Can I smoke pot now??

[mcloaf]

I won this argument. And it worked out great.

Honestly based on your posts on SDN I'm surprised you're not intimately involved in the drug culture; you seem to live more or less entirely in an alternate universe.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SouthernSurgeon]

You need to get out more. The reason you think only a handful of pot smokers make it to medical school and the rest are demotivated "losers" is because the majority of the people that you know are not in medical school. The "overwhelming evidence" that you've observed is that the majority of people from high school didn't become successful, let alone pot smokers. Anecdotally, out of my high school graduating class of about 350, I can count on one hand the number of people who now have a college degree. I am the only one who is in medical school, and the rest of my friends who were in the top 10 are either struggling to find a job, working a job unrelated to their college degree, or are taking out more loans to get their master's.

What I'm trying to say is that your observations may have some merit, but they don't necessarily represent reality.

Yeah, I was going to say when I read fritz's post that you could just take all references to marijuana out of it and it accurately describes the people I went to high school and college with. The reality is that the vast majority of people I've known in my life didn't have the drive/desire/intellect/etc for medicine.

n=2. I would say 10-15% of my class regularly smokes weed, not including those who have smoked in the past (me), and I don't mean they "probably smoke" either. I know because they all tend to smoke with one another at one time or the other, and I had smoked with 4-5 classmates before I quit. There were similar numbers in the class above us and even more in the class below us (smoked with a few of them too).

I'd say this is pretty accurate for where I went to school as well. There were probably 5% that I would describe as true stoners (near daily use, hung out almost exclusively with each other and smoked together) and then another 5-10% that would casually partake from time to time.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Now that you're a winner, do you get all the girls?

Since I had no idea that "getting girls" followed from being right on drug debates -- this must also occur in your "never been seen before medical school -- I'm not sure how you think that's a zinger. It's like your comeback to life is "how many women have you had sex with? Oh, then you're wrong." Which says more about you than it does about me.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Honestly based on your posts on SDN I'm surprised you're not intimately involved in the drug culture; you seem to live more or less entirely in an alternate universe.

Actually, it's the opposite. I live in real life and you live in an alternate reality. That also makes a lot more sense.

 

[mcloaf]

Actually, it's the opposite. I live in real life and you live in an alternate reality. That also makes a lot more sense.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Oddly, I could have posted the exact same GIF in reply to your post. Funny how you didn't grasp that, huh? Not too swift.

 

[mcloaf]

Oddly, I could have posted the exact same GIF in reply to your post. Funny how you didn't grasp that, huh? Not too swift.

Edit: not worth it.

 

[evilbooyaa]

Oddly, I could have posted the exact same GIF in reply to your post. Funny how you didn't grasp that, huh? Not too swift.

Good luck getting past probationary status. lol.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Good luck getting past probationary status. lol.

Oh, I don't particularly care if I'm on probation or not. Why would I?

 

[Raryn]

This is an absolutely stupid discussion that should have ended after about four posts. To answer the OPs question, toking up during his week off is risky and probably a poor choice. Many medical schools drug test, and even at the ones that don't, individual rotation sites frequently do. My M3 year, I started my family medicine rotation at a community site Jan 2, and the first thing they had me do before I even got a badge was stop by the lab with some paperwork and pee in a cup. Had I been one of the very few med students I knew that went nutty over winter break, I'd have been f---ked.

The other thing to consider is that if you ever get in trouble with the law, it can have very, very real consequences on your medical career. Even in CO, where marijuana is now "legal", the licensing board has explicitly stated they will revoke any physicians licenses who get caught using it. Outside of maybe sleeping with your patients, there is *nothing* the various state licensing boards hate more than physician impairment. Even in your personal life, getting caught with a DUI or a drug offense is a good way to get a restricted license.

The side discussion on whether smoking has long-term health outcomes and what smoking has done to Michael Phelps IQ is irrelevant to the OPs question.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Even in CO, where marijuana is now "legal", the licensing board has explicitly stated they will revoke any physicians licenses who get caught using it. Outside of maybe sleeping with your patients, there is *nothing* the various state licensing boards hate more than physician impairment.

