Drug Testing Questions:

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
dgroulx said:
BTW, some of our rotation sites also screen for alcohol usage. I'm not sure how they can detect it.

What would be the purpose of screening for alcohol, anyway? Even it's perfectly legal, would they do something if you tested positive for alcohol? I suppose if they find out someone drinks a liter a night, they should get them into a program. Heh.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Shovingit said:
What would be the purpose of screening for alcohol, anyway? Even it's perfectly legal, would they do something if you tested positive for alcohol? I suppose if they find out someone drinks a liter a night, they should get them into a program. Heh.
It may be legal to drink... but not on the job.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Well, I see that a major reason pharmacists shouldn't use marijuana is because it is illegal. In that, I fully agree. If necessary (and I see that it may well be), I will abstain from use completely.

However, the point snail and myself are making is that whilst it is true that marijuana is illegal and tested for, this should not be the case, and there have to be people who rise up against laws created with an irrational basis. It's true that marijuana can do its damage, but it can also do plenty of good, and those of us that have tried it know that. Of course, there are those that don't enjoy it at all, but to each his own. Regardless, I think there have to be people who understand that marijuana can be much more than just a recreational drug and should really voice their beliefs.

Also, as a future pharmacist, it's very irritating to see a drug such as marijuana with potentially extensive medical benefits being preached against due to the myth of the "lazy pothead". Marijuana can decrease nausea and increase appetite without any of the side effects that certain medications that do the same thing have.
 
Mentis said:
Marijuana can decrease nausea and increase appetite without any of the side effects that certain medications that do the same thing have.

I felt like crap after both of the times that I tried it in high school. No munchies, no buzz. I just felt like crap. And I almost never get hangovers (from alcohol), either.

I've seen propaganda both ways about marijuana and nausea/appetite induction, etc. I was under the general impression that MJ can be helpful in some cases, but in others (like for ocular pressure in glaucoma patients), prescription drugs actually work better.
 
Sort of an extension of the thread topic:

Can a pharmacist have his/her certification taken away if convicted of a DUI or possession charge?
 
Moxxie said:
I felt like crap after both of the times that I tried it in high school. No munchies, no buzz. I just felt like crap. And I almost never get hangovers (from alcohol), either.

I've seen propaganda both ways about marijuana and nausea/appetite induction, etc. I was under the general impression that MJ can be helpful in some cases, but in others (like for ocular pressure in glaucoma patients), prescription drugs actually work better.

Yep. It is quite possible for marijuana to have negative effects, especially if it's one of your first few tries. It's common.

And also, it's widely known that marijauna has these potential benefits (anti-nausea, etc), which is why medical marijuana is battling for legality to begin with. Chemotherapy for cancer patients has such horrible side effects, doing for them as much as possible is something that should be standard. If marijuana can help a cancer patient eat his food or relieve his nausea, then I'm totally for it.

And yes, there is propoganda both ways, which is unfortunate, but it's something that we can't really prevent. You can, however, learn to tell the difference between truth and propoganda. It's not really hard if you know what to look for, really. The main thing to look for is scientific evidence. If a claim is made without any evidence, your suspicions should be aroused.

To that end, here is some evidence for the potential uses of medical marijauna. http://www.medmjscience.org/Pages/science/zeesestates.html

Key quotes:
"The study found that [m]ore than [90] percent of the patients who received marijuana . . . reported significant or total relief from nausea and vomiting."

"Over 74 percent of the cancer patients treated in the program have reported that marijuana is more effective in relieving their nausea and vomiting than any other drug they have tried."

Shouldn't that be enough? Help a suffering patient. That should be our job, as far as I understand.

If you can find evidence to the contrary, I'm more than happy to read it. :)
 
Mentis said:
Yep. It is quite possible for marijuana to have negative effects, especially if it's one of your first few tries. It's common.

And also, it's widely known that marijauna has these potential benefits (anti-nausea, etc), which is why medical marijuana is battling for legality to begin with. Chemotherapy for cancer patients has such horrible side effects, doing for them as much as possible is something that should be standard. If marijuana can help a cancer patient eat his food or relieve his nausea, then I'm totally for it.

And yes, there is propoganda both ways, which is unfortunate, but it's something that we can't really prevent. You can, however, learn to tell the difference between truth and propoganda. It's not really hard if you know what to look for, really. The main thing to look for is scientific evidence. If a claim is made without any evidence, your suspicions should be aroused.

