hypothetically speaking...

if i were to have smoked weed a month ago, and were to get a hair test in a few days, would it show up?

yes

if that hair is still on your head, reason would say yes.

even if it was 1 time?

yes. der.

however, pee pee is another story.

just call them a bunch of pink assed commie traitors and kick em in the face

shave your head

they usually take hair from your arms or legs because it grows slower and is shaved less often. but from what i've heard, hair keeps trace amounts of drugs for your entire life...or at least as long as that hair is on your body. so you can argue and say that it must be from that one party you went to 5 years ago. of course...as long as you're not applying for the CIA or something then you should probably be fine.

actually there was some theroy that i am going over in my math class that saids drug test even at 90% accuracy still give off a larger number of "drug users" who actually never use drugs... i forgot the name of it right now but when i look through my notebook i'll get it to you.

Fuck drug tests, it's none of their goddamn business what you on your on time. Find an employer who isn't a fucking Reaganite.

HailTheLeaf said:

and thats why you'll make 7.50 an hour for the rest of your life

HailTheLeaf said:

more employers need to allow people to murder on their own time. who cares if you kill people as long as you show up for work and get the job done? the same should go for drugs. if you're not high on the job, what's the big deal?

babyshaker not logged in said:

riiiight...

As it turns out minimum wage will be going up shortly

it wasn't for the CIA, but it was the BPD. doesn't matter, i didnt get the job anyways, pre-drug screening.

when he told me i didn't get the job i said "good, i wasnt going to pass the drug test anyways."

i didnt say that. i'm lying.

"...and thats why you'll make 7.50 an hour for the rest of your life."

Speak for yourself, loser. I smoke every day, 5-12 times a day, and am not subjected to drug screening at my somewhat lucrative career. It's called "contractual bargaining."

As for the "tests" themselves, they are inheriently and notoriously INNACURATE. The only "experts" who stand by the methodology employed in random drug screening are ultimately the test manufacturers themselves. These tests, whether in at-home kits or through very expensive laboratories, don't even test for the presence of any known drug, only for the naturally-occuring compounds shared by certain illicit substances (with the sole exception of tetrahydrocannibinol-9, aka THC, which leaves deposits in fatty tissue for periods up to one month).

Unfortunately, there really isn't any fail-safe way to beat any of these intrusive tests, be the source urine, hair follicle, sputum, blood, or saliva. Many testers are taking into account the numerous counter-test products available today (ie "Safety Net," "Clean Flush" etc); rather than methodically improve their tests accuracies to identify ONLY those substances which can through no other means be delivered via recreational drug use, testers today will issue either a false-positive result or an "inconclusive" (equally as damning) should any inconsistencies be discovered.

Drug testing, like private prisons, is a multi-billion dollar industry, one which is not likely to go away anytime soon. As long as there is a profit to be made, human behavior will continue to be subject to severe legislation with all accompanying penalties.

i'm on drusg.

The profit motive is an important part of our plan.

that theroy i was talking about is called "Simpson's Paradox"

how bout, dont be a hippy.