Judge blocks Fla.'s new welfare drug testing law

[xBiffx]

It sure does dimwit. I see you continue to spew factless statements.

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/marijuana_test.htm

Facts suck don't they?

Most researchers agree that urine tests for marijuana can detect the presence of the drug in the body for up to 13 days.

There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that it can stay longer, but that isn't fact.

 

[Fire&Blood]

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/marijuana_test.htm

Facts suck don't they?



There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that it can stay longer, but that isn't fact.

That site just wants you to think you are clean so you fail the test. Or they are smoking bad stuff. Primo budz will stick around in your urine samples for a month.

Every document and every video I ever read/saw indicate up to a month in urine and hair can trace back up to 1 year.

The urine sampling depends on frequency, amount and potency. Also, weight, physical activity and metabolism play a role as well, as THC ties to the fat cells.

 

[dank69]

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/marijuana_test.htm

Facts suck don't they?



There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that it can stay longer, but that isn't fact.

I'll just leave this quote from your own link right here:

Regular smokers have reported positive drug test results after 45 days since last use and heavy smokers have reported positive tests 90 days after quitting.

 

[xBiffx]

I'll just leave this quote from your own link right here:

Guess you chose to leave out the line before it saying it was anecdotal evidence, which again, isn't based on facts. Also, I love how smokers report this rather than the labs/scientists/researchers.

However, there is anecdotal evidence that the length of time that marijuana remains in the body is affected by how often the person smokes, how much he smokes and how long he has been smoking.

Even if this were the case, this still doesn't address my other point which is that you choose to defend your position by saying this rule would be unfair because it singles out one CRIMINAL from another CRIMINAL. Sorry, equal protection for CRIMINALS doesn't hold water. But nice try. So the pot smokers will be unfairly targeted by mandatory drug tests to receive welfare. Does anyone else not feel sorry for them?

 

[ShawnD1]

It sure does dimwit. I see you continue to spew factless statements.

Don't bother trying to explain chemistry to idiots. Not being able to understand it is what makes them idiots.

alcohol and metabolites --> infinitely soluble in water --> passes very quickly
cocaine HCL and metabolites --> water soluble --> passes in 2-3 days
amphetamine HCL and metabolites --> water soluble --> passes in less than 1 week
marijuana --> extremely low water solubility, high fat solubility --> stays in you for weeks


One would argue that the point of drug testing for things that pass quickly is that it gives an indication of how pathetic someone really is. If you can't even stop cocaine for 3 days, then god help you.

 

[Ausm]

Don't bother trying to explain chemistry to idiots. Not being able to understand it is what makes them idiots.

alcohol and metabolites --> infinitely soluble in water --> passes very quickly
cocaine HCL and metabolites --> water soluble --> passes in 2-3 days
amphetamine HCL and metabolites --> water soluble --> passes in less than 1 week
marijuana --> extremely low water solubility, high fat solubility --> stays in you for weeks


One would argue that the point of drug testing for things that pass quickly is that it gives an indication of how pathetic someone really is. If you can't even stop cocaine for 3 days, then god help you.

So it looks like we have a 2-3 day window that we can test Biff in

 

[xBiffx]

So it looks like we have a 2-3 day window that we can test Biff in

Nah, I'm on designer shit that doesn't show up. :sneaky:

 

[xBiffx]

Don't bother trying to explain chemistry to idiots. Not being able to understand it is what makes them idiots.

alcohol and metabolites --> infinitely soluble in water --> passes very quickly
cocaine HCL and metabolites --> water soluble --> passes in 2-3 days
amphetamine HCL and metabolites --> water soluble --> passes in less than 1 week
marijuana --> extremely low water solubility, high fat solubility --> stays in you for weeks


One would argue that the point of drug testing for things that pass quickly is that it gives an indication of how pathetic someone really is. If you can't even stop cocaine for 3 days, then god help you.

Yeah, since I don't have a degree in Chemical Engineering. Also, I didn't spend 5 years working for Quest Diagnostics and before that 3 working in a pharmaceutical testing lab.

