data on often-disputed issues and cites sources. Since
only 120,000 people read Investor's Business Daily, and since the article
is several days old and not easily found, I am posting it to newsgroups
that have some interest in employment, business, and politics.

from Investor's Business Daily, November 1, 1991, page 8:
[w/o permission]

> DOES RANDOM DRUG TESTING PAY? DON'T COUNT ON IT
>
> Some employers say they do better finding users on their own, that
> mandated testing costs too much.
>
> By Alexa Bell
> Investor's Business Daily
>
> Next year, R. F. White Co. will begin randomly testing its 30 truck
> drivers for illegal drug use, as federal law requires.
>
> Despite the company's strong concerns about driver impairment, it
> considers the tests a waste of money.
>
> The Upland, Calif., petroleum distributor already tests drivers daily
> for impairment with a coordination test. It considers this test far
> superior to random urine analysis, which it views as an invasion of
> privacy and ineffective in detecting dangerous drivers.
>
> "We could test the same honest person two times but miss the bulk of the
> work force," said Vice President Darry White. "I believe the money would
> be better spent on day-to-day employee (performance) testing."
>
> White is one of many employers who must soon implement random drug testing
> as a result of federal regulations. This week, President Bush signed into
> law a bill that requires random testing of all transportation and
> mass-transit employees involved in safety-sensitive jobs. The law extends
> and codifies existing regulations, some of which until recently had been
> tied up in the courts.
>
> Under the law, approximately six million transportation workers will be
> subject to random testing, a requirement that may cost transportation
> employers as much as $1 billion annually, according to Todd Spencer,
> communications director of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers
> Association in Grain Valley, Mo.
>
> Federal regulations already require drug testing of federal employees and
> employees of companies with government contracts. As a result of this
> regulation and growing national concern about drug abuse, 50% of Fortune
> 500 companies now test at least some of their employees, according to the
> National Institute of Drug Abuse, a federal agency.
>
> Despite the widespread acceptance of drug testing, and despite reams of
> anti-drug data supplied by non-profit organizations and government bureaus
> enlisted in the war against drugs, employers like White have little
> expectation that drug tests will boost worker safety and performance.
>
> "Random testing doesn't tell us day-to-day if he is impaired or if he is
> under the influence of a substance," White said.
>
> Many of those who criticize random drug testing - which costs between $20
> and $95 per employee - cite low positive rates as evidence that such
> testing is not effective.
>
> The aviation industry - required by federal regulation to give random,
> pre-employment, reasonable cause, post accident, and periodic drug tests
> in safety-sensitive jobs - found an overall positive rate of 0.4% among
> tested employees in 1990, according to Department of Transportation data.
> No data on cost or accident rates have been collected by the department.
>
> Some outside the transportation industry are also starting to question
> the wisdom of random drug testing.
>
> The House Subcommittee on the Civil Service, for instance, recently
> published a study showing that out of 28,872 federal employees, only 153
> employees, or 0.5%, tested positive for illegal drugs.
>
> The testing cost the government $11.7 million for the year under study.
> This translated to $77,000 per positive result. Because of the low hit
> rate, the study concludes, "Drug testing is an expensive proposition
> which yields few drug users."
>
> The National Institute on Drug Abuse, which provides assistance to
> employers trying to create anti-drug policies, acknowledges that that
> (sic) there isn't a lot of evidence that mandatory testing is cost
> effective for businesses either.
>
> "There is not a low of data there," said Dennis Crouch, a toxicologist
> at the institute. "The rationale is not cost but the intangibles of
> safety and maintaining an environment that everyone is comfortable with."
>
> Critics of drug testing argue the current federal emphasis on drug
> testing is based more on philosophical opposition to drugs stemming from
> the Reagan White House than on sound data that drug use is hurting
> business.
>
> In particular, critics attack a widely quoted report by the Research
> Triangle Institute that in 1980 estimated economic cost of drug abuse to
> be about $35 billion.
>
> This statistic - an estimate of the difference in earnings between
> chronic marijuana users and the general population - has been frequently
> used by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and others to illustrate the
> damage drug abuse is causing business.
>
> But that is misreading the data, says their author, Henrick Harwood, now
> a policy analyst with the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy.
>
> "It definitely did not estimate the cost to business," Harwood said. "It
> has been misused by a number of people who fail to understand that. Most
> of the costs would primarily accrue to the drug users and to their family
> members."
>
> Studies showing drug users have higher rates of absenteeism, accidents
> and health-related expense have come under attack as well.
>
> Dr. John P. Morgan, professor of medicine and acting chair of
> pharmacology at City University of New York, accuses many researchers of
> taking data from highly impaired groups, such as workers involved with
> employee assistance programs or those tested for drugs due to poor work
> performance, and generalizing out to all positive-testing employees.
>
> He also claims that studies which show little difference between positive
> testers and negative testers are ignored.
>
> "The drug-test sellers base their statistics on people in treatment
> programs," he said. "They don't want to deal with the fact that most
> users are occasional users."
>
> In the trucking industry, employers have already been successful in
> weeding out drug abusers from their ranks through careful hiring
> procedures and observation of drivers, claims Spencer.
>
> "In reality, there are very few instances of truckers who abuse drugs,"
> he said. "Truckers have the most to lose from any vehicle run by drug
> users on the road."
>
> But don't expect many to buck the current political climate and go public
> with their opinions of drug testing.
>
> "If you say it's not cost-effective, you run the risk of saying you
> support drug users on the road," he added.

---
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 91 13:38:14 -0700
From: Lamont Granquist <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: How do you beat a drug test?
To: [e-mail]
Message-id: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
References: <[e-mail]>

In alt.drugs you write:
>I've been combining all the "How To Beat A Drug Test" information into one
>large FAQ.  If anyone can think of anything besides the usual "drink lots
>of water, but in moderation, plus diuretics if you don't have kidney
>problems, diabetes, or pregnancy" method of flushing one's system, I'd
>appreciate some E-mail as to your new sources.  No matter how small you
>think it is, if it will help make another false negative it is good
>information.

There's been some studies made on what different adulterants do to urine
samples on different tests.  You might want to check some of those out.
Also, any info you can get on Lasix would be good.  Naturally the max time
a metabolite can be detected would be good, and the cross-reactivity tables
also (you've hopefully got those--I can probably find them if you don't).
Another thing that might be useful is the different kinds of tests:  RIA,
EMIT, GC/MS, blood, hair, etc.  I've got some files which aren't yet in the
ftp site which you might find useful.

Also, mentioning little details like:  the fact that if they test for
morphine, they also test for heroin (because heroin is diacetyl-morphine
(sp?)), if they test for psilocybin or psilocyin (definitely sp) then they
test for shrooms. And other little things that casual readers of alt.drugs
might not know.

---
Well, my friend passed his drug test and got the job.  He just drank 2
quarts of water the morning of the test.  The test required him to produce
60 cc of urine, and the nurse gave him four minutes and made sure the
temp of the sample was between 90-98 degrees.  Also she noted that his
specimin was almost clear.  She was careful not to allow soap in the
bathroom while he was in there, and the toilet water was blue colored.

He had smoked pot on two occasions within a week and a half of the test.
He is not a regular smoker.

thanks to all for the help, and I hope this info helps somebody else out.
---
Date: 2 Oct 91 11:51:00 EDT
From: Keith Lewis <[e-mail]>
Subject: How do you beat a drug test?
To: kudwarf <[e-mail]>

Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA

...the Zinc Sulfate method detailed in the  drug test
pamphlet put out by NORML.  I don't have the pamphlet handy, but the jist of
it is you should take 1000% of the recommended dosage of Zinc, in the form of
Zinc sulfate (available in some Zinc vitamins).  The Zinc Sulfate basically
makes the THC metabolite come out in the feces rather than the urine.

A friend of mine once took a drug test 36 hours after smoking pot and
came out negative.  He took Zinc Sulfate and drank water.

Keith Lewis             [e-mail]          "Mr. Cheap"
George Bush's "ideal police officer" thinks supreme court justice nominee
Clarence Thomas, a former casual drug user, should have been shot long ago.
---
From:   IN%"[e-mail]"  "The kids they dance and shake their bones. 07-Oct-1991 1403"  7-OCT-1991 13:04:46.90
To:     IN%"'[e-mail]'nm@decwrl::'[e-mail]'"
Subj:   info you requested
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 91 11:04:00 PDT
From: "The kids they dance and shake their bones. 07-Oct-1991 1403"
 <[e-mail]>
Subject: info you requested
To: "[e-mail]"nm@decwrl::"[e-mail]"
Apparently-To: [e-mail], [e-mail]

i personally know of two friends who have passed drug tests within approximately
36 hours of smoking marijuana by taking Golden Seal [root]

---
[e-mail] (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>>[e-mail] (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>> An employee's drug-use has the potential to affect their on-the-job
>>> performance. No similar potential exists among blacks or homosexuals.
>>> An individual should not be forced to work with people who have drug-habits
>>> that might interfere with their job performance.

>> Piss testing simply isn't effective at eliminating those with the evil
>> "drug habits", meanwhile impairment testing is effective at reducing on-the
>> job injury and accidents.

>Impairment testing cannot detect on-the-job drug-use unless the test is
>performed while the subject is "high".

What does on-the-job drug use mean to you?  This is the strangest argument
I've seen yet.  To the extent that "high" correlates with "impairment" then
an impairment tester will detect it.  Bound up in this is something that
probably hasn't occurred to you but if you want to at least have a
consistent, rational argument, I'll offer it to you, gratis.  Some drugs
actually enhance performence.  Among these drugs are methamphetamines.
Long term, chronic use can degrade performance -- which would show up on
an impairment tester -- but occasional or moderate use would actually
result in a more wide-awake, energetic employee.  Thus, the impairment
tester wouldn't detect this use.

By the way, did you know that, with the time lag that exists with the
buildup of the metabolite, it is possible to be wasted out of your head
on marijuana and test negative on a piss test?  Couldn't happen with
an impairment test.

Please remember, Doug, that the metabolite test that you value so highly
will mostly detect casual marijuana users.  Casual cocaine users have
an easier time beating the test.  Also, users of heavy psychedelics can
beat the test.  And who knows what new generation of drugs will be
cooked up to beat the metabolite test.

>> Also, please be consistant and require testing for those who like to drink
>> wine catch a little buzz and have wild crazy sex every night.  Substitute
>> "smoke pot" for "drink wine" and its clear the two are equivalent.

