What will make you fail?

[BEAR]

Netnin, I must begin by telling you I don't want to drag out a topic that shouldn't be addressed here and I don't want to get on your bad side , but I have personal experience with flushes. In the case of cocain, it can only stay in your body for 72 hours. Pot on the other hand is not that easy to mask or flush. I have a friend who is a pot head and he tried flush drinks three times and took a home test (which isn't as involved as the gas test used by spectrum labs and the like) and failed all three times. Additionally, I had a client who used cocain and tried the flush drink and failed, I was forced to take her children. There is no documented proof that flush drinks can alter, remove or otherwise "clean" your urine.
You are correct in producing an acceptable sample thru the use of creatine and B vitamins but once again creatine takes time for the body to absorb and one days notice will not suffice. I just want to make it clear that if someone's freedom (criminal matters) or job is at risk one should not follow flush techniques. One should not smoke at all. It's just not worth it. And for LE, I don't want any stoners serving and protecting me.
If this doesn't sit well with you lets just agree to disagree. :-/

[MissionPoly-ban]

BEAR

I have to admit that I like to talk as if I am an expert.  I love being a smartass every now and then!

The fact is that I really don't know anything about beating a drug test other than what I learned from doing a small amount of research (when I thought I would be facing a drug test a couple years back).

I am now putting down my gun and throwing my hands up in the air...I believe you to be clearly the more knowledgeable in the area of drug tests.

And while I will have to agree with you that I wouldn't want a stoner or pot head protecting or serving me,  I hope you would agree with me in the sense that I wouldn't care having someone protecting and serving me who takes a couple hits of weed once every so often on a day off...

Weed is a harmless drug when used in an unabusive fashion.

[Fred F.]

Netnintubooly,

Just one question to ponder......

Would you want police officers on your dept that smoked marijuana on a casual basis? Its bad enough that many of them are alcoholics, but pot heads and drunks....Just imagine a stoned police officer showing up to your house and they get paranoid.


Fred F.

[MissionPoly-ban]

Fred:

I would have to reply with an "ABSOLUTELY NOT" in response to your following question:

Would you want police officers on your dept that smoked marijuana on a casual basis? Its bad enough that many of them are alcoholics, but pot heads and drunks....Just imagine a stoned police officer showing up to your house and they get paranoid.

What I believe to be absolutely acceptable,  however,  is the idea of police officers using marijuana on an occassional
basis.  I expressed this exact opinion in my prior post:

I hope you would agree with me in the sense that I wouldn't care having someone protecting and serving me who takes a couple hits of weed once every so often [glb]on a day off...[/glb]

Not only did I suggest that occassional usage should be carried out on a day off--I even went as far as saying "a couple of hits,"  which is surely enough THC (without abusing) to produce a nice effect for the occassional user.

What does an "occassional basis" mean to me?  Ohh...maybe once every two to three weeks.  Anyone who has ever used marijuana on an occassional--or consistent--basis is clearly aware of how harmless occassional use is (and when I say harmless,  I'm refering not only to one's physical health,  but also one's mental health).

And just for argument's sake,  let me leave you with the last figures I was presented with:

Alcohol is correlated with 60+% of all fatal car accidents,  and with over 40% of violent crimes.  Hundreds die each year from alcohol poisoning--a form of an overdose.

Cigarettes are responsible for over 100,000 deaths per year for users,  and 40,000 deaths per year for second-hand smoke victims.

Marijuana has never led to an acute death (overdose) because it is not possible to overdose on THC,  and,  while it is clearly possible that long-term chronic users may run a higher risk of attaining lung cancer,  there are no studies that show that occassional/moderate use leads to lung cancer.

You be the judge.  I've already based my opinions on personal experience,  observation,  statistics,  and most importantly:  LOGIC.  This country would be a hell of a lot better off if most people would do the same and not be led around like a bunch of blind sheep who need to ask how to wipe their asses.

Ohh wait...sheep don't wipe their asses.

[Fred F.]

          You be the judge.  I've already based my opinions on personal experience,
           observation,  statistics,  and most importantly:  LOGIC.

Netnintubooly,

Your logic is plausible and your defense of even more so. There are probably many Police Officers that may very well smoke marijuana occasionally as a stress reduction measure.

My beliefs are simple, Your are in a postion of PUBLIC TRUST AND AUTHORITY  and you take an oath to enforce the law fairly and with sound judgement. You can't violate the oath you take by using a CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE.

I will say that I do advocate the use of marijuana for proven MEDICAL uses such as the treatment of glaucoma, for cancer patients as an appetite enhancer and pain reliever, and for the control of spasticity
 in spinal cord injury patients.  Also, you don't see statistics for people who crashed their cars while stoned, but I can only wonder what they are.

Then again I am only one person with one opinion


Fred F.

[MissionPoly-ban]

Fred:

Yes you are correct in the sense that it is hipocritical and wrong for an officer who takes an oath to then go against it and indulge in the occassional use of a controlled substance.

However,  let us look at the facts:

1.  The US Government grows marijuana that is intended for medical purposes...yet they are CLEARLY aware of the fact that a very significant portion of their yields end up in the hands of those who are sick in no way,  shape,  or form.