That's odd, everyone says that marijuana use outside of the workplace doesn't impair anyone. Then again, neither does cocaine use outside of the workplace. But anyways, it's odd because the whole argument is that all the potheads talk about the medicinal benefits of pot and it seems odd that they want to withhold necessary medicines from physicians. I think we should allow physicians to use this important medicine and then have them take care of pot users, since they will understand those patients more. Also, since 15% of every medical school is composed of regular pot users, we have enough physicians to do so.

 

[thefritz]

That's odd, everyone says that marijuana use outside of the workplace doesn't impair anyone. Then again, neither does cocaine use outside of the workplace. But anyways, it's odd because the whole argument is that all the potheads talk about the medicinal benefits of pot and it seems odd that they want to withhold necessary medicines from physicians. I think we should allow physicians to use this important medicine and then have them take care of pot users, since they will understand those patients more. Also, since 15% of every medical school is composed of regular pot users, we have enough physicians to do so.

It's not about its medicinal qualities, it's not about whether it's addictive, it's not about whether it negatively affects your health long term, it's not about whether some guy somebody knew smokes every night and has a good job, it's about getting high like I've said throughout this discussion. If you could take away everything that everybody claims is so great about marijuana and remove its ability to get you high, nobody would use it. Guess what, percocet gets you pretty high too. But those are legal... oh wait, they aren't. It doesn't stop some very stupid doctors from abusing them. There are also doctors who get high from coke, alcohol, heroin, LSD, literally anything else you can think of. The desire to get high is the issue, and if you're wanting to get high something's wrong. I'm checking out of this discussion, my opinion is that if you're smoking weed, you're trying to get high, and that's a problem, and you're most likely buying something illegally trafficked through horrible sources that is not regulated and therefore may have god knows what in it and could potentially end your medical career, and that's just ****ing stupid. You think getting high off MJ is any better than getting high off oxys? You're wrong. It's about as delusional as Whitney Houston thinking she's alright because she's doing coke instead of crack. The high addicts you, not the drug. It's why drug abusers have their drug of choice, but when their meth supply is all run out and there's some coke on the table, they'll do that. It's why people in Russia melt down codeine and cook it into krokdil cause they can't get their hands on any heroin, and if they can't do that, just chug vodka until they pass out. It's why MJ is a gateway drug - people want to get high, no MJ around and someone offers them some meth, sure why not? Physical dependence can be beat in a couple of days, max. Psychological dependence lasts until you correct the underlying problem. Bye.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

If you could take away everything that everybody claims is so great about marijuana and remove its ability to get you high, nobody would use it.

In fact, you can do that, by simply administering THC. And yet you are right, if people can't get high, suddenly all of the "medicinal qualities" arguments disappear. That was my point, except I was laying on the sarcasm thick. People who argue for pot's benefits should just cut to the chase and say "OK, look, I'm just lying a lot and very poorly. The truth is I just like getting stoned." And that's not any better other than at least we can stop beating around the bush.

 

[boogaloo]

It's not about its medicinal qualities, it's not about whether it's addictive, it's not about whether it negatively affects your health long term, it's not about whether some guy somebody knew smokes every night and has a good job, it's about getting high like I've said throughout this discussion. If you could take away everything that everybody claims is so great about marijuana and remove its ability to get you high, nobody would use it. Guess what, percocet gets you pretty high too. But those are legal... oh wait, they aren't. It doesn't stop some very stupid doctors from abusing them. There are also doctors who get high from coke, alcohol, heroin, LSD, literally anything else you can think of. The desire to get high is the issue, and if you're wanting to get high something's wrong. I'm checking out of this discussion, my opinion is that if you're smoking weed, you're trying to get high, and that's a problem, and you're most likely buying something illegally trafficked through horrible sources that is not regulated and therefore may have god knows what in it and could potentially end your medical career, and that's just ******* stupid. You think getting high off MJ is any better than getting high off oxys? You're wrong. It's about as delusional as Whitney Houston thinking she's alright because she's doing coke instead of crack. The high addicts you, not the drug. It's why drug abusers have their drug of choice, but when their meth supply is all run out and there's some coke on the table, they'll do that. It's why people in Russia melt down codeine and cook it into krokdil cause they can't get their hands on any heroin, and if they can't do that, just chug vodka until they pass out. It's why MJ is a gateway drug - people want to get high, no MJ around and someone offers them some meth, sure why not? Physical dependence can be beat in a couple of days, max. Psychological dependence lasts until you correct the underlying problem. Bye.

