niacin... will it work for me?

[lalalalost]

Okay, well i used to be a heavy pot smoker and everything but i was arrested and now im on probation and that means drug tests every month. So like i cut down on my smoking ALOT, I usually only smoke on the weekends and i only smoked 2 to 3 dubs. Well, i been clean since last Tuesday and im being tested this Tuesday. I been drinking liters of water everyday and i took like 18 750 mg. niacin already... does anyone think it will still be dirty and if so what can i do? thanks

[therunner]

Okay, well i used to be a heavy pot smoker and everything but i was arrested and now im on probation and that means drug tests every month. So like i cut down on my smoking ALOT, I usually only smoke on the weekends and i only smoked 2 to 3 dubs. Well, i been clean since last Tuesday and im being tested this Tuesday. I been drinking liters of water everyday and i took like 18 750 mg. niacin already... does anyone think it will still be dirty and if so what can i do? thanks

Have fun in jail. Enough probabtion violation and you might learn.

Fucking retard.

[barraquilla]

first stop drinking so much water. thc is stored in fat, water doesn't help as much as you think it does. maybe try drinking more just before the test, not for a whole week prior.

1 week would be plenty of time if you didn't have such a long history of smoking. i know someone who swears by cranberry juice, doubt it works, but maybe you could try drinking a glass of that.

i hope you do pass, drug testing is an incredible invasion of privacy. perhaps also consider stopping smoking until you finish probation. good luck.

[lalalalost]

hey thanks... i have some cranberry pills so ill take those too.. i passed my last test by taking niacin but i smoked alot these past weeks..im seriously considering not smoking any more too much drama and im bored of it anyways thanks again

[lalalalost]

how u gonna call me a fucking retard fuck off

[bumpdaddy]

it's kinda stupid to be smoking while on probation... but i'd definately say to forget all the "home remedies". For purposes of probation tests dilution still works for the most part...the use cheap test strips in most places. At the very least you'll be re-tested... by the time they get around to it.. you'll probably be clean. The other thing you should keep in mind is to never ever admit to anything since they dont always test the sample. Sometimes they use the threat of being tested to get you to admit to something before you test.

[therunner]

drug testing is an incredible invasion of privacy

The dudes on probation. Obvioulsy he has done something that requires him to be "checked up on" and is not so much of an outstanding citizen.

[bua420]

I smoke every day and Have never had a problem taking a drug test. Go to the health store and just tell the guy at the counter that you have to take a pee test that you need a flush kit. As long as you know the time of your drug test you will be fine. Most flush kits give you a 3-4 hour window when you will pee clean. The last two times I had to go for a test I smoked the night before and I past it no sweat

Good luck!

[barraquilla]

The dudes on probation. Obvioulsy he has done something that requires him to be "checked up on" and is not so much of an outstanding citizen.

well, i don't believe in the notion of "outstanding citizens" and definitely don't believe that anyone needs to be "checked up on". so, i wished him/her well and hoped they pass. If he/she doesn't, using illegal drugs was their choice and they will most certainly be punished for "violating probation" accordingly. doesn't mean it's a good thing, its simply the way it is and allowed to be...

[PCR]

well, i don't believe in the notion of "outstanding citizens" and definitely don't believe that anyone needs to be "checked up on". so, i wished him/her well and hoped they pass. If he/she doesn't, using illegal drugs was their choice and they will most certainly be punished for "violating probation" accordingly. doesn't mean it's a good thing, its simply the way it is and allowed to be...

I was always curious.....if CEO of Halliburton can plea the 5th - why can't we all plea the 5th when it comes to drug screening?

Is it like self-incrimination?

[barraquilla]

it would be self-incrimination. although, as a private citizen w/ full civil rights you can refuse a drug test. however, that doesn't mean you won't be fired or not offered employment as a result. maybe someone who knows more about civil rights could clarify, but you can read more about workplace drug testing here http://archive.aclu.org/library/pbr5.html

Parolees or those on probation have very few rights and any refusal (searches, drug testing, etc.) could lead back to prison. basically, they fail the test and face prison or refuse the test and face prison.

[therunner]

well, i don't believe in the notion of "outstanding citizens" and definitely don't believe that anyone needs to be "checked up on". so, i wished him/her well and hoped they pass. If he/she doesn't, using illegal drugs was their choice and they will most certainly be punished for "violating probation" accordingly. doesn't mean it's a good thing, its simply the way it is and allowed to be...

How do you not believe in the notion of outstanding citizen? Obviuosly, someone who is on parole is not of as high standing as a say, a judge. Sorry, it 's just how society works. an ex-con just doesn't have the same weight as say - an ex-president.

When you break the law and are on probation, your rights are gone - and they should be. If you continue to break the law - you go to jail. Using drugs is illegal. If you are on probabtion - the law has plenty of good reasons to do drug screening.

lalalalost - sorry for calling you a retard. But maybe you should lay off the drugs while you are on probation. You obviously have a problem with drugs since you can't even stay clean while on probation. What, did you really think you were going to be different and not get drug tested? get some help.

