Marijuana.com

Jerry G

It's bad form to edit a post after it's been responded to.

I'm not arguing with you, but nothing you have quoted really proves your point.

Find a good source that says thc metabolites are detectable in the blood stream for 30 days(or whatever), not a vague figure.

I truely don't care, my focus is on heavy users with little clean time. But, it would be good information to know.

 

dirtdevil

I was trying to avoid turbo posting. You know what, thats unbelieveable! How many sources do you want that confirm something? Pride comes before a fall, and I think everyone else can see you are being rediculous. Find me some scientific testing that proves your method works? How much, exactly, not vaguely, does it reduce your levels in the hair? FIND ME A SOURCE THAT TELLS HOW LONG THC OR ITS METABS ARE IN ANYONES BODY. HOW LONG WILL A PERSON TEST DIRTY? You cant, you know why? Because everyones biochemistry is defferent. It depends on so many factors, and the best someone can give you is a range. Everyone who is an EXPERT in this has weighed in against you.

Maybe you should do the reasearch, read the articles yours, there post there for you to find, you just dont want to be wrong. Prove me wrong JG. Find other things that dispute my sources.

How do you think the metab get into your urine in order for you to fail a U/A? At least answer me that, how does anyone fail a u/a after 3 or 4 weeks if the metabs arent in his or her blood? How do those metabs get into the urine? is it magic? Do they jump from your fat to the bladder? Even if there stored somewhere else, how do they get from there to inside the bladder JG? tell me that?

Quote:

Levels in body fat increase over a period of hours or days, and slowly release metabolites into the bloodstream thereafter. The slow clearance rate from body fat is the main reason why cannabinoids can be detected in blood or urine for many days or weeks following cessation of use.

Did you even read all what was posted before you said that?


HOW DOES URINE GET CONTAMINATED 2 WEEKS, or 2 MONTHS, HOWEVER LONG YOU FAIL, AFTER YOU QUIT SMOKING? urine is the wasted filtered from the body by the kidney, and you know what they do, FILTER BLOOD.

Jerry G

It's not turbo posting when you answer a specific question.

I don't think I'm asking too much.

I want this site to have the most accurate information possible. No one who has been here for any time would dispute that.

I can't find one place in all your references that says that thc metabolites are detectable specificly in the blood stream for even a range of time. Your sources say urine or blood, days to weeks. Find one that is just talking about blood. Specifics are what we need, you have a bunch of generalities it appears to me.

Chronic users pass blood tests regularly with less than a week clean. I don't think any chronic user would pass a UA in that time period.

Don't toss this in my lap, prove your point and I'll be happy for everyone.

dirtdevil

Quote:

The major problem with measurement of metabolites is the very long detection times, owing the the rapid deposition of cannabinoids in inert fatty tissue following administration. Johannson et al

What is that? Second paragraph of my posting. You didnt answer anyting, because you cant. You need to reevaluate your posistion, NO OTHER POST HAS THIS MUCH TO BACK IT.

The metabs in the blood drop below the CUT OFF levels, but some still remains, accumulating in the body.

If someone says hey, I smoke weed, how long will I be dirty? are you gonna tell them a range or something specific? If they smoked one, then a couple days, if they are heavy, then it could be two months, or more if its hair. your point is invalid. It all depends, the range list is a couple days to a couple weeks, depending on use, get that in your head.

Toss it in your lab? What the 20 sources that say im right or the zero that say im wrong, you asked for this when you refuted my position and asked for proof, now you have it, now prove it wrong or admit that your just being difficult and dont really want to do any work

Quote:

Chesher[9] summarised that.the inactive metabolite THC acid, formed in the liver from metabolism of THC, appears after THC in blood, and if present when the a subsequent dose is smoked, higher concentrations would ensue. Unmetabolised THC may be stored, and gradually released, from body fat for up to 28 days in chronic users.

When they say "released" where do think that is too? Well, seing as how the only way things can move about your body, espcially move from fat to urine, is the blood, that doesnt leave you with many options does it? You are absolutley stubborn. Please, do some research like you told me, read not only my post, but the links there, and do some on your on. The one quoted is based on experiments, how can you beat that? Someone with some sense read all this and back me up.

