Amadd wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2010 at 10:02am:


Maybe it comes with the territory. Maybe you talk what you smoke.  (That was a gratuitous wise crack by the way. Don't take it personally.)

http://www.meditests.com/salscreen5te.html

These are really good and only $US 7.95 each. About 30% of the price of the ones you get from most Australian suppliers.

That means you can do more testing for the same budget. 

And believe you me, even though you disagree with the stand that I am taking (and always have had, as my acronym name suggests) , you will secretly thank me for doing so.
I am the one at an economic loss here, not you. I am the one who may find it harder to find work when I refuse this undemocratic blight.
You just sleep soundly OK? You just employ more blights upon human rights and be happy that your child will become the robot that you sow.



 

Amadd wrote on Jul 6^th, 2010 at 6:33pm:


All major industries around here have pre-employment and ongoing drug and alcohol testing. At one stage, one industry in the area didn't do drug testing, and they ended up with all the druggies. That's the argument I've heard anyway.

Saliva based testing is generally 'problem free' because it is not sensitive enough to register drugs that are at residual levels. So if you get a saliva test, you'd be very unlucky to register positive.

As far as marijuana is concerned, it will linger in the system for up to a month, and that will be picked up by a urine test, but not a saliva test - but that only applies to really heavy users anyway. Occasional users don't have the same retention issue.

Most industries opt for saliva testing because it's much less of a hassle, and it can be carried out by non-medical staff.

Amadd wrote on Jul 11^th, 2010 at 12:38pm:


You could always get a job selling drug test kits to industry  

It varies between industries, but generally employees are given an extended opportunity to break their addiction, including free counselling etc.

I doubt if we'll ever see widespread use of urine test kits, and a casual user of marijuana will probably never be caught with most of the saliva testing kits on the Market anyway. The Australian standard is 20ng of THC.  There is one around that will detect 4ng, which claims to be sensitive enough to detect if somebody has smoked a joint within the previous 12 hours, so you can work it out yourself just how insensitive most of them are. 

Some of the kits don't even work.  They detect the metabolite that appears in urine, but this is not even found in saliva.

Also, I'd just recently heard a report on the radio that in over 5yrs of drug testing on the roads, about 2000 motorists had tested positive to an illegal substance. 83% of those were tested positve to amphetamines.

Now if that isn't an askewed result, then I don't know what is.

It's also highly likely that a good portion of that 83% were prescribed their "danger to society" drug by qualified physicians.
Therin, we are getting closer to the real answer of who the "real" dangers to society actually are.

So why not throw the apples and oranges in the same basket hey?
"The addicts"? Who are they?
How many times must somebody use a particular drug in order to be bestowed with the label "addict"?
And isn't it extremely probable that an actual "addict" of prescription drugs will fly under the radar as being an "addict" in social terms? Whereas, a one time or very occassional user of other "illegal" drugs may be branded with the tag "addict" for all future employers to see in a documented resume' ; thereby, hindering their employment opportunities. ..and their "real" potential to service the community.

At the lower end of the scale comes the occassional cannibis users.
Anybody who has ever been in contact with the drug knows inherently that it is an extremely low risk on so many counts as compared to other drugs, most especially alcohol.
So please be at least partially honest and throw alcohol into your basket of apples and oranges ahead of cannibinoids.

Those 60mins reports on cannibis are total and utter bs. They could've done the same dramatic report on oodles of other drugs if it were to be their target.
They know very well what cannibus causes. It causes protests against wars. That's been very well documented and entrenched into history.

As far as detectability goes, cannibinoids have the widest window. It all depends on what they are testing for. But it's really up to their discression of the tester as to what they are testing for.

The objective may change from year to year, month to month, day to day, or even hour to hour, without any legislative change whatsoever. i