[PCR]

...... Sorry, it 's just how society works. an ex-con just doesn't have the same weight as say - an ex-president.

....

I'd be the Devil's advocate and say that I know kids who got into troubles with the law though I know them well enough to say that they are good, decent people.

At the same time there are presidents, ex-presidents, CEOs and other high level officials who should spent the rest of their lives behind the bars. They have done much more damage to this country and the society than many of the drug-users now behind the bars.

Only because something is acceptable by the society at large doesn't mean it is morally or ethically right.

[barraquilla]

How do you not believe in the notion of outstanding citizen?

i just don't and feel no need to explain any further.

Obviuosly, someone who is on parole is not of as high standing as a say, a judge. Sorry, it 's just how society works. an ex-con just doesn't have the same weight as say - an ex-president.

which judge? one of the myriad in history who have been convicted of crimes they committed while they judged others?

which ex-president? Andrew Johnson? Richard Nixon?

if you think someone's place in society makes them a better person, fine. but, i disagree. so what? it's my opinion. not all of those who have been convicted of crimes are guilty and not all who are known as "good" or "upstanding" citizen's are innocent.

When you break the law and are on probation, your rights are gone - and they should be.

"well, that's just like your opinion, man" ~the dude~

If you continue to break the law - you go to jail. Using drugs is illegal. If you are on probabtion - the law has plenty of good reasons to do drug screening.

that is the currently accepted policy. does that mean i have to agree with it? no.

[babystewie]

it would be self-incrimination. although, as a private citizen w/ full civil rights you can refuse a drug test..... maybe someone who knows more about civil rights could clarify

Okay somebody called?

well I hate to be the bearer of bad new but,

YOUR RIGHTS JUST GOT ASSRAPED!

***********************************

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20041117.html

At the end of last month, in the case of Coddington v. Evanko, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that police officers may constitutionally shave large amounts of hair from a suspect's head, neck, and shoulders, without a warrant, probable cause, or any basis for suspecting that the hair would provide evidence of crime. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the people the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. But according to the court, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to hair removal.

In so ruling, the Third Circuit followed its own 1982 precedent, In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Appeal of Mills), which held that taking hair samples from visible parts of a suspect's body does not invade any reasonable expectation of privacy. Such investigation therefore does not qualify as a Fourth Amendment "search."

The court in Coddington did not specifically address the question of whether shaving a large amount of hair from a suspect might constitute an unconstitutional "seizure." But it did reaffirm what it understood to be the holding of Mills: "that the taking of hair is not subject to restrictions imposed by the Fourth Amendment." Since the Fourth Amendment governs seizures as well as searches, it follows that there is no right under any part of the Fourth Amendment to be secure from police unreasonably shaving large amounts of hair from the visible parts of one's body.

This ruling is wrong as a matter of logic. It also misinterprets the constitutional right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.

< snip >

make no mistake. Under the Third Circuit's approach, the police can shave the hair of anyone who appears in public at any time. They do not need to have any reason whatsoever < snip >

[babystewie]

http://www.cannabis.com/usage/dtfaq.shtml

Back on topic , NO NIACIN won`t work.

[bumpdaddy]

Okay somebody called?

well I hate to be the bearer of bad new but,

YOUR RIGHTS JUST GOT ASSRAPED!

***********************************

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20041117.html

At the end of last month, in the case of Coddington v. Evanko, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that police officers may constitutionally shave large amounts of hair from a suspect's head, neck, and shoulders, without a warrant, probable cause, or any basis for suspecting that the hair would provide evidence of crime. The Fourth Amendment guarantees the people the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. But according to the court, the Fourth Amendment does not apply to hair removal.

In so ruling, the Third Circuit followed its own 1982 precedent, In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Appeal of Mills), which held that taking hair samples from visible parts of a suspect's body does not invade any reasonable expectation of privacy. Such investigation therefore does not qualify as a Fourth Amendment "search."

The court in Coddington did not specifically address the question of whether shaving a large amount of hair from a suspect might constitute an unconstitutional "seizure." But it did reaffirm what it understood to be the holding of Mills: "that the taking of hair is not subject to restrictions imposed by the Fourth Amendment." Since the Fourth Amendment governs seizures as well as searches, it follows that there is no right under any part of the Fourth Amendment to be secure from police unreasonably shaving large amounts of hair from the visible parts of one's body.

This ruling is wrong as a matter of logic. It also misinterprets the constitutional right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.

< snip >

make no mistake. Under the Third Circuit's approach, the police can shave the hair of anyone who appears in public at any time. They do not need to have any reason whatsoever < snip >

You ... or should i say Sherry Colb, is blowing this a little out of proportion... I've been following this case and the ruling is non precidential. Meaning that it is a ruling that applies only to this specific case and can not be used to set a precident for future cases... the decision does not change the 4th ammendment in any way.... unlike the patriot act, which has basicly shredded the constitution

[babystewie]

See thats the thing about law, the people I`ve talked to about this case say its setting a very bad precedent as its backing the 1982 ruling.The plot thickens....

