Talk:Drug Test - Labcorp Drug Testing

GHB

Salvia

Would Salvia turn up on any of the four drug tests or would it come up as any other drug?

It sounds very unlikely. You'd need a chemist familiar with the metabolites of all of these drugs and those of salvia to answer that question for sure, as well as the workings of all the tests. 76.180.19.184 (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent notes

All major screening tests WILL detect hydrocodone, oxycodone, hydromorphone, etc.(NOT TRUE - MOST WILL NOT - IT HAS TO DO WITH THE CUT OFF LEVEL AND SPECIFICITY-THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE FOR OXYCODONE), and the GCMS confirmation will verify the presence of those drugs, but they are not reported on a NIDA panel. An interesting point is that, from the laboratory's point of view, they are positive. However, only the opiates morphine, codeine and 6-acetylmorphine (a heroin metabolite) are legally reportable under NIDA/SAMHSA rules. In other words, the lab knows the sample is positive for other opiates, but legally they can only report three drugs.

So, good job! --ZZYZX 07:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought hydromorphone and hydrocodone were synthesized from thebaine, which is a part of the papaver somniferum plant, however, an NIDA panel will indicate an inconclusive result if enough of either is detected, thus resulting in a confirmatory test. If desired, they do have confirmatory tests that can report the use of these metabolites.

You're right, the drugs you mentioned are opiates since they're synthesized from thebaine. But, as it has been explained to me, the lab can legally report ONLY three opiates for a NIDA test. That is morphine, codeine, and 6-acetylmorphine. There are plenty of other opiates and metabolites, but legal guidelines for the NIDA panel are in the way, not the technology. The federal government decides which drugs are *allowed* to be reported on this test. So even though the lab may see a bunch more drugs on the confirmation result, federal guidlines require they only report those three. So even if the person has a bunch of hydromorphone, hydrocodone, or oxycodone the lab can't legally report it. It's silly I know, but hey, that's the government for you.

So yeah, the lab has the ability to report all the drugs in the sample, but the federal government sets the rules for the NIDA panel, and the labs go by it. --ZZYZX 08:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Oral fluid testing

The detection time for cannabis was stated as being 2-3 days for blood and oral fluid, but when I checked the citation at http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_testing.shtml there were different sections for blood and saliva. While the detection time for blood was stated to be 2-3 days, the saliva sections stated "We do not currently have information about what the detection period is for these tests." â€"Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.116.228 (talk) 18:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Your claims on oral fluid testing are a bit difficult to swallow (sorry for the lousy pun!)(MAX DETECTION TIME AT 1-2 NG/ML SENSIVITIY IS 24 HOURS IN MOST CASES)

Generally, the detection period for oral fluid (saliva) varies tremendously on what you're looking for, but currently the research for cannabis (following consumption of a single standard marijuana cigarette @ 1.75% THC) shows a window of dection for at most 6 hours (cut-off limit at SAMSHA proposed guideline of 2 ng/mL). A more accurate statement is that it would test positive for hours up to 24/36 hours at most, and certainly much less for THC.

Additionally, there is insufficient data at this stage to say that it is as 'accurate' as urine testing, the limited data published to date has shown wide variability in sensitivity and specificity, especially for on-site testing devices, mnay of which have a detection limit for THC as high as 10,000ng/mL (ie 5000 times greater than the proposed confirmation cut-off).

This is based on the proceedings from Seoul last year of The International Association of Forensic Toxicologists, of which I am a member.

This just innÂ : scientific literature indicates that it is uncommon for occasional marijuana smokers to test positive for cannabinoid [metabolites in urine for longer than seven days" at 20 ng/ml or above on the EMIT (Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Technique)]

Looks legit.

Could note 2. be rewritten? For me, now, it is unclear to me if the urine is clean for 6-8 hours for all the drugs, so.... maybe a little rewrite?--PetterBudt 22:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

There is currently an edit war between anonymous users who are changing the detection window of a saliva test back and forth from days to months, someone should keep an eye on that and look for material to cite . Runderwo] 23:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: I think we should listen to what any forensic toxicologist (content above) has to say on drug testing matters. The original info that I got on drug testing, including detection times, I got from a Ph.D forensic toxicologist. This person out-ranks all of us, including me. He/she should be able to answer any questions we have, and we should take his/her statements seriously. --ZZYZX 05:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Aha, my almost fogotten post from several months ago. Nice to see it still kicking around.

Unfortunately, the detection times for oral fluid are still way off. Benzodiazepines are not expressed in any significant concentration, and detecting them is extremely difficult in oral fluid and should read "not able to be detected in routine analysis" (see http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13696283)

As to the Sympathomimetic amines (METH & MDMA), I haven't actually seen much data on timelines, but if there are any sources for these I'd like to see them (I suspect they're more or less educated guesses). I would have thought 48 hours was more realistic as an upper limit, given the plasma half life. (2-3 DAYS IS ABOUT RIGHT)

The point is you can detect anything if you look into the parts per billion range, but this requires very expensive and sophisticated equipment (like LC/MS/MS) which would never be done in a routine drug screening lab.

So..er...can someone who knows more about wikipedia than me make some changes?