Jerry G

If the thc metabolites are under the cutoff level what does it matter?

I'm sure you are correct that at some very low level thc metabolites are detectable in the bloodstream for even up to the 25 days your quote above.

But, if the levels are below the detection cutoff, I don't care and I'm not sure why you do. Sorry if I was not clear about that.

Best of luck on your test, stick around and help some people out.

 

dirtdevil

I will. The point is, if there are still some small amounts in your blood, below the cutoff, then your ok for the blood right? the blood is being filtered right? So the blood level stays the same or goes down day to day, right? Its slowly released from the fat, goes into the blood, and out through the urine and other bodily excriment like sweat. The contamins are being put into your urine, maybe even at levels so low you dont fail the U/a, but the hair on the other hand, picks up small amounts from the blood day after day, and even if one day of picking it up doesnt make you fail the hair test, over a week or two, that amount adds up because the hair is not filtered, it holds on to its contaminates (thats why its the hardest to beat), and therefore even though you pass a u/a or a blood, there may be enough, over time, being put into the hair for you to fail it. This extends the detection significantly in heavy smokers, not light, but really heavey ones, the ones you say you deal with most. And this also validates what the labs said (and every other source).

Again, because the hair picks up a lilttle bit everyday from the blood, there is always more being put into the hair until blood levels reach 0, even if you pass all other tests. When your hair is liquified for the test, those little spots put on there everyday add up, and one or two might night make you fail, but together it can put you over the limit, and can make you fail for longer.

In my case, this is important b/c i smoked so much and it was so good that I failed for two months, no lie, it was bad. This means instead of waiting 90 days after I quit to test clean, I need to wait at least two months longer, 150 days, because thats how long I failed the u/a (and should even wait longer, like 6 months total). This also means that any method, yours or macs, that I use, I should (and everyone like me) do it alot more than typical. This is all very important information to me, and im sure to others who face this problem. It is a fact long overlooked. Thats all i was trying to say from the begining, and I think I have now proved it, and if not, im not sure I , or anyone else, can prove it or anything else, those are alot of pretty solid sources.

It also means if a person uses any method at all, and they do it too early, a week or two before the test, and they still have some in their blood, that they may fail, and thats why they need to do treatments close to the test for the best results. This varies greatly from smoker to smoker, but im sure you can see, this is important because of that fact alone. Treatments should be SOON before the test, espcially if you have very little clean time. For some this may not matter, if they didnt smoke heavy enough for it to be stored in the body and they are therefore clean in every other respect except for hair, then they can do it whenever and need not worry.

Its important enough to me and should be to everyone else that I would like for it to be a sticky.

Jerry G

You are still making a lot of assumptions. I don't know if they are correct. They may be, they may not be. I flat out don't know.

dirtdevil

We are making progress! Also, the cutoff for the hair compared to the urine or blood may, and i think is, be much lower than blood or hair. The sources say what they do. The links are there, the reasearch is there, and its not theory, its proven by experiment. I make only the one assumtion, that it is enough to make you fail from the build up, and the two labs "said" it was, and I know the tendancey to not believe them, its good to question, but we have now and all that research backs up what they are saying. I mean, you agreed that some levels probably exists in the blood, but they are below the cutoff right? Thats what all the research also says. And I know you know that the hair picks its stuff up from the blood right? You told me that I think in your first reply. Put the two together, combined with what the lab said and............I dont see any other outcome. In the blood, so it gets into the hair, the only jump to make is to assume that, at least in a ultra heavy smoker, it would be enough over time to make them fail, and two lab guys have told me it is. Its good just to be safe anyway right? Why not make peeps aware? it may be the difference that saves them. The support for the theory is overwhelming. I will try to find a PHd to ask, but i dont know if I will, and if you do, please also ask. I'd say i write the people at toxin wash n stuff but i think it will just be dissmissed as product protection, though i dont see how as either way, toxin wash doesnt lose.