[bumpdaddy]

See thats the thing about law, the people I`ve talked to about this case say its setting a very bad precedent as its backing the 1982 ruling.The plot thickens....

here's a link to the actual ruling... dont take someone else's word for it

http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/033850np.pdf

[babystewie]

Yep the exact same report I`ve read, but taking of hair

on public display does not "bend" the Fourth Amendment?

That is a start to a slippery slope and who knows where it will end.

**************************

In Mills, we instructed that the key question in addressing whether the

taking of a hair sample was a “search†under the Fourth Amendment was whether “the

compulsion to produce facial and scalp hair samples . . . is more akin to fingerprinting

and voice and handwriting exemplars which have been held outside the ambit of Fourth

Amendment protection or whether it is more closely aligned with the extraction of blood

samples or fingernail scrapings which have been subjected to Fourth Amendment analysis

as to reasonableness.†Id. at 139. We resolved this question with the following holding:

We conclude that there is no greater expectation of privacy

with respect to hair which is on public display than with

respect to voice, handwriting or fingerprints. In the case of

blood samples and fingernail scrapings, the bodily seizure

requires production of evidence below the body surface which

is not subject to public view. In the case of facial and head

hair, as well as fingerprints, voice and handwriting exemplars,

the evidence is on public view.

Id. Mills’ holding is clear that the taking of hair is not subject to restrictions imposed by

the Fourth Amendment.

[tranzwhore]

best thing would be to stop smoking until ur done with probation.

losing ur freedom completely would suck royally!

nothing is 100% so just quit!

[bumpdaddy]

Yep the exact same report I`ve read, but taking of hair

on public display does not "bend" the Fourth Amendment?

That is a start to a slippery slope and who knows where it will end.

**************************

In Mills, we instructed that the key question in addressing whether the

taking of a hair sample was a “search†under the Fourth Amendment was whether “the

compulsion to produce facial and scalp hair samples . . . is more akin to fingerprinting

and voice and handwriting exemplars which have been held outside the ambit of Fourth

Amendment protection or whether it is more closely aligned with the extraction of blood

samples or fingernail scrapings which have been subjected to Fourth Amendment analysis

as to reasonableness.†Id. at 139. We resolved this question with the following holding:

We conclude that there is no greater expectation of privacy

with respect to hair which is on public display than with

respect to voice, handwriting or fingerprints. In the case of

blood samples and fingernail scrapings, the bodily seizure

requires production of evidence below the body surface which

is not subject to public view. In the case of facial and head

hair, as well as fingerprints, voice and handwriting exemplars,

the evidence is on public view.

Id. Mills’ holding is clear that the taking of hair is not subject to restrictions imposed by

the Fourth Amendment.

Personally I think this ruling is completely ridiculous and theres no way it will stand. While hair is in plain site, the metabolites in the hair are not... also the appearance of the hair cannot in any way be considered probable cause to collect evidence. If however a person appears intoxicated than obviously there is probable cause. I think that's where the problem is... a perfectly sober person can appear to be intoxiicated if that's what you want to believe.... Cops have used this as "probable cause" in the past and will continue to do it... It's all very subjective as you can see. I dont see how this paves the way for random "hair cutting" on the street. Cops have always been given alot of freedom in their "interpretations of probable cause" by the courts. All of that "innocent untill proven guilty" talk is nonsense ... in reality if you're accused of a crime and you have no evidence or witnesses or some means to refute the prosecutor's accusations and evidence... then chances are, you're going to jail. Bear in mind that in a court of law the first story a jury hears is the prosecutor's... everything the defense attorney does is in response to the prosecution. Most jurors believe what the prosecution says unless there's evidence that compells them think otherwise.

[babystewie]

You ready for this---- Most people feel theres NOTHING wrong with the above case.

" I guess the patchy haircut would let you know who'd been in trouble,"

Did you know that:

"Under Florida’s controversial cash seizure law, however, deputies confiscated the money anyway, assuming that anyone carrying more than $100 was a drug trafficker"

The best is the people who will scream and write you nasty emails

saying " If you think the Patriot Act is infringing on your rights, then, in the words of Jim Carrey: STOP BREAKING THE LAW, A$$HOLE! If you have nothing to hide, then what are you worried about?"

bumpdaddy- check your PM

*******************************

Oh yeah thanks for the love , kiss your mom with that mouth.

< Latest Reputation Received >

11-26-2004 05:07 PM fuck you nigga! - wally

[lalalalost]

WELL, the test was dirty... damn niacin... they took my urine sample to the "Lab" and last time they did that it came up clean when the other test said it was dirty. So, I dunno im hoping that this time around it will be clean from the lab again. Supposly, my po wants to get court ordered hair test and blood samples cuz he suspects me to be diluting my piss. Shit, yea so i'm screwed and weed isn't worth losing my freedom. So no more tokin for me... just poppin some pills or whatever. THANKS GUYS for the info.