2.  Other countries allow the legal selling and usage of marijuana...people can literally go to a bar and buy a specified and limited amount of grams per day.

3.  The claim that marijuana is a serious"gateway" drug is purely nonsense.  Any type of drug that creates a high--refered to as a "buzz"--is a potential gateway drug.  Those who are prone to abuse will move up the ladder from any starting point.  One who obtains a buzz from alcohol,  develops a tolerance,  and craves a higher high (and then turns to marijuana, then cocaine, then heroin) has used alcohol as a gateway drug...a DRUG that is legal.

4.  There is no possibility of an overdose on THC,  yet hundreds of people die each year from alcohol poisoning...a legal DRUG.

5.  Increaslingly large numbers of people are turning their heads away from old conservative viewpoints and accepting the reality of a drug that is proven to be safe when used in moderation--even relatively safe when used on a frequent basis (barring abuse).

6.  Marijuana is not--I repeat,  NOT--a physically addictive drug.  While psychological addiction is possible with those who are prone to it,  Marijuana is actually a great drug to be used by those experiencing withdrawal symptoms as a result of quiting harder drugs such as heroin.

7.  Increasingly larger numbers of states (as well as other countries)  are making serious attempts to legalize medical marijuana and decriminalize illegal use.  

While marijuana is currently classified as a controlled substance,  attitudes are rapidly changing.  As the old conservatives (fortunately) are dying off and being burried in their graves (don't let the coffin doors hit them on their way down),  the reality of today's world is finally starting to break through to the more intelligent peoples of the US.  

After being hired,  I believe that an officer should do all that he or she can to enforce laws that are only TRULY necessary.
A guy blows a red light or hits his wife--clearly causes for punishment.  On the other hand,  a guy gets pulled over and the officer finds a few grams of weed in his ashtray--give the guy a break.  

I am trying to become an officer so that I can at least say that I am out there trying to make a difference,  and let people live their lives in peace and harmony when they are truly good people (within reason, of course).  It is time for a change,  and an old quote says "BE THE CHANGE THAT YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD."

I intend on doing exactly that.

[BEAR]

netnin,
I agree with your position on the severity of weed. You're preaching to the choir on that issue.
 
Fred--pot and alcohol is a faulty analogy, apples and baseballs. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it should carry the weight of all illegal activity. For example, any sexual position other than the missionary position is illegal in most states. This includes oral sex. Are you a criminal based on these laws? Pot does not have the same affect as alcohol or any other drug, including cigarettes. Yet it's still as illegal as oral sex. I do agree that we can't have stoned police officers, but I had rather have a cop who smoked weed on vacation than a drunk who is looking for his/her next drink. Please don't get angry with me, but lets think about priorities and where pot falls. Aren't you in LA anyway?

[marci]

Hey finally someone who sees it the way I do!
I don't smoke anything funky but what people do on their own time
is nobodys business
Hey I gots a question for someone who may know what they're talkin' about
cuz I sure don't.
I came to this website to find out the accuracy of CVSA's.  Some web sites
swear that they're 98.6% accurate and higher.    Others say they're as
far fetched as astrology.  I've read books and so on and I'm getting the same
mixed signals.  
In my head.. I think if someone tells me it's ok to lie I'm not going to stress like
I would if I were lying and not wanting anyone to know.  They base the sound
waves on a known lie, and compare them to the soundwaves of what they
think is a lie.  That's what I was told at least.
This is partially for a school (college.. I'm 22) project I'm doing, and by coincidence here I am
about to have one done.  Well it's possible that I could if I go through with
charges that I could press.  
I'm going to be vague, but It's a he said she said case.  They're going to
interview the suspect, and depending on his/her (I don't want to specify
gender or ANY specifics) response, they will make him/her take a CVSA test.
Then I will be asked to take one.  I've pretty much been told that if I refuse
to take it then it will "show" that I'm lying, though I've physical evidence
"working in my favor" so to say.  
This is NOT a murder case.. but here's an example the detective gave me.
They ask one irrelevant question before and after each question that they want
to know the real answer to.
They will tell you to lie about a color of a wall.
"Is this black wall really red?"  I'm supposed to reply "yes"
ok that's my registered lie
"Did you kill Bob"  I reply "no"  
"Is your hair brown?"  I reply "yes" (it really is brown) so that's my
registered truth.
Ok I mean HELL YEAH when you go from asking me what color the wall is
to asking me if I am the person responsible for Bob's death my heart's going to
race, my palms will sweat and so on.  I know in my head I didn't kill Bob but I
also know that is a crucial question so I'm going to freak, regardless if I'm guilty
of murder or not.
According to the detective (with the accuracy rate I was told) that these
machines are about as accurate as paternity tests.  Well paternity tests hold
up in court, so why don't CVSA's if they're so accurate?  
I'm just scared to prosecute this person because the CVSA may not work out
in my favor.  Here I am, a victim and I'm scared to prosecute because I'm
scared that I won't be believed.  What's up with that?  This asshole will run
free, and I'm left with the emotional baggage.  I was also told that if I do
prosecute, the results of the CVSA will rely heavily on whether the prosecutor
throws the case out.  All may (hopefully) work out ok.  If they're not accurate
enough to hold up in court then why are they accurate enough to determine
if the case goes to court or not?
(Pardon any grammar errors, I became more furious as I wrote this and I
quit paying attention to grammar)
SOMEONE ENLIGHTEN ME!!!