>I've made no distinction between legal and illicit drug-use.

Even after all this time you still don't know that the metabolite test
isn't worth much for much besides marijuana and is virtually useless for
alcohol?

I've given lectures on the subject of metabolite tests versus impairment
tests and at the conclusion I've asked the audience what form of test
they would choose to give THEIR employees if it was THEIR money on the
line.  Ideology becomes vastly less important when it becomes a matter
of dollars and cents and simple pragmatics.  My audience has invariably
chosen, overwhelmingly, in favor of impairment tests.

I might add that it seems that the huge companies continue to drug test
because their interest is more with public relations and or politics and
they can afford to be inefficient.  Smaller companies operate closer to
failure at any given moment and have closer margins -- impairment testing
seems to be making its inroads there because of its demonstrable superiority.

Face it, Doug -- when you strip away all of your unsupported arguments
what remains is that you have an ideological thing about marijuana users.
This is OK -- but it would be more honest if you just stated it.
--
paul hager              [e-mail]
---
-----
Legal Aspects of Drug Testing
-----
In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Doug
Holtsinger) writes:

> The claim has often been advanced that off-the-job drug use has nothing to
> do with on-the-job performance (a claim which I do not agree with). If
> that is the case, then why shouldn't drug users come under the protection
> of EEO and affirmative action programs?
>
> If drug use does not affect performance, then there should be no logical
> reason for employers to discriminate against drug users, other than the
> fact that drug users are breaking the law. If drugs were legalized, then
> employers could not discriminate against users on this basis. EEO and
> affirmative action programs have generally protected those people who have
> been subjected to a continuing pattern of discrimination, and where the
> basis for discrimination has no bearing on job performance. Obviously, drug
> users qualify under both categories, and so it seems logical that they
> should be protected by legislation, assuming that drugs were legalized.

Is this for or against affirmative action for drug users?  You first
paragraph sounds against it, while the rest sounds for it.  Anyway, a
rebuttal to the first paragraph follows:

Job performance is usually affected by a lot of factors, not just drug use
during or shortly before work.  Stress, hangovers, fighting with the wife,
all these can affect productivity and on-the-job safety.  A test is needed
to catch all these factors, and either being let off on sick leave, or
company-sponsored psychiatric help to assist with the problem.  Such a test
is called an impairment test, one which judges your ability to work
productively and safely. The current test only looks for drug use, avoiding
all the other factors including use of legal drugs.  Since drug use can be
detected well after any of the effects affecting safety and productivity,
such tests only determine drug use, not current inability to work.  Thus,
drug testing actively discriminates against drug users, as well as people
who have happened to use any number of cross-reactive substances leaving
behind drug metabolites (for example, ibuprofen, a common analgesic, leaves
marijuana metabolites, causing a false positive for marijuana), and people
who have come in contact with drug users (again using marijuana, breathing
secondhand smoke will cause a false positive, as well as the totally
discriminatory hair test, which can detect people who have passed through a
marijuana cloud while holding their breaths).

Drug testing is useless as an accurate predictor of drug use (my "Beating A
Drug Test FAQ comes out in a few weeks), detects drug use whether or not the
applicant/employee used them the day of the test or weeks before (i.e., no
current impairment tested, just use), and totally misses all the other factors
which can cause impairment of work safety and productivity.

As such, if drugs were legal, then companies using drug testing and no
impairment testing would be subject to quite a few lawsuits from people who had
been discriminated against for smoking one joint weeks before, or taking
ibuprofen that morning for a headache, or accidentally getting some secondhand
smoke.  Lawsuits that they would win, were drugs legal.

Leo Mauler
[e-mail]
-----
[e-mail] (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Lamont Granquist) writes:
>>[e-mail] (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>>> The NY Subway accident is an excellent example of how impairment testing
>>> can fail. Unless you test the person while they're high on drugs, there's
>>> no way you can detect on-the-job drug use. A subway driver could pass an
>>> impairment test, get on the train, light up their crack pipe, and "come
>>> down" from their high before they get tested again.

>> Of course, but you have a better method?

>Use drug testing in addition to impairment testing. The combination of the two
>may not "catch" all instances of on-the-job drug use, but it's better than
>using either method alone.

Let's define our terms.  For one thing, lets break "drug testing" down
into its various forms and then we can all be talking about the same
thing:

o       metabolite testing: the familiar piss test.  Has no correlation
        with on-the-job use.
o       hair/nail testing: also has no correlation with on-the-job use.
o       blood test: would be used to detect presence of drugs at or
        above the ED50 level.  This WOULD correlate with on-the-job use
        insofar as presence of the actual drug at effective levels in
        the blood would be _prima facie_ evidence of "intoxication".

Having broken things down in this fashion, if you mean blood testing,
then, of course, you are correct.  Funny thing is that no employer seems
to want to REALLY check if people are under the influence ON THE JOB by
using a blood test -- instead they want to find out who blew pot at home
last Friday.
--
paul hager              [e-mail]
-----
[e-mail] (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

>>>>    An employee's sleeping habits have the potential to affect their
>>>> on-the-job performance. No one should be forced to work with people
>>>> who have sleeping habits that might interfere with their job performance.