Its safe to assume that if your blood has enough to make you fail a u/a, there is still enough there to make you fail the hair, there just has to be, becuase the stuff in the urine came from the blood filtered by the kidneys. It cant happen any other way. It just cant get into your piss without goin through the blood first.

And if you are going to say "then how can you pass a blood test a couple days later", then i have two possibles for that also. The kidneys filter the blood right? So the amount in the blood is put into the kidney, and it builds up there just like in the hair, the only difference is, it doesnt stay there quite as long b/c when you piss it puts it out. When the blood is taken, it measures what is in the blood at that one point in that one little vile, not a build up, just what is in the stream at that one point, but while your bladder slowly fills, more and more blood passes through the kidneys, and it builds until relieved by you going to the bathroom, and thus the level is higher. The blood continually flows through it, bringing it more and more. See? It loses its contams then goes back around and picks up more, which are then deposited n stored in the bladder. The second reason could also be because the cut offs for the two tests are different, but i believe my first reason is the correct one.

Quote:

3) http://ocw.mit.edu/NR/rdonlyres/Heal...01_1_rosow.pdf and yeah thats MIT, but i guess their liers too.

And thats from MIT

Jerry G

I am still withholding judgement.

I want to see what Boobs and Sec have to say. I'm no dummy and happen to have a couple of masters, but I flat out do not have the time or energy to determine if your theory is earthshaking or not.

I am being quite civil to you, there is no reason to make sarcastic digs like the liar reference above.

dirtdevil

yes, you are now, sorry about the quip there. I am frustrated over the intial incident, and then the fact that i did what was needed and went to extra ordinary lenghts to explain it and it didnt seem to go anywhere. Sometimes it just seems like your mean jerry, no offense, you can be very curt and abrupt, a symptom common among intellects. Like the time some girl was asking about her BF, you just said "well he should have come here first" and then there was something that just sounded like a smart remark, implying he was dumb, you know? I mean yeah he should have, but you know the norm out there is to believe the test is unbeatable, and that doesnt help after the fact to say such things that sting.

I will not make any more remarks, but i am still a little flustered. I just strongly disagree, I think its pretty simple, no offense to your intel, like i said before, i bet your really smart, and i feel like maybe your are being like that, refusing to accept what is right there, because of our first few interchanges, and because its always hard to be wrong. Maybe im wrong, its hard to tell these things over an internet board, but you seem so willing to accept your sources, your research, and then post them here w/o question, then you come down so hard on mine, when you know ive backed up this more than ANYONEs others posts. I bring you info from company officals, and you say, they lie!, as if everyone of them is out to get us. Yes some are, but they had no reason to lie about those things. I bring you research and you say, i disagree, but you provide no proof whatsoever to the contrary, you just throw it back, and thats not how it works, and you know that. How can you legitimately debate like that? All you do is try to slander and discredit most of the sources i got. You argue with 10 of them, and they all say the same thing! Its not my job to debate both sides, if you challenge me, i will rise to meet it, and as an order of courtesy between people, you have to back up your reasons as well, which to date i have not seen. Im sorry, you have neither proved anything nor disproved my posts or yours. I have not seen one source in any of your posts. Still you act as if mine lacks proof.

I dont have a couple of masters, but i just graduated, with honors, 3.716 gpa, so Im no dummy either (though sometimes i cant spell). Thats why im looking for a job now. I just feel like you are being extreamly unfair and biased, you cant just make things right or wrong because you say so. You told me that, and i brought back the proof. I have repeadtly tried to be civil, but arguing with someone who is being unreasonable is frustrating. What would it take for you to yeild? I believe this has become a matter of pride rather than fact. I dont even think you read my post all the way through, otherwise i wouldnt have had to quote it several time later, and still you passed judgement. This is incorrect and aggravating. I spend half my time going back and quoting things you missed.

But, yes, you are being civil as a matter of manners, and i will likewise return the favor, but you cant keep doing it this way.



Might i just add, I wish you were right, it would make situation much easy, but much as i hate it, I know i nailed this one.