Xanax Urine Test Results Info

[acman]

Wanted to share this with everyone. Swim had a drug test today for probation. It was a 5 panel test including benzos. Swim has been using xanax regularly for the past 6 weeks Last dose was on Friday night. Swim passed his test with flying colors

So, that is only the 4th day after the last dose (2Mg). Swim did nothing unusual to beat the test, just drank water casually like everyone else.

Swim just wanted this to be posted as a lot of conflicting info is posted here. I hope that it is helpful to others as swim used this board for info on subject.

[Richard_smoker]

All I can say is that SWIY IS ONE LUCKY S.O.B.!!!

swim knows from personal experience (and $100 worth of home test kits) that no matter how much water he drank, the benzo panel was ALWAYS positive up until about day 21.

swiy might just be the luckiest individual on earth!
-DICK

fyi: prior to this 21 day run of positives, swim had only taken xanax for 1 week... nothing compared to a 6 week run. (shaking head in disbelief)

[Jiggles]

SWIM has gotten lucky twice with drug tests, but he seems to think either his metabolism is extremely extremely fast, or the tests were flawed.

The first test SWIM took for a job and was on Adderall for a week beforehand and stopped the day of the test, and he had smoked pot a week previously and still passed with flying colors, he thought he got lucky or something.

The next test SWIM had to take because of court, and this was one sprung on him unexpectedly. He had been using Klonopin daily for almost a week, smoked pot every day for the past year, and was high out of his gourd on pot and klonopin WHILE taking his drug test immediately following court. He even has some amnesia from the k-pins about that entire week and only remembered taking the drug test when looking through his phone and finding a picture he took on the wall of the bathroom showing how to hold one's penis and pee correctly into the cup at the next court date the judge said SWIM passed throughout the board, he was so shocked, he didn't even have time to mask his drug use!

So even though people do get lucky, don't expect it going into a drug test. The only thing that will truly make you pass is to stay clean unfortunately. But, that being said, cheers to you mate for passing that shit drug tests are no fun.

[Richard_smoker]

you know, I've heard some tall tales in my life...but this is just flat-out NOT POSSIBLE.

understand my meaning: i am NOT accusing you of lying. on the contrary. I totally believe you.

What is going on here, is a plain and simple case of SELECTIVE TESTING OF SAMPLES!

First, realize 1 very important fact. that is that a drug screen costs something like $10 each, and if that test comes back negative, you have essentially thrown away $10. In fact, it's shitty economics to test every sample.

I knew a guy who worked for a large, well-known corporation...he was also a daily pot-smoker, and his corporation performed routine urine drug screens on employees. when i asked him to explain himself (because--um, it made no sense). here's what he said,

Drug tests are expensive. My company is not going to spend their money on test kits when they can just PRETEND to do the tests and have the same psychological effect as really doing the tests.

now, i know that drug test kits are not THAT expensive (currently around $10, but at the time of this conversation they were more expensive..$50 at MOST), but admittedly, the required confirmatory testing following a positive screen is very expensive.

also, I know that there are many many many drug tests that are LEGITIMATE! hence the large numbers of test-failures that I have been aware of.

But, consider this...just like a waiter in a restaurant can steal money from his employer if he's allowed to keep his own bank...a drug-tester can pocket the money spent on a drug screen, and report back a negative test. why? because NO ONE is going to say, "wait a minute! I'm high on marijuana right now! you must have just pocketed the drug-testing fee! you thief!"

also, in the case of my friend's company, the drug screens can be used for something altogether different and equally unethical...for one thing, they probably get cheaper insurance premiums with a "random drug testing policy" in place...and another thing is this fact: why would you risk discovering a fireable offense in someone who might just be your most-productive employees?

nope. the smart thing to do would be this: throw away all the samples from the "good" employees. But when you have an asshole who isn't pulling his/her weight, THEN you can splurge and spend $10 on a real drug screen--which will likely be positive for SOMETHING since everyone else in the company has been able to 'get away' with chronic pot smoking. think about it! companies are full of employees that they want to fire for no good reason, but legally, they cannot.

Now in the case of probation/court ordered drug tests, the court/police/whatever can save a LOT of money by instituting RANDOM or SELECTIVE TESTING of samples. The laws of statistics always prevail. you can test 1 in 5 samples and save 80% of the cost of drug test kits. will some users slip thru? of course...but will anyone ALWAYS slip thru? very very unlikely. how unlikely depends on the number of piss-tests any one individual is subjected to.

it's the law of probability. same reason that casinos have more money than God..."probability is just like gravity...eventually, everything will come down."

also, in the case of the parole/court/police scenario, they always have the option to SELECTIVELY test any given sample. this is similar to the shit-head employer scenario given above...put simply, if the officer has ANY REASON to suspect that you're pissing dirty (unusual smells, red eyes, or excessive nervousness), then this would be another instance where a $10 kit would have a high-probability of coming back positive.

i know...there's an element of conspiracy theory in this post, but think about it. you can't say that it isn't possible...it's just good, smart economics meets the law of probability.
-DICK

Reputation Comments on this post:

	very good post
	excellent in depth post. thanks.

[Spare Chaynge]

Swims experience with the benzo test is that if its a dip stick it is notoriously unreliable..Swim came to this conclusion after being drug tested for benzos every 3 days for 8 months...

High amounts of benzos allways resulted in a positive. But low amounts did not always lead to a positive.. In addition to this false positive are very common with the kind swim was given..

Sounds like swim was just lucky. Do not count on it again.

[Richard_smoker]

Originally Posted by Spare Chaynge

Swims experience with the benzo test is that if its a dip stick it is notoriously unreliable..Swim came to this conclusion after being drug tested for benzos every 3 days for 8 months...

High amounts of benzos allways resulted in a positive. But low amounts did not always lead to a positive.. In addition to this false positive are very common with the kind swim was given..

Sounds like swim was just lucky. Do not count on it again.

yeah, but did swiy do the test SWIYSELF?? or was he relying on a lab?

Swim found that his dipsticks were 100% reliable...21/21 all positive...every single day until around day 20, the darkness of the positive line started to fade a bit.
-DICK

[Spare Chaynge]

This was done by another person... It was one of those cheapy dip sticks that was only a test for benzos.

Swim finds them reliable enough where he would never risk taking benzos thinking he was going to pass one.

[acman]

Well, swim was not trying to ruffle anyone's feathers here. Swim was merely stating a true story for the benefit of others who may find themselves in a similar situation.

Swim understands that all circumstances are different. Call it luck or call it science, this was the way it went down.

Bottom line? Who knows...

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by Richard_smoker

i know...there's an element of conspiracy theory in this post, but think about it. you can't say that it isn't possible...it's just good, smart economics meets the law of probability.
-DICK

Agreed 100% with your post, it definitely explains what SWIM felt when he said the tests must have been flawed. SWIM know's its impossible for his metabolism to be that fast or anything on a chemical nature, and what SWIY says is all entirely plausible and in fact highly probable. It sounds like such an easy scam to pocket the money for the drug tests and report back negative.

As SWIY said, who is really going to point the finger and say "you must have falsely reported the test because i was high going in!" ? Nobody in their right mind, that's who.

[fiveleggedrat]

Good, logical explanation for drug testing in the workplace's inconsistencies.

Swim here can believe it. Makes sense, but probably not TOO commonplace.

Swim reccommends that when someone is going to drug test, don't get the idea that you won't get caught because of something like that above!

Swim would probably also say, instead of just giving all false negatives, the testing companies likely also test only a few at random, instead of all negatives.

Think about it, it EVERYONE at Company A is drug free for say, a few years, then why should Company A continue to employ said drug testing company? There obviously is not a problem.

[Richard_smoker]

Originally Posted by [B

BigDickedFleaMarketTeaCupChihuahua[/b];459506]Good, logical explanation for drug testing in the workplace's inconsistencies.

thanks. BigDickedFleaMarketTeaCupChihuahua YOU are CORRECT my son! I also believe wholeheartedly with your arguement here...that Mister Richard Smoker...well, you know, He's a Chicken-Choker!

Originally Posted by [B

BigDickedFleaMarketTeaCupChihuahua[/b];459506]Makes sense, but probably not TOO commonplace.

Originally Posted by [B

BigDickedFleaMarketTeaCupChihuahua[/b];459506] if you're going in for a drug test, do not get the idea that you won't get caught because of something like that above!

Originally Posted by [B

BigDickedFleaMarketTeaCupChihuahua[/b];459506]the testing companies [that are scammin'] test only a few at random, instead of all negatives.

and again, hats off to BigDickedFleaMarketTeaCupChihuahua, because you have also been deemed the winner of an "Honorable Mention" Ribbon for the number of true, consistent, and proper elements located in your last post. If you would like to hear more about the ribbon, I can just explain it very briefly to you.

The Honorable Mention "Gold-Colored" Ribbon that is being bestowed upon BigDickedFleaMarketTeaCupChihuahua is a one-of-its-kind, not in terms of being the only one in existence, but in terms of being the only one of its kind that was ever revitalized and used as a tool to train very small young dogs (& people, but of course, that doesn't really apply here, right!!)
This award was originally bestowed upon a 3rd grade girl named, "Susana Bennet" and the date on the ribbon is 1987 for piano festival/sonata contest. It is my understanding that at Susana's level, there were about 12 competitors, a first place, second place, third place, 4th place, and 4 honorable mentions...(which is in fair-good condition; you can tell that it was used as a hair-bow, bookmark, etc over the years, before parents finally tossed in the garbage).
You've really earned this golden ribbon/wearable safety pin. you're gonna LOVE it!
-DICK

[JohnDeere]

Very interesting points brought up here...it's actually plausible. But SWIY did get really lucky. SWIM wouldn't push his luck if he was you, and count this as a blessing in disguise. This coming from someone who has definitely dropped dirty for probation more than once. SWIM is not not proud of it, but SWIM learned the hard way. They test them for the courts, SWIM definitely believe the corporation thinking though, save money on tests and insurance. For sure.