>>> Yes, I agree.
>
>>>>     An employee's eating habits will affect their health, and thus their
>>>> performance on the job. No one should be forced to work with anyone who
>>>> is not a strict vegetarian.
>
>>> Yes, you are correct.

>>> All of your statements presume that it would be profitable for a company
>>> to discriminate against job applicants on the basis of personal habits
>>> which have little correlation with job performance.

>> He just said that sleep habits affect job performance, and they do, and you
>> agree.

>I agree that employers should be allowed to discriminate against those
>people with poor sleeping habits, if employers find that it affects their
>on-the-job performance.

One of the best ways to detect this objectively is with a performance
tester.  Does this mean you are ready to endorse impairment/performance
testing?

>My own personal opinion is that sleeping habits have little correlation with
>job performance.

Your personal opinion is in error.  In scanning over several years of the
publication, _Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine_, the problems
of poor sleep hygiene, hypersomnia, insomnia, and other sleep-related
difficulties have been identified as MAJOR problems affecting performance.
Hypersomnia, alone, in one paper, was identified as affected over 4% of
pilots -- and when one considers that drug tests only turn up a 0.5%
positive rate it suggests something about the magnitude of the "sleepiness"
problem.

And, of course, there was the Dec 17, 1990 issue of _Time_ that dealt
with American's sleep problems and cited expert opinion that it was
a problem as severe as alcohol abuse in terms of accidents and lost
productivity.

You seem to be long on assertions and opinions and extraordinarily short
on facts.

>These are two different statements.

>> He just said that eating habits affect job performance, and they do,
>> and you agreed.

>I agree that employers should be allowed to discriminate against those people
>with poor eating habits, if employers find that it affects their on-the-job
>performance.

How will you know that it affects performance.  To approach eating in
the same way as off-the-job drug use would be to spy on employees when
off the job and fire anyone eating "prohibitted" food.

>My own personal opinion is that eating habits have little correlation with
>job performance.

I'm going to let you off on this one, Doug, because I don't really have
the figures that would correlate diabetis, heart disease, circulatory
problems and other overeating-related disorders to job performance.
However, it is clear that your opinion here is no better than your
opinion about the extent to which lack of sleep affects job performance.

>These are two different statements.

>> Then he said that what is the difference between drug habits,
>> eating habits, and sleeping habits if they all affect job performance.  You
>> promptly replied saying that only drug habits affect job performance, while
>> eating and sleeping habits do not.

>No, I said that it was my opinion that eating, sleeping, and sexual habits
>have little correlation with job performance. I have also repeatedly pointed
>out that drug habits may affect performance, but that's something that the
>employer should decide, not me or you or anyone else. Indeed, if ANY personal
>habit affects performance, then the employer should be free to discriminate
>against people who have those particular habits, regardless of my own opinion
>as to whether they affect performance. The employer is the best judge,
>I'm not, and neither are you.

I see that your opinion proceeds majestically on, irrespective of the
facts.

>Apparently, you can't distinguish between my own personal opinion on the
>habits which correlate with performance problems, and my statement that
>employers should be free to discriminate on the basis of any habit,
>irrespective of my own opinion.

You have made it a point to state your opinions.  They are substantially
at variance with reality.  If you were stating that employers have the
right to be wrong -- in short, a Libertarian position -- I might still
disagree but there would be a philosophical basis for your position.
But you try to justify your position by resort to pronouncements that
are totally wrong.  You say, illegal drugs are a big problem, much
bigger than sleep, legal drugs, etc., etc. and that there is a special
need for these very wise and all-knowing corporate types to protect
themselves.  And you weasel out from the consequences of this grant
of authority to companies by saying, oh, don't worry, they aren't going
to invade your privacy in other areas because they don't need to.

Dream on.
--
paul hager              [e-mail]
-----
[e-mail] (Doug Holtsinger) writes:

>The claim has often been advanced that off-the-job drug use has nothing to
>do with on-the-job performance (a claim which I do not agree with). If
>that is the case, then why shouldn't drug users come under the protection
>of EEO and affirmative action programs?

As to the reality of off the job drug use -- I assume you mean illegal
drug use -- affecting job performance, this is data dependent and easily
determined with a little research.  The two peer-reviewed studies that have
been done on this have arrived at two different conclusions.  The Mercer
School of Medicine, in a study conducted by David C. Parrish followed
180 hospital employees, 22 of who tested positive after being hired.  At
the end of one year _no difference_ was found between drug positive and
drug negative and drug positive employees.  Eleven of the negatives,
however, had been fired during the evaluation period and none of the
positives.  JAMA published a study of postal workers -- this was the
second study -- headed by Craig Zwerling.  This study was of 2537
postal workers.  Although the level of "reduced performance" found was
much lower than that used to justify drug testing, it was still deemed
to be statistically significant.  HOWEVER,

o       they admitted that they didn't control for alcohol use (see
        JAMA, Vol 264, No. 20, p. 2643)
o       the study failed to control for racial bias in firing (see
        Scientific American, "Postal Mortem", Vol 264, No. 2 pp. 22-
        23)
o       the studies methodology for accident calculation was highly
        suspect (Scientific American, ibid)

While Mr. Holtsinger may not agree that off the job drug use is
irrelevant, there is a real dearth of information to support his
position: there is only the widespread hysteria whipped up by drug
warriors and that has virtually zero information content.