NIDA 5

"Ecstacy (MDMA) may or may not be specifically tested for, but due to its structural similarity with methamphetamine (MDMA stands for methylene-dioxy-methamphetamine)"... but due what? I'm removing this sentence for the moment because it wasn't ever actually a sentence, but if whoever wrote it sees this again, please finish it. -Mulder416 17:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that. When I wrote it, it was a complete sentence. The point being that since meth and MDMA are structurally similar to each other, most screening tests for amphetamines will have a positive result for meth, even in absence of any actual methamphetamine. There is enough cross-reactivity to confuse the screening test. It all gets sorted out during confirmation, though. --ZZYZX 11:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Poppy seeds

I've heard many times that you should not eat anything with poppy seeds before taking a drug test, because you will test positive for opiates. It sounds like an urban legend to me, but if it is, it's a very prevalent one. (THIS IS NOT A LEGEND-POPPY SEEDS DO BREAK DOWN TO MORPHINE AND CAN BE DETECT DEPENDING UPON HOW MUCH AND WHEN YOU EAT THEM) Does anyone who is actually familiar with the subject have a definite answer about this? TomTheHand 20:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I do know that a cop once failed a random drug test after eating poppy-seed bagels. He was suspended for months before it was figured out.--Codenamecuckoo 10:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I know of a person who ate a lot of seeds and did not test positive. This do not prove anything but the fact that 1 person did not prove positive. If this is a 1 in 10 or 1 in a million occurence I do not know(can you say for a fact what is it?). Do you know if your example proved the drug test is 99.99% accurate or 9%? What is needed is a link to reports who tell how accurate the test are AND, in this case, how accurate it is when a non user eat puppy seeds.--PetterBudt 12:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems according to [Snopes] and [The Straight Dope] that poppy seeds can actually influence a drug test. TomTheHand 14:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I checked the links. Both are anectdotal at best. no links to hard research facts, So i suggest we add a line like "There is anectdotal evidence that poppy seeds might affect a drugtest, but no research have so far proven this." to speed stuff up a little, lets say the line gets added 1.april if noone objects.

The Snopes article is well-sourced. In addition, it seems the show Mythbusters tested this and found it to be true. That is, they took a drug test which came out clean, ate foods with poppy seeds, and tested positive for opiates for the rest of the day (they were tested every half hour). See here, about halfway down the page, for a summary of the experiment. TomTheHand 16:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Poppy seeds do indeed contain low quantities of morphine and codeine, and if you eat enough of them, you will test positive. A friend of mine told me of an elderly lady who was fired for testing positive for opiates. She called the lab and must have seemed convincing enough that they were willing to help her. After asking her various questions about her diet, they found that she had eaten half a dozen of poppy-seed cookies. She was of Jewish descent, and the cookies she ate were apparently a common Jewish dish. After the lab explained what had happened, she did get her job back. --ZZYZX 10:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this should probably be mentioned somewhere here, and sourced. It's probably the single most common false positive people receive on drug tests. There is really no doubt as to whether one can test positive for opiates after consuming poppies--see Mythbusters, for one, but consider also numerous reports that one can make potent (potentially lethal, if mis-measured) opiate tea from poppy seeds alone. 76.114.172.199 21:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it's important to note that since poppy seeds do, in fact, contain morphine, that it is not considered a "false positive" for a poppy eater to test positive. Drug screens are only able to detect substances in the sample and are not able to discern how they got there, and so, since eating poppy seeds does, in fact, introduce morphine into the sample, it is inaccurate to say that the result is a "false positive." It is a true positive that may lead to a false conclusion. --206.194.127.112 (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is pretty iffy. When I worked at LabCorp doing GC/MS, we had all of these booklets to read about this type of thing. It may be possible to fail the "dipstick" type inital screening, but I would highly doubt that you'd have enough morphine etc. in your urine to fail a GC/MS. They set the minimum "positive" levels of the tests much higher than you'd think. I couldn't tell you how many tests I ran that were technically positive but not reported as positive. I wonder if some of these stories have to do with people being fired based on the preliminary, dipstick test? Maxpower212 (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing on the Wikipedia poppy seed page about this. If it's a fact, it seems like it should be there too, with a proper citation, of course. Alanasings (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Original research

I removed a lot of original research from this article. I am fine with a rigorously cited analysis of criticisms of drug testing. Perhaps literature from civil libertarian groups or other reputable sources could be used. But some of the stuff that gets dumped in this article was pure bollox. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for randos to harp on the evils of drug testing. This is an encyclopedia. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 23:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I was required to take a urine test for employment yesterday. I informed them ibdo take oxycottin . well I get a call back today saying the test showednnegative for the ixy but positive for THC . Very upset as I DO NIT smoke have not for over 25 years. My roommate however dies and I have been in the same room I've lived with her for almost a month. So the answer is absolutely it can cause positive. She's not even a chain smoker per say and I litteraly do not sit close enough where its being blown in my face. I can't begin to say how upsetting this is. I'm a nurse and now I'm showing positive for something I don't do!! I'm so screwed!!! â€"Â Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbistrup (talk â€¢ contribs) 22:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Second Hand Marijuana Smoke

Can second hand marijuana smoke be detected in any of the four types of drug tests? If so, what are the time frames? Anyone have any conclusive answers?

