Startling Research on False Positive Drug Tests

[Tryptamine*Dreamer]

I went to the doctor yesterday for anti-depressants, and since my mom told her what a junkie I am she drug tested me. The ONLY THING I had taken in the past 48 hours was 2 mg Xanax. I didn't test positive for opiates..only benzo's and...amphetamines?! What the fuck? I don't even do amphetamines.

She didn't believe me because her drug screens are "highly sophisticated and only show use from the past 48 hours." She said they NEVER give false positives for anything.

The only possible explanation is that the coke I did a tiny bit of last week was cut with speed. She insisted on the 48 hours thing though..

I tested positive for opiates and amphetamines after being hospitalized for mixing DXM and ephedra several years ago, and the docs were convinced that I had used heroin and ecstasy. I hadn't used any opiates in months and had never used mdma or amphetamine. I mentioned that DXM and ephedra could cause positives for opiates and amphetamines, and they said that could not happen. I'd expect that from the pigs, but a medical doctor should know better!

Had you used any OTC diet pills or nasal decongestants? They can cause false positives. The active ingredients are in the same class of drugs as amphetamine and they have structural similarities.

 

[Coolio]

Are you asking what is illegal about a terrorist doing a test run with a fake bomb - or a smuggler doing a test run with fake drugs?

Well a condom full of flour isn't fake drugs, first. Second, a terrorist isn't a terrorist until they've actually bombed someone.

And what is illegal about either situation if there are no items carried meant to be "fakes"?

 

[TheDeceased]

You think what you're saying is clever but it's really not. You're just stubbornly arguing logical technicalities that in reality make no sense. "A terrorist isn't a terrorist until they've bombed someone.." The intent to bomb someone makes you a terrorist. Being involved in the planning process (including test runs) makes you a terrorist. If someone goes on a plane with a fake bomb they are either a fucking idiot or testing the waters. If they are indeed testing the waters they should be prosecuted. If they are indeed a fucking idiot then they deserve what they get. A condom full of flour is obviously fake drugs being used as a test for future smuggling runs. You can argue that it can't be proved and maybe you'd be right. But to argue that it isn't fake drugs is either ignorant or delusional.

edit: apologies if this post comes across as offensive

 

[LAO TZU]

Well a condom full of flour isn't fake drugs, first. Second, a terrorist isn't a terrorist until they've actually bombed someone.

And what is illegal about either situation if there are no items carried meant to be "fakes"?

Thank you TheDeceased, I was thinking the same thing. Weak logical semantics, next he'll be arguing what the definition of is, is.

So, Coolio, what are 'fake' drugs made with then, if not with flour and condoms? - obviously 'fake' drugs wouldn't be made with 'real' drugs in which case they would be, well, real. 8)

You know Coolio, most of us probably feel the same way about the current enviroment as you do in its justifications, and I realize its something you don't want to accept - but denying that it exists doesn't stop it from existing - in which the points others have made are correct - maybe, just so you can get it, you should attempt to get a 'fake' bomb through the airport, allow yourself to get caught - use your argument you presented here, and see what happens.

Good luck!

 

[Coolio]

Fake drugs are drugs which have been communicated by the owner to be real drugs and are sold as such. There are laws against this. If I transfer a bag of flour to your possession with the explicit warning that it's actually cocaine, then I broke the law. If I make no mention as to its contents, and the buyer makes an assumption, there is no way to prosecute me for possession or distribution of fake drugs.

Just because something is "suspicious" does not mean it's illegal nor does it mean someone should be able to be harassed about their odd behavior. There's no reason anyone should be supportive of the law enforcement in cases like this - yeah it's "obvious" that the person arrested in the article was "up to no good", but that is a right every American citizen has, to be up to no good without fear of harassment.

 

[TheDeceased]

You're just stubbornly repeating yourself with different words and there are other issues to discuss in this thread. I couldn't be bothered continuing this circular and pointless argument because you clearly have your fingers in your ears and you're saying "LA LA LA" as loud as you can.

edit: Again, apologies if this post is offensive. I find your attitude more than a little frustrating. And I'm a bit of an asshole.

 

[Tryptamine*Dreamer]

It's bad enough that people with actual drugs are going to prison for exercising freedom over their own bodies, but even worse that many people go to prison for legal substances due to false positives. Both are innocent of crimes in my eyes, but those who go to prison for false positives have really been betrayed by the government and legal system. They didn't violate the law, even an immoral and unconstitutional law that acts only to violate the rights of others and cause high levels of violence and killing by ensuring drug production and sale stays in the control of violent thugs(not that all dealers and producers would fit that description).

 

[splenda]

You think what you're saying is clever but it's really not. You're just stubbornly arguing logical technicalities that in reality make no sense. "A terrorist isn't a terrorist until they've bombed someone.." The intent to bomb someone makes you a terrorist. Being involved in the planning process (including test runs) makes you a terrorist. If someone goes on a plane with a fake bomb they are either a fucking idiot or testing the waters. If they are indeed testing the waters they should be prosecuted. If they are indeed a fucking idiot then they deserve what they get. A condom full of flour is obviously fake drugs being used as a test for future smuggling runs. You can argue that it can't be proved and maybe you'd be right. But to argue that it isn't fake drugs is either ignorant or delusional.

edit: apologies if this post comes across as offensive

The 'intent' to 'bomb someone' makes you a terrorist?