To that end, here is some evidence for the potential uses of medical marijauna. http://www.medmjscience.org/Pages/science/zeesestates.html

Key quotes:
"The study found that [m]ore than [90] percent of the patients who received marijuana . . . reported significant or total relief from nausea and vomiting."

"Over 74 percent of the cancer patients treated in the program have reported that marijuana is more effective in relieving their nausea and vomiting than any other drug they have tried."

Shouldn't that be enough? Help a suffering patient. That should be our job, as far as I understand.

If you can find evidence to the contrary, I'm more than happy to read it. :)
i have issues with the design of the studies you present

i think they are pure propaganda as well


i would love it if you could find me a decent study on the subject
 
Slightly off-topic.

There was a special on the news a while back where an investigator went to California and his goal was to get prescribed marijuana. There are doctors that specialize in medicinal marijuana, and it is said that they will prescribe it for nearly anything. The guy went in and told the doctor he had joint pain, and came out with a medicinal marijuana card. Then he went to a marijuana shop, where as long as you had a card, you could buy a LOT of marijuana. Pretty interesting that it's that easy to get it in states that it's legal.They might as well make it entirely legal to buy at a grocery store.
 
ultracet said:
i have issues with the design of the studies you present

i think they are pure propaganda as well


i would love it if you could find me a decent study on the subject

http://americanmarijuana.org/

A site with government recognition.

Also, wikipedia reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_marijuana
Wikipedia is pretty reputable, isn't it?

Feel free to google "medical marijuana". I can assure you, propoganda is always rampant, but that marijuana has many medical benefits cannot be denied.

Concerning what Shovingit said. Yeah, I can see medical marijuana being exploited for other uses. However, that's why we should make it legal altogether, but that's a different issue. ;)
 
Mentis said:
http://americanmarijuana.org/
A site with government recognition.

Did you actually look at this site? It's VERY slanted - plus the front page has "Xtreme grow videos" as one of the main links. :eek: They say that they are "recognized by the white house." The link provided is to an ANTI-marijuana pamphlet and they are only listed as a source (they aren't even referenced - just listed as a source). To quote the pamphlet:

"Marijuana Myths & Facts looks at 10 popular misperceptions about marijuana and, using the latest research findings and statistical information, explains why they are wrong. The booklet describes the dangers of marijuana and why it is important for society to send a clear, consistent, and credible message to young people about the seriousness of the threat."

This is in NO WAY an endorsement of http://americanmarijuana.org/

The other sites that you've linked to are also VERY pro-marijuana, without a lot of hard research to back it up (propaganda much?).

As to my statement above about glaucoma:

From: Rhee DJ, Katz LJ, Spaeth GL, Myers JS. "Complementary and alternative medicine for glaucoma." Surv Ophthalmol. 2001 Jul-Aug;46(1):43-55.

Given the recent interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), some patients may seek such treatments to supplement their traditional glaucoma management. The prevalence of CAM use for glaucoma is approximately 5%. We reviewed the literature to determine the potential benefit of various alternative treatments. Aside from a temporary osmotic effect from high dose intravenous ascorbic acid, there is no evidence that megavitamin supplementation has a beneficial effect on glaucoma. During exercise, autoregulation in healthy eyes seems to maintain a consistent blood flow rate to the optic nerve despite fluctuations in intraocular pressure (IOP). In a glaucomatous eye, the very modest IOP-lowering that follows exercise may be offset by the initial elevation in IOP that occurs when one first initiates exercise. At this time, there is no evidence to encourage or discourage the use of special diets, acupuncture, relaxation techniques, or therapeutic touch specifically for the treatment of glaucoma. Very little research has been done on the majority of herbal remedies with regard to their treatment of glaucoma. Marijuana can cause a profound lowering of IOP, but the high nonresponse rate, short half life, and significant toxicity are strong indicators that it is not an appropriate therapeutic agent. Ginkgo biloba and some other Chinese herbal remedies do not affect IOP, but may improve blood flow to the optic nerve and, as such, may have a beneficial effect on glaucoma. These agents have recognized toxicities. Although there are some well-designed studies of alternative treatments, many of the recommendations for using alternative treatments are currently unsupported by the data provided.