99% of this post doesn't make any sense. OMG UR GETTIN HIGH DATS BAD!!@! It's the ramblings of a kid who can't comprehend why even high-functioning adults would want to get high, so he makes assumptions about the motivations and personality traits of all drug users and "checks out" of this discussion (of course). Drugs are bad, mmkay? Stay inside your little bubble and call everybody outside of it "crazy." Not surprising to say the least.

That's odd, everyone says that marijuana use outside of the workplace doesn't impair anyone. Then again, neither does cocaine use outside of the workplace. But anyways, it's odd because the whole argument is that all the potheads talk about the medicinal benefits of pot and it seems odd that they want to withhold necessary medicines from physicians. I think we should allow physicians to use this important medicine and then have them take care of pot users, since they will understand those patients more. Also, since 15% of every medical school is composed of regular pot users, we have enough physicians to do so.

Given the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption, I think we should also allow physicians to use this necessary medicine and then have them take care of alcoholics, since they will understand those patients more. Also, since more than 15% of every medical school is composed of regular drinkers, we have enough physicians to do so. Did I do that right?

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Given the health benefits of moderate alcohol consumption, I think we should also allow physicians to use this necessary medicine and then have them take care of alcoholics, since they will understand those patients more. Also, since more than 15% of every medical school is composed of regular drinkers, we have enough physicians to do so. Did I do that right?

We do let physicians use that medicine. Or do you know something that nobody else does? Or did you just think you were being clever when you weren't?

 

[pre med 2014]

Considering that there are hospitals that are going to nicotine free campuses, which includes testing employees (including residents) for nicotine with the possibility of being fired with a positive result, I don't think that THC is going to be just glanced over if it comes up.

Ehh. Nicotine is a lot worse. I can barely stand sitting next to a smoker on a plane and it can def give you a headache. Certainly there is clear logic keeping smokers off health campus, if I'm sick in a hospital or struggling to survive it wouldn't be very pleasant to be taken care of by a smoker.

Recreational pot smokers on the other hand don't smell of smoke. Especially not your med student pot smoker, they are gonna be able to take showers and use deodorant. As long as they aren't wearing clothes they smoked in you would never smell a smoke odor. Cigarettes odor however does stay on your clothes and extremely hard to get rid off.

 

[pre med 2014]

"He could smoke me in a 5k"

There was no pun intended on that one haha!

 

[BurberryDoc]

Drugs are bad, Mmmkay?

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Ehh. Nicotine is a lot worse. I can barely stand sitting next to a smoker on a plane and it can def give you a headache. Certainly there is clear logic keeping smokers off health campus, if I'm sick in a hospital or struggling to survive it wouldn't be very pleasant to be taken care of by a smoker.

Recreational pot smokers on the other hand don't smell of smoke. Especially not your med student pot smoker, they are gonna be able to take showers and use deodorant. As long as they aren't wearing clothes they smoked in you would never smell a smoke odor. Cigarettes odor however does stay on your clothes and extremely hard to get rid off.

That's a poor analysis, since you can chain smoke cigarettes legally just before you walk into a hospital. You're comparing that to "a guy smokes a joint, then showers and applies deodorant"? The only interesting thing to note about smoking versus pot is to note that for some strange reason we as a society are doing pretty good at stamping out smoking tobacco while simultaneously being supposedly totally incapable of stopping pot use. Ever stop and wonder how that works? Probably you haven't.

 

[Shjanzey]

In the best interest of this thread I thought I would remind you of what we were taught in primary school

Can't we all agree to take a risk and

to be drug free?

Can't we all just

to make a difference?

Now that I have saved this thread, I must move on in my crusade to save more internets. You're welcome good citizens

 

[TooMuchResearch]

We do let physicians use that medicine. Or do you know something that nobody else does? Or did you just think you were being clever when you weren't?

No, it was clever. Perhaps you missed the subtlety.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

No, it was clever. Perhaps you missed the subtlety.

I must have. Why don't you let me in on the cleverness?

 

[Darth Doc]

Recreational pot smokers on the other hand don't smell of smoke. Especially not your med student pot smoker, they are gonna be able to take showers and use deodorant. As long as they aren't wearing clothes they smoked in you would never smell a smoke odor.