So basically one who has an ideology in which they wish/hoped that a certain group of people/population/etc. got bombed (i.e. 'intent') should get that person arrested?

What happened to freedom of thought/expression? Hatred which is not acted upon (i.e. an 'intention' or a 'wish' for something to happen, such as bombing something or someone) is not a crime. Hatred which is acted upon is a crime.

You need to differentiate the two or there would be tons of people in prison right now using your guidelines.

 

[TheDeceased]

You need to read between the lines and try to understand what people are actually communicating to you rather than taking everything extremely literally and being pedantic.

I've thought about killing people but never intended to act on it. To go through a test run with a fake bomb, you are obviously intending to do something and it's not just a passing thought.

People have been arrested and prosecuted for conspiring to commit acts of terrorism and so they should. If a law enforcement agency tracks someone down through an investigation and they catch said person\s with blueprints and materials neccesary to make a bomb then that person should be incarcerated or at least penalized in some way. Don't you think?

You can sit there on your computer with a smug expression on your face and convince yourself that you're being some sort of radical political activist, but when it comes down to it - you don't want your city to be bombed. You don't want your mother, for example, to explode tomorrow. Preventative law enforcement is sometimes a neccesary thing.

It's better to prevent someone from killing thousands of people then it is to prosecute them after the fact.

Take 911. If they caught the people during the planning process (for example when one of them was doing a test run - because they did do test runs, you know?) and stopped them, would you seriously be arguing that that was a violation of civil rights?

there would be tons of people in prison right now using your guidelines

As I said you need to try and understand what people are actually saying to you. I'm not suggesting that some sort of Minority Report system be implemented. I don't think that thought should be policed. I do however believe that if you're planning to break a law and you're at such a late stage of the planning process that you can be caught with materials that undoubtedly indicate so, you have what is coming to you.

I understand how people (especially on this absurdly pro-drug forum) can argue that someone with a condom full of flour shouldn't be prosecuted, but to argue the same thing about someone doing a test run with a fake bomb is just plain idiotic.

Also another thing about the condom full of flour. Let's say it was innocent and she was using it as a home-made stress relief mechanism, which is fucking ridiculous and we all know it isn't true. The woman still would have interupted an entire flight and inconvenienced all the passengers on that flight. She should know better. It is (at the very least) inconsiderate.

 

[LAO TZU]

Fake drugs are drugs which have been communicated by the owner to be real drugs and are sold as such. There are laws against this. If I transfer a bag of flour to your possession with the explicit warning that it's actually cocaine, then I broke the law. If I make no mention as to its contents, and the buyer makes an assumption, there is no way to prosecute me for possession or distribution of fake drugs.

I don't know if its because you don't have a real argument that you are trying to make these nuances work in your defense, but they don't.

Lets say then, if you make it to the airport with such, and are found in possession with it, and the authorities have no knowledge of said transaction, only that you are in possession of what 'appears' to be illicit substances i.e. flour in a condom - if you seriously think that they don't have the right or ability to detain you upon suspicion, you are simply a fool - 'fake' drugs are any substances that the law enforcement officers may determine as such in accordance with law in respect to test results (which is what this thread is really about) - its not for you to determine for them. Its their jobs to take just these sorts of situations seriously until they can prove otherwise through their own means, and not by your beliefs, sorry.

If I happen to be a chef & have on me, and am found with a pound of dried oregano rolled up in a plastic bag at the airport - you better believe the cops have the right to detain me and ask what it is, simply because, not knowing my situation or circumstances, it is suspicious with the right to test it unless I can obviously, immediately prove otherwise. That is exactly their job & what they are supposed to do in those instances.

its not a matter of, 'well it isn't real so you can't do anything to stop me in the first place I'm a free american' - wake up to reality, and yes your child-like stubborness on this matter makes me wonder - like I said, why don't try it yourself and see if your beliefs and presented arguments work for you in the real world - you're really grasping hard for something here, please!

You know, its funny you glossed over CH3CH2OH response here, so let me qoute it for you so you can't say it wasn't presented to you -

There is no such thing as unreasonable search and seizure at an airport/seaport/border crossing. This a long held legal precedent and i have no problem with it. When you agree to fly on an airplane, go on a cruise, or cross the border, you consent to any searches. There is no protection in these places from search and seizure.

And to finish addressing the rest of you own quote Coolio -

Just because something is "suspicious" does not mean it's illegal nor does it mean someone should be able to be harassed about their odd behavior. There's no reason anyone should be supportive of the law enforcement in cases like this - yeah it's "obvious" that the person arrested in the article was "up to no good", but that is a right every American citizen has, to be up to no good without fear of harassment.

