Drug use/drug testing in the CF (merged)

[dutchie]

Do you think it is honestly a push though?   Having grown up in the '90s and went to University in the '00s, I can tell you that if people are going to smoke pot, they are going to smoke pot.   I don't think the law is holding anyone back, especially when you consider that there are "cafes" in downtown Van that cater to this.

When I was in high school, almost everyone drank booze at some point, some more than others, despite the drinking age being 19. I don't think they should lower the drinking age to 17 because lots of 17 year olds get blasted on the weekends....do you?


BTW, I think they should shut down all of those cafes, but that's beside the point.

 

[Infanteer]

When I was in high school, almost everyone drank booze at some point, some more than others, despite the drinking age being 19. I don't think they should lower the drinking age to 17 because lots of 17 year olds get blasted on the weekends....do you?

Well, I do think they should lower the age to 18 across Canada.  It seems ridiculous that in one province a guy is not considered mature enough to buy beer, while in the next province he is.  Where do we get the moral authority to say that?  Age limits are arbitrary, and they are really meaningless (especially after being in Europe lots and seeing none).  I think if we do have them and choose to enforce them, they should at least be uniform.

But that's not the point of the debate, so don't try and derail it.  I'm talking about consenting and (hopefully) responsible adults (wherever we want to set the age - 18, 19, 21) and your concept of the "push".  Do you honestly think that if we legalized marijuana and treated it like alcohol that Canada would see more pot use then we see now?  Judging from who I've seen use it, I can honestly say no.

I really believe we are fighting a losing battle by treating marijuana as an illicit narcotic.  The justice system is suffering because its widespread use means enforcement resources are wasted on it and Canadian citizens are increasingly seeing it as a farce - guys smoke pot in the streets and everybody turns a blind eye.  I'd rather see us stick to laws that are enforceable and are worth enforcing.

 

[dutchie]

But that's not the point of the debate, so don't try and derail it.   I'm talking about consenting and (hopefully) responsible adults (wherever we want to set the age - 18, 19, 21) and your concept of the "push".   Do you honestly think that if we legalized marijuana and treated it like alcohol that Canada would see more pot use then we see now?   Judging from who I've seen use it, I can honestly say no.

I really believe we are fighting a losing battle by treating marijuana as an illicit narcotic.   The justice system is suffering because its widespread use means enforcement resources are wasted on it and Canadian citizens are increasingly seeing it as a farce - guys smoke pot in the streets and everybody turns a blind eye.   I'd rather see us stick to laws that are enforceable and are worth enforcing.

What I was trying to illustrate with my underage drinking reference was this: Just because people break the law, even in high numbers, does that mean we should legalize the activity? Or should we find other ways to 'fight' the activity?

 

[Island Ryhno]

Our government spends a fortune "fighting" something that is no more harmful than alcohol. You wouldn't rather see all that money go into, oh I don't say DND, health care, education?

 

[KevinB]

My bad.  I have been corrected (by the SME)

Hemp and Marijuana are the same species except that hemp has been bred for
decreased THC content.  They are morphologically and chemically the same
otherwise, other than specific cultivar-specific traits (ie. higher seed
oil content, fibre profiles, sex ratios - diaciousness).
Someone who perhaps had bred or grown a marijuana plant would argue that
marijuana plants are leafier and predominantly female - but that is a
cultivar trait not a species difference.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I have been corrected (by the SME)

Must have been. To many big words, used in the right context. ;D

 

[Infanteer]

What I was trying to illustrate with my underage drinking reference was this: Just because people break the law, even in high numbers, does that mean we should legalize the activity? Or should we find other ways to 'fight' the activity?

Well, I guess that takes the question to a philosophical one.  What does Law serve?

Obviously, there is a safety issue.  Many Canadians speed against a traffic sign, but there are definite risks by saying "Ok, go 180".  However, is marijuana really a safety issue?  If it is, then as others have pointed out, we better make alcohol and tobacco illegal as well, as dead livers and lungs are probably worse then a few burnt out brain cells.  Hardcore drugs (Cocaine, Meth, Heroin, Ecstasy) are clearly another issue, however, I'm convicned that marijuana is benign as alcohol for casual users - I know many people who have used it for decades, and they're fine - they enjoy it like my mother enjoys her wine at night.  So, I can't justify to myself keeping it illegal along the lines of a safety issue.

