Hey FBR , it seems like needapass was referring to the quote below that I've made a long while back, and apparently the info got garbled during the comprehension process...

Quote Originally Posted by Burnt Toast
*The UL additive is not effective on instant-type screens because the additive takes approximately 90 min to fully destroy all the (THC metabolites) in the sample.*

Then there is a false-positive issue surrounding screens and the UL additive:
*The UL additive breaks up the THC metabolites in several pieces. The screens, being simple assay kits by design, will often recognize those broken up pieces as the entire THCA molecule. If a GC/MS lab test is done, the GC/MS, being sophisticated and much more accurate, would recognize that those broken up pieces are not true THCA, and would send the sample on as a "passing" status*.

And theres more:
*The UL additive requires 60-90 ml of sample to be able to work. If the additive is added to less than 60 ml, the test results would come back as "adulterated" for high chromates or an abnormal ph.*

For these reasons, along with a whole lot more, I would highly recommend using a substituted sample, such as the Quick Fix urine, instead.

Besides if you are gonna go the bold route of sneaking something in, why couldnt it be something thats 100% effective for both screens and GC tests, such as the QF? It would surely be easier to pour in a substituted sample than fumbling around with 2 additive vials and the sample cup in the bathroom stall.

* - This comes straight from the mouth of the reps at Spectrum Labs, the manufacturer of the Urineluck additive..
Hope that helps :smokin: