Cannabis - how long can it be detected in urine?

Polly701

Apologies if this is not in the right forum, not sure where to put it.

Hypothetical question -

If someone had half a joint would this show up in a medical exam (for a job) three days later? The medical exam will include a urine test.

Thanks.

cruais

Yes it does show up in urine tests.

Procrastastudy

Can be in there for up to a month from what I've googled...

Polly701

Even if it was just a few puffs and the person had not smoked anything for years prior to this?

Procrastastudy

I think you need a medical opinion rather than a legal one. I see the logic - maybe people here know from dealing with cases involving it - or perhaps you just saw some of my posts and assumed some people are just permanently high...

I have no idea if there is a medical board to post on - maybe try making an appointment with your GP and doing a pre-test? I have no idea if thats even possible just a suggestion.

downwithpeace

It can be detected for around 30 days, I'm unsure if the intake amount has an effect on that.

sarah88

Some chemists stock drug testing kits, was in one the other day and saw one. Have no idea how accurate they are tho

Jev/N

All you need to know, here:

http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_testing.shtml

BogMonkey

1 month maximum. For very light users, all traces should be gone in about a weak, for heavy users, it takes 3-4 weeks for all traces to be eliminated from the body. The reason THC and its various metabolites remain in the body for this long is because THC (and to a lesser extent, its metabolites) is a fairly lipophilic (meaning it mixes well with fats) compound so it gets deposited in the fats in the body. It is slowly released from the fats over an extended period of time. More water soluble drugs are eliminated faster. Blood tests can only detect THC a few days after it was ingested. The liver is the major site of metabolism of THC and since it stores fatty tissue, it is a major area where THC is deposited. Therefore, taking supplements to detoxify the liver would theoretically accelerate the elimination process. Masking agents are substances which bond to the drug and its metabolites to render them undetectable. THC undergoes a fairly large metabolic pathway before it is eliminated from the urine so it produces plenty of metabolites, therefore it would be very difficult to mask them all. To answer the question, yes. Any decent drug test should be able to detect THC and/or its metabolites in the urine of someone who ingested the drug 3 days prior. Modern drug tests are extremely sensitive and can detect a single microgram of a drug. Theoretically, to pass such a test, this person would probably need to use some kind of method to mask the drug/metabolites and/or interfere with the test. They must respect the persons right to a bit of privacy as he urinates, therefore this person could probably modify the composition of his urine after urination. The person may decide to ingest plenty of activated charcoal a few hours prior to the test. Activated charcoal is highly effective at absorbing trace impurities in solutions.

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I think you need a medical opinion rather than a legal one. I see the logic - maybe people here know from dealing with cases involving it - or perhaps you just saw some of my posts and assumed some people are just permanently high...

I have no idea if there is a medical board to post on - maybe try making an appointment with your GP and doing a pre-test? I have no idea if thats even possible just a suggestion.

Maybe he just knows that theres always the chance that a permanently high chemistry student will wander in and spot the thread whatever forum he posts it in lol.

Krieg

Polly701 wrote: »

Hypothetical question -

If someone had half a joint would this show up in a medical exam (for a job) three days later? The medical exam will include a urine test.

Thanks.

Are you sure its a drug test?
From what ive been told, many companies who perform a medical exam prior to employment and test the urine, its not a drug test, but a test for health. Only governmental organisations perform drug tests and require written consent prior to testing.

Im very open to correction, its only what ive been heard

Mike 1972

Krieg wrote: »

Are you sure its a drug test?
From what ive been told, many companies who perform a medical exam prior to employment and test the urine, its not a drug test, but a test for health. Only governmental organisations perform drug tests and require written consent prior to testing.

Im very open to correction, its only what ive been heard

Id be a bit sceptical about the bolded bit but otherwise Id say youre spot on. A few (not many) private sector employers do pre-employment tests others ask one to sign a document agreeing to random tests although in many instances they only actually carry out said tests if they suspect impaired performence/use on the job or if one is being assigned to a particularly safety critical role.

amdublin

Was the test actually testing for it though?

120_Minutes

It's not just government jobs, my misses has just been offered a job by apple and she has to do a medical which includes a drug test, and she's freaking as she smoked less than a month ago. If she fails, no job. It's part of the contract, so by signing it you give consent to the test.

JSawtc

I smell it on the street all of the time.. would it be in my system?!

Tigger

All Those gp health checks are for blood sugar
No one is testing for drugs
Joints smoked ( passive and acual) show in the body ( test dependant) fore a long time ( hair and nails can be used for " lifestyle tEsting")

Don't worry none of this will matter

I'm an analytical chemist who used to lobby schools for drug testing

hunkymonkey

My background is medical toxicology (biochemist) but also qualified in forensic medicine.
This area is my speciality. Numerous companies test for cannabis as a pre-employment and then on an on-going basis, especially where drink & drugs could effect other peoples safety, for example bus driver.
From the OP's question, it depends on how much you had 3 days (and if you had any in the days before)
It also depends on the method of analysis. If its an immunoassay type screen (which it normally is) the cut-off will be 50ng/ml, so if it was 1 joint and you have normal renal function, well it's tight. If the testing is by GCMS or LCMS, which is much more specific, the cutoff is 15ng/ml. So a lot tighter. Also if you are borderline or positive by immunoassay they will also send the positives for confirmation for GCMS.
To answer another question, there isn't a chance of testing positive through passive smoking. You would want to be in a very very small airtight room to have a level above the cutoff.
The reason that some people stay positive for a month is that they are very very heavy abusers (120 joints a day). Because cannabis metabolites are fat soluble they are laid down in the fat cells instead of being eliminated through the urine. As you burn of fat in the cells, this is slowly released in the urine, hence some people staying 'positive' for a month or so, but only in heavy abusers.

Joe10000

Krieg wrote: »

Are you sure its a drug test?
From what ive been told, many companies who perform a medical exam prior to employment and test the urine, its not a drug test, but a test for health. Only governmental organisations perform drug tests and require written consent prior to testing.

Im very open to correction, its only what ive been heard

He could be a commercial pilot.

Tigger

hunkymonkey wrote: »

My background is medical toxicology (biochemist) but also qualified in forensic medicine.
This area is my speciality. Numerous companies test for cannabis as a pre-employment and then on an on-going basis, especially where drink & drugs could effect other peoples safety, for example bus driver.
From the OP's question, it depends on how much you had 3 days (and if you had any in the days before)
It also depends on the method of analysis. If its an immunoassay type screen (which it normally is) the cut-off will be 50ng/ml, so if it was 1 joint and you have normal renal function, well it's tight. If the testing is by GCMS or LCMS, which is much more specific, the cutoff is 15ng/ml. So a lot tighter. Also if you are borderline or positive by immunoassay they will also send the positives for confirmation for GCMS.
To answer another question, there isn't a chance of testing positive through passive smoking. You would want to be in a very very small airtight room to have a level above the cutoff.
The reason that some people stay positive for a month is that they are very very heavy abusers (120 joints a day). Because cannabis metabolites are fat soluble they are laid down in the fat cells instead of being eliminated through the urine. As you burn of fat in the cells, this is slowly released in the urine, hence some people staying 'positive' for a month or so, but only in heavy abusers.

bull

who is testing for cannabis?

edit: in ireland

Joe10000

hunkymonkey wrote: »

My background is medical toxicology (biochemist) but also qualified in forensic medicine.
This area is my speciality. Numerous companies test for cannabis as a pre-employment and then on an on-going basis, especially where drink & drugs could effect other peoples safety, for example bus driver.
From the OP's question, it depends on how much you had 3 days (and if you had any in the days before)
It also depends on the method of analysis. If its an immunoassay type screen (which it normally is) the cut-off will be 50ng/ml, so if it was 1 joint and you have normal renal function, well it's tight. If the testing is by GCMS or LCMS, which is much more specific, the cutoff is 15ng/ml. So a lot tighter. Also if you are borderline or positive by immunoassay they will also send the positives for confirmation for GCMS.
To answer another question, there isn't a chance of testing positive through passive smoking. You would want to be in a very very small airtight room to have a level above the cutoff.
The reason that some people stay positive for a month is that they are very very heavy abusers (120 joints a day). Because cannabis metabolites are fat soluble they are laid down in the fat cells instead of being eliminated through the urine. As you burn of fat in the cells, this is slowly released in the urine, hence some people staying 'positive' for a month or so, but only in heavy abusers.

120 joints a day ? You would be catatonic !

crouchingtiger

Nabilone is a cannabinoid. Its also a widely prescribed drug often used off label. I think that it could be possible to get a hold of a prescription for nabilone, or just forge one. This seems like the easiest option. You'd test positive, but nabilone has no reported psychoactive properties, and you could then make something up about indigestion/ low sperm count/ IBS/ even PTSD.

I also had to be tested for a nurses-aid type job. I had smoked quiet a lot of cannabis but "happened upon" a prescription for nabilone, citing idiopathic "nightmares" to my employers. Assuring that it was all cleared up then.

Yay for me! (I'm a medical student btw.)

That would be my view of how to circumvent a positive test. I'm sure there is something you could take to mess up the GCMS or an immunassay as well.

<Google: "How to false-negative cannabis test".>

Apple are so silly...

hunkymonkey

Tigger wrote: »

bull

who is testing for cannabis?

edit: in ireland

Having been involved in pre-employment testing for numerous years until a few years ago, I 'think' I know what I'm talking about.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cie-drivers-to-face-drink-and-drug-checks-69531.html

There's loads of companies doing it, especially American ones. Even one big multinational that drug tests it's employees but doesn't include cannabis due to the founder of the company being a user of cannabis and believes that it helped him in his thought processing (or some similar reason). The American companies also request PCP (phencyclidine aka angeldust, not the stuff for cows) even though it was never abused in Ireland.

What's bull about that?

Tigger

hunkymonkey wrote: »

Having been involved in pre-employment testing for numerous years until a few years ago, I 'think' I know what I'm talking about.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cie-drivers-to-face-drink-and-drug-checks-69531.html

There's loads of companies doing it, especially American ones. Even one big multinational that drug tests it's employees but doesn't include cannabis due to the founder of the company being a user of cannabis and believes that it helped him in his thought processing (or some similar reason). The American companies also request PCP (phencyclidine aka angeldust, not the stuff for cows) even though it was never abused in Ireland.

What's bull about that?

the cie thing never happened afaik (for cannabis)



so no one is testing for cannabis?

hunkymonkey

If you read the story, it also mentions that Veolia (operators of the Luas) drug test their employees. There is even a famous case of a lab not understanding what a cutoff is involving a Luas employee;
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/worker-sacked-after-random-drug-test-should-get-job-back-1297135.html
As I said before, I've done drug testing for numerous companies.
What's the big deal with that?
I'm telling you facts not afaik. So when your afaik turn into facts, let me know

Tigger

hunkymonkey wrote: »

If you read the story, it also mentions that Veolia (operators of the Luas) drug test their employees. There is even a famous case of a lab not understanding what a cutoff is involving a Luas employee;
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/worker-sacked-after-random-drug-test-should-get-job-back-1297135.html
As I said before, I've done drug testing for numerous companies.
What's the big deal with that?
I'm telling you facts not afaik. So when your afaik turn into facts, let me know

cos its bull

hunkymonkey

Tigger wrote: »

cos its bull

Oh well, then it must be true :rolleyes:
I had better tell Biomnis in Sandyford that all the work they are doing is nonsense as no one in Ireland tests for cannabis in employees.
http://www.biomnis.ie/OurServices/OccupationalHealth/WorkplaceDrugAlcoholTesting.aspx

I'll leave you to it and your amazing ability to discuss.

Tigger

hunkymonkey wrote: »

Oh well, then it must be true :rolleyes:
I had better tell Biomnis in Sandyford that all the work they are doing is nonsense as no one in Ireland tests for cannabis in employees.
http://www.biomnis.ie/OurServices/OccupationalHealth/WorkplaceDrugAlcoholTesting.aspx

I'll leave you to it and your amazing ability to discuss.

stop googling and tell us one co that are testing for cannabis in ireland

cos there are none

crouchingtiger

Tigger stop posting, you are full of ****. Plenty of employers test for narcotics. Show me some evidence they don't, you plan:mad:k.:mad:

Bandana boy

Tigger wrote: »

stop googling and tell us one co that are testing for cannabis in ireland

cos there are none

It would be practically impossible to prove that nobody is testing for cannabis in Ireland.
Your ignorance of a company testing for cannabis does not constitute a fact.

Tigger

Bandana boy wrote: »

It would be practically impossible to prove that nobody is testing for cannabis in Ireland.
Your ignorance of a company testing for cannabis does not constitute a fact.

ok

but name one

Tigger

crouchingtiger wrote: »

Tigger stop posting, you are full of ****. Plenty of employers test for narcotics. Show me some evidence they don't, you plan:mad:k.:mad:

name one irish employer who tests for cannabis

Joe10000

Ryanair and Aer Lingus.

discus

The Defence Forces.

Tigger

discus wrote: »

The Defence Forces.

not an employer