That depends upon the length of exposure to the smoke and how much smoke is present in the air. A police officer busting a party where marijuana is being smoked is unlikely to inhale enough to cause a positive result. On the other hand, if you're in a small car for 4 hours with people who are chain-smoking it, you probably will. If you inhale enough marijuana smoke to get high, you will definitely test positive. --ZZYZX 10:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, even if you do manage to get high off of the smoke, (which is really very difficult even in a confined space - even the closed doors of a car will exchange some air, and smoke can settle fast) it's not really likely it'll remain in your system for long. Just use the charts at erowid and treat it like occasional recreation use. It's 3-4 weeks for the typical urine test for the chronic cannabis connoisseur, and about a week for an occasional exposure like this. Hair testing is fairly rare unless you're doing construction work or something. But I really wouldn't worry about it either way. 76.180.19.184 (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This web page gives some references to some medical testing that has been done on this subject. http://www.medscreen.co.uk/index.cfm?fuseaction=showFaq&asset_id=971 Kert01 (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

I deleted quite a bit of my own content here to save both space and the time of readers. If anyone has questions about any sections I removed, please ask me.

Also, I'd like to say that I do not agree with the statement that random drug testing is the "best return on investment" (or anything like it). I believe the best return on investment is the post-accident test, since it saves companies huge sums of money in court. In fact, I would argue that random testing is probably the WORST return on investment, since you have to test EVERY employee, very often. I think that line should be removed. --ZZYZX 08:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Not every employee. The idea is to test enough so that the chance of being caught after using a substance is high enough to discourage use - something like 5% of people per month. While the risk of being caught is low, it is out of the user's control and the consequences are severe. Facts on ROI from methods are required - and whether return is drug use reduction or capital protection.

Court Cases

Any references toward the US and other court systems toward use of Urinalysis by government agencies such as School, Police, Government Workers and the Military?--Nuke-Marine 23:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The relevant court case is Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives. It paved the way for randomized drug tests of employees in "safety sensitive" positions in the United States. I'll enter it into the article later this week if I get a chance. The dissenting opinion by justices Marshall and Brennan is particularly interesting. MoodyGroove 05:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

There is a complete absence of higher court rulings affirming the reliability of hair drug testing, either for positives or negatives. In other words, no widely controlling court (published decisions) has concluded a judge can rely on a hair test for drugs. In regards to the instant article, this is important because it appears the authors are taking for granted that such a test works. Nehmo (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Canabis detection

The detection periods for cannibis do not match either the Labcorp footnote(2) nor erowid(9). 64.253.9.187 (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)anon

As far as I know and managed to find on internet there is no way cannabis is detected in urine after 3 years, 3 weeks is more likely and with realy heavy and long time users 3 months but 3 years is too long right????(TYPICAL DETECTIN FOR THC IS 3-5 DAYS-SOMETIME THOUGH RARELY LONGER) Genius82 12:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't know what idiot changed it to 3 years, but there is absolutely NO evidence to support anything close to that value. I'm changing it back to 30 days.

--ZZYZX 10:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone keeps changing this. Now it's up to 2 months, which I've _never_ seen before. Just yesterday this page showed the period for cannabinoids to be 18-21 days for chronic users. The NORML article this page links to at the bottom reports the period is now thought to be around 3 weeks for heavy users. Not that NORML is the most objective source, but it would be against their interests to report bad facts on a sensitive matter such as this.

I was a daily heavy cannabis smoker for 8 years. I quit awhile back and I tested myself every couple of weeks with a immunoassay urine dip test. It took 5 months for me to get a good negative. At 3 months I got a very faint negative, but in subsequent testing there were times I would get a positive. I used no cleansers during this period. So, beware of claims that you will be negative in 30 days if you smoke potent cannabis daily.

This will depend on a number of things, including body fat and metabolism. Smokeat emptor.Â ;)

Maxpower212 (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean Caveat smokor.Â ;) â˜¸ MoilleadÃ³ir â˜Ž 04:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually thc can be detected for up to 3 years if your hair is tested and not your urine â€"Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.104.77 (talk) 02:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I just changed the detection period to what it is on erowid. They have research to back up their findings. Here's the site: http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_testing.shtml --Bigfootisreal (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know about the time that marijuana can produce a positive tests in saliva tests like the ones being used by victoria police in Australia. the information i have seen is 3 days. â€"Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.68.35 (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa, the statement that THC is detectable only 21 days is patently false. In fact, a statement that THC is only detectable for a month is patently false. The truth is (and I was a Medical Laboratory Technologist in the USArmy where we performed untold numbers of this type testing) that THC positive testing can extend as far as 81-88 days past your last usage. Don't fool yourself, lots of people are out of jobs, in violation of contracts, and in jail because they did not realize the durable and reliable length of THC testing. Ren99 (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

i have not been smoking for 8 weeks and 4 days to today, i tested myself with a 5 panel drug test (THC sensitivity 50ng/ml), i have definitily been a chronic user over the past 10 yrs, smoking extremely high grade cannabis up to four times a day (Rastafarian),,, todays test was a definite positive!!! i definitely oppose the 30 day clean theory, because i'm living prove... i hope that i will be clean in this coming month.. More research is needed in the detection period for chronic cannabis users.. i surely don't agree with erowid and the drug court findings.. â€" Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.248.45.49 (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I was a daily smoker for about 5 years and i tested clean after 16 days (50 ng/ml cut-off. 23 years old. average-fast metabolism. 18% bf) â€" Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.173.39 (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Cocaine Detection

Cocaine 1 to 3 daysÂ ? Wouldent 2-4 days be more accurate? From the cocaine article "Cocaine metabolites are detectable in urine for up to four days after cocaine is used." (TOO MANY VARIABLES TO SAY 2-4 DAYS FOR CERTAIN, BUT IN GENERAL- YES)

Yes. In fact, I can't imagine cocaine metabolites going away in urine after only 24 hours. Every lab I know of tests for the metabolite benzylecognine, which remains for at least 2 days. Perhaps the person who changed the original value from 2 to 1 day was thinking of cocaine itself, not its metabolite(s).