They don't take real baths. They take patchouli baths. (LOL. My ex and most of the people in Ocean City do.) I hate patchouli.

 

[pre med 2014]

That's a poor analysis, since you can chain smoke cigarettes legally just before you walk into a hospital. You're comparing that to "a guy smokes a joint, then showers and applies deodorant"? The only interesting thing to note about smoking versus pot is to note that for some strange reason we as a society are doing pretty good at stamping out smoking tobacco while simultaneously being supposedly totally incapable of stopping pot use. Ever stop and wonder how that works? Probably you haven't.

I don't think smoking pot is a good idea and certainly it has negative effects for some. But if someone is already functional and healthy who happens to smoke recreationally and suffers no negative effect we shouldn't cuff them in stocks on the town square for public humiliation.

While cigarettes are bad for everyone, some people actually benefit from pot use leave alone the absence of any negative effects.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

I don't think smoking pot is a good idea and certainly it has negative effects for some. But if someone is already functional and healthy who happens to smoke recreationally and suffers no negative effect we shouldn't cuff them in stocks on the town square for public humiliation.

While cigarettes are bad for everyone, some people actually benefit from pot use leave alone the absence of any negative effects.

Sure, except that not everyone who has smoked has a problem as a result and even if they do, that's not your concern, is it? Moreover, people do irresponsible things while on pot or other drugs (e.g., drive stoned). At the very least, they show that they are willing to disregard the law by smoking pot, much like illegal aliens are all by definition criminals even if they don't commit OTHER crimes besides ignoring immigration law. Now, you may say that I also should have no concern if someone wants to use pot and you'd be right IF I didn't have to pay welfare to deadbeat kids who just sat around like losers high on drugs. I always offer to legalize all drugs if we can drug test and not support drug users and for some reason I never get any takers.

 

[thefritz]

Moreover, people do irresponsible things while on pot or other drugs (e.g., drive stoned).

I know I said I was going to check out of this, but I just can't help myself telling the story of my buddy who would drive around in his van and get high while he was driving because he lived with his parents and that was the only way he could do it without them knowing. Well, he eventually totaled his van while he was under the influence of THC only. So I don't buy the 'weed never killed anybody' argument. I know it causes car crashes.

 

[SunsFun]

Sure, except that not everyone who has smoked has a problem as a result and even if they do, that's not your concern, is it? Moreover, people do irresponsible things while on pot or other drugs (e.g., drive stoned). At the very least, they show that they are willing to disregard the law by smoking pot, much like illegal aliens are all by definition criminals even if they don't commit OTHER crimes besides ignoring immigration law. Now, you may say that I also should have no concern if someone wants to use pot and you'd be right IF I didn't have to pay welfare to deadbeat kids who just sat around like losers high on drugs. I always offer to legalize all drugs if we can drug test and not support drug users and for some reason I never get any takers.

They tried that in Florida I believe. Drug testing welfare recipients wasn't worth the effort. They ended up spending more money then they would have otherwise.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

I know I said I was going to check out of this, but I just can't help myself telling the story of my buddy who would drive around in his van and get high while he was driving because he lived with his parents and that was the only way he could do it without them knowing. Well, he eventually totaled his van while he was under the influence of THC only. So I don't buy the 'weed never killed anybody' argument. I know it causes car crashes.

I think there was a stat that driving drunk is declining and driving high is on the increase.

They tried that in Florida I believe. Drug testing welfare recipients wasn't worth the effort. They ended up spending more money then they would have otherwise.

Then they don't know how to do it. I don't know the details but I could do it easily.

 

[Rendar5]

driving while texting is also on the rise. I don't see the point of the argument, no **** driving while distracted or sleepy or under the influence of drugs or alcohol is bad, kills people, and is illegal in most states (well, texting and sleepiness laws are hit and miss, they're just as bad).