To be fair, a quick pubmed search did turn up a couple of journal articles about the effects of THC on nausea (THC decreased nausea in rats in a dose-dependent fashion), but other things that I saw were all over the place. There are apparently a lot of researchers working with marijuana and its affects on everything from cancer to cognitive behavior. There doesn't seem to be very much consensus at all - one article said that MJ use has a correlation with higher incidences of lung cancer, another article said the opposite. The disparity in this research makes me doubt almost all of it that isn't in the top-rated scientific journals.

I think that we are going to have to agree to disagree. But just know that if you were my employee and you showed up positive for marijuana/MDMA/whatever, you'd probably be shown the door.
 
Mentis said:
Also, wikipedia reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_marijuana
Wikipedia is pretty reputable, isn't it?

Actually, as a scientific resource, NO. Wikipedia can be good for a lot of information, but anything that can be edited by the general public (not peer-reviewed) should not be accepted as scientific truth. There is just too much potential for abuse. Plus, who do you think submitted the entry about medical marijuana? An unbiased panel of researchers or a group with a pro-legalization viewpoint?
 
I agree with you Moxxie, the sites I gave were likely to be pro-marijuana slant. I was a bit lazy (actually studing for an O-chem test *cough*procrastination :p ) and just did a google search. I was actually trying to remember the name "pubmed", but couldn't so google was the next best thing.

Anyway, I suppose there isn't enough reputable research concerning marijuana's health benefits, but that's mostly because of the stigma and the lack of government cooperation. If it were up to me, drugs that show promise in relieving symptoms caused by diseases would be researched extensively and taken to the FDA. Actually, that IS what happens. Unfortunately, this particular drug is being held back and treated unfairly due to said controversy. It seems in Pubmed, though, that a lot of research is being done, of which I am glad.

Well, I guess that's as close to agreement as the two of us will get. Back to O-chem. :rolleyes:

Oh, and if you were my employee and showed up positive for marijuana, you would be asked to explain yourself and would be given a chance to demonstrate your competence. Should there be some sort of conflict due to your use (intoxication while at work inclusive), you would be shown the door. Yes, the drug is illegal, but unless it takes away from your work somehow, there is absolutely no reason for me to be concerned with what you do on your own time. That it is illegal is your business. This goes for any drug, by the way. I was always one to follow not the 'rules' but the logic behind the rules. If it gets me into trouble along the way, I am fully prepared to defend myself.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
We studied a case in our Pharmacy Law & Ethics class last semester. It dealt with two people in California who were using marijuana for health reasons. One grew it herself and the other was supplied by her health care surrogate. The DEA found the source and seized all the plants. The plaintiffs filed an appeal and lost. Federal law takes precedence over state law, when the federal law is more strict. So, even though California legalized medicinal marijuana, it is not really legal and you can still be prosecuted.

It's still considered a C-I, a drug with no medicinal use. There have been efforts to make it a C-II, but they haven't had any luck. This is mainly because for every disease state that it can treat, there is already a drug without abuse potential that does the job better. For chemo-induced nausea, there are several classes of anti-emetics. From my experience with patients, those taking serotonin antagonists, such as Zofran, have had the best results.
 
ultracet said:
i have issues with the design of the studies you present

i think they are pure propaganda as well


i would love it if you could find me a decent study on the subject

what kind of study are you interested in exactly?
 
snailman said:
what kind of study are you interested in exactly?

How about a recent (in the last 5 years) study that compares the efficacy of marijuana versus some of the common drugs for nausea, appetite induction, glaucoma, etc.? And one that was published in the U.S., in a journal that has at least enough of a reputation to be carried by most university libraries? If you can find one, I'd be interested. I'd suggest a pubmed search vs. a google search to avoid the pro and anti-marijuana sites.
 
I've been staying out of this topic in an attempt to not appear like I support illegal drugs, considering the fact that my future lies in pharmacy. Unfortunately, I can't do that anymore.


Why is marijuana illegal in this country? Actually, it mostly has to do with taxes and the government making money. Sure that sounds like a silly reason, the government is trying to HELP us, right? The side effects of alcohol are so much worse than marijuana, look at how many people die every year between drunk driving accidents (including the innocent killed by the drunks) and liver disease and other diseases caused by abuse of this drug. Alcohol is one of the worst drugs in this country, because when you are intoxicated you cannot function properly... yet it is legal. Know why? Because it is a billion dollar business, and our economy would slump if we made it illegal. Little studies are done all the time trying to prove it can have positive effects in small consumption, but lets face it... it kills people. I personally quit getting sloppy drunk about the time I was old enough to legally drink. I think with age, I realized how horrible it is that it is even legal. But then again, that brings me to my next subject. Why drugs shouldn't be illegal.