Regarding the EEOC intervening -- I assume Mr. Holtsinger is being
facetious.  Illegal drug users are not a protected class -- in fact,
only ethnic minorities, the handicapped, and women are protected classes
(add religion to the list -- discrimination on the basis of religion is
verboten, too).  However, several states now have laws on the books that
explicitely protect cigarette/tobacco smokers' use of their drug off
the job but this does not fall under EEOC guidelines which are Federal.

Mr. Holtsinger should realize that, overwhelmingly, the drug that is
detected by drug testing is marijuana.  The scientific evidence is so
solid that this drug is benign -- indeed one of the safest around --
that its continued illegality is without rational foundation.  Even
the NIDA recognizes that vast amounts of money have been spent over the
years in the attempt to prove that marijuana is harmful, to no avail.

>If drug use does not affect performance, then there should be no
>logical reason for employers to discriminate against drug users, other
>than the fact that drug users are breaking the law. If drugs were
>legalized, then employers could not discriminate against users on this
>basis. EEO and affirmative action programs have generally protected
>those people who have been subjected to a continuing pattern of
>discrimination, and where the basis for discrimination has no bearing
>on job performance.  Obviously, drug users qualify under both
>categories, and so it seems logical that they should be protected by
>legislation, assuming that drugs were legalized.

There is no logical reason for employers to discriminate.  I and others
have presented effective and very cheap alternatives to the metabolite
drug test which currently facilitates the "discrimination".  A pragmatic
company should always choose impairment testing over the metabolite test,
yet very few do, so far.  However, as to the main thrust of your argument,
I believe that there should be a bill of rights, so to speak, for
workers.  However, my Libertarian friends would disagree with this and
with your argument.  They would also eschew the operations of the EEOC.

However, as a practical matter, were marijuana legal and were legislatures
to move to protect marijuana users as they have tobacco users (off the job,
that is), then that would effectively be the end of the metabolite drug
test because the already abysmal economics of the test would become
truly horrendous.  There was no drug testing in Alaska until the recent
referendum that recriminalized (temporarily) marijuana -- a case in point.
--
paul hager              [e-mail]
-----

-----
Legal Drugs
  Alcohol
-----
GEORGIA PROFS SEARCH FOR ANTI-DUI DRUG
by Rosalyn Thompson
_The Red & Black_, U. of Georgia

If research by two U. of Georgia professors goes as planned, students
someday may be able to buy a powder from the local drugstore that will
lower their blood alcohol levels so they can drive home safely.
  David Whitmire, a chemical engineer, and Larry Cornelius, a professor of
small animal medicine, are conducting lab experiments designed to combat
the effects of alcohol by removing ethanol from the bloodstream.
  If it receives FDA approval, Whitmire's enzyme could be available in
hospital emergency rooms in the next two to three years.
  Whitmire hopes to have his secret formula patented by Christmas.  The
product could reach the market as early as 1998.
  The biggest drawback to the research has been its cost.  Whitmire said
one does can cost up to $20,000.
  Whitmire said the enzyme's most important use would be in emergency
rooms, where patients must wait for surgery because the mixture of alcohol
and anesthesia can be fatal.
  But he hopes that the enzymes potential commercial success will lead to
less havoc in those emergency rooms.
  "Some people have pointed out to me that it's a license to drink,"
Whitmire said.  "But that's the person's choice.  It really only has one
function--to sober you up."
--
Article taken from U., The National College Newspaper, September 1991.
-----
In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Tony Pulokas) writes:
>>>> I would also like to know what is the proof of most American beer?

A couple years ago I saw this in rec.food.drink.  Although last time I
saw this posted noone could remember the source of the information,
spot checks suggest that it's at least relatively correct.
It may have been originally posted by Karl Nyberg ([e-mail]).

Long, long, ago, [e-mail] (Boyce Byerly ) wrote:
#
#Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
#
#       I know there's not a specific limit on the strength of beer
#sold in a state. [...] It could be the case a state limits the
#proof of alcohol PRODUCED there.  [...]
#
#To answer any more questions, here's a list I copied down off this
#news group some months ago.   It's long, but I found it a pretty
#interesting reference.  Forgive me if you've seen it before.  A
#gentleman named Karl Nyberg ([e-mail]) posted it.