[George W. Maschke]

Marci,

CVSA, like polygraphy, is a pseudoscientific fraud. It's sole utility is as an interrogation ploy to get admissions/confessions from naive and gullible persons who believe that these devices can actually detect lies (they can't).

For further reading on the pseudoscience of voice stress analysis, see Chapter 11 of David T. Lykken's book, A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abuses of the Lie Detector (2nd ed., Plenum Trade, 1998). Your college library is likely to have a copy.

I think it is highly irresponsible for your local law enforcement agency to base its investigation on such nonsense as CVSA "testing." You might want to talk to someone in your local government who has oversight responsibility for this department, or with an investigative reporter for a local newspaper. And, perhaps most importantly, you may wish to seek the counsel of a lawyer. (That the police are asking you to agree to submit to a CVSA "test" is a good indication that they suspect your allegation is false.)

[beech trees]

Hi Marci,

Are you a suspect in a criminal investigation? Is the state weighing evidence to decide whether or not to bring charges against you? If that's the case, then the investigators are essentially asking you to come in, leave your Constitutional rights at the door, and subject yourself to a criminal interrogation where your tormentors are aided by the prop known as a CVSA. Don't do it.

If the state is weighing a complaint made by you against someone else, in which there is little else but your word, then George is right-- irresponsible and just bad police work. Can you hire a lawyer?

[BEAR]

It sounds to me like marci is accusing someone of (date)rape and they are basing their decision to go further on the test. If this is the case marci make sure you speak with your victims assistance program to make sure you get justice, and remember the burden of proof is less in a civil court. If you don't get justice in the criminal courts then file in a civil court and take his money, car or whatever you can.

[Marci1]

this is marci..
I just wrote a paragraph but I lost it I think.  Here's another one:
I don't want to go with a civil suit.  First of all he's poor and I couldn't get him
for a dime.  I don't want to drag out payments and have this jerk in my life
anymore than I have to.  I was only told that I would be asked to have a
CVSA test if he denys my accusations.  Which he will.
I did talk to a lawyer, my hired lawyer and he said to take it if I'm asked
I have a friend in law enforcement.  He has one of these machines.  He said
that I could "try" his out.  He told me that people like me (who stress out over
everything) fail these often.  He says though they're 86% accruate. (?) I know
more than 14% of those who take these tests are big stressers.  My detective
holds tight to the theory if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't stress.  
How thick people's heads are!!!  OK if you're asking me a question that I know
determines if the world thinks I'm a liar or not I'm going to stress.  I don't
care if you're asking my shoe size or if I was a hitman in the Mafia.  I'm going
to freak out just because I know, or THINK you can determine lies.  
I agree.  These are ploys to lure gullable, uneducated ignorant people to tell
the truth.  It's like when I was a kid. My mother told me that my tongue turned
colors if I lied.  When she knew I was lying she would say,  "let me see your
tongue" and I would and she would tell me it was purple or green, and I would
break down and tell her the truth.  Well as adults we know (well most of us)
that our tongue stays red no matter what, and now they have to advance
their scare tactic.  "Ahhh I know.. lets say we can read thier sound waves!"
Unless you're in that field of study or work you don't know one squiggly line
from another and have to take what they tell you as gospel because you don't
know any better.  Ok as I step off my soap box....
I ask everyones advice and when I do I rebuttle it all.  I don't know what to
do and I told my investigator that by next Mon when he's back from vacation
I would have an answer.
There are no politicians to go to.  Election time is coming up.  They can't make
a stand now.  The local newspaper is a big butt kisser.  They don't put any bad
news about anything.  They don't use names either.  And to give you insight
on how our prosecutor likes to plea bargain, a local school principal admitted
to molesting two 12 yr olds.  He got 30 days house arrest and 1 year probation.
He's never seen the inside of a jail house.
Maybe I should hire a PI to get dirt on this person and make them look bad??

[beech trees]

Marci,

If you email me and tell me in what state/county you reside, I will research and post the laws governing victim's rights as well as cvsa/polygraph evidence.

Your investigator is wrong. In addition to having no basis in science, the results of a cvsa are not to my knowledge admissable as evidence in any court in the United States. Your lawyer is being derelict in recommending you take a cvsa.

4x4@cluestick.org

Beech Trees

[AMM]

BEAR

I have to admit that I like to talk as if I am an expert.  I love being a smartass every now and then!

Really? Do you think?  Well, at least you're no longer in the denial phase...

[MissionPoly-ban]

AMM (Stands For "A Major Motherfu**er"):

Do me a favor and keep that fat mouth of yours shut.
If I wanted to hear assholes speak I would have eaten beans this morning.