This probably shouldn't be included in the article, but concurrent alcohol/cocaine use can also be detected, as a unique drug complex (coca-ethylene) is produced in the body, and it's even more potent than cocaine. An equally unique metabolite is also produced, and can be detected in blood, urine, and hair. ZZYZX 12:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Somebody is screwing with it, because LabCorp says Cocaine only stays in your system for 2-4 days, not 300. â€"Preceding unsigned comment added by Tivaelydoc (talk â€¢ contribs) 22:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The difference between 1-3 days and 2-4 days is moot. Instrument error accounts for that small a range. Lab tests can nail heavy cocaine users and crack users at up to 10 days post-binge. Ren99 (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

   The metabolite of cocaine, benzoylecgonine, is screened by most of the testing labs. This shows in urine till 3 to 5 days, or even a month if the dose intake was heavy.   Taking adequate water helps in speedy elimination. On the other hand,alcohol and caffeinated drinks hold back this metabolite in the body and delay the elimination process.    .Alcohol mix extends..Benzo can be in up to 25 days. http://buddymd.com/benzoylecgonine-cocaine-drug-elimination-time-and-clearance

Citation for sweat patch false positives

If someone has the time, I found a citation for the problem with false positives with respect to the patch:

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/167/thepatch.shtm

I know it's a pro-drug site, but the article is based upon a legal case in Nevada. The procecution dropped a case against a female on probation after an expert witness admitted there were problems with this method of drug testing. If anyone here knows how find and cite legal cases, this would be an interesting one. In the meantime, I'm going to change the "citation needed" to an inline external link ZZYZX 12:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just fyi -- it's not a pro-drug site, it's an anti-drug war site. Big difference. --Xiaphias 20:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Commercial links

I removed the commercial links. Please see WP:EL and WP:NOT.MoodyGroove 23:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Shampoo Comment

I removed the following line from the article, since it had no source. If someone can source this, that'd be great.

There are shampoos currently on the market that can clean toxins from the hair.

Thanks, ^demon^{[omg plz]}Â 19:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Oxycontin

Does the table data for Codeine also emcompass Oxycontin, due to their high similarity? (ABSOLUTLY NOT - OXYCONTIN / OXYCODONE IS A SEPARATE SEMI-SYNTHETIC COMPOUND - MOST DRUGS SCREENS DO NOT DETECT) â€"The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.162.187.213 (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

I would say no. Oxycodone is metabolized into oxymorphone, so you'd have to look up the half-life of oxymorphone and find an opioid in the list that has a similar half-life. That should give you a reasonable estimate of detection time for oxycodone. Then. keep in mind that Oxy-Contin is a sustained-release formulation (12 hours IIRC), so that would likely add a day or two to the detection time. ZZYZX 07:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Methadone Detection

I'm going to be as careful as possible to say this in a way that I don't have to cite anything. . . Some time within the last year I read some information pertaining to dection of methadone in urine tests. It claimed that methadone, while it is an opiate, is not detected in a standard opiate test. It claimed that a methadone specific test needed to be done to detect it. Whether this is definately true or not, I won't try to say.

That being said, I took the risk with this information many times in the last year. I have been on random urine testing (3 per month now) during this year. I have taken methadone often, and it has never showed up in a UA.

It is possible that something will be different between my drug tests and someone else's, so please do not take this as an encyclopedic fact that you will not test positive. I am only posting my personal experience. If anyone can find this information from a reputable source, a citation would be more than welcome.

--Chronic Addict 01:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Methadone is more accurately named an "opioid" as opposed to an "opiate." While it behaves in a manner similar to opiates and, if I recall correctly, binds to the same receptors, its chemical structure is not remotely similar to morphine or any other opiate, and therefore it is impossible for it to trigger a positive opiate screen. If a screen finds methadone, it is only because the examiner was looking specifically for it. --206.194.127.112 (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Methadone is included in LabCorp's expanded GC/MS test, which is given after a positive on the preliminary test. (per personal work experience) Maxpower212 (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

help plz

how long does thc or cannabis or marijuana really stay in your blood system?

