On the Inet, you can find advice on how to pass a marijuana drug test with home made THC detox. We have analyzed most common of home made THC detoxification methods. The summary would give you some tricky methods, but how effective those home made THC detox might be? Let's look....

First of all, it's a known fact that cannabis contains more than 400 chemical components. Some of them, such as THC, can hardly be dissolved in water but is easily accumulated in body fat cells.

Common home made THC detoxification method: "...drink several gallons of water..." and ... successfully FAIL the urine drug test!

Yes, that's how it is. Only the facts: Remember? Active cannabis components are hardly dissolved in water. So, having drunk some water (home made thc detoxification method) you can only reduce the THC concentration in blood, but fat cells remain stuck with THC! And under stress or after a physical work out, active cannabis components may get back to your blood, then to urine, and then you FAIL the urine drug test.

Drinking "home made THC detox" excessively may discolor your urine, which might cause doubts in the lab. To avoid that , start taking group B vitamins several days prior the THC urine test. Vitamins color the urine yellow. But non-home made THC detox kits contain it, so it would not a problem to consume the required quantity of B vitamin.

If you still decide to try "...drink several gallons of water...", don't forget about the home test kits.

When an employer requests a drug test from an employee, the employee is instructed to go to a collection site. There, the employee's urine is collected in a specially designed secure cup and sealed with a tamper-resistant tape.

The employee inspects and initials the cup, indicating that it was sealed in front of him or her. The cup is then sent by express delivery service to a drug testing laboratory where it will be tested for several drugs.

The first step at the testing site is to split the urine into two aliquots. One aliquot is first screened for drugs using an analyzer that performs immunoassay as the initial screen. If the urine screen's positive then another aliquot of the sample is used to confirm the findings by gas chromatography - masspectroscopy (GC-MS) methodology.

All test results a relayed to an MRO where a medical physician reviews the results. If the result of the drug screen is negative, the MRO informs the employer that the employee is clean and has no detectable drug in the urine. However, if the drug test result of the immunoassay and GC-MS are positive, the MRO contacts the employee and tries to determine if there is any legitimate reason for the employee to have a positive result such as a medical treatment or prescription. If it is determined that the positive result is truly due to drug use, the MRO then informs the employer of the positive result.

Statistics show that about 5% of the urine samples tested in the U.S. turn out positive for drugs. The employer may contract the service of the various components by itself, or in most cases, it would outsource the entire process. With the improvement in the accuracy of on-site test devices (notably the lateral flow test devices), an increasing number of collection sites are running the tests themselves instead of sending the samples to the laboratory for analysis.

In this new scenario, the employee goes to the collection site where the urine is collected and tested by the collection site staff using an on-site test device. The results are known within minutes. If the results are negative, the employee is notified.

Employers testing for drugs strategies

Employers have used several strategies when testing for drugs, in large part guided by the legal ramifications of each. Employee drug screening can occur at several different points in time:

• During the application process.
• After a job offer has been extended but before employment begins (pre-employment testing)
• Randomly after employment has commenced (random employee drug testing)
• After accidents or when an employee behaves in a manner suspicious for substance abuse ("for cause" drug testing).

Employee drug testing prior to being extended a conditional job offer would require applicants to disclose any prescribed prescription drugs that they take. This has been interpreted in courtrooms as a violation of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibits "inquiries of a job applicant as to whether such an applicant is an individual with a disability ...". Such inquiries, however, can be sought after a job offer has been made, making pre-employment drug testing legally acceptable. Employers have indeed met the least legal resistance when using strategies based on "for cause" testing and pre-employment testing. These two forms of drug testing pose the least liability to employers, are less expensive than random testing, and are most acceptable to labor unions. For these reasons and not because of efficacy, pre-employment and "for cause" drug testing are the most prevalent strategies.

Random employee drug testing

Random employee drug testing without suspicion of substance abuse has generated the most resistance and controversy. Such testing has been called a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits illegal search and seizure without just cause, and has been defeated in court. Random drug testing is more expensive because it requires a greater frequency of testing to be effective. On the other hand, random drug screening does not single out individuals for suspicious behavior or substandard performance. When applied uniformly, everyone has an equal chance of being tested, so individuals selected for testing do not risk being labeled as possible drug users. The Supreme Court has decided in favor of lower court decisions upholding various forms of random drug testing, and some employers do practice random drug screening.

There are also many arguments against employee drug testing. The evidence linking drug use and workplace difficulties is much weaker than initial estimates. Detractors of drug testing cite that there is almost no scientific data that testing is effective in achieving its goals. The monumental task of drug testing, it is argued, is of potentially greater legal and public relations benefit than benefit to patient safety. A rational and evidence based approach is necessary to ensure optimal functioning of care providers. Drug testing is arguably less important than addressing the performance impact of overnight work, circadian rhythm disruption, and overwork.

Employment drug testing does not necessarily measure impairment, abuse, or intoxication. The presence of a banned substance does not mean that cognitive impairment is present or clinical performance is impacted. Further, routinely used medicines such as decongestants, antihistamines, stimulants, and other prescribed substances can also profoundly impair functioning.

The process of employee drug testing is also intrusive, so evidence of the need is demanded. Testing can provide information about medical conditions unrelated to substance abuse, informing the employer of more than should legally be available. Involuntary drug testing has been called an unwarranted invasion of privacy, a form of "chemical McCarthyism", and a form of social control that influences lifestyle but not work performance.