As to the philosophical issue - now, in my opinion, laws should be designed to keep order (maintain our liberties) while maximizing our freedoms.  Does marijuana really present a threat to order?  Pot users are about as big a threat as drunks, probably less so.  Treat it like alcohol (confine it to private areas or specific locations like cafes).  I'd say the biggest threat is the fact that OC controls the traffic and distribution of it - like ending prohibition stole the bootlegging cashcow from OC, so maybe we should think about doing that with the grow-op distribution industry as well.  As for the maximizing freedom part, is it really your problem is somebody else is sitting in their house smoking a joint?  The libertarian in me says no, So, I can't justify to myself keeping it illegal along the lines of a philosophical issue.

Finally, there is the moral issue, which you've brought up with "does high amounts of breaking the law mean we should legitimize law breaking?"  Who is the law designed to serve?  The politicians?  Interest groups?  Is the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act handed down from some mystical source that has deigned it as right for all time?  It seems to me that the Law derives its moral authority from the people for which it exists.  If a majority of people think that a law serves no purpose in our society, then in my opinion it is unjust as it has no moral basis.  If a law has no moral basis, people will overlook it/ignore it - and that is clearly what is happening in Canada.  Crackdown and try and enforce laws with no moral basis, and you have the start of tyranny.  Look at prohibition - it is the 18th Amendment to the Constitution; you can't get any more legal authority than that.  However, it had no moral authority, and most people ignored it.  By making it illegal, the line was moved on "illicit behaviour" and the black market took over for the free market.  They realized it was a bad decision and repealed it with the 21st Amendment.  I see this as being no different - laws must move with the times, and if society in general condones it, then the law should.  Sure, you could try the "slippery slope" counter-argument with murder, crack, or theft, but then you have to prove to me that their is a real possibility of Canadians accepting murder, crackheads, and rampant theft as a good thing.  If, for some reason, they do - then I guess we reap what we sow, because the law won't protect us from anything if 10 million Canadians become thieving junkies.  So, stepping back and looking at things leads me to believe that I can't justify to myself keeping it illegal along the lines of a moral issue.

There, that's pretty much my take on things.  I don't use drugs, I don't really care who uses them, and I fully support the CF Policy, but I can't see why it is necessary to continue considering marijuana use as illicit substance in mainstream Canadian society.  I've examined it from a safety perspective, and philosophical perspective, and a moral perspective and I can see no solid, consistent rationale that tells me our current course is the right one to take.

Cheers,
Infanteer

 

[dutchie]

A pretty well thought out argument, Infanteer. And one that is mainly based on perspective, perception, and personal beliefs on how law serves us. Far be it of me to tell you your beliefs are wrong. To you, you see marijuana legalization as 'Well, a lot of us smoke it, most of us don't have a problem with it, so screw it - legalize it'. I don't share your beliefs, but that's me.

I prefer to think that despite the current attitude towards marijuana, it's use should be minimized, if not eradicated. I do buy into the gateway drug theory, in a limited sense. I also know that a large amount of the HA's income comes from it. Of course, many will say "legalize it and take it away from the HA'. Well, sure, but most of the dope is not staying in Canada anyhow, and because the US is not about to legalize it, we'd actually be making the overall drug problem in Canada worse. We'd be left with no ability to legally shut down grow-ops whose product is destined for our friends to the south. They sell marijuana to the US, and import other drugs (mainly coke) from the US. By legalizing marijuana, we make it easier for criminals like the HA to import the really deadly drugs, like coke. Decriminalization and especially legalization of marijuana would only strengthen the HA (and other criminal organizations), and allow them to further corrode our society in other ways (like coke dealing, prostitution, extortion, murder, etc), all on the profits of dope running to the US.

I could care less if some doper wants to toke up in his basement. I DO care if the HA imports more poison to Canada because of the legalization of marijuana.

 

[Joe Blow]

..most of the dope is not staying in Canada anyhow, and because the US is not about to legalize it, we'd actually be making the overall drug problem in Canada worse. We'd be left with no ability to legally shut down grow-ops whose product is destined for our friends to the south.