Brand                           Alcohol by  Content by   Proof
                                Weight      Volume
-----                           ----------  -----------  ------
Amstel Light                     2.90        3.63         7.25
Anchor Stearn Beer               3.58        4.48         8.95
Asahi Lager                      3.61        4.51         9.03
Bass & Co. Pale Ale              3.60        4.50         9.00
Beck's                           4.00        5.00        10.00
Black Label                      3.57        4.46         8.93
Black Label LA                   1.90        2.38         4.75
Budweiser                        3.73        4.66         9.33
Budweiser Light                  2.74        3.43         6.85
Busch                            3.72        4.65         9.30
Carlsberg                        3.39        4.92         9.84
Carlsberg Lager                  3.62        4.60         9.20
Colt 45 Malt Liquir              4.71        5.89        11.78
Coors                            3.61        4.51         9.03
Coors Light                      3.20        4.00         8.00
Dortmunder Union                 5.80        7.25        14.50
Dos Equis                        3.76        4.70         9.40
Dribeck's Light                  2.47        3.09         6.18
EKU Malt Liquor                  8.73       10.91        21.83
Elephant Malt Liquor             5.93        7.39        14.78
Geo Killian's Irish Red Ale      4.48        5.70        11.40
Golden Hawk Malt Liquor          5.16        6.45        12.90
Grizzly                          4.48        5.65        11.30
Guiness Gold Lager               3.34        4.24         8.48
Harley-Davidson Heavy Beer       4.12        5.15        10.30
Harp                             3.78        4.73         9.45
Heineken                         3.88        4.85         9.70
Hog Brew                         3.28        4.10         8.20
Labatt's 50 Ale                  3.97        4.96         9.93
Labatt's Pilsner Beer            3.83        4.79         9.58
Lone Star                        3.66        4.58         9.15
Lone Star Light                  2.79        3.49         6.98
Lowenbrau                        3.94        4.93         9.85
McEwan's Scotch Ale              3.59        4.48         8.96
Michelob                         3.96        4.95         9.90
Michelob Light                   3.32        4.15         8.30
Miller                           3.71        4.64         9.28
Miller Light                     3.35        4.19         8.38
Milwaukee's Best                 3.51        4.39         8.78
Milwaukee's Best Light           3.10        3.88         7.75
Molson Ale                       3.97        4.96         9.93
Moosehead                        3.91        4.89         9.78
Natural Light                    3.36        4.20         8.40
Olde Heurich Amber Lager         3.37        4.31         8.62
Olympia                          3.83        4.79         9.58
Olympia Light                    3.28        4.10         8.20
Pabst Blue Ribbon                3.76        4.70         9.40
Pabst Blue Ribbon Light          3.41        4.26         8.53
Pilsner Urquell                  3.34        4.18         8.35
Red, White and Blue              3.52        4.40         8.80
Rollng Rock                      3.75        4.69         9.38
St. Pauli Girl                   4.24        5.30        10.60
Samichlaus Bier                  9.16       11.80        23.60
Samuel Adams                     3.40        4.25         8.50
San Miguel Lager                 3.83        4.79         9.58
Schaefer                         3.52        4.40         8.80
Schlitz Malt Liquor              4.62        5.78        11.55
Schmidt's                        3.71        4.64         9.28
Schmidt's Light                  3.41        4.26         8.53
Schooner Doppelback              4.93        6.16        12.33
Stroh's                          3.64        4.55         9.10
Stroh's Light                    3.35        4.19         8.38
Stroh's Signature                3.91        4.89         9.78
Tuborg                           3.70        4.63         9.25
Whitbread Ale                    3.54        4.43         8.85
Young's London Ale               4.87        6.09        12.18
-----
References (Used Here And As Additional Sources)

NORML pamphlets, including Dale Gieringer's pamphlet published by
California NORML entitled, "Dealing With Urine Tests on Short Notice".
Obtain it from California NORML, 2215-R Market #278, San Francisco,
CA 94114, [phone].

"I'd also recommend checking out the work done by Dr. John P. Morgan of
the City University of New York Medical School.  Dr. Morgan is a
knowledgeable and articulate critic of drug testing and has identified a
number of ways of confusing the 1st stage of a metabolite test."
(no reference listed, just this quote; nothing from this source used in FAQ)

Abbie Hoffman's book, "Steal This Urine Test", 1987

Various Net.Posters and Net.Readers, including a nice Drug-Testing Lab
technician (you know who you are, but nobody but me knows you!).

**********

From: [e-mail] (Keith Lewis)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: How to Pass Polygraph?
Date: 21 Nov 91 15:18:33 GMT

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug McKenzie) writes:
>Would someone explain how to pass lie-detector tests?

I am opposed to polygraphs on two grounds.  First, that they are an invasion
of privacy, and second that they are unreliable.  In order to expedite their
obsolescence, I have written the following instruction sheet.

                     HOW TO PASS A LIE DETECTOR TEST

When someone hooks you up to a lie detector, they are measuring your physical
responses to psychological stimuli.  It's something like watching you to see if
you blush.  There are four levels they can measure.

1.  Your response when you are just sitting there, not being asked anything.

2.  Your response when you are asked a question you would have no reason to lie
about.  "What is your name?"

3.  Your response when asked a question they consider personal or
embarassing to most people.  "Have you ever wondered what it would be like
to have sex with your mother?"  I think only the government would have
enough nerve to actually do this.

4.  Your response to the questions they suspect you might lie about.

What they are looking for is whether your #4 responses are closer to #2 or #3,
and if the difference is significant with respect to #1.

If your response level to #3 is much higher than any of the others, you are
clearly telling the truth about #4.

If your responses to #1, #2, and #4 are low, and #3 is high, they think you
are telling the truth.

If your responses to #1, #2, #3, and #4 are all the same, they think that
you are either a psychopath or extremely well-adjusted and telling the
truth.

If your responses to #1 and #2 are low but #3 and #4 are high, they think
you are lying.

If your responses to #2, #3, and #4 are high, they think you are very
nervous and they call the result "inconclusive."

This last result is easiest for normal people to fake.  Just think about
something embarrasing every time they ask you a question.  Don't relax,
except between questions.