Back to marijuana, weed, whatever you want to call it... I haven't ever heard of someone dying in a "high-driving" accident. In fact, usually when people smoke they slow down and its a little bit easier for them to pay attention to how they're driving. The only negative side effects it has include those similar to smoking cigerettes, except they are about four-fold worse. Okay, so there... that could be your reason not to smoke weed. But unfortunately, the average marijuana smoker doesn't chain smoke every day. They smoke maybe a bowl a day, for the avid smoker, and usually less than that. It actually ends up being much more healthy than smoking cigerettes. I for one am completely against cigerettes as well. The tobacco industry is another tax profiting industry that will never die... because our economy would crumble without it. It's really unfortunate that politicians care more about money than the health of our people. But I still don't think drugs should be made illegal.

In public speaking, where I first did research on my subject "Why the War on Drugs is a Complete Failure", I learned that numbers are the best way to make a subject really sink in. I keep saying I don't think drugs should be illegal... here's why. Once you make something illegal, you have to enforce that no one does it. That means punishing people that do. Punishing people for doing something that does not hurt themselves and hurts no one around them (I am speaking only of marijuana in this sense, and realize the dramatic problems that other drug use can cause). So numbers... lets start with annual "drug deaths" in the United States. Nearly 400,000 people died last year of tobacco related deaths. Compare that with approximately 100,000 that died in alcohol related deaths. Even second hand smoke beat out illegal drugs. Prescriptions were above the illegal drugs as well, gives you something to think about becoming a pharmacist, doesn't it? The actual number killed by illegal drugs was about a 4,000th of those killed by tobacco. So why are we spending so much time making sure nobody does them... shouldn't we be attacking what is killing us the most?

Lets break it down to how much time is devoted to different types of crime here in the lovely city I live in, Jacksonville. The year I took a study from, which came from the Jacksonville Police Department's website, had a total of 50,961 reported crimes ranging from theft, burglary, vehicle theft, assault, robbery, and murder. Yet for these crimes, only 9,591 people were actually arrested. That left 82% of the cases unsolved. 82% of the REAL criminals were left on the street... so they can steal and hurt even more. During the same year, there were less than 100 known offenses reported dealing with drugs, yet 8,167 drug arrests were made that year alone. That is nearly as many people arrested for all other drugs combined. So, drugs must really be hurting people in this city, right? They would never spend so much time putting people in jail and leaving murders and thieves on the street if drugs weren't hurting people. Nope, for that particular year the top three drugs people were arrested for were meth, marijuana, and ecstacy. In that same year, there were NO deaths caused by any of these drugs. NONE. So what are we fighting? This city spends money and time on tracking down drug dealers... and loses money and time that could have spent tracking down rapists. I think its sad, I might have to live next to a rapist... I'd rather live next to a drug dealer.

Quick point, some drugs do kill. During that same year, cocaine killed 35 people, heroin 1, oxycodone 3, hydrocodone 28, and methadone 7. Drugs do kill... but those aren't the drugs people were arrested for having.

Yes, I have dedicated the past five years of my life to becoming a pharmacist. Yes, it is the right field for me. Please don't try to say that it isn't, the way many of you have said things like that to other people that trying to show the upside of some illegal drugs. The government made most drugs illegal for reasons you don't really know. Throw away your history books, you won't find the reasons there.

And I'm not afraid to say any of this becoming a pharmacist. I think its fine, and so did my public speaking teacher when I gave this presentation (which included this info and much much more) in his class. He was one of the teachers that wrote a recommendation for me for pharmacy school, noting that I was one of the best students he's ever had in class. There is absolutely no propoganda in what I'm trying to convey... I'm just trying to say that so many drugs in this country have a bad rap, and the facts are never really put forward. We're told our whole lives "drugs are bad"... some people just never learn to think for themselves.

And someone earlier made a point that they don't know ANY professionals that smoke weed. Well, it really all depends on who you associate yourself with. Almost everyone I know smokes. Scary, isn't it? And nearly all these people that I know smoke make at least six figures, and have been extremely successful in life. They don't sit around and smoke all day. They go to work, blend in for the day, and then come home and smoke a bowl and relax. No harm done to anyone. The person closest to me that does this is not a smoker, does not drink on a regular basis, and does not do any drugs. And he is not some rare exception. You probably have no idea who you know actually smokes... they wouldn't ever tell someone like you. Someone that makes an assumption based on trying it once. They always say, you don't get high your first time... sometimes your second. Not to say you should go smoke weed... you might lose all your aspirations and fail in life. Haha...