Good point.  I suppose we could have the government issue licences for production to applicants who would then be allowed to produce a certain tonnage.  (Farmers could bid for the licences.)  We could then focus enforcement on those 'rogue' producers.  ..But really;

• organized crime would still be a factor - production for the export market,
• we would still have the expense of enforcement on our hands,
• the cash/tax winfall would not be any where near the levels on might expect when we hear things like 'Marijuana is BC #1 cash crop'. (I think I heard it on the CBC ..please don't make me look it up.  :-\ )

..so what do we really gain by legalizing it?  Well, we might look at it the other way around.  Perhaps we should assume that people should have maximun liberty and that the burden of proof is on people who want to limit it.  With that in mind I propose we turn the question on it's head.  What has society gained by criminalizing marijuana?

I think it's worth asking because - as I mentioned earlier - we have a law that categorizes a full 1/3 of the entire population as being criminal on at least one occasion in their lives.  That being the case it might be time to reassess why we have that law.

For my part, I'm not sure I buy the 'society will go to hell' argument.  First, it's allready widely available and it would be hard to point to any one societal malady that can be attributed to widely available pot ..and no other cause. I think that pot can play a role in the minority of cases where (for ex.) violence or crime is a factor, but my money says that if we want to solve these problems we would go farther if we combat poverty and work on instilling some values in society again.

I don't expect that we would really have people showing up high for work or driving or being otherwise stupid any more than happens already ..or any more than we have people behaving this way with booze. (...and I rather suspect that these would be the same people anyway.) It would happen but would be relatively infrequent and could be dealt with on a case by case basis.

(Maybe there is some evidence of pot being a 'gateway drug', but I'm really not aware of any.  Mostly (I think) it is claimed that since all heroin users used pot first, pot can lead to heroin.  A mistake in logic. All 'B's first were 'A's, therefore all 'A's will become 'B's ..or being an 'A' means you have a greater propensity for becoming a 'B' ..or first being an 'A' is a necessary prerequisite for becoming a 'B'. Nope. None of that follows.)

So how about it?  What is the law gaining us?

 

[Infanteer]

A pretty well thought out argument, Infanteer. And one that is mainly based on perspective, perception, and personal beliefs on how law serves us. Far be it of me to tell you your beliefs are wrong. To you, you see marijuana legalization as 'Well, a lot of us smoke it, most of us don't have a problem with it, so screw it - legalize it'. I don't share your beliefs, but that's me.

Thanks.  My only goal was to highlight how I came to my conclusion.  I hope it seems rational enough - nobody has to agree with it, but recognizing it as a legitimate argument is nice.  The trick is to put all the rational arguments up, measure them against eachother, and decide the best Course of Action.  Of course, once politics gets involved, that flies out the window....

I prefer to think that despite the current attitude towards marijuana, it's use should be minimized, if not eradicated. I do buy into the gateway drug theory, in a limited sense.

From my own personal observations, alcohol is the biggest gateway drug out there.  Alcohol lowers inhibitions - there is some sort of biological process to it, I remember reading it, but I remember it their.  Most people start hitting the heavier stuff after a night fueled with booze, not after smoking a joint and watching TV.  Does this mean we should get rid of booze because it's a gateway?  No (as we've seen, it doesn't work).  We depend on people to be responsible, and most people are with alcohol.  If they aren't,

Good luck minimizing and eradicating attitudes towards marijuana, seriously.  I don't know where we will get the "moral ammunition" to tell a guy that he is doing the wrong thing - especially if he is a casual user, works hard, and pays his taxes (know plenty of them).  This is the libertarian in me again, but I think it is the best way to go considering human nature.  There are lots of things that you or I won't like (marijuana, porn, booze, gambling, red meat, McDonalds, Star Trek, the SCA), but it isn't really our prerogative to tell others that they shouldn't be doing it, is it?  As long as it doesn't violate the safety of society, the philosophical intent of legal boundaries,  or general social mores, then it seems to be fair game to me.

Give me a rational argument that shows where we have the right to do so, and I'll gladly consider it.

I also know that a large amount of the HA's income comes from it. Of course, many will say "legalize it and take it away from the HA'. Well, sure, but most of the dope is not staying in Canada anyhow, and because the US is not about to legalize it, we'd actually be making the overall drug problem in Canada worse. We'd be left with no ability to legally shut down grow-ops whose product is destined for our friends to the south. They sell marijuana to the US, and import other drugs (mainly coke) from the US. By legalizing marijuana, we make it easier for criminals like the HA to import the really deadly drugs, like coke. Decriminalization and especially legalization of marijuana would only strengthen the HA (and other criminal organizations), and allow them to further corrode our society in other ways (like coke dealing, prostitution, extortion, murder, etc), all on the profits of dope running to the US.