A more risky alternative would be to try to relax during the questions
you're going to lie about, but not during the "embarrasing" questions.  If
successful, this would produce the "normal truth" result they like the best.
If it failed, it would give the "lie" result.

If you take some sort of tranquilizer beforehand, you may be able to relax
enough to get the "psychopath" response.  It will probably not get you hired,
though.

One practice method would be to hook yourself up to an ohmmeter.  One wire
wrapped around your left index finger, the other wrapped around your right.
If the reading drops from (say) 100 K-Ohms to a third of that, you just
"lied."  Wear this into a police station, or a courtroom, or to your fathers
house, and practice lying.  See how you do.

Disclaimer:  I have never actually taken a lie detector test.  I learned this
from books and Psych courses.

**********

From: [e-mail] (Sol Lightman)
Newsgroups: alt.drugs
Subject: Re: Mj screening info wanted
Date: 26 Jul 1993 23:52:15 GMT

Using an as yet undetermined appendage Douglas Erwin - ERP ([e-mail]) wrote:

]there are a few things you can do:
]if you have at least two weeks you should be OK if you 1. are athletic i.e low body fat.
]& 2. flush your system

]1. Drinks lots of cranberry juice  2liters/day

Any aq. liquid will do (except, like, bong water :-)

]2. Take 1000mg Viatamin C ( both steps 1 & 2 break down THC in your fat cells)

Well, first off there is no THC in fat cells, but THC metabolite
(anyone know the metabolizing reaction for THC, btw?)  Second, I'm
not all too sure the C works this way.

]3. Take Golden Seal ROOT ( not Herb) in recomended dosages ASAP

Unproven, I understand.

]4. Drink lots of fluids - flush the old system

This is the best advice -- drink as much as humanly possible for the
remaining interval to the test.

]5. (optional if steps 1-4 are done consistanly for two weeks or more) Drink 1 shot glass of vinagar for ever 30lbs body weight the day of the test

I understand this is a UL.

]also I suggest arobic execersize to help burn fat and dispose of the thc through sweat.

Is there a study in lipid soluble metabolite dissipation through sweat?

Exercising might help IF you were to burn off the a lot of recently accumulated
fat.  I understand that a lot of the THC METABOLITES end up in these layers
(Correct me if I'm wrong...)

But I would NOT exercise the day of or before the test, as it might release
MORE metabolites than a low metabolic rate would and increase the concentration
in the donated sample.

Attached you will find the best file I have seen to date.  It has all the
tricks that really do work.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
I found the majority of this information through contact with NORML
in Washington.  IT is summarized, organized (mildly), and reprinted
here without permission.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

                       How to Piss and Pass
     -       -      ----=-=-<=======>-=-=-----      -        -

* Washing your system - How much water and for how long?
In an emergency you can start drinking water as soon as one hour before
the test, 4-6 hours is recommended. There is no known universal dosage,
but you should be urinating so often it is ridiculous. One drawback
is that watery urine is produced. Sometimes urine is rejected on the
basis of its color alone. Taking B-complex vitamins will help keep
the urine yellow.

* Drinking vinegar does not work.

* Urinaid is one additive that works every time.  Pour the contents of
the vail into your sample during the collection procedure.  Don't
drink it!  This method will not work on RIA - it won't pass military
tests.

* Visine does not work.

* Powdered urine from Byrd Labs works  fine for those not sure about
the integrity of a friends sample. Prepare ahead of time, directions
are included.

* Niacin and Golden Seal have shown encouragement, but they are
inconsistant. This urinator would not chance it.

* Don't rely on the ibuprofen alibi. Anyone who has taken enough
ibuprofen to cause a false positive above the 100ng cut-off (impossible)
can rest assured: The GC/MS confirmation tests will confirm that it is
indeed ibuprofen.

* The length of time or a THC positive varies. The average time for the
regular user is less than two weeks. Water is a good method for these
people, as insurance. An infrequent user should not have to worry
after a couple of days.

* Substitution is the most interesting and challenging approach. IF you
really hate the Bladder Cops, this can be quite gratifying. If you are
using a friend's urine, be sure you know what drugs they have taken over
the last month. There is no definitive test for amphetamines, OTC
remidies such as Contac and Alka-Seltzer are notorious. If you don't
list it, most any drug can get you into just as much trouble. For any
substitution be prepared to give 60cc. Also be sure it falls within the
91-97 degree temperature range. Most often the test containers have a
tape on the side indicating the samples temp. Whatever the container,
it must open quietly. Toilet paper is a convienient, provided,
insulator. Many collections require that you change into a `gown.'
By using a vial or condom taped to the inner thigh, you can get around
the gown as well as the temperature requirement. Most importantly -
practice! Practice until you have made it a fine art. a woman with a
shirt can fake urination even with an observer in the room. A man with
his back to an observer can do just as well. Abbie Hoffman suggested a
few drops of urine on the seat or on ones shoe as an added measure of
authenticity.

* If you can't pass the test - screw over the chain of custody. This
involves safety seals, signatures and treating your urine like serious
stuff. Act nervous. Sign the papers differently in different places.
Initial the wrong place and then scribble it out. If the official is
not paying attention, mark in the `do not mark' areas. These papers are
reviewed before analysis, if they are inconsistant, your sample will be
voided.