It gets stored in your fat. As your body uses your fat stores, if it does, it will pass through the rest of your system, sure. Problem is, most tests will be unreliable after maybe two weeks due to the amount this happens and the levels at which they can detect. We are talking about government testing, which will be cheap and probably a quick and dirty ELISA screen. I stand by my original statement.

 

[deathstorm78]

Yeah, since I don't have a degree in Chemical Engineering. Also, I didn't spend 5 years working for Quest Diagnostics and before that 3 working in a pharmaceutical testing lab.

It gets stored in your fat. As your body uses your fat stores, if it does, it will pass through the rest of your system, sure. Problem is, most tests will be unreliable after maybe two weeks due to the amount this happens and the levels at which they can detect. We are talking about government testing, which will be cheap and probably a quick and dirty ELISA screen. I stand by my original statement.

Since you are more of an expert at this than I, could you please elaborate on the hair strand test? Is it more cost effective to test urine vs. hair?

What would be the government stance on testing in states where marijuana is legal?

 

[FerrelGeek]

I think there is a difference between getting free assistance and being employed by the government. Not that I would be against testing employees though since we already get tested in the private industry.

Exactly. I had to pass a drug test to get my job. This isn't discriminatory in any way.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I've had to take drug/alcohol tests before I could work at a clients plant. The plant also had random drug/alcohol tests weekly during the turn around.

 

[JTsyo]

One huge loophole w\ the whole testing thing is alcohol. It's out of your system very fast. Cocaine is out relatively fast. Marijuana should be legal and stays for up to a month...

So I can see where testing people who get welfare is not accurate at all and really not possibly to be equally enforced. You're going to take the weed smokers money away but give the alchy or crack smoker money just because they can hold their stuff together for a day or so and pass a test?

I'm for testing in principle but for the reasons I stated, it's just not enforceable unless you're just trying to single out people who smoke marijuana.

But it's fair for the weed smoker to be using when he's on welfare? He should stop once he doesn't have an income any more. While we can't catch them all, we should at least catch the ones we can.

 

[airdata]

But it's fair for the weed smoker to be using when he's on welfare? He should stop once he doesn't have an income any more. While we can't catch them all, we should at least catch the ones we can.

My point is that drug testing singles out pot smokers.

Anybody with any intelligence on the subject would know that marijuana was made illegal w\ lies and propaganda. Marijuana being illegal while alcohol and tobacco are legal is the ultimate contradiction. If you can cite just 1 marijuana related death for every 100k alcohol deaths, I'll gladly give you a cookie.

Alcohol, cocaine, and other drugs can be abused and still pass a piss test. Marijuana may be out in 13-14 days if you have no body fat and are an athlete. But for the other 99% of pot heads, that's not the case.

 

[Lithium381]

Since you are more of an expert at this than I, could you please elaborate on the hair strand test? Is it more cost effective to test urine vs. hair?

What would be the government stance on testing in states where marijuana is legal?

if it's federal money, no go, if it's state money and it's legal in the state, fine i suppose

 

[xBiffx]

Since you are more of an expert at this than I, could you please elaborate on the hair strand test? Is it more cost effective to test urine vs. hair?

What would be the government stance on testing in states where marijuana is legal?

Most hair testing involves the use of chromotography or spectrometry which requires very expensive laboratory equipment. These instruments can be upwards of $200K. With urine testing, the cheapest methods use ELISA which requires almost no lab equipment, just reagents (chemicals) which are fairly cheap, labware (tube/plate), and a pipette. Also, the use of ELISA testing allows for multiplexing samples. That is, more than one patient's samples can be analysed at the same time (same tube/well) which reduces testing costs significantly.

 

[Ausm]

Most hair testing involves the use of chromotography or spectrometry which requires very expensive laboratory equipment. These instruments can be upwards of $200K. With urine testing, the cheapest methods use ELISA which requires almost no lab equipment, just reagents (chemicals) which are fairly cheap, labware (tube/plate), and a pipette. Also, the use of ELISA testing allows for multiplexing samples. That is, more than one patient's samples can be analysed at the same time (same tube/well) which reduces testing costs significantly.

You could taste test and that would be even cheaper

 

[xBiffx]

You could taste test and that would be even cheaper

Sometimes, believe me, taste testing happens inadvertently if you know what I mean. D: Always wear your PPE!!!

Problems is, usually the response is "yuck, tastes like piss" which doesn't tell you much about the drug use. :\

 

[piasabird]

The real problem is we are paying people for having babies. Let all these women go to work like all the married broads are doing. Getting drunk and preagnant while doing drugs is no great skill.

 

[airdata]

The real problem is we are paying people for having babies. Let all these women go to work like all the married broads are doing. Getting drunk and preagnant while doing drugs is no great skill.

like my old downstairs neighbors w\ 5-6 kids and possibly 1 job @ sonic among the adults... didn't see the others coming or going to work. Don't want to hurt the cause by talking about their apartment smelling like weed while they sent all of the kids out to play in the parking lot and babysit the toddler. I'm also not going to mention their racial background or any details like that.

 

[MovingTarget]

Yes to answer your question at the end. People getting a free ride off of tax payers should not be on drugs. IMO at least, and im sure im in the majority of what real americans would want.

Real Americans? I hear that term quite a lot in political discourse nowadays, but what are they? If you mean citizens, then yeah, a majority probably would agree with that misguided sentiment. However, it seems that many who use the term "real americans" don't consider those that use drugs to be in that group. Many Americans do in fact use drugs, but that doesn't make them any less American than the rest of us born/naturalized here. That I find disingenuous.

So what exactly is the objection and/or moral hazard here? Not all drugs even cost money to obtain such as MJ, so the moral hazard isn't necessarily that other taxpayers subsidize that drug use. (All you need is dirt and water down here in the South, plus the starter seeds. It can perpetuate itself with only the input of your own labor, similar to growing tomatoes, etc.) Somehow I don't think that a statistically significant amount of the money spent on social programs is spent on illegal drug use. This drug testing scheme seems like a solution in search of a problem, one that may possibly run afoul of the constitutional protections against unreasonable search.

Look, I'm against the use of all the illegal drugs mentioned so far in this thread. I've never felt the need to try any myself, nor will I ever. But to try and incorporate this type of oversight into programs that favor those in dire economic straits seems just plain silly. It smacks of trying to label poor people as drug users and of a sense of false moral superiority.

 

[glenn1]

I saw this this morning while having coffee. Somehow, I fail to see how requiring people to be drug tested in order to receive a welfare check is unconstitutional. Someone needs to explain that one. Welfare is not mandatory. What, under the constitution, is being violated here?

Right to privacy per the judge. From the article:

The drug test can reveal a host of private medical facts about the individual, Scriven wrote, adding that she found it "troubling" that the drug tests are not kept confidential like medical records. The results can also be shared with law enforcement officers and a drug abuse hotline.

Of course, this should be easily fixed - allow people to refuse the drug test, but if they do it's considered violating implied consent of a condition of receiving welfare (i.e. similar to the rules concerning people who refuse a breathalyzer test when suspected of DUI).

Whether this law is good policy, however, to me remains somewhat dubious.

 

[Lanyap]

First time I've seen this one.

 

[TheVrolok]

:thumbsup: Glad to see it being blocked.

 

[OutHouse]

THC doesn't stay in your urine for a month. Sorry, but your whole argument is based on a bs statement. Even then, you are defending this decision by saying that is unfairly singles out one set of ILLEGAL drug users from the rest of ILLEGAL drug users. That makes perfect sense, for an idiot.

one of the functions of my company is doing drug test in all 50 states for courts. i assure you if you smoked potent MMJ quality pot it will be detectable in your system for a month.

 

[OutHouse]

:thumbsup: Glad to see it being blocked.

why?