I could care less if some doper wants to toke up in his basement. I DO care if the HA imports more poison to Canada because of the legalization of marijuana.

The problem with the drug industry is that, because it is part of the black market and not the legitimate market, it is hard to know any stats or truth on the matter.  Do we know how many grow ops there are in Canada?  Do we know where most its crops go?  Do we know how much OC controls and how much is just small timers.  Do we know how much of it heads south and how much of it stays here?  I prefer not to make definitive statements on these things, because I have no way of backing it up.  It is clear that we can recognize that their is lots of grow ops (the police make that very clear), that OC has a big hand in producing/moving it and makes alot of money from the marijuana market, and that lots of stuff heads South in cross border drug trade.  That's all I'm really going to accept, because there is no way of knowing if anything else is true or not.

Now, the OC portion of the marijuana industry is a big problem, and I see legalizing it as a way to inhibit it, just as getting rid of prohibition and cleaning up Las Vegas cut the legs from under the Mafia in the US.  My idea around legislation is that:

-  Marijuana, like cigarettes or alcohol, can only be purchased by vendors from certified producers.  You don't see bars selling hooch made in some shit still.  Nobody will want to go to a still illegal street dealer when they can walk into a cafe and get legal, certified quality marijuana over the counter.
-  Production is only permitted under license.  I guess some private licenses would be issued, but who owned them and who they sold it to would be monitored.
-  It is debatable, but I'd imagine that a certain amount should be permitted for growth for personal use.  As long as they're not stealing power and use a proper setup that won't burn the house down, I see no harm in it - sure, they might sell some to their friends, but that's the natural, unregulated blackmarket that will always exist; just like me selling stuff from my garden to my neighbour and not declaring the income.

The way I see it, if you regulate the vendors and the producers, you remove OC from the picture.  The domestic market will mostly move to the legitimate, legal source, leaving few illegal sources for OC to use.  This means there is less bad guys for our Law Enforcement resources to monitor, arrest, and convict.  As well, we can focus strictly on OC moving marijuana South and bringing hard stuff North, now that we don't have to concern ourselves with Joe Blow who wants to enjoy a joint after work.  Now, the United States may have something to say about our drug laws, but this is one instance where I will say "Screw You".  We are a sovereign nation and we can decide on our own what to do within Canada.  Make it clear that taking your marijuana into the States is illegal (just as moving you booze in the 20's was), but within Canada and it is up to us and not them.

The sale of marijuana, like the bootlegging of illegal alcohol during the prohibition, is a business activity.  There is a large market and lots of willing suppliers - the illegality of it makes it so that OC can step in.  Like ending Prohibition, I have no doubt that legalizing marijuana will largely take the OC component out of the domestic marijuana market.  You regulate the suppliers and give the market a legitimate and safe place to go to.  This marginalizes those who continue to function outside of the legitimate market and allows us to dedicate our slim resource base to fighting cross border narcotics-trade (which is the real problem).

 

[48Highlander]

I prefer to think that despite the current attitude towards marijuana, it's use should be minimized, if not eradicated.

That's the main flaw in your argument.  It's use CAN NOT be eradicated, and at this point can't even be "minimized", since the number of users has been steadily increasing.  It's becoming part of our culture, and no laws are going to change that.  The real issue here is demand.  The only way to lower the number of users is to wage a succesfull propaganda campaign to change peoples attitudes towards weed.  Unfortiunately, the last example of such a campaign is a running joke to todays users - I know several individuals who like to get high and watch the movie "Reefer Madness" for it's comedic value.  Any such propaganda campaign would be highly unlikely to succeed amongst todays users.

So, how exactly would you go about minimizing or eradicating marijuana use?  I'm not seing a viable option here.

I do buy into the gateway drug theory, in a limited sense. I also know that a large amount of the HA's income comes from it. Of course, many will say "legalize it and take it away from the HA'. Well, sure, but most of the dope is not staying in Canada anyhow, and because the US is not about to legalize it, we'd actually be making the overall drug problem in Canada worse. We'd be left with no ability to legally shut down grow-ops whose product is destined for our friends to the south.