 

[Rendar5]

By the way, mass drug screens actually do become very expensive and have a lot of drawbacks. These are generalized tests that don't actually test for specific substances, they just test for molecules similar to metabolites of a lot of illegal drugs. There are a ton of false negatives (not just new designer drugs but some opiates and benzo's too), they need to be done multiple times and randomnly and monitored if you want to catch people who aren't stupid (so you have to pay for those employees in addition to the cheap tests. There are also a ton of false positives (e.g. Seroquel as methadone, cough syrup triggering PCP positives, decongestants showing up as amphetamines, etc. etc. etc.), and in order to actually show if a positive is true or not, you have to do an expensive test, usually mass spectroscopy or something akin to that. drug screens are simply screening tests, they are not specific drug tests. Their use is definitely feasible when the targeted population has a very high rate of positives, such as inpatient psych facilities, parolees, people in rehab programs. But when the rate drops down to that of the general population and is done aross a huge scale, it quickly becomes expensive to order confirmatory testing and to hire tons of employees to monitor, and test. It's no surprise that testing and screening people out from welfare (which I have no problem with by the way, crackheads, potheads, and people who don't even try to get ahead in life and like to leech off the system should not be supported by the state) is more expensive than the savings it creates. If drug tests actually became good tests, things might change. until then, they're very very crappy tests. Kind of like getting a bnp between 100 and 300, or a wbc of 12, or an esr of 30, it really doesn't help you in anyway other than just being there and maybe suggesting something, maybe not.

better explanation since you're a surgeon. it's like a wbc in a patient with appendicitis. most of the time's it's high, but just because it's not does not mean the patient doesn't have an appy, and just because it's high doesn't mean he does. It's a cheap test, and certainly associated with it, and it wouldn't be a big burdern if the state had to foot the bill for a simple blood test. But if it's high or even when it's not, you have to end up having to order a CT or performing a laparoscopy, or admit them to the hospital for serial exams. But instead of them paying for the testing, you do (equivalent to more expensive confirmatory testing). So do you order a WBC (drug screen at time of welfare application) on every single patient with abdominal pain (all welfare recipients) and then CT (confirmatory test) every single one that is high, and on those it's negative, repeat it every few months at random (random UDS) to just check? or do you reserve it for those with an H&P suggestive of it (a much more specific group of people it might be more feasible on). REmember, you pay for not only the WBC, but also the CT, however, anyone who has appy, you just saved money on.

 

[TSSVR4]

If someone gets accepted to med school, I think it's safe to say their pot use isn't hindering them. They're clearly not high all day every day.

There's this weird assumption here that all pot users smoke pot with the same frequency. Med students aren't going around doing the yolo 420 blaze it shtick. And if you need to test them to even find them it's already a compartmentalized part of their life.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

driving while texting is also on the rise. I don't see the point of the argument, no **** driving while distracted or sleepy or under the influence of drugs or alcohol is bad, kills people, and is illegal in most states (well, texting and sleepiness laws are hit and miss, they're just as bad).

You don't see the point of the argument? LOL. That's sad, but OK. The point is that as pot use has increased and become more accepted, so has use while driving. People criticize alcohol, then they turn around and basically try to make pot as ubiquitous in society as alcohol by saying alcohol is worse, then they excuse the problems of pot use by comparing it to alcohol. It's literally the most ******ed argument possible, but it's been used to advance pot legalization. Whereas, the coherent thing to do is say "oh, alcohol IS bad ..,let's ban both, instead of legalize both." Of course, you'd have to be an adult to do that and most people are infantile in their thinking.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

By the way, mass drug screens actually do become very expensive and have a lot of drawbacks. These are generalized tests that don't actually test for specific substances, they just test for molecules similar to metabolites of a lot of illegal drugs. There are a ton of false negatives (not just new designer drugs but some opiates and benzo's too), they need to be done multiple times and randomnly and monitored if you want to catch people who aren't stupid (so you have to pay for those employees in addition to the cheap tests. There are also a ton of false positives (e.g. Seroquel as methadone, cough syrup triggering PCP positives, decongestants showing up as amphetamines, etc. etc. etc.), and in order to actually show if a positive is true or not, you have to do an expensive test, usually mass spectroscopy or something akin to that. drug screens are simply screening tests, they are not specific drug tests.

I stopped reading right around here because you're engaging in a false argument that liberals love to use. They act like "oh, you want to drug test people on welfare? No way, it's impossible, why, you'd have to use mass spectroscopy on every sample blah blah blah." Wow, and yet we can drug test people who are employed! It's incredible! What is impossible for the poor is somehow possible for everyone else! I guess we just need to keep giving them welfare! You see this type of argumentation all the time from liberals. It's hilarious.

