Dear Drugs-Forum readers: We are a small non-profit that runs one of the most read drug information & addiction help websites in the world. We serve over 2.9 million readers per month, and have costs like all popular websites: servers, hosting, licenses and software. To protect our independence we do not run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations which average $25. If everyone reading this would donate $5 then this fund raiser would be done in an hour. If Drugs-Forum is useful to you, take one minute to keep it online another year by donating whatever you can today. We just need 1% of our readers to donate. Donations are currently not sufficient to pay our bills and keep the site up. Your help is most welcome. Thank you.
The only way to FOR SURE pass a drug test is to not have any drugs in one's system (or at least one's they are testing for). Furosemide (Lasix) is not full-proof and some people will still run the risk of dropping a dirt pee.
Not saying the furosemide won't work but please do a tester just in case. I believe the regime (just in general, I don't know about specific substances as this was posted regarding marijuana) is 80mg lasix, lots o wata, pee two times, take a test (Robert Freeman).
Um, lasix is furosemide, a loop diuretic. It is a pretty powerful one, too, so I'd be pretty leery of messing about with it to try to defeat a drug test, even if diuretics were useful for this purpose, which they are not, anyway.
Addition: don't take lasix (furosemide) if you have taken aspirin -- the lasix will interfere with your body's ability to eliminate aspirin and you could develop aspirin toxicity. I mention this because sometimes people claim that taking a big dose of aspirin can defeat some drug tests. WHATEVER YOU DO DON'T TAKE THEM BOTH! Aspirin toxicity can cause hearing loss. It is not something you want.
Further addition: the info sheet for lasix says the following about aspirin toxicity: "Patients receiving high doses of salicylates concomitantly with Lasix, as in rheumatic disease, may experience salicylate toxicity at lower doses because of competitive renal excretory sites."
This is consistent with normal low doses of aspirin not presenting any serious risk of toxicity in combination with lasix. However, if someone were to make a poor decision to try to defeat a drug test by taking a large dose of aspirin, then if they were to make the further poor decision to take lasix for the same purpose, they would be putting themselves at risk for aspirin toxicity.
Last edited by Calliope; 21-03-2012 at 23:56.
Reason: Further information. & yet further info.
Calliope is right! I didn't stress this at all so here goes: Furosemide is a heavy diuretic and should only be prescribed and taken under the supervision of a doctor. Again, the only sure fire way to pass a drug test is to not do drugs or any substance that could potentially cause a false positive.
I totally agree with the above comments that strong diuretics are potentially dangerous and probably best avoided, and that the only surefire way to avoid a positive test result is to abstain rather than trying to play the system.
I also don't see how a diuretic alone would help one circumvent a positive drug test. A diuretic is just going to result in a fail for producing a dilute sample unless its usage is exquisitely well gauged. If that keeps happening then they'll probably take a hair follicle test instead in which case the testee would be up shit creek without a paddle.
I'd also think that common masking agents like furosemide are present in the GC/MS libraries used by laboratories that perform confirmatory testing. If the sample was sent for GC/MS then the presence of furosemide may be identified, which unless prescribed would be a clear indication of sample tampering. Perhaps someone with experience in this field could clarify if confirmatory tests are likely to screen for known interfering agents?
I'm not in the testing field, and admit that I don't fully understand exactly what 'oxidizing adulterants' may or may not be, so this may or may not be relevant (I'll leave it to the chem whizzes to decide):
SAMHSA (2004) guidelines recommend that a number of validity checks be performed for all urine drug screens, including temperature, creatinine, specific gravity (when creatinine is less than 20 mg/dl), pH, and tests for oxidizing adulterants.
In a healthy volunteer, creatinine is expected to be greater than or equal to 20 ppm. A creatinine level below this threshold suggests that a sample has been diluted, either directly or through excessive fluid ingestion. In a healthy volunteer, the specific gravity of a urine specimen is expected to be greater than or equal to 1.003 and to have a pH between 3 and 11. A pH or specific gravity outside of this range may suggest chemical adulteration.
To me, it suggests that if SAMSA (Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration) is recommending it, then testing companies are probably complying - at least in the US anyway.
It seems intuitive that they would have an up to date library, no doubt it will greatly improve their performance record and make them more competitive if they can claim to screen for known adulterants etc.
That quote is from a useful research article by Jaffee et al called "Is this urine really negative? A systematic review of tampering methods in urine drug screening and testing", Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 33 (2007) 33– 42. It does exactly what it says on the tin and reviews the effectiveness of several methods/compounds. Granted it is 5 yrs old, so may be pretty outdated but I'll upload it to the archives if it isn't already there...
Hope that helps.
ETA: Document (re)added HERE - Jasim had uploaded it a long time ago but it comes up as unavailable?
Last edited by catseye; 20-03-2012 at 23:37.
Reason: added link/clarify