Interestingly, there has been some very recent research done (the name of the woman who did it escapes me at the moment) on this very subject. She tested chronic marijuana smokers and found that in a small percentage, it collects in fat tissues and therefore was able to detect it after seven days in blood. This was presented a few months ago at a conference and is, understandably, very controversial. The experiment has not yet been repeated, though, so for now the best anyone can say regarding the answer to this question is "let me get back to you." --206.194.127.112 (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

those are all the same thing dudeJJ Cool D 20:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Read the comments made under Cannabis. Ren99 (talk) 12:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

False positives/Negatives

This whole article works off the assumption that drug testing is 100% reliable to begin with. Is this really true? I was under the impression that a number of substances and circumstances can cause false positive and false negative results. 204.194.98.66 15:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)(THE DEVIL IS IN THE DEFINITION - TECHNICALLY, NO SUCH THING AS A FALSE POSITIVE WITH GC/MS OR LC/MS/MS, UNLESS MIRROR ISOMERS ARE INVOVLED-AND THEY DO EXIST, THAT'S WHY DOCS ARE ALSO INVOLVED.)This is incorrect and reflects a lack of experience with mass spectrometric drug testing - GC/MS and LCMS/MS decrease the probability of a false positive, but do not eliminate it. This is also highly dependent on the testing lab's method and validation criteria. For instance, high levels of oxycodone in a patient can lead to a positive result for codeine is proper attention is not paid to separating codeine from minor metabolites of oxycodone. There are several isobaric opiates that can be confused for each other or their metabolites if they are not chromatographically separated. Likewise ephedrine/pseudoephedrine can be confused if not chromatographically separated. These are issues that drug testing labs across the country have run into. 74.223.8.242 (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)JFE

I don't see how you think the article necessarily gives this impression. Introduce a section on false negatives and positives, if you find the research to make it solid. 76.114.172.199 21:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There are a number of quality controls in place to err on the side of caution. IME, without getting into too much detail, each test result is reviewed by at least 3 different people: the analyst (who only looks for clean test results, i.e. no errors in detection), a data reviewer (who basically also does the same), and a doctor who certifies it. Tests will be redone from scratch (i.e. re-aliquoted and re-extracted, then re-tested) if MS peaks aren't perfect peaks, if the ratio of peak signal:noise isn't 10:1, if maintenance hasn't been performed on a GC/MS in a certain amount of time, if the result isn't above a certain demonstrated minimum (LOQ), etc. I don't think the article means to imply that drug testing is 100% reliable, as no test really is. However, I think that there are a lot of precautions to ensure that the best results are sent for both the client company and the testee. The testing company doesn't want to send bad results to a client, but they also want to cover themselves in the result of a lawsuit and its subsequent scrutiny. Maxpower212 (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

References

It wouldn't hurt if someone could give references to detection periods, so we could just revert changes not consistent with any references.

As it is now, it seems a majority of the changes are just changing a 3 to a 5 or a weeks to a days. This of course makes me realize the contents of the article is more or less random as it stands today. VLE 10:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hair Alcohol Testing

I'm new to Wikipedia, so I didn't want to edit the article but I'm not sure that the points made in the hair alcohol testing section are wholly true:

A few of the laboratories in the UK that i'm aware of do not section hair for a month by month analysis due to the potential for such markers to be leeched out of the hair over time. Examples of this are:

     * See the 4th question down:

Can I recognise a pattern of abuse? No, because we do not section the hair month by month and carry out periodic analysis. Our research has shown this is unsound scientific practice because the markers can migrate along the hair shaft. http://www.surescreen.com/picture.php?prodid=HAAK

     * See the 4th paragraph down:

Unlike testing hair samples for drug misuse, it is not yet possible to rule out the effects of normal hygiene practices such as shampooing when analysing alcohol consumption over a period of many months. http://www.tricho-tech.co.uk/pages/dalcohol.htm

     *           o READ THE DISCUSSION SECTION:

As in previous investigations, concentrations of FAEE were also found in hair of teetotallers (AuwÃ¤rter et al., 2001Go). http://alcalc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/39/1/33

I think that it is also not true to note that the more of a biomarker is present, the more alcohol you have consumed. This surely varies depending on the unique metabolism of the individual - i.e some people's bodies break down the alcohol better than others.

The diagram seems to suggest that the concentration of alcohol in the various biological samples is measured and plotted against time. This contrasts with the text above it which suggests that biological markers are detected (and not alcohol). Due to the differing ways in which people metabolise alcohol it is impossible to quantify how much of a substance they have consumed from simply detecting biological markers, and thus the graph is flawed.

                 + SEE THIS INFORMATION FROM http://www.surescreen.com/list.php?cat=3#HAAK***

Can you determine how much alcohol a person has had monthly? No. Although we will give a value in our report, we can only say that the value exceeds our interpretation of the cut off level we have set, which is 60 grams of alcohol per day over a protracted period. We cannot interpret how much alcohol was actually consumed. To do so would be scientifically unsound because alcohol is metabolised in slightly different ways by different people.

All of this information might also influence the text on hair alcohol testing which is on the Drug Testing page.

Detection Time for Marijuana for Hair Testing

I'm not sure why it says the hair testing detection time for marijuana is 120 days, while it says all the others is 90. Can anyone find a source supporting this? I'm pretty positive that marijuana has a 90 day detection period just like other drugs. I have some pretty good sources so support this, but I'm looking around for a regulation document that may specify this.

--GSalvatore (talk) 02:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it stays in your hair pretty much forever, so until the time where the last haircut removes that last part of the follicle that picked up metabolites, the test is positive. Im not sure,but this is the impression from everything I have ever seen, heard, or read on the issue. Some people say it is why Britney Spears got her head shaved. Crd721 (talk) 06:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

They only cut off enough hair for it to detect use in the past 90 days for all drugs.--Bigfootisreal (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

General Information paragraph needs copyediting

The first paragraph under the first header, entitled "General Information About...", needs copyediting. It doesn't make sense as it currently stands. I don't know enough about the topic to do it myself. Bry9000 (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Blood testing

Hmm, seems a no-brainer that there should be a section on blood testing, but I don't seem to see one... If I have time, perhaps I'll add it. --206.194.127.112 (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Hi whats up

Speed up the liver

The removal, of some drugs that are removed from the body by the liver, can be sped up. You can incress the livers function by taking simple B vitamins, particuraly Niacin(nicotinic acid and vitamin B3), or a B complex vitamin. This allows the liver to gain the proper amounts of chemicals that it needs to function and remove toxins. â€"Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.21.48.7 (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source showing this is true??--Bigfootisreal (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Dual Method Category

It seems to me that there are two sections that describe the urine, hair, saliva, etc. tests. Does anybody else find this repetitive and needs to be removed? Cleric2145 (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Expanded Tests

Why not include these detection periods? I know companies don't test for all of them, but it's still information:

    1. Barbiturates (Phenobarbital, Secobarbitol, Butalbital)    2. Hydrocodone (Lortab, Vicodin)    3. Methaqualone (Quaaludes)    4. Benzodiazepines (Valium, Xanax, Librium, Serax, Rohypnol)    5. Methadone    6. Propoxyphene (Darvon compounds)    7. Ethanol (Alcohol)    8. MDMA (Ecstasy)

And another thing, LSD needs to be taken off, because NIDA 5 doesn't test for it. Same with Phenobarbital. What about Hash? I believe that stays in your system longer because it's more concentrated .

I'm just going to go ahead, whenever's clever, and delete the LSD and Phenobarbital, because they don't test for them. When somebody decides to research all the expanded drug test detection periods, I'll help fill them in later. Oh and a few more drugs that are hard to test for:

    1. LSD    2. Tryptamines (Psilocybin, AMT, DMT, DPT, 5-MeO-DiPT)    3. Phenethylamines (Mescaline, MDMA, MDA, MDE, 2C-B, 2C-T-7)    4. Inhalents (Toluene, Xylene, Benzene)  â€"Preceding unsigned comment added by Tivaelydoc (talk â€¢ contribs) 02:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sport

I think you should add a section about the new epidemic of spice and or k2. and how testing affects it. would be very hepful for a lot of people â€"Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.204.125.3 (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Is there any reason this article doesnâ€™t mention drug testing in sport? Seems like a huge oversight. â˜¸ MoilleadÃ³ir â˜Ž 04:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I added a link to a site that shows the drug tests used in sports but it was deleted. I am adding it again because it is an important aspect of this issue that is missing from this entry. â€"Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinarabaggy (talk â€¢ contribs) 07:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There's already an article Use_of_performance-enhancing_drugs_in_sport that covers it in section 11. But I agree it should have a link under See Also or suchlike. Lmcgregoruk (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

LabCorp Detection Periods

The information in the LabCorp brochure seems to be slightly off based on some research I have seen for detection times. Should I change these or just leave them how LabCorp has them? I think the LabCorp times are misleading, especially in saying that cannabis can be detected for 3 months. --Bigfootisreal (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I changed a few of them that differed in my research. If you want to change it back its totally fine or you can ask me and I'll do it. I'm kinda new to editing pages so if I did anything wrong, just let me know. Thanks. --Bigfootisreal (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

systematicbgcvbvcboxidant?

Something garbled has come up in the Urine drug screen section. I have no idea what "systematicbgcvbvcboxidant" was intended to mean, but if anyone does, please fix it. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 03:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

drug screen

will adipex show up in a drug screen â€"Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.72.98.114 (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Will Ketoconazole 2% shampoo (1/10th ounce used every day) be detected by a hair test as a prescription drug or will Ketoconazole 2% shampoo be flagged as an illegal drug?--Sponsion (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason such a thing would show up in any drug test unless the doctor specifically orders a test for it, which, seeing as it has no documented abuse potential, would be highly unusual and unorthodox medical practice. The only time such a thing might be tested for is in cases of potential interaction with another substance that result in illness. A test for Ketoconazole would be expensive and, essentially, useless in all but the most rare medical cases. Alex M (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

"poisons linked to behavioral health problems"

What exactly does this phrase mean? It shows up under the section "hair alcohol testing". Is it from something broader about detection of chemicals in hair in general, or is it some odd periphrasis for "drugs"? If the latter, it seems like biased language that should be corrected.

It's added in the revision dated 21:23, 24 February 2008, by 165.146.23.223, who has no other edits. The phrase at first reads ...poisons linked to behavioral health problems.[2], with the [2] seeming to refer to nothing, which makes it look like it was copy-pasted in from somewhere, though all other hits for the phrase seem to come from this article.

70.113.30.23 (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Mysterious paragraph

I have no idea what this paragraph is supposed to mean:

"The efficacy of urine testing is debatable due to systematic oxidant not generally available in the classic adulterants category because of its corrosive nature. Stealth is an enzyme system that generates hydrogen peroxide."

Can somebody who understands this please edit it to provide some context and proper grammar, or else delete it? 67.171.249.183 (talk) â€"Preceding undated comment added 04:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC).

Paruresis

Should paruresis also be listed as a major drug testing problem? After all, a sizable percentage of the population suffers from it. Tisane ^talk/_stalk 15:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Saliva tests can't be beaten?