With all that being said, I may as well mention I don't smoke weed. Or do drugs. Not to say I haven't in the past, its just not my cup of tea anymore. I don't even drink on the weekends, I let my friends get drunk, have a beer or two, and sober up so I can make sure we all get home okay. Its more important to me... and I've already had my days. And as for the actual topic of this post, drug tests could never pick out who the real drug users are. There are so many flaws with it. And a person who does drugs is not ANY more likely to steal from work. That has to do with morals, and drug use does not convey anything about morals. It has to do with personal choice. I know so many really good people that have done drugs, and would never steal. Well... I could go on forever, so I'll just let it end. Once again, please don't reply telling me I shouldn't be a pharmacist. I think its one of the best fields I could have ever entered.
 
Moxxie said:
How about a recent (in the last 5 years) study that compares the efficacy of marijuana versus some of the common drugs for nausea, appetite induction, glaucoma, etc.? And one that was published in the U.S., in a journal that has at least enough of a reputation to be carried by most university libraries? If you can find one, I'd be interested. I'd suggest a pubmed search vs. a google search to avoid the pro and anti-marijuana sites.
i'm actually interested in one also that completes a power analysis and prefer double blind randomized CCT

i'm all about study design and not results
 
Ritzy said:
I've been staying out of this topic in an attempt to not appear like I support illegal drugs, considering the fact that my future lies in pharmacy. Unfortunately, I can't do that anymore.

Good to hear from you ritzy. Don't hide your beliefs. There are plenty of very successful people who use illegal drugs or recognize that they have a legitimate role in our society, who won't discuss their opinions so as to avoid the judgment of their peers. If more of these people would speak out, perhaps it would help change some attitudes. The profession needs more people like you.

That said, it is problematic to compare death rates from tobacco/alcohol to death rates from illegal drugs, simply because so many more people use the former. I agree with you that many illegal drugs have fewer harmful health effects than many legal drugs, but better support of this claim could be found in safety data in the scientific literature (for example, there exists no study that links marijuana use with either cancer or permanent neurological damage, and some studies even show that THC has tumor-suppressing and neuroprotective effects).

If anyone is interested in learning about the REAL history of drug policy in our country, I recommend the books The American Disease: The Origins of Narcotics Control, by David F. Musto (a little dry), and Matters of Substance by Griffith Edwards (very readable). These books are not pro-drug propaganda, rather they were written by respected scientists who cite their sources and contribute frequently to peer-reviewed journals. If you read either of these books, I guarantee you will be shocked at the disparity between what you think you know and the scientific and political facts.
 
It's great to hear people speak up. I really hope that all of these misunderstandings concerning marijuana can be resolved as soon as possible. I guess if people continue to speak up, that's where we'll be.
 
Ritzy said:
You probably have no idea who you know actually smokes... they wouldn't ever tell someone like you. Someone that makes an assumption based on trying it once. They always say, you don't get high your first time... sometimes your second. Not to say you should go smoke weed... you might lose all your aspirations and fail in life. Haha...

Dude, I started smoking weed when I was 12, overdosed on amphetimines when I was 13. Switched to benzos in high school (still smoking). This was the 70's. Ever seen Dazed and Confused? That was my high school. When I walked into the bathroom, the first thing I heard was "Dana, wanna shotgun?". During the early 80's I switched to Quaaludes and sold them at rock concerts. Later on, I still smoked occasionally, but graduated to cocaine. I both snorted and freebased it. So, don't make assumptions that I tried smoking once. I merely grew up. I've been drug free since 1985.
 
dgroulx said:
Dude, I started smoking weed when I was 12, overdosed on amphetimines when I was 13. Switched to benzos in high school (still smoking). This was the 70's. Ever seen Dazed and Confused? That was my high school. When I walked into the bathroom, the first thing I heard was "Dana, wanna shotgun?". During the early 80's I switched to Quaaludes and sold them at rock concerts. Later on, I still smoked occasionally, but graduated to cocaine. I both snorted and freebased it. So, don't make assumptions that I tried smoking once. I merely grew up. I've been drug free since 1985.