You have a bit of a point there, however, there are certainly ways to deal with that.  The extra tax revenue generated by taxing marijauana could be pumped into creating better enforcement at our borders.  Fines and prison terms for smuggling drugs could be increased massively.  Better enforcement at the border would result in more seizures of other drugs as well.  And, as has been pointed out, by releasing the police from having to worry about busting grow ops, we'd be able to focus more personnel and resources on busting those who sell "hard" drugs.

They sell marijuana to the US, and import other drugs (mainly coke) from the US. By legalizing marijuana, we make it easier for criminals like the HA to import the really deadly drugs, like coke. Decriminalization and especially legalization of marijuana would only strengthen the HA (and other criminal organizations), and allow them to further corrode our society in other ways (like coke dealing, prostitution, extortion, murder, etc), all on the profits of dope running to the US.

I don't see how you figgure that taking away $20+ billion dollars in revenue from the drug industry annualy is going to increase their ability to operate.  Yes, they'll be able to grow it more easily, however our current efforts at stopping growers only creates a small dent in their profit margins anyway.  They still have to get it over the border, which is still the biggest risk/obstacle.

As far as bringing more hard drugs into Canada is concerned, you're assuming an increase in demand as well.  Every market works according to the rules of supply and demand - currently the supply side in Canada isn't having much difficulty, you can buy cocaine, crack, or heroin without much difficulty in any major city.  Importing more hard drugs isn't going to do them much good unless they can generate more demand, and they can't very well go and advertise their product on national television.

 

[Joe Blow]

we don't have to concern ourselves with Joe Blow who wants to enjoy a joint after work.

Umm.. just for the record Joe Blow doesn't do that.  ;D :blotto:

 

[sigtech]

Well, I do think they should lower the age to 18 across Canada.   It seems ridiculous that in one province a guy is not considered mature enough to buy beer, while in the next province he is.   Where do we get the moral authority to say that?   Age limits are arbitrary, and they are really meaningless (especially after being in Europe lots and seeing none).   I think if we do have them and choose to enforce them, they should at least be uniform.

But that's not the point of the debate, so don't try and derail it.   I'm talking about consenting and (hopefully) responsible adults (wherever we want to set the age - 18, 19, 21) and your concept of the "push".   Do you honestly think that if we legalized marijuana and treated it like alcohol that Canada would see more pot use then we see now?   Judging from who I've seen use it, I can honestly say no.

I really believe we are fighting a losing battle by treating marijuana as an illicit narcotic.   The justice system is suffering because its widespread use means enforcement resources are wasted on it and Canadian citizens are increasingly seeing it as a farce - guys smoke pot in the streets and everybody turns a blind eye.   I'd rather see us stick to laws that are enforceable and are worth enforcing.

here here on the drinkign age a person can join the Army serve and die for our country but can't have a beer , but that is another point for another thread.

The pot smoking is a losing battle , we are wasting more money chaseing the growers and sellers down that it is worth, take there power away by leglizing it and watching it carefuly. Tax it and take that tax money and give it to the military to rebuild it and make it strong ( ya like the goverment would do that)

 

[KevinB]

KevinB has a solution to add incentive to reducing growers...  >

 

[48Highlander]

KevinB has a solution to add incentive to reducing growers...   >

Does it involve you in blue tights and a cape?

 

[dutchie]

KevinB has a solution to add incentive to reducing growers...   >

Let me guess, does it begin with 'double' and end with 'tap'?

 

[Jungle]

Let me guess, does it begin with 'double' and end with 'tap'?

Let me know if you need help... 
Have hardware, will travel !!!  8)

 

[1feral1]

Humm, I was told that my life experience on this subject promoted nothing bias, so I am steeering clear of this thread, unless someone twists the knife.

You know where I stand. Say no to drugs, and say no to legalisation.

Full stop.


Cheers,

Wes

 

[The Bread Guy]

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

Military drug test watered down … literally
CHRIS LAMBIE, Halifax Chronicle-Herald, 24 Jan 07
Article Link

Soldiers training to go to Afghanistan who provided diluted urine samples in drug tests last fall were given a second chance to pee in a cup because the military had water bottles on hand during the screening procedure.

Thirty-eight of the 1,436 troops initially tested gave diluted samples, according to documents obtained under the Access to Information Act. Another 72 soldiers tested positive in September for illicit drugs, including marijuana, cocaine and codeine.

"While the initial intent had been to treat the diluted results (in accordance with) the same (administrative review) process as positive results, it has been determined that bottles of water were provided to members waiting for their testing, thus contributing to the number of diluted samples," Cmdr. Tony Crewe, the military’s director of careers administration, said in an Oct. 20 e-mail to a Defence Department policy adviser.

"To ensure that members who might otherwise have tested negative are not unduly restricted from deploying, it has been decided that these members will be retested. The probability of an illicit drug user testing negative on the second test and thus avoiding the (administrative review) process is seen as low compared to the probability of denying deployment to non-users who had diluted results."

Too much drinking water isn’t the only reason people provide diluted urine samples.

"A diluted result may indicate that an individual has ingested masking agents in an attempt to hide evidence of illicit drug use," say military documents.

"In most cases, these members will be retested."

The bulk of the soldiers heading to Afghanistan next month were tested Sept. 25 and 26 at New Brunswick’s CFB Gagetown.

Retesting those who gave diluted urine samples was scheduled for Oct. 18, more than three weeks later. If a person stopped using drugs, that would be enough time to flush any traces of marijuana, cocaine or codeine from their urine, said Harold Kalant, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto’s pharmacology department.

"The drugs would be out by then — long out," he said Tuesday.

If soldiers who had used drugs suspected they would be tested a second time, they might have been more cautious about using them again until they were safely over the second test, said Mr. Kalant, an international authority on alcohol and drug dependence.

Five admitted to using drugs after their first test results showed their urine was diluted, said Cmdr. Denise Laviolette, chief of public affairs at military personnel.

Four soldiers failed the second test and three provided diluted urine samples again, Cmdr. Laviolette said Tuesday.

Those 12 soldiers will not be heading to Afghanistan.

But the remaining 26 soldiers who gave diluted samples in September passed the second drug test in October.

"Conceivably, then, they were not dirty in the first place or, if they were, they were concerned enough to stay off the drugs until the tests were repeated," Mr. Kalant said.

The delay between the first and second tests was due to the large number of people going through the process, Cmdr. Laviolette said. The military also wanted to surprise soldiers with the second test, she said.

"Is it possible that somebody who was taking illicit drugs ended up being deployed? I can’t say no, because it is possible," Cmdr. Laviolette said. "But we do everything we can to prevent that from happening."

Soldiers could face "surprise testing" once they reach Afghanistan, she said.

"There’s nothing that says they can’t do it in theatre. It would be a little bit of an administrative or logistics nightmare but the commanding officer … has the authority to test folks."

Military documents show the head of the army had wanted soldiers who failed drug tests or provided diluted samples "released quickly to send a message to all that usage of illicit drugs will not be tolerated."

But military administrators advised him not to rush the process. "We have a long-standing practice of attempting to rehabilitate first-time users of soft drugs," Cmdr. Crewe wrote in his Oct. 20 e-mail.

The troops who were tested last fall are slated to be part of Canada’s task force in Afghanistan next month. About 1,160 are based in Atlantic Canada.

Of those who flunked the drug tests last fall, documents show 79 per cent tested positive for marijuana, 11 per cent had cocaine in their systems, five per cent tested positive for codeine, and five per cent had both marijuana and cocaine in their urine.

Of about 2,500 soldiers training to go to Afghanistan for the next six months, a total of 88 tested positive for illicit drug use.

Unless they had a legitimate prescription for codeine, those soldiers, as well as the five who admitted to taking drugs, won’t be making the trip to Afghanistan because they are undergoing an administrative review.

Disciplinary action can range from counselling and probation to release from the Forces.

( clambie@herald.ca)

 

[Southern Boy]

Codeine is found in certain over-the-counter medicines, which a prescription is not required for. In this situation, I would hardly deem the use of codeine as drug abuse. Not to mention, that medically speaking, it is barely worth the effort to get high off of codeine, it won't do much more than make you a little light headed at high doses and make you constipated. I would be more concerned of the ones with coke or oxycodone or in their system, both fairly addictive substances. As well, anyone who had diluted urine, likely has it for a reason: trying to cover something up, why else would you do it? The retests should have been done as soon as the results were back. Letting these pers wait for nearly a month is enough time to clean out the system, enabling a clean result next time.