If saliva tests are so insusceptible to adulteration, etc. then what is up with all the websites on the Internets advertising methods of beating your saliva tests? Tisane ^talk/_stalk 01:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The military lie about marijuana use contributing to the Nimitz disaster

I notice this article (surely unintentionally) perpetuates the blatant lie that the men on deck maintaining aircraft and having no influence on the operation of the EA-6B that crashed, were a contributing factor to that accident. I was there (well, a flight deck maintenance crewman on another ship) and as thousands of us watched incredulously as the Navy brass covered it up and held witch hunts harassing us enlisted men rather than allow the media to focus on the real cause- breakdown in chain of command which allowed pilots with the flu to load up on Sudafeds, sign off their own flight surgeon reports to not lose their extra flight pay. 14 men died, many more horribly burned or otherwise injured, and because they had been in port days earlier and smoked pot on their own free time off the ship on liberty, their charred remains tested positive for marijuana. The dead men could not defend themselves or their reputations in the court of media circus, the media unwilling to challenge the military story lest they become out of the loop of military press releases. Taken in addition with the Congressional reviews of nuclear weapon safety going on at the same time, a portrayal of the entire military as a bunch of potheads out destroying millions of dollars in taxpayer funded war machinery was painted which led to easy implementation of draconian drug testing for all levels of government personnel which continues to expand unabated even today. All in the name of the military game of "sh*t rolls downhill, stay out of its way" which we all knew, but 14 dead men were unable to play. Operation Zero tolerance soon followed, a witch hunt which persecuted anyone even suspected through hearsay, frontline carrier deployed aviation units like mine even attempted to rid themselves of lower enlisted who wore an earring or parted their hair in the middle- supposedly evidence of being a pothead- lest air wing command accuse their commanders of not actively trying hard enough to pe rsecute marijuana users. I will search for reference which meets wiki standards, as I am hardly new here and realize this cannot be included in the article as I know it as factual. This is not up to wiki standards but tells of the gov't continued lie about the matter- The lies about the Nimitz continue The story should not be forgotten. (AQ3 John Lucier, Crewleader, Fire Control Shop. VF-21 Freelancers, USS Coral Sea.) Batvette (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Also there have been a lot of patients dying after doing drugs â€"Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.107.229.115 (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I was in the service in 1981 & don't remember hearing or seeing anything about the Nimitz tale; but if you were "in" in '81, you know there was drug testing in the Navy well before the Nimitz incident. I came in in '77: there was a drug test on entering boot camp; & random & periodic thereafter. Navy drug testing did not begin w/ the Nimitz biz. BubbleDine (talk) 12:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Bubbledine, I went into Basic Training at NTC San Diego on 03DEC79 and while we did submit urine samples in the medical part of the induction process they did not specifically test for drugs, no way no how as we were all smoking at the hotel that AFEES booked for us the night before.

This was toward the end of the Carter administration,just four years after the end of the Vietnam war with recruiting goals impossible to meet- had they tested for drugs entering boot camp they'd have had to reject 3/4 of new recruits. The petty officer that first greeted us off the bus directed us toward a trash can to dispose of any contraband like weapons, porn or drugs. There was no drug testing randomly administered to Navy personnel at that time, the rule was "just don't get caught in possession or be high on duty". Essentially a "we don't want to know about it" attitude.

Note I included a link which includes,

The tripwire was an explosion aboard the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz on May 26, 1981. The ship suffered 14 people dead, 48 injured and $150 million in property losses, including seven aircraft destroyed and 11 damaged. DOD adopted its "zero tolerance" drug policy in 1982 after investigators indicated Nimitz crewmen's drug use possibly contributed to the disaster.

"Drug users are more prone to have accidents, to use poor judgment and more likely to injure themselves and others ... the disaster aboard the Nimitz is a grim reminder of this fact," Salazar said. "As a group, drug users have demonstrated that they do not maintain the unit morale necessary to carry out the dangerous duties we demand of military personnel."

Which the accounting of the event that was a "tripwire" is a lie. Those men with THC in their system were uninvolved in the accident which that propaganda calls an "explosion" instead of a plane crash- probably because the reader would then ask what men working on other planes on the deck would have to do with the cause of a plane crashing into them while they had their backs turned, busy with their own tasks. The coverup wasn't about drug use but to use drug use as interference to shift focus away from a breakdown in the chain of command regarding flight crews being able to take themselves on and off duty when sick without ever seeing a medical officer. Blame it on the E-3's and E-4's, they're dead and cannot defend themselves, LCDRs, CDRs and CAPTs have too much to lose to be held accountable for their negligence.

In closing though my link also details that the DOD did institute testing sometime in the early 70's so there is some validity to your claim- it just didn't get the kind of priority it did after the Nimitz disaster and I would also note that the Navy's "Operation Zero Tolerance" included a mandatory viewing of a video stating the Navy's tough new policy with commentary from the CNO. I believe it was called "Not in my Navy" and all personnel had to sign a paper they saw it which was then inserted into their service record.