So, now, you admit you think they were up to no good, hmm,

Again, no, suspicion doesn't equate illegality, none of us are arguing that - it does however, even if you don't want to believe it, promote enough of a cause for law enforcement to investigate further in order to have proven to them that it isn't illegal, and so, in order to determine what action for them to take in response - you may think you know how laws should work in your own mind, but that isn't how they're pursued in the real world -

Don't delude yourself into believing what you think you know in the place of what the reality is - if you want to continue this - read the constitution, and the bill of rights, then study federal & international laws, and all subsequent state laws as they are different - then come back, and we'll discuss, but, I don't think that the 'right to being up to no good without fear of harrasment', as you say - was included as a right, as expressed in the bill of rights or in our constitution, though I'll be sure to double check for ya!8)

Coolio, your continued obstinance on this matter does not serve you, sorry.

Again, this is not an argument about how I personally feel about the situation of the so called 'current enviroment' as you seem to be making with regards to, if its right or wrong or needs to be addressed and or changed - or how the utopian world of freedom should be - its a matter of seeing what the reality is like, now, and how its is currently operating even if it may not seem appropriate in your contextual view of constitutional and or inherent american rights. So perhaps you should make it your goal in life, to become a constitutional lawyer, and get to where you can make the changes you see that we need, and once again - good luck!

 

[static_mind]

The 'intent' to 'bomb someone' makes you a terrorist?

Yes. Intent is not the same as "wish to" or "id like to see this happen". Intent mean's your going to do something. If I wish I had some chips I wont get them because im too drunk and stoned and layed out on the couch, plus on not really that hungry. hower if I intend to get some chips then im going to get up and walk to the cupboard and get some chips. Intent is something your going to do, not something you want to see happen. I wish I had some pizza but iv no intention on driving to a late night pizza shop. Im too drunk to drive and the drive would be a pain anyway plus i dont want to wake anyone. Pizza would be good but they charge alot of pizza at 430am. I can get some pizza tomorrow at 10am when pizza hut opens walking distance from here. I am ment to be going to a bbq however at 11. Il have to see how hung over i am in the morning. I don't think il be too bad.

Anyway that's my plan for tomorrow.

 

[ophizzle]

twisted ^ reality

sudafed or epehdrine and sinus meds of the sort create false positives for amphetamine. swim seen it in person, the dipstick tests false pos. for any ephedrine like derivative.

 

[AddictedtoYumm]

I "bolded" the bit about the student arrested at Philadeplhia Airport with the three condoms filled with flour which she said she squeezed for stress relief because I just wanted my fellow Blers to read that bit one more time.....

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for fucking with the enemy in the War on Drugs but am I the only Bluelighter who read that part about the condoms filled with flour and wondered if we were being told the whole story?

And even if we (a tad naively methinks?) accept this bizarre turn of events as the whole truth, am I also alone in thinking that taking three condoms filled with flour onto a flight "to squeeze for stress relief" is kind of asking for trouble?

I hear they make stress relief things that are actually meant to be squeezed. Her filling a condom of all things with a white powder was begging for trouble and even someone with an IQ of 4 wouldnt do it. Someonesss got friends in hiiiiiiiigh placessssss.

 

[AlbertEinstein]

False positives happen alot in my program and they do a hair sample and things come back negative.

 

[PottedMeat]

I tested false positive twice for cocaine because of the antibiotic Amoxicillin. The problem was that I also tested positive for marijuana. I freely admitted that I had been exposed to weed. After the second time of testing false positive, I did some research and was amazed at the chemicals that test positive for a metabolite of many controlled substances.

The first time I test false positive was during a normal blood work up at my primary care physicians office. The second time was when I had a severe migraine headache and my mom took me to the emergency room.

On both ocassions, I was on Amoxicillin for respritory infections. The frustrating part was that I had actually used cocaine in the past but, not within months of the aforementioned tests.

There are people losing their jobs and losing their freedom for testing positive during a random drug screening as a condition of their parole.

The system needs to be re-evaluated and re-vamped to keep innocent people from having their God given rights trampled upon.

 

[StaffWriter]

I think "intent" is called "conspiracy" and people do get arrested for setting up drug deals that may or may not have taken place, but were meant to happen. Oh, and the lady with the condoms was either doing a test run or perhaps wanted to get arrested for a pro-drug group. I see propaganda coming from BOTH SIDES in the war against drugs. And for the person who said the United States is a totalitarian regime, you are stupid. Try living in a place where you get beheaded for holding marijuana instead of drug court or probation.

 

[TheTwighlight]

Now that I am on probation and still awaiting another court date, I have to say that this scares the shit out of me. I remember when my little brother was on probation, he tested positive for methamphetamine, all because he takes Claritin-D for allergies, which contains pseudoephedrine. I don't give a motherfuck how expensive it is to send UAs to a lab, I think that ALL people on probation, especially those of us who are genuinly trying to straighten up our lives, deserve to have that done. The fact that I may end up locked up because I fucking ate a chocolate bar is horseshit and proves that we need a revamping of our justice system. I'm so pissed right now from this story. It really does scare me.

 

[PottedMeat]

Coolio, this is the second thread I have seen you hijack and spew your idealistic bullsht. The rest of us live in the real world.

Perhaps you could enlighten us all how someones civil rights were violated because she was carrying three condoms of flour and she was searched and detained.

Here is your big chance, you now have the floor.