* If you fail the test, Raise hell. A urine test gone wrong can make a
passive person rabid. Don't take it to court. It is virtually impossible
to win a case, especially in pre-employment. All positive samples are
kept in the labs for two years.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Urinaid and Powered Urine are both available through Butterfield-Jay
Foundation, P.O. Box 57214, Oklahoma City, OK 73157. For more
information call (405) 521-URINE. A machine will answer. Calls will
be returned collect. Two samples for $25 or ten for $100, for both
products.

NORML operates a Drug Testing & Information Hotline. The charge is
$2.95 per minute.  900-97-NORML

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=




"Penalties against possession of a drug should be no more damaging to
an individual than the use of the drug itself."  - Jimmy Carter

Today repressive pot laws are still disrupting th elives and careers
of responsible, productive people - and wasting millions of tax dollars
on fruitless police and court action. Don't feel bad about trying to
beat the system. These are personal freedoms we are talking about. You
have hurt no one. Piss in a cup if you must, but don't lie down and be
whipped.




post this information anywhere you feel it will be useful.


thanks
>         Putting aside for the moment concern for a person's right/privilege
> to use mood-altering substances in the privacy of his/her own home, consider

deal. on one condition. while we are putting things aside, lets ditch
the stereotypes & preconceptions also.  good.  with all 'mood-altering'
substances equal - too bad alcohol dosen't linger in the urine weeks
after the fact. you could be fired because of a liesurly pizza & beer
weeks after the fact, regardless if you sobered up before 9 am monday.
fair?

> why it is that someone might be asked/required to submit to a urine test for
> drug use.  Such tests are most often required of employees by employers.
> But not all employers require such tests.  Why is this?  For some (the air
> lines, bus lines, etc.) the concern is for the public safety.  For others
> (manufacturing, sales, etc.) the concern may be for lost customers, damaged
> merchandise, injured coworkers, etc.  Whatever, reasons such as these seem

then test my ability to do the job!  there are many tests designed for
this.  most resemble a video game.  they test recognition, responce
time, and coordination - all before you clock in!  these tests take
minutes not weeks to evaluate.

test my ability to do the job - not what i did on vacation! so what if
i inhaled at the grateful dead concerts in DC last month. (BTW - aesome
shows, Bruce Hornsby showed up)  that has nothing to do with my saftey
on the job.  i was 900 miles away from my coworkers, i put none of them
to risk.  i arranged for a driver, i put no DC citizens or fellow dead-
heads to risk.  I can be fired for this?

> perfectly justifiable to me and it seems hypocritical and dishonest for
> someone who would accept employment in such settings, where there exists
> responsibility on the part of the employee to serve a collective, social

i have many responsibilities as an employee.  these don't include 'to
disrobe from the armpits to knees....in the presence of an observer'
which drug testers are more than welcome to force you to do.  they have
no intention to test my safety on the job.  they are trying to kick me
back into the job market, forever branded 'druggie'.

> capacity to look for ways to subvert and evade the system that tries to
> assure the collective good (at least within the workplace or the airplane
> or whatever).  It seems the height of selfish self-indulgence to think
> that it is ok to use someone else's urine or mask the presence of drugs in
> one's urine to maintain one's individual "freedom" at the expense of
> someone else's property/safety/life.

again - test my ability to do the job properly & safely _today_. don't
test what i did weeks ago against your unfair morals.
--
The University of Massachusetts at Amherst                |  _________,^-.
Cannabis Reform Coalition                               ( | )           ,>
S.A.O. Box #2                                            \|/           {
415 Student Union Building                              `-^-'           ?     )
UMASS, Amherst MA 01003      [e-mail]  |____________  `--~ ;
                                                                       \_,-__/
* To find out about our on-line library, mail a message with the
* pattern "{{{readme}}}" contained IN THE SUBJECT LINE.
* You will be mailed instructions; your message will be otherwise ignored

**********

Newsgroups: alt.drugs
From: [e-mail] (H-Man)
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1993 02:51:20 UTC
Subject:  Visine to defeat pot urine tests?

While MEDLINING (as opposed to MAINLINING) the other day, I came across a
very interesting ABSTRACT regarding PISS-TESTS.

Here is the DOPE:

TI: Mechanism of false-negative urine cannabinoid immunoassay screens by Visine
eyedrops
AU: Pearson-SD; Ash-KO; Urry-FM
SO: Clin-Chem. 1989 Apr; 35(4): 636-8

The abstract says that clean urine was dosed with various substances
then with Visine.  "Although measured concentrations of several drugs were
decreased in the presence of Visine, false-negative results were obtained
only for 9-carboxy-THC for the EMIT-d.a.u. and TDx urine cannabinoid
assays.  Visine also decrased 9-carboxy-THC as measured by the Abuscreen
assay."  Also: "The added Visine was not detectable by routine urine analysis
and had no effect on the activity of the assays."

An explanation of these effects is offered, but the bottom line is Visine
could save your job.

I've been unable to track down the real article.  If someone with a better
grasp of the chemistry of drug-testing could comment, or find the article,
I'd appreciate discussion.

If not, I'll work on it in a couple of weeks.  I don't like to post shaky
ideas, but it could be a timely aide for someone.

  |--########>--  H-Man  --<########--|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to [e-mail].
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to [e-mail].