Hair Test

[Fred]

Quick question say you are at a concert and the guy or girl next to you starts smoking MJ. This has happejned to me in the past I make it a point to move away from them for more than one reason but if I was exsposed to MJ smoke for a short time due to it being the air will that give a positive on a hair test. It seems you cant go to any shows anymore inside or out that you are not exsposed to MJ

[Joeyd]

Fred, Im not sure if it does or not but im just as worried for i was recently at a concert in an indoor arena that was filled with MJ smoke. Within the next two months i will have to take a hair test for a pd and im pretty worried. Well hopefully someone out there has an answer for us. Good luck

[IL Lawman]

...the "hair test" is used to determine LONG term drug use. Presumably under the circumstances you mentioned, the brief exposure due to a concert would not show up as a positive result.
However, if you've been doing anything else, well that's another matter.

[Joeyd]

Thanks for the responses IL Lawman and SB0302. I have tried MJ in the past but it has been over 2 years since last use. Do you think that will show. Not that i would lie about it anyway I admitted it to one dept. and passed a polygraph. When you say longterm use are you reffering to using it a lot or that the test can go back a long time? As far as doing anything else the answer is certianly NO. Either way it is good news about the second hand smoke. Thanks for the input.

Joe

[CA Cop]

Hair tests generally test back about 90 days. Basically, any hair you had on your body when you smoked it will test positive. After 2 years, you'll be fine, but you're right, honesty is still the best policy.

[Joeyd]

CA cop i have a ?. When you say any hair on your body when you smoked will test positive, do you mean any hair on my body 2 years ago will test positive or just if you smoked in the last few months. Dont understand exactly what you are saying. When i say hair on my body from 2 years ago i mean like leg hair. Just curious exactly what you mean. Thanks

JOE

[CA Cop]

There is a 99.9% chance that you don't have any hair on your body from two years ago. Yes, they could use leg hair if you don't have enough hair on your head to test. But they'll usually take the most recent 1.5 inches from your head and test that, which will give them about 90 days of history.

Anyway, if you told them you did it two years ago, who cares what they find?

For more detailed info: http://www.onsitedrugtesting.com/drugtest/hairfaq.htm

[Joeyd]

Thanks CA cop. Seems I am just over reacting after all. I just really want the job. Anyway thanks for the input.

JOE

[CA Cop]

Sounds like you're in good shape. Good luck!

[medicmster]

I shave my head so where would the next place they go...I do have a mustache but not happy about them pulling that out. What about chest hair, pit hair or god forbid "other" places?

Is it pulled out or cut...I would think they need the root structures as well. Never had a hair test so this would be new for me. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[IL Lawman]

The one I underwent involved them cutting the hair
REALLY close to the scalp. They took about 20 hairs.
Their procedure was questionable. They used a pair of scissors that they just took off the desk.
Then they handled the harvested sample with BARE hands.
I passed the test. From an evidentiary standpoint however, the sample was contaminated by both the scissors (should've used a sterile scalpel or scissors to harvest) & worn gloves when doing so. This is a violation of basic evidentiary
procedure that anyone, particularly officers involved in the investigation unit (some of whom I'm certain were ET'S at one time) should know.

[dmclark]

I believe if you check the protocol for the test, you'll find that since the examination is of the hair FOLICLES, the use of scissors or bare hands is immaterial. I have seen the test administered scores of times and no contaminant issues were raised.

The level of THC from MJ use can be detected for over 4 months of use in varying degrees. This would include scalp and underarm/pubic hairs.

This procedure was developed as some think that the urinalysis is too invasive and preferred other methods, AND the longer term detection of drug use through the folicle examinations.

[IL Lawman]

1) No protocol was EVER given to me. I have no problem with being tested for controlled substances, but I DO have a problem with faulty, slip-shod, half-baked collection procedures. This was drummed into us in E.T. school especially in the wake of the SIMPSON case.
2) Even though the follicle is the part tested, do you not see a potential problem with cross-contamination? I know of judges & ASA'S who would have a FIT if I brought in a sample that wasn't properly harvested.
3) The reason that this collection method was never quuestioned before is that the people who were subjected to it probably didn't have a handle on it.
I'm no scientist by any means. I have no desire to be the victim of either false positives or false negatives.
Neither should anyone else.

[dmclark]

Just because a collection protocol was not discussed does not mean testing wasn't valid. I'm not sure of the different requirements for urine vs hair testing, but I do KNOW that it is different because of the nature of the specimens collected.

No one is suggesting false positives here. And those are easily resolved with secondary testing. It has not been a major issue, nor should it be in the future.

Contaminating or altering a sample to distort or manipulate test results is much more difficult with hair than with urine.

Preliminary research shows that even treating hair with a variety of strong compounds will not completely eliminate traces of illicit drugs.