hyroller
Bluelighter
^^^^ probably the exact reason they chose to make you their scapegoat ![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
-
-
AADD Moderators: Tronica
NEWS : 1.12.09 - Parents use private investigators on kids
- Thread starter kingpin007
- Start date
Yeah my mum does this all the time, im on speed apparently...It's the most frustrating thing you just feel like hitting em and askin em if there stupid?
The other day I was completely honest and said the only drugs I touch are the safer psychedelics and I dont experiment with drugs, I dont know how she took it she just hung up on me and didnt talk too me for days then sends me a message like nothing happened..
.. Then invites me around for some family lunch... Yeah that sounds like fun..I wish my mum wasnt stupid
hyroller
Bluelighter
Well, I thought I might revive this one, seeing as part of the conditions of moving in with my old man for the next 6 or so months to save some money + finish my thesis is going to be to submit to drug tests.... for some probationary period of time, probably 2-3 months.
In short, he lost his shit when he found a few grams of meth and a stash of pills and bags etc 18 months ago, when he went through my room while I was laid up in hospital.
I think they're going to be the piss test types, anyone else have any perspectives to share on this one? Drug_mentor, I know you might be able to comment from where you're sitting.... i.e., what's involved and what is screened for? I do remember reading it a few months back, but can't seem to find the thead. argh
Sigh, what an invasion. So embarrassing to be doing this in my mid-twenties! but I've slowed down heaps, and am 100% ready to take a break for a while. But drug tests? I think the fact I know I'm being watched randomly is going to make the urge to get fucked up even greater, seeing as it will be barred!
gotta love family ties...
In short, he lost his shit when he found a few grams of meth and a stash of pills and bags etc 18 months ago, when he went through my room while I was laid up in hospital.
I think they're going to be the piss test types, anyone else have any perspectives to share on this one? Drug_mentor, I know you might be able to comment from where you're sitting.... i.e., what's involved and what is screened for? I do remember reading it a few months back, but can't seem to find the thead. argh
Sigh, what an invasion. So embarrassing to be doing this in my mid-twenties! but I've slowed down heaps, and am 100% ready to take a break for a while. But drug tests? I think the fact I know I'm being watched randomly is going to make the urge to get fucked up even greater, seeing as it will be barred!
gotta love family ties...
puckboy
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2006
- Messages
- 2,286
^The majority of urine tests for illicit drugs will detect marijuana, cocaine, opiates, methamphetamine, amphetamine, benzodiazepines and ecstasy (MDxx).
It does feel like an invasion - I get you on that, I had supervised urine tests weekly for a while. Having some old guy standing a metre or so away from you while you piss in a jar is really not nice. I'm still tested weekly but they are now unsupervised which makes it alot easier.
It does feel like an invasion - I get you on that, I had supervised urine tests weekly for a while. Having some old guy standing a metre or so away from you while you piss in a jar is really not nice. I'm still tested weekly but they are now unsupervised which makes it alot easier.
drug_mentor
Bluelight Crew
Hyroller, I am in a similar situation. Basically you go to a doctors office and ask to do a drug screen, they will give you a little jar with a screw on lid and a ziplock biohazard baggie. You go to the toilet and fill the jar, seal it in the bag then they send it off and you go back for the results in less than a week.
They test for opiates, "sympathomimetic amines" which I assume to be amphetamines, benzo's, cannabinoids, barbiturates, cocaine and methadone. They also measure something called u-creatinine which I presume is a way of determining whether the sample has been diluted.
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=456687 here is a link to the initial thread I made on the topic.
If you don't want to be watched as you produce the sample, find a place that uses dorevitch pathology. My doctor used to use them and I never had to be watched as I pissed in the jar, they have since changed to gribbles pathology and they have to watch me piss. I can't guarantee dorevitch no longer watch you but I can guarantee gribbles will.
I hope my experience is helpful to you in some way, if you have any questions feel free to hit me up via PM or jump on msn. :D
Forgot to add, if you go to a doctor that does bulk billing it is free. Also, they should be willing to print out the results and sign them so you can take them home as proof to your parents your clean.
They test for opiates, "sympathomimetic amines" which I assume to be amphetamines, benzo's, cannabinoids, barbiturates, cocaine and methadone. They also measure something called u-creatinine which I presume is a way of determining whether the sample has been diluted.
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=456687 here is a link to the initial thread I made on the topic.