If you were in the Navy when Zero Tolerance was implemented you could not have forgotten about it. Batvette (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

External Links Are Spam

I personally think around half of these external links are nothing but spam. It looks like people just trying to sell overpriced online drug tests. Can we keep the external links section to just government, informational, or academic resources? Many of these look like sales pages. I'm not sure the policy on external links specifically, but I don't think the goal is to endorse sales pages through this section. If someone seconds me on this, then can you please remove all the sales pages from the External Links section? Talgris (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If I use an albuterol inhaler tonight and take a urine drug test tomorrow afternoon, will i fail, and if so what will it show up as? â€" Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.198.187 (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I've done what I assume is yet another cleanup of the External links section per WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Canada: Drug testing is not prohibited

I have removed this section because it is incorrect. I work in the oil & gas industry in Canada and both pre-employment screening and random drug tests are common-place. I read through the source and it has all sorts of loopholes for this "prohibition", but I lack the ability to understand the legislation sufficiently to rewrite this section. From what I gather, drug screening is fine if the employer can make the claim that it is necessary, and that in the case of a positive test result, the alcohol or drug dependence must be treated by the employer as a disability. - StevenBee 03:15, August 8 2012 (UTC) â€" Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.69.149 (talk)

References? --John (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

References:

1) I have been pre-employment drug tested for driving / equipment-operating jobs in the Alberta oil-fields, and most job postings on public job boards in the oil industry state directly in them that they will include drug testing. It's common practice here. Of course this reference isn't really adequate for people other than myself, so here are a couple with more weight than my personal claim:

2) An article by industry in this province launching a new initiative over the summer of 2012 & 2013 to increase random drug tests among oil companies: http://www.darrpp.ca/newsroom/news-releases/albertas-oil-sands-and-construction-industries-launch/

3) An information sheet from the Alberta human rights commission detailing their policy which includes the quote:

"[this] Commission does not have jurisdiction to tell an employer when or whether they can require a drug or alcohol test"

http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/publications/bulletins_sheets_booklets/sheets/protected_grounds/drug_and_alcohol_dependencies.asp

- StevenBee 11:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC) â€" Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.69.149 (talk)

---

Came across this section again and saw the incorrect claim that pre-employment drug testing is not allowed in Canada. Removed again as this is still false. Pre-employment testing is allowed in "safety-sensitive" positions in Canada. It is very common in the transportation industry (especially cross-border between Canada & US), in Energy, Pot-Ash, and heavy construction sectors.

I have looked into this matter to try to write a more accurate section but the case law is contradictory and I do not have the legal understanding to confidently write what I would feel is a true reflection of Canadian law. What I can say is that Pre-Employment drug testing in Canada IS LEGAL AND COMMON. My last 4 jobs in the oil patch in Alberta - whether they were with small companies or large international corporations, required pre-employment drug testing and often have post-incident drug testing. Every small oil town in Alberta has several companies who's only functions are to perform drug tests for oil & construction companies' employees.

- StevenBee 03:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC) â€" Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.69.149 (talk)

New edit for class project

Hello, I'm a student at York College and I made an edit to this article for my course in I/O Psychology. If you disagree with my edit, please allow 24hours for my peers to review it before making changes. Thank you a lot. MsNika349 (talk) 00:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

5-panel vs. 12-panel

Why is there a listing of the 12-panel test and not the more common 5-panel test? And why do we care about Pinnacle Biolabs? â€" Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.53.23 (talk) 17:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Class Project Edit

Saferstein, R. (2013). Forensic science:From the crime scene to the crime lab. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education Inc.

Boumba, V. A., Ziavrou, K. S., & Vougiouklakis, T.(2006). Hair as a biological indicator of drug use, drug abuse or chronic exposure to environmental toxicants. International Journal of Toxicology,143-163.

Swanson, C. R., Chamelin, N. C., Territo, L., & Taylor, R. W. (2012). Criminal investigation. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.

I'm editing this page for a class project at Weber State University. Please allow 24 hours for my professor to review it before making any changes to this. Thank you. â€"Â Preceding unsigned comment added by SBrocious (talk â€¢ contribs) 06:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Planned Article Page Revisions

Detection periods for Codeine and Steroids for hair and blood/fluid tests. The five primary color-test which are as stated: Marquis, Dillie-Koppanyi, Duquenois-Levine, Van Urk, and Scott Test. Breath test (AKA breathalyzer) Any more valuable information on Anabolic Steroid tests or Sweat drug screens or Refusal history of drug tests.

I believe adding in any information on these previously stated topics would help the validity of the article. I'm editing this page for a class project at Weber State University. Please allow 24 hours for my professor to review it before making any changes to this. Thank you. â€"Â Preceding unsigned comment added by SBrocious (talk â€¢ contribs) 04:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Drug test. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140125024950/http://www.singlesourceservices.com:80/drug-test-kits/Statebystatelaw_800059vA_0611.pdf to https://www.singlesourceservices.com/drug-test-kits/Statebystatelaw_800059vA_0611.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140310225824/http://www.touch-know.com/Drug-Test-Kit to http://www.touch-know.com/Drug-Test-Kit
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811080853/http://www3.surrey.ac.uk/MDA/Pages/GuildfordEvaluations/PreviousReports/Reports/Drugs%20of%20abuse%20report.htm to http://www.surrey.ac.uk/MDA/Pages/GuildfordEvaluations/PreviousReports/Reports/Drugs%20of%20abuse%20report.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.las.uiuc.edu/news/2006fall/06nov_dipstick.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.â€"InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:11, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Pranata Fani.