That's good. You've been there then. I thought you had previously mentioned that you had tried it and just didn't like it. Maybe it was someone else that said that. There have been a lot of different people mixed into this. Damn... looks like you once loved the world of drugs too. Seems like illegal drugs may be in a lot of our pasts, even if they aren't in the present anymore.
 
Ritzy said:
That's good. You've been there then. I thought you had previously mentioned that you had tried it and just didn't like it. Maybe it was someone else that said that. There have been a lot of different people mixed into this. Damn... looks like you once loved the world of drugs too. Seems like illegal drugs may be in a lot of our pasts, even if they aren't in the present anymore.

I said that smoking made me hack up a lung. It was harsh and burned like hell. I could never inhale cigarettes, either. It's pathetic that I still did it when my body was telling me not to. That's the problem with drugs. They have control over you.

Your priorities change when you get older and have a family, house, financial obligations, etc. My drug use is now a glass of wine with dinner, and a beer on Sunday during football season. I do have some mild opiods (crappy Tylenol #3) that I've been taking for a knee sprain, but those are legit.
 
Hey peeps! I was just wondering, if there is any drug testing during clinical rotations, internships or the acceptance process in general?


thank you
 
LECOM requires Drug and Alcohol screening after acceptance but before matriculation. Some other schools I was accepted don't to require it.
I'm not sure about clinical rotations because school haven't started yet.
 
Last edited:
University of southern nevada requires drug testing for all 3 years, and I know touro is requiring drug testing before rotations begin. I think more schools are starting to drug test...which makes alot of sense
 
I had to get a full background check and drug test before starting my P1 year next week.
 
i don't know about Clinical Rotations, but the University of Maryland doesn't require any drug testing to get into...
 
mean, are they gonna care if I take Vicodin on a regular basis (have a prescription)?

Or is experimenting with stuff like mushrooms and marijuana enough to not let you get into pharmacy school?



stop embarissing yourself bro, no one tests for mushrooms, psylocibin is extremely difficult to test for, the test virtually does not even exist.

lol@ heroin, umm yeah, that's a pretty commonly used drug
 
Hey, I didn't know that they can't test for shrooms.

Heroin isn't a common drug? Where do you live?

Count on Drug Testing on rotations if you plan to work in a hospital at all. I did not have to get drug tested (yet) for my school, but for the hospital that I work at, it is required.

@Sparda: Yes, experimentation/positive drug test means expulsion/revocation of acceptance/ action taken on license...usually.

Psilocybin and heroin are both Sch. 1 (meaning that they have no medical use and aren't sold in the US) and the last thing that schools or Boards want is professionals who may be diverting controlled substances.
 
Hey, I didn't know that they can't test for shrooms.

Heroin isn't a common drug? Where do you live?

Where I live, any drug that is available out there is a common drug. Just come into my pharmacy for a day and see the people that come in and want to buy hypodermic needles "for their mother's insulin" day in and day out. Sure it's possibly true for some of them, but most of them are strung out so bad, their stories so twisted, I almost don't want to give them the clean needles. :(

ANYWAYS -- I'm in Kentucky, where Oxycontin reigns. when people get their scripts filled at the pharmacy I work at, they refer to them by street names and only want to buy certain brands that are worth more on the streets. People have flat out told me how much their medication is worth on the streets-- without me ever asking anything about it!
So my point is that the reality of drug abuse, even by "successful" people who are in pharmacy school, is very prevalent. As a matter of fact, the more expensive drugs have often been abused by people in positions of high stress that have more money than the people you commonly think of as "junkies."
 
mean, are they gonna care if I take Vicodin on a regular basis (have a prescription)?

If you have a script you are fine. It will show up in your drug test and they will ask if you have a script. You produce it, and you've "passed" the screening.
 
Does LIU contact you back once they received your drug screening results?
What do they do if you fail the drug screening, beside dropping you form the program?
Do they contact you right away if your drug test came back positive? I assume they wont refund your deposit.
 
aahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahah... smoke up... vroom vroom party starter!
 
Does LIU contact you back once they received your drug screening results?
What do they do if you fail the drug screening, beside dropping you form the program?
Do they contact you right away if your drug test came back positive? I assume they wont refund your deposit.


lmfao, :laugh:

honestly u should have bought a home test kid beforehand if you even had the slightest feeling you might not be clean to test, can't really appeal that, ask if you can take a second test, or say its for medicinal use and get a doctor to write it for you, anyway you choose id say hurry up cause LIU is known to have NