Anyone ever had a hair sample drug test?

[Connonym]

Filling out a job ap and it says that they test hair for drugs. They claim that they test "three months worth" of hair. So on rare occasion I've been know to smoke some weed -- anyone know how much it takes to have it show in your hair? Does one or two times over the course of a couple months show up?

[datasuspect]

1. yes

it is a pretty effective method

[Connonym]

2. Well I guess I'm screwn

:-( damn, just...damn

[datasuspect]

3. you could shave your head

without going into particulars, what industry sector is the prospective employer in?

[Connonym]

4. healthcare

On one level I can understand the concern because there's potential access to pharmaceuticals but on the other hand...fucking A I feel like I'm living in 1984.

[datasuspect]

5. many people are employed in healthcare around these parts

i've seen docs, nurses do some pretty fucked up shit with controlled substances.

and then go and deal with patients after staying up for three days.

weird.

[pitohui]

24. just get your hair cut short before the test

the roots won't have the old information, just get a good short cut, i wouldn't go bald ala ms. spears tho, that might be a bit over much

[Roon]

16. I have seen a lot of hearts broken

with drug testing. My ex lost a really good job at Qwest when they tested him out of the blue. My other ex landed a job and at the last minute they said he had to take a drug test too. He didn't get the job. Just keep in mind, there are a lot of good places to work that don't drug test.

[skygazer]

6. Bummer

My rule of thumb has always been to quit smoking when I'm looking for a job. It sucks that I have to but that's how the game is played. If I want to work, I gotta play.

You might get lucky. When I got my present job, I'd been looking for a while and hadn't found anything. I picked up a hitchhiker one day and went out of my way to bring him home - he repaid me by reading my cards and sharing a smoke. :smoke:

Good card reading, saw good things in my future as far as jobs went. And sure enough, I was called in the very next day for an interview which led to a drug test. *gulp* It was a pee-in-the-cup test and I passed it somehow. :shrug:

What crazy hoops we jump through....

[datasuspect]

7. get a job where you can get high with your boss

i made that mistake once


nothing gets done.

even worse, i worked for a guy who was a worse drunk than i am. we'd be hitting the sauce at 9:30 a.m.

[skygazer]

10. I've had those

One of them was a road construction project, if you'll believe that. But we were at least responsible - we kicked back with a bone after work in the office when everyone else had cleared out. So we were just driving home fried, not working that way. :)

[Connonym]

9. I guess I've never considered the prospect of a hair test

I've peed in the cup for every other healthcare job I've had. I don't smoke very often and, of course I know it's verboten but it never occurred to me that it would come back to haunt me a couple months later. Nobody has to tell me that it's my own stupid fault. I know that but it still bums me out.

[skygazer]

12. I would never say that

About it being your "own stupid fault." I hope you didn't read my post that way. I think it's pretty ridiculous that we can be denied a job for something that we do outside of work. Just because it stays in your system doesn't mean it's actively affecting you. But I'm not the one who gets to make the rules.

Sucks.

[Connonym]

14. No, I didn't take your post that way

I'm kicking my own self here

[datasuspect]

15. don't play the blame game

you've engaged in one of the least harmful recreational activities around.

you just live in a maddening and crazed system that lauds drunks and imprisoners stoners.

how much precisely have you taken?

over what time period?


bear in mind though, each strand of hair can contain up to 3 months of detectable substance, even longer depending on long the hair is.

if it's been longer than 90 days, you should be alright.

[Connonym]

18. Maybe 4 or 5 times a year

I can't remember if the last time was January or December -- I'm right on the border where I don't know whether it would show or not. On the one hand I don't want to have a record of failing a screening but on the other hand I could be worried about nothing. I suppose maybe I should just wait a couple more months and hope another job comes up. I'm working now but I don't have health insurance and that's starting to make me really nervous because I just turned 41 and I have a very strong family history of early heart attacks and cancer.

[datasuspect]

19. they keep a record of failed drug tests

but the timeframe you mention makes the betting man in me say, go for it.

[pitohui]

26. i tend to agree -- get a nice attractive short cut/style and go for it

it sounds like the sooner you get on the career path the better, depends on how fast your hair grows i guess, but seems to me that first couple of inches of new roots since january should be okay

[commander bunnypants]

8. With alcohol now

They can test up to 5 days with a urinanlsis.

ethyl glucarinate or something like that

an alcohol metabolite

CB

[Connonym]

11. Can testing detect nicotine too?

I don't smoke tobacco but I know that this hospital system has much higher health care premiums for smokers. I wonder if they check for that and change your premiums accordingly.

It's so intrusive but what the hell can you do?

[commander bunnypants]

13. yep

use google

They test for every damn thing known to man

CB

[Lyric]

20. Good grief!

I Googled it, and it's just unfuckingbelievable!

http://www.hairdrugtest.com/drugtest/hairfaq.htm

16. What other drugs are available to be tested in hair analysis? Currently, nicotine, methadone, simple benzodiazepines, tricyclic antidepressants assays and mescaline have been detected in hair. However, many details such as cutoff levels and dose response relationships have not yet been established for these compounds. Detection of these compounds is possible by special arrangement with the Laboratory.

(this is in addition to the standard cocaine/opiates/marijuana/PCP/methamphetamine test)

So employers can arrange to find out if we smoke? If we take antidepressant medicines? Or anti-anxiety meds?

I'd refuse to work for someone who invaded my privacy that recklessly. This sort of thing ought to be loudly protested against, not tacitly accepted. Ugh.

[av8rdave]

17. It's pretty accurate...The court has had my ex tested a few times...

[stuntcat]

21. (this is scary)

like crazy police-state BS.
Someone who smoked pot twice a month in their own home can lose a chance at a job that someone else will get just because they've never broken The US Law? Well not the law they can test their hairs for anyway.
This is so LAME, I hope you won't have to take part in that kind of test at all x(

[mistertrickster]

22. My ex had a hair test and it showed all kinds of stuff she didn't have.

High levels of copper. BS. My dad who's a dentist says they're crap.

I would cut your hair as short as possible without setting off alarms and then take the test.

They are so bad, you'll probably pass anyway.

[wildhorses]

23. what does chemical processes do to the hair strand?

such as bleaches and colorants and permanents?

i think drug testing sucks...both pre-job and random

for cause i can live with but, i don't really like it either.

if there is alcohol in the system then chances are the person was judgement impaired also some other drugs like crack and meth

but, pot...give me a frickin' break

this country needs to get real about marijuana. cultivate, sale and tax it and put some useful laws out there. the way it is now it is a drain on our economy and not being used to its utmost beneficial capapbilities...

just my .02

[pitohui]

25. there's no good test for marijuana really, it stays in the system too long

let's say it is supposedly legalized, you would still lose everything if you were in an auto accident and smoked a week ago, because it would still be in your "system" as it is stored in fat, not to mention hair, which holds the record for many months

i don't see how we can cultivate, sale, tax, and ADVERTISE/PROMOTE as a legal product something that pretty much puts every person at risk of huge legal liabilities if they actually did use it -- in other words, if you owned a car, you would still need to figure out a way to fool the tests even if it was supposedly "legal"

or in this case, the person in the health care industry, even if pot was "legal," they are dealing w. human health, well, EVERYONE sooner or later gets sick and dies even w. the best care, some of the family members of "everyone" are going to be disgruntled, so your use of marijuana, even if it were "legal" would put you AND your employer at huge risk of being sued for malpractice, you can testify hey i smoked two months ago but the jury is just going to hear hey she smoked and it's he said she said when the smoking happened

legalizing marijuana for anybody but underage kids who don't have to drive anywhere and have no legal liabilities on their job is not going to be so simple as we imagine, while there is an advantage to clogging civil courts instead of criminal courts...reality is that real people who are forward-thinking still couldn't use w. current technology if they were concerned w. such things as protecting their assets or their family's assets, so it's still going to be something associated with slobs and slackers

i don't know the answer for everyone, but for me, i found the best thing is to get this product and its users out of my life expression, and i would think any sane employer, EVEN IF MARIJUANA IS LEGAL, would not be allowing their employees to use it

one case could tie you up in years because of the ambiguities

we need a test that says, clearcut, "this person is actually under the influence of marijuana at this time" not the test that says "this person used this drug sometime in the last few weeks!"

until then i don't see why anyone would hire anyone known to use marijuana if they could avoid it and if the position was a responsible one

i wouldn't

would you? would you really?

[Tyler Durden]

27. As someone who spent an entire decade stoned...

Yep. In a minute.

It's far past time we got out of the "I stubbed my toe, so I'm suing the guy who laid the concrete 30 years ago" mode.

SURE there are some jobs I'd exempt from that, but making plastic shit for CARS? Cashier at the 7/11?
The Safeway? WAL FREAKING MART?

Time for a reality check, nationwide.

[SteppingRazor]

28. I absolutely would hire someone who smoked.

And the whole thing you're setting up, with regards to liability even if pot were legal, falls apart when you consider that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was reckless or negligent at the time. So, it's not enough to say "this test shows this person smoked pot in the past two months!"

So, the question of legal liability only matters if people are smoking on the job. As an employer, I certainly wouldn't condone that, just as I wouldn't condone drinking on the job. But as far as hiring someone who smoked pot if pot were legal, of course I'd hire them. As the law stands now, I'm perfectly willing to hire people who drink in their off hours, why would the same not apply to people who smoke?

[wildhorses]

29. i agree with this ---

we need a test that says, clearcut, "this person is actually under the influence of marijuana at this time" not the test that says "this person used this drug sometime in the last few weeks!"

other than that i am not prepared to make a blanket statement...

people are accountable for their actions.

[skygazer]

30. Of course I would

Would you hire someone if you knew they drank beer in their off hours? Or wine? Or smoked cigarettes? As long as the person isn't using on the job, why should I care what they do at home? Just because it stays in their system doesn't mean it's affecting them and I don't see your reference to courts as an issue here.

It's pretty clear when a person is performing their job badly. For whatever reason. If they are, it should be documented, the proper write-ups should be issued and if the problem persists, the employee should be terminated. Not because they're using pot - because they're not doing their job.

But to deny employment to someone because they have something in their system that they may have put there a month ago is absurd.

[Oeditpus Rex]

31. The real concern here

is the conclusions they'd draw from the test results. But they never tell you up front what those might be. They never say, "If you've ever been in the same room with a bong, you will not be hired."

I'd never pass a drug screening because I take Xanax and Lexapro. While both are perfectly legal, I'd be afraid some HR fuck would conclude I'd be likely to take a lot of time off work because of anxiety and/or depression issues, ignorant to the logic that those would be likely if I didn't take the meds.

I also take Lipitor. From that, they'd probably conclude I'm hell-bent on having a heart attack.