-
Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).
urine test
- Thread starter kendo
- Start date
From what I understand, they can't really test you for it and hold it against you because your body already produces it.
It was previously believed that it was only found in the urine of schizophrenics but this paper shows that it can be found in normal people as well.
If you ever were tested and it showed up positive, you could just say that you meditate a lot and stick to that story, no matter what.
It was previously believed that it was only found in the urine of schizophrenics but this paper shows that it can be found in normal people as well.
If you ever were tested and it showed up positive, you could just say that you meditate a lot and stick to that story, no matter what.
I think its highly unlikely that they would even test for dmt..and if they did i doubt it would show up, since its metabolized at hyper-speed. Just my guess
Al Dimentiz
Rising Star
From the DMT vault of EROWID.ORG
Urine Testing
We are not aware of any drug tests that would show DMT usage. It is not one of the SAMHSA-5 standardly tested for in the basic drug test, nor is it included in the extended drug tests. It is not chemically similar to any of the drugs tested for, so should not trigger the tests as another substance.
And I've been tested before, and I came up negative.
Urine Testing
We are not aware of any drug tests that would show DMT usage. It is not one of the SAMHSA-5 standardly tested for in the basic drug test, nor is it included in the extended drug tests. It is not chemically similar to any of the drugs tested for, so should not trigger the tests as another substance.
And I've been tested before, and I came up negative.
Melodic Catastrophe said:
This is an interesting paper too:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/kw2nm252m3248864/
Shows that the levels in patients with schizophrenia were slightly higher compared to control group (but not significantly so).
It's an endogenous neurotransmitter (or so the current assumptions lead us to believe) that gets metabolized insanely fast...even if they did run tests for this incredibly esoteric drug (which they don't), how would they show to any satisfying degree that the levels in your system are not natural?
John Smith
Rising Star
There was a post recently with some paper showing that about 10% of dmt can be logded in the brain for up to a week or something like that. I can't find it. Not sure if those 10% could elevate amount of dmt in urine to absurd amounts or affect anything at all.
As others have said, it's a neurotransmitter, and only small amounts are needed for you to achieve a psychedelic state with it. If there's any significant amounts in your urine, you'd probably be experiencing hyperspace.
I don't know about the harmalas though.
I don't know about the harmalas though.
compton4x4
Rising Star
Melodic Catastrophe said:
I tried to read this paper, however I was required to subscribe, which was almost $50. Have you read this paper? Did it mention what the levels of nn-dmt or bufutonin were? Like a % in the urine?
Exogenous DMT has been shown to stick around at a certain % for like 7 days in the human nervous system. There was a thread about it here not too long ago either. I think the speculation was that the brain stored the DMT for a period of time due to it being an endogenous neurotransmitter or something.
If I'm not mistaken, and someone please correct my misunderstanding if I am, the tests are usually looking for metabolites and not necessarily the substance in question. Even though DMT is metabolized at near light speed, the question would be how long do its metabolites stick around?
I am not personally worried about this, even though I am subjected to urinalysis once every blue moon, because they tell you what you are being tested for in advance, and at the time of testing. Even if they go to the expanded list, as some small percentage of samples randomly are I think, from what another poster mentioned, it doesn't seem like they are on the lookout for DMT use.
I am not personally worried about this, even though I am subjected to urinalysis once every blue moon, because they tell you what you are being tested for in advance, and at the time of testing. Even if they go to the expanded list, as some small percentage of samples randomly are I think, from what another poster mentioned, it doesn't seem like they are on the lookout for DMT use.
I really wouldn't worry about this...
....but I WOULD keep in mind the old lie detector test strategy: no matter what the test says, tell them they failed, and see what they say. My advice if you had to take a test and someone told you it showed you had used DMT: say "What's that?"
....but I WOULD keep in mind the old lie detector test strategy: no matter what the test says, tell them they failed, and see what they say. My advice if you had to take a test and someone told you it showed you had used DMT: say "What's that?"
they wont test you for DMT anyway. I really feel sorry for people that are subjected to these sorts of tests. It is truely sick and perverted individuals that want to analyze peoples bodily fluids in order to judge them as an employee. This sort of thing should be illegal. I got a job once at this big frozen food warehouse and just before I left after I got the job they were like "oh yeah you have to come early on monday for your urin test"..I never went back.
Reminds me of Gattaca.
It sucks that jobs are hard to come by these days for so many people that they must feel like they have no other choice but to be invaded and discriminated against in this way.
Reminds me of Gattaca.
It sucks that jobs are hard to come by these days for so many people that they must feel like they have no other choice but to be invaded and discriminated against in this way.
spaceshuttle
Rising Star
i get tested regularly without any problems. i only use dmt and shrooms.
i believe drug tests are necessary in some workplaces where someone under the influence poses a risk to other employees, construction sites for example, there has been two severe incidents this year at work, both people that injured themselves (operating heavy machinery) tested positive for amphetamines during the indecent investigation.
i believe drug tests are necessary in some workplaces where someone under the influence poses a risk to other employees, construction sites for example, there has been two severe incidents this year at work, both people that injured themselves (operating heavy machinery) tested positive for amphetamines during the indecent investigation.
^ no way man it is none of anyone business what you do at home. To just assume some guy rigging or operating the crane etc is baked at work is not fair. Alcohol is by far a leader in work related accidents and noone cares if you get hammered all weekend but if you smoked a joint like 2 weeks ago you should be punished?
It is a human rights violation. I think they should have to catch you high at work. What about caffine? I have worked alot of construction in my life..I once saw a guy OD on caffine and was shaking all over the place, ended up having to go home he was so sick and unable to work..but people are allowed 3 breaks a day to take drugs that are accepted by society.
It just is not fair unless they can find a test that proves that a person is stoned at the time the test is done. Anyone can just stop drinking for a day and pass and then come back to work hammered. It does happen all the time I have seen it personally and had to work with these people. I have also had to work with crack addicts. The drunks are far far far worse than the people that smoke crack in terms of how dangerous they are..but they can always pass a drug test while a sober man who smoked a joint last friday will not.
It is not fair and when we start to treat people this way we loose a significant portion of our human rights. Being caught at work while using drugs is one thing..some test that signifies you smoked cannabis sometime in the past 4 weeks etc is something else entirely.
The same goes for speed and heroin and any other drug. If people can drink alcohol which is more toxic and dangerous in many ways that amphetamines and opiates than I think they should be allowed to take some speed on a saturday night if that is what they wish to do. It is not an employers business what you do on your own time.
BTW amphetamines are very useful for long periods of time working with heavy machinery. The military uses them all the time. Dont buy into this drug war agenda crap. People can overdo it with stimulants like xanthenes(caffine) just like they can with amphetamines, or they can take moderate doses which can be productive. I am not saying it is good to take amphetamines, I am just saying that the idea that someone can take accepted drugs and noone conciders that when they frak up but jump all over about the drug thing when someone screws up on illegal drugs is sort of bunk.
It is a human rights violation. I think they should have to catch you high at work. What about caffine? I have worked alot of construction in my life..I once saw a guy OD on caffine and was shaking all over the place, ended up having to go home he was so sick and unable to work..but people are allowed 3 breaks a day to take drugs that are accepted by society.
It just is not fair unless they can find a test that proves that a person is stoned at the time the test is done. Anyone can just stop drinking for a day and pass and then come back to work hammered. It does happen all the time I have seen it personally and had to work with these people. I have also had to work with crack addicts. The drunks are far far far worse than the people that smoke crack in terms of how dangerous they are..but they can always pass a drug test while a sober man who smoked a joint last friday will not.
It is not fair and when we start to treat people this way we loose a significant portion of our human rights. Being caught at work while using drugs is one thing..some test that signifies you smoked cannabis sometime in the past 4 weeks etc is something else entirely.
The same goes for speed and heroin and any other drug. If people can drink alcohol which is more toxic and dangerous in many ways that amphetamines and opiates than I think they should be allowed to take some speed on a saturday night if that is what they wish to do. It is not an employers business what you do on your own time.
BTW amphetamines are very useful for long periods of time working with heavy machinery. The military uses them all the time. Dont buy into this drug war agenda crap. People can overdo it with stimulants like xanthenes(caffine) just like they can with amphetamines, or they can take moderate doses which can be productive. I am not saying it is good to take amphetamines, I am just saying that the idea that someone can take accepted drugs and noone conciders that when they frak up but jump all over about the drug thing when someone screws up on illegal drugs is sort of bunk.
Indoril_Nerevar
The third eye,humanity's only hope...
jamie said:
Dunno if it's just me but I wouldn't want a heroin junkie or a methhead working for me
^this is EXACTLY what I am talking about. You act as if EVERYONE who might use meth occasionally or heroin is a junkie shooting up every single day. How would you know if they are by some drug test that cannot tell you exactly when a drug was consumed? Would you also not hire someone who had a drink last friday night?
Would you want a chronic alcoholic working for you? if so..why would you like that more than someone who uses heroin or methamphetamine?
This is a common stereotype and nothing more.
Notice I did NOT talk about "heroin junkies" or "methheads" in my post..those are your words that you projected after you read it. Just because some uses heroin say, once a month does that make them a "junky"? Would you rather hire a chronic alcoholic than someone who does methamphetamine every other month?
What I talked about in my post is that for one, you just cant know when or how often anyone is using a certain drug. The idea that someone cant take methamphetamine infrequently and not be an addict is just some drug war myth propeganda. Alcohol is for sure number one abused drug in our society and it is addictive and toxic and ruins peoples lives all the time..yet people will still target people who use other drugs(even in non addictive ways) like amphetamines etc and act as if they are worse examples of a healthy responsible person than an alcoholic.
By doing so you just help the "drug war" progess. It is these kinds of stereotypes that keep things like privatized prisons in business.
Would you want a chronic alcoholic working for you? if so..why would you like that more than someone who uses heroin or methamphetamine?
This is a common stereotype and nothing more.
Notice I did NOT talk about "heroin junkies" or "methheads" in my post..those are your words that you projected after you read it. Just because some uses heroin say, once a month does that make them a "junky"? Would you rather hire a chronic alcoholic than someone who does methamphetamine every other month?
What I talked about in my post is that for one, you just cant know when or how often anyone is using a certain drug. The idea that someone cant take methamphetamine infrequently and not be an addict is just some drug war myth propeganda. Alcohol is for sure number one abused drug in our society and it is addictive and toxic and ruins peoples lives all the time..yet people will still target people who use other drugs(even in non addictive ways) like amphetamines etc and act as if they are worse examples of a healthy responsible person than an alcoholic.
By doing so you just help the "drug war" progess. It is these kinds of stereotypes that keep things like privatized prisons in business.
spaceshuttle
Rising Star
how productive is smoking crack???
Similar threads
