A great PDF about detection and the "30 days" myth.

[WhatCanISay]

I was gonna put this with the Detection sticky, but the thread's closed. I read this PDF and thought it was important enough to post: http://www.nadcp.org/preconference/P...g_Testing2.pdf

Among the important things it lists, the fact that the self-proclaimed stoner magazine "High Times" is guilty of perpetuating the 30 day myth. It states that its very uncommon for occasional users to register after 7 days and chronic users to register after 21 days (even on the 20 ng scale). Ofcourse there are exceptions to both rules though. It discusses all the variables, frequency, potentcy of the THC, reports on studies conducted and other things worth reading. And although it won't help you pass, it poses some interesting hypotheticals about how ethical these tests are and also how ethical it is for publications and scare-programs that perpetuate and keep alive the "30 days-for-all-smokers" myth.

WhatCanISay Reviewed by WhatCanISay on 11-20-2007. A great PDF about detection and the "30 days" myth. I was gonna put this with the Detection sticky, but the thread's closed. I read this PDF and thought it was important enough to post: http://www.nadcp.org/preconference/Pre-Conf_Drug_Testing2.pdf Among the important things it lists, the fact that the self-proclaimed stoner magazine "High Times" is guilty of perpetuating the 30 day myth. It states that its very uncommon for occasional users to register after 7 days and chronic users to register after 21 days (even on the 20 ng scale). Rating: 5

[FakeBoobsRule]

You didn't do anyone any favors by posting that article and then calling it the 30 day myth. There are plenty of people who smoke daily and take longer than 30 days to pass a urine test and that is a fact because I know people in real life, peopl on this board, people on other boards who took close to 60 days to get clean. That's why the other thread was closed. I'm going to be deleting this thread and bad article soon because that study really isn't a study but more of an interpretation of other studies and it is poorly designed. I've seen it before and it really gives out bad information. Also, the subject sampling is way too small to be an accurate study. It really is a horrible article and not something that contains earth shattering good news.