If you don't want to be watched as you produce the sample, find a place that uses dorevitch pathology. My doctor used to use them and I never had to be watched as I pissed in the jar, they have since changed to gribbles pathology and they have to watch me piss. I can't guarantee dorevitch no longer watch you but I can guarantee gribbles will.
I hope my experience is helpful to you in some way, if you have any questions feel free to hit me up via PM or jump on msn. :D
Forgot to add, if you go to a doctor that does bulk billing it is free. Also, they should be willing to print out the results and sign them so you can take them home as proof to your parents your clean.
Last edited:
lil angel15
Bluelight Crew
Creatinine is checked to see if the sample has been diluted either through excess consumption of fluids or the addition of fluids to the sample. If the sample creatinine levels are low then the test will be deemed invalid or a simple equation carried out. This will be dependent on the industry your employed within but usually something along the lines of encountered creatinine levels / expected normal creatinine levels x nanograms per millilitre expressed.
Keep in mind that diluting a sample on site is often fraught with risk if they utilise sample temperature testing kits.
Keep in mind that diluting a sample on site is often fraught with risk if they utilise sample temperature testing kits.
bootlegapparel
Greenlighter
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 20
What's wrong with just... talking to your fucking children?!? Fuck...
If I was a kid/teenager again, and my parents hired a private investigator to spy on me, I'd say that'd fuck me up much worse than any drugs I'd be doing. (not that I ever did any drugs as a kid besides alcohol, which my mum was cool with anyways)
If I was a kid/teenager again, and my parents hired a private investigator to spy on me, I'd say that'd fuck me up much worse than any drugs I'd be doing. (not that I ever did any drugs as a kid besides alcohol, which my mum was cool with anyways)
De quincy
Bluelighter
Just to add a bit of weight to the argument regarding drug testing and it's lack of credability
Taken from here:http://blogs.flinders.edu.au/flinders-news/2008/03/26/report-says-no-to-drug-testing-in-schools/
Report says no to drug testing in schools
Posted on: March 26th, 2008 by Marketing and Communications
The National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction (NCETA) at Flinders University has recommended against introducing a national testing program of drug testing in schools, citing an international lack of evidence of the benefits and effectiveness of such programs.
In a new report, Drug Testing in Schools – evidence, impacts and alternatives, commissioned by the Australian National Council on Drugs, the NCETA authors also raised concerns about the accuracy of available testing technology, and about the potential of testing regimes to undermine child-school and parent-child relations.
NCETA calculated the cost to to taxpayers of introducing drug testing into Australian schools to be at least $355 million for saliva tests or $302 million for urine tests for nationwide drug testing of each child once yearly. Annual testing of a random 10 per cent of the national school population three times yearly would cost $110 million for saliva tests or $91 million for urine tests.
The principal author, NCETA Director Professor Ann Roche (pictured), said the report had looked deeply at the issue of drug testing as a deterrent, but that available evidence was limited to the US.
“There were no studies that provided appropriate controls or data to adequately determine whether changes in the number of students who tested positive for drugs could be linked to a drug testing program,” Professor Roche said.
“In short, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of drug testing.”
In addition to the lack of evidence of the benefits and effectiveness of testing, Professor Roche warned that its introduction into Australian schools would create mistrust and stigmatisation, leading directly to students becoming disengaged from the education system.
“One qualitative study we examined showed that whilst the majority of students were undisturbed by the drug testing experience, in fact more than a quarter were either distressed or angered,” she said.
“The accuracy of tests was another issue we looked at carefully. Certainly we had concerns about false positive readings. Falsely accusing a child of illicit drug use could obviously have negative legal and social impact, to say nothing of potential psychological damage.”
From a legal and ethical standpoint, Professor Roche said it is improbable that children could be tested for drugs without their parents’ consent. She said that Australia’s legal perspective places a greater weight on the rights of the child than, for instance, the US and affords children greater rights to privacy and protection from interference.
The report included consultations with professionals in the field. Professor Roche said written submissions indicated that 61 per cent were not in favour of drug detection and screening, and that overall the disadvantages of drug detection and screening in schools were seen to outweigh any potential advantages.
A community survey brought an even stronger response, with 71 per cent either opposed or strongly opposed to drug testing in schools, and 51 per cent seeing no advantages. Ninety six per cent said mistrust between students and school would be the result, and 72 per cent said students with drug problems would be stigmatised as a result.
“These figures show the real level of concern,” Professor Roche said.
“When it comes to alternatives, there are three very different but complementary approaches in which schools can implement evidence-based strategies to prevent drug related problems. They are supporting and developing connectedness between children and their school, providing targeted early and brief interventions for high risk students and offering family strengthening interventions.”
Taken from here:http://blogs.flinders.edu.au/flinders-news/2008/03/26/report-says-no-to-drug-testing-in-schools/
Report says no to drug testing in schools
Posted on: March 26th, 2008 by Marketing and Communications
The National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction (NCETA) at Flinders University has recommended against introducing a national testing program of drug testing in schools, citing an international lack of evidence of the benefits and effectiveness of such programs.
In a new report, Drug Testing in Schools – evidence, impacts and alternatives, commissioned by the Australian National Council on Drugs, the NCETA authors also raised concerns about the accuracy of available testing technology, and about the potential of testing regimes to undermine child-school and parent-child relations.
NCETA calculated the cost to to taxpayers of introducing drug testing into Australian schools to be at least $355 million for saliva tests or $302 million for urine tests for nationwide drug testing of each child once yearly. Annual testing of a random 10 per cent of the national school population three times yearly would cost $110 million for saliva tests or $91 million for urine tests.
The principal author, NCETA Director Professor Ann Roche (pictured), said the report had looked deeply at the issue of drug testing as a deterrent, but that available evidence was limited to the US.
“There were no studies that provided appropriate controls or data to adequately determine whether changes in the number of students who tested positive for drugs could be linked to a drug testing program,” Professor Roche said.
“In short, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of drug testing.”
In addition to the lack of evidence of the benefits and effectiveness of testing, Professor Roche warned that its introduction into Australian schools would create mistrust and stigmatisation, leading directly to students becoming disengaged from the education system.
“One qualitative study we examined showed that whilst the majority of students were undisturbed by the drug testing experience, in fact more than a quarter were either distressed or angered,” she said.
“The accuracy of tests was another issue we looked at carefully. Certainly we had concerns about false positive readings. Falsely accusing a child of illicit drug use could obviously have negative legal and social impact, to say nothing of potential psychological damage.”
From a legal and ethical standpoint, Professor Roche said it is improbable that children could be tested for drugs without their parents’ consent. She said that Australia’s legal perspective places a greater weight on the rights of the child than, for instance, the US and affords children greater rights to privacy and protection from interference.
The report included consultations with professionals in the field. Professor Roche said written submissions indicated that 61 per cent were not in favour of drug detection and screening, and that overall the disadvantages of drug detection and screening in schools were seen to outweigh any potential advantages.
A community survey brought an even stronger response, with 71 per cent either opposed or strongly opposed to drug testing in schools, and 51 per cent seeing no advantages. Ninety six per cent said mistrust between students and school would be the result, and 72 per cent said students with drug problems would be stigmatised as a result.
“These figures show the real level of concern,” Professor Roche said.
“When it comes to alternatives, there are three very different but complementary approaches in which schools can implement evidence-based strategies to prevent drug related problems. They are supporting and developing connectedness between children and their school, providing targeted early and brief interventions for high risk students and offering family strengthening interventions.”
thestudent14
Bluelighter
Anyone who gets private investigators on their own kids is fucked up!
I agree that parents need to be more open minded towards what their kids are upto, but I think it's also important that they don't encourage the use of drugs especially ones that there is little known about.
My parents are completely anti-drugs and would probably kick me out if they found out I did them, but for me I don't think that has been a bad approach my older brother and sister have never done drugs and I think I was always going to experiment with drugs because it's something thats always interested me. But because of my parents hate for them it's only the last couple of years that I've gotten into them and are still extremely cautious about what I take and always research before I try something new.
I think if they were more accepting of drugs then I would've started using earlier and would probably hit it harder. So the correct approach from parents is always gonna be dependent on the child, but I promise you that private investigators are the worst possible way to go about it.
I agree that parents need to be more open minded towards what their kids are upto, but I think it's also important that they don't encourage the use of drugs especially ones that there is little known about.
My parents are completely anti-drugs and would probably kick me out if they found out I did them, but for me I don't think that has been a bad approach my older brother and sister have never done drugs and I think I was always going to experiment with drugs because it's something thats always interested me. But because of my parents hate for them it's only the last couple of years that I've gotten into them and are still extremely cautious about what I take and always research before I try something new.
I think if they were more accepting of drugs then I would've started using earlier and would probably hit it harder. So the correct approach from parents is always gonna be dependent on the child, but I promise you that private investigators are the worst possible way to go about it.