 

[mcloaf]

"oh, alcohol IS bad ..,let's ban both, instead of legalize both."

I could swear there's a history lesson in here somewhere.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

I could swear there's a history lesson in here somewhere.

I'd explain it to you, but I don't think you're intelligent enough to get it.

 

[mcloaf]

I'd explain it to you, but I don't think you're intelligent enough to get it.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Yeah, I'd agree that you're like Joe "Let's Ask The Guy In The Wheelchair To Stand Up" Biden.

 

[Shikima]

What's funny, none of the medical students who cite favor/interest in "toking", likely have not spent enough time in a serious mental illness, strong genetics for mental illness with short family trees, all living in a locality with rampant cannabis abuse.
Annecdotal? Yes.
Too broad and global? Why, yes.
Lack of insight? Yes.

 

[imperturbable]

What's funny, none of the medical students who cite favor/interest in "toking", likely have not spent enough time in a serious mental illness, strong genetics for mental illness with short family trees, all living in a locality with rampant cannabis abuse.
Annecdotal? Yes.
Too broad and global? Why, yes.
Lack of insight? Yes.

Agreed. I think all of these students should spend some time in serious mental illness to gain some insight.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Actually, what's interesting is that all these medical students stop using weed as soon as they go into practice. In other words, "grow up." Pot is for the immature, the end.

 

[Rendar5]

I stopped reading right around here because you're engaging in a false argument that liberals love to use. They act like "oh, you want to drug test people on welfare? No way, it's impossible, why, you'd have to use mass spectroscopy on every sample blah blah blah." Wow, and yet we can drug test people who are employed! It's incredible! What is impossible for the poor is somehow possible for everyone else! I guess we just need to keep giving them welfare! You see this type of argumentation all the time from liberals. It's hilarious.

lol I'm not a liberal. I just said I'd be for doing it if it weren't so expensive and we had a better test. The taxpayers pay for the tests and the confirmatory testing and the random testing. Most of my post was just discussing the overall utility of UDS. Our current generation drug screens just honestly suck ass. I'm honestly at this point, just looking to spend less of my tax money on welfare, not more. I'd rather pay less and end up with more welfare junkies, then pay more less to reduce the number of welfare junkies.

So read my post again if you actually want medical information on UDS's, or don't read my post if you wanna keep thinking that it's a quality test.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

lol I'm not a liberal. I just said I'd be for doing it if it weren't so expensive and we had a better test. The taxpayers pay for the tests and the confirmatory testing and the random testing. Most of my post was just discussing the overall utility of UDS. Our current generation drug screens just honestly suck ass. I'm honestly at this point, just looking to spend less of my tax money on welfare, not more. I'd rather pay less and end up with more welfare junkies, then pay more less to reduce the number of welfare junkies.

So read my post again if you actually want medical information on UDS's, or don't read my post if you wanna keep thinking that it's a quality test.

That's super, so why do you perform UDSs in the ER? Or do you send those out for mass spectroscopy?

If you want to spend less tax money on welfare, then you should just spend less tax money on welfare. Frankly, nobody should get any welfare, but I bet when I say that -- despite your claim that you're "not liberal" -- you cry a little inside. It's pretty hilarious that you think that it costs more to pay people welfare than to not pay them it -- if that's true, that itself says something about our society due to liberalism.

It's like when people use, as a reason to oppose the death penalty, the cost. Which is amusing because the reason it costs so much is due to the people who use that as a reason to oppose the death penalty.

 

[TooMuchResearch]

That's super, so why do you perform UDSs in the ER? Or do you send those out for mass spectroscopy?

Because the admitting service wants it.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Because the admitting service wants it.

That's not true, since I've admitted people who the ER does a UDS on without me asking. Moreover, she should be telling the hospital they are administering a test that is not at all accurate.

In fact, we're now engaging in the silly type of argument that liberals love, where we buy their inane premise and start chewing it over for five pages. Meanwhile, nobody is like "wait a second, lots of people and companies use drug screening and are able to do so. I wonder why we can't do it for the poor?" It's like when we argue about photo IDs and the argument immediately becomes some long-winded and remarkably stupid discussion about how obtaining a photo ID is almost impossible. It tells me who has low intellect.

 

[Rendar5]

That's not true, since I've admitted people who the ER does a UDS on without me asking. Moreover, she should be telling the hospital they are administering a test that is not at all accurate.

In fact, we're now engaging in the silly type of argument that liberals love, where we buy their inane premise and start chewing it over for five pages. Meanwhile, nobody is like "wait a second, lots of people and companies use drug screening and are able to do so. I wonder why we can't do it for the poor?" It's like when we argue about photo IDs and the argument immediately becomes some long-winded and remarkably stupid discussion about how obtaining a photo ID is almost impossible. It tells me who has low intellect.

I don't get UDS's. If it's an EP does I, it's either due to the admitting service asking for it, it being a psych admission, the EP being ill-informed about the nature and utility of these tests, or under certain special circumstances. The only utility in an ED workup for UDS is seizures, chest pain, stroke (as cocaine is the one metabolite that is reasonable accurate without too man false positives), or because I'm admitting someone to a psych facility and they need to know if they are treating a single diagnosis or a dual diagnosis.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

I don't get UDS's.

Who cares? By your argument, it shouldn't even be an option to get. You should discuss it with your hospital administration.

 

[Rendar5]

On my UDS screens, each positive is always followed with an asterisk saying that this is a creening test only and requires confirmation. The inpatient service always ignores that.

Who cares? By your argument, it shouldn't even be an option to get. You should discuss it with your hospital administration.

I'm sure you should discuss with your hospital administration tests that your colleagues get that you don't and ways of tieing suture knots that you don't use. As I said, I use them for psych admissions, chest pain, strokes, and seizures, but little else. If a colleague wants to waste money with an amylase, a UDS, an ESR (if dealing with a plain old febrile illness), d-dimers on every single chest pain patient, or prescribe an antibiotic with crappy efficacy based on my local resistance patterns, that's their right and I don't ask administration to police their practice patterns.

 

[Rendar5]

Anyway, the discussion on the clinical utility of UDS is besides the point because we were originally discussing their utility as welfare tools. The bottom line is that confirmatory testing is expensive and adds up. Yes they can test for it in the workplace, yes they can afford to perform the testing on a grander scale because they are paying for it and some of it comes out of the overall amount of money they're going to pay employees. If you're a small business or a hospital you're doing hundreds of them, it has some expense, perhaps it makes up for it in avoiding paying tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to certain employees each year. However, you and I are paying for these drug tests if we do it on welfare recipients. The bottom line is that we pay more for them than we save in doing them. We're talking millions of drug scrrens, to save thousands of dollars here and there. They are not cheap tests and they do not pay for themselves. It is entirely feasible that they cost more money than they save. If you want to say they don't, great, then you're just a fiscal liberal who doesn't care that we spend more money to make things socially more, I don't know actually. Either way, it's just increasing government and increasing expenditures and budgets. If you're all for government spending and control, go for it. I guess I'm just a fiscal conservative and you're not.

 

[ruralsurg4now]

On my UDS screens, each positive is always followed with an asterisk saying that this is a creening test only and requires confirmation. The inpatient service always ignores that.

a) If they're only for screening and therefore don't actually tell you any accurate information, you shouldn't be ordering them at all unless you order a confirmatory test.
b) You mean they don't take seriously your suggestions to perform mass spectroscopy on the urine?

I'm sure you should discuss with your hospital administration tests that your colleagues get that you don't

Uh, no. Your claim is not "I happen to not get UDS screens and other people do." Your claim is that UDS are inaccurate and the results are meaningless. And yet you just stand around while, for example, people get fired on the basis of a UDS. How odd. Don't you think you should be spreading the word? I mean, maybe you'll get one other person to agree with you. That'll make two of you. That's a 100% increase in believers!

 

[ruralsurg4now]

Anyway, the discussion on the clinical utility of UDS is besides the point because we were originally discussing their utility as welfare tools. The bottom line is that confirmatory testing is expensive and adds up.

Except that we don't need to perform confirmatory testing. It's just you trying to make the process burdensome and unnecessarily expensive in order to satisfy your OWN personal agenda, confirmed by the ludicrous statement that you'd rather pay even more people welfare than spend money to pare down welfare rolls.