Urine Test Detection Time
Hello, first of all I would like to say that SWIM isn't a frequent smoker. He was a frequent smoker up until December 17th. Since then, he has made 1 cup of cannabis tea and has smoked twice. He made the tea back in the middle of January, and smoked about 1/2 of a joint 1.5 weeks ago. Yesterday he smoked a joint, and today he smoked another joint. He weighs 152 lbs. and has a high metabolism because he eats and eats and eats and never gains any weight, even if he just lays around all the time. I know there are a lot of factors that contribute to how long the THC will stay detectable in his urine, but with the given information, if he exercises very rigorously, drinks a lot of water, and does everything he should, could he have his urine clean for a test in about a week? Thanks.
Urine Test Detection Time
Urine Test Detection Time
Urine Test Detection Time
Granny, you have a dead link in the first one. You have a lot of useful articles but these 2 really aren't that helpful. I wish the link worked because many of the studies that supposedly show that marijuana detection time isn't that long are conducted by people with hidden agendas. There is a study that many people like to quote or post is one conducted by someone I believe from the University of Virginia that shows marijuana detection time is usually less than 21 days. However, if you look at the study closely it was conducted by a law professor who's agenda seems to be to lock up people who fail their first drug test for probation and are still failing them 30 days later. The first one you linked is from a study at the University of Missouri. I may have the UVA study mixed up with this one but the link is dead and the study info is limited. However, read this first paragraph:
According to a review in the current issue of the journal Drug Court Review "it is uncommon for occasional marijuana smokers to test positive for cannabinoids in urine for longer than seven days using standard cutoff concentrations. Following smoking cessation, chronic smokers would not be expected to remain positive for longer than 21 days, even when using the 20 ng/mL cannabinoid cutoff." By using a cut-off of 50 ng/ml in drug screening assays the detection window would typically be not longer than ten days for regular users and between 3-4 days for occasional users.
On first glance this study seems like it is out to screw people who fail their first probation drug test and can't pass it within a week. Whenever evaluating the usefullness of a study it is important to see if the study is biased from who sponsors the study, who donates money to the study, who is running the study, etc. Without the working link it is tough to evaulate this study but I am willing to say that it is biased towards the "prosecution" and not the defense.
For every study that says THC use is usually detectable for 7 days or less I'm sure I can find 2 that says otherwise. Research isn't always created equally and this one isn't that good. Without even doing official research I can tell you with confidence that saying THC detection is shorter than once thought is shortsided. This is why we tell everyone no one can be sure so get a home test.
NORML has posted this study or the one from UVA or someone and it gets reposted here and I hate that they published the study without really going over it because it's giving people a false sense of security and NORML's strong suit is legal reform, not scientific research.
Urine Test Detection Time
Quote:
Originally Posted by FakeBoobsRule
Granny, you have a dead link in the first one. You have a lot of useful articles but these 2 really aren't that helpful. I wish the link worked because many of the studies that supposedly show that marijuana detection time isn't that long are conducted by people with hidden agendas. There is a study that many people like to quote or post is one conducted by someone I believe from the University of Virginia that shows marijuana detection time is usually less than 21 days. However, if you look at the study closely it was conducted by a law professor who's agenda seems to be to lock up people who fail their first drug test for probation and are still failing them 30 days later. The first one you linked is from a study at the University of Missouri. I may have the UVA study mixed up with this one but the link is dead and the study info is limited. However, read this first paragraph:
According to a review in the current issue of the journal Drug Court Review "it is uncommon for occasional marijuana smokers to test positive for cannabinoids in urine for longer than seven days using standard cutoff concentrations. Following smoking cessation, chronic smokers would not be expected to remain positive for longer than 21 days, even when using the 20 ng/mL cannabinoid cutoff." By using a cut-off of 50 ng/ml in drug screening assays the detection window would typically be not longer than ten days for regular users and between 3-4 days for occasional users.
On first glance this study seems like it is out to screw people who fail their first probation drug test and can't pass it within a week. Whenever evaluating the usefullness of a study it is important to see if the study is biased from who sponsors the study, who donates money to the study, who is running the study, etc. Without the working link it is tough to evaulate this study but I am willing to say that it is biased towards the "prosecution" and not the defense.
For every study that says THC use is usually detectable for 7 days or less I'm sure I can find 2 that says otherwise. Research isn't always created equally and this one isn't that good. Without even doing official research I can tell you with confidence that saying THC detection is shorter than once thought is shortsided. This is why we tell everyone no one can be sure so get a home test.
NORML has posted this study or the one from UVA or someone and it gets reposted here and I hate that they published the study without really going over it because it's giving people a false sense of security and NORML's strong suit is legal reform, not scientific research.
From beginning to the end, I couldnt have pointed that out any better myself, FBR. :thumbsup:
