Turn Around

I did a quick research on the hair follicle test and turns out, Auggie and I are right.

The argument on the test is that dark, coarse hair can hold substances longer leading to a false positive. For example, you get a dollar that has cocaine residue on it and you touch your hair can lead to a false positive.

It doesn't say anywhere that a drug users results will be affected. Seems to me that it's you, Turtle that needs to stop lecturing and get off the soap box.

He never blamed anything. Where are you getting that from? You're making assumptions with no basis whatsoever.

Go back and reread what he said, leaving out your preconceived judgements this time.

He's anxious about a test, as he should be.

He's trying to gather more info, as he should.

He's coming too experienced experts for advice, as he also should.

The earlier replies were spot-on, well thought-out, and without judgment.

I did a quick research on the hair follicle test and turns out, Auggie and I are right.

The argument on the test is that dark, coarse hair can hold substances longer leading to a false positive. For example, you get a dollar that has cocaine residue on it and you touch your hair can lead to a false positive.

It doesn't say anywhere that a drug users results will be affected. Seems to me that it's you, Turtle that needs to stop lecturing and get off the soap box.

You just further proved my point.

As you now see for yourself, the dark, coarse hair can hold substances longer then lighter hair, which is the exact thing Garrett was concerned about.

Not about hiding his drug use.

Not about a false positive.

Not about anything else but how long he should wait before taking a test.

Again, you jumped to a conclusion without any basis.

I got that from here

Now, the test is a bit discriminatory. I’m a black male and shorter, more coarse hair holds chemicals longer than thinner, straighter hair.

There is no evidence of this from people that used drugs. The discriminatory argument stems from false positives, not actual positives.

My issue with the post is not the seeking advice, my issue is finding fault with a drug test. He is saying he's worried because he believes the test is discriminatory. The problem with the test is the drug use, not discrimination.

And a hair follicle test doesn't have to be from the head it can be from anywhere on the body. If you're concerned that the hair on your head may bring a false positive due to substances in your environment, have them get it from somewhere else.

As you now see for yourself, the dark, coarse hair can hold substances longer then lighter hair, which is the exact thing Garrett was concerned about.

I never saw that. Every article I read going back over 20 years says substances in the environment. Not 1 article discusses hair holding substances longer for an actual drug user.

So we've established the fact that the test is in fact discriminatory, even if unintentional, at least based on some studies. He was right in that regard, true? So the quote above is factual.

Nowhere did he find fault with the test. Nowhere did he say the discriminatory nature of the test would be the reason for his failure. Obviously his drug use would be the reason. That's a given. It appears to me that he's accepted that.

He simply showed a concern for how long to wait before actually taking the test, due to the longer period of detection that apparently happens with dark hair.

So we've established the fact that the test is in fact discriminatory, even if unintentional, at least based on some studies. He was right in that regard, true? So the quote above is factual.

He was wrong because the tests results in false positives. He would not be a false positive.

Nowhere did he find fault with the test. Nowhere did he say the discriminatory nature of the test would be the reason for his failure. 

He said he's worried because dark coarse hair holds a positive result longer for drug users. I haven't seen that anywhere. If you find it please post a link. I'll gladly admit that I'm wrong.

He simply showed a concern for how long to wait before actually taking the test, due to the longer period of detection that apparently happens with dark hair.

Again, I haven't seen anything that indicates a longer period of detection in drug users.

It doesn't say anywhere that a drug user with dark coarse hair will have detectable traces in 5 months, while the detectable traces in a drug user with thin straight hair will only last 3.

I don't need to post any links. It's all right there in his original post. Regardless of what you or I think, regardless of what you or I read or believe to be true, his original post only asked what we knew about hair follicle tests, and how long one should wait.

You took it in a whole different direction when you accused him of pulling the race card, which was my main point of objection, and something you've still failed to address.

I'm done with this.

I don't need to post any links. It's all right there in his original post. Regardless of what you or I think, regardless of what you or I read or believe to be true, his original post only asked what we knew about hair follicle tests, and how long one should wait.

You took it in a whole different direction when you accused him of pulling the race card, which was my main point of objection, and something you've still failed to address.

I'm done with this.

If you say so, Turtle.

Because saying a test is discriminatory isn't playing the race card.

That's not what he said. He said he knows the test is discriminatory and that makes him anxious, but it's not. I'm still waiting to see evidence that it is.

I said I searched for it, couldn't find it. I said I'd admit I was wrong if you could provide a link or some evidence. I'm guessing you couldn't find one.

Have a good weekend.

From what I've read during my time on here, the standard is to test for 90 days, and they do this based on the length of the hair sample, that they usually have a cut-off length where anything longer than one and a half inches is removed from the sample that is tested. It's based on one half inch of growth per month. My impression is testing back for six months might be hard since plenty of men have shorter hairstyles and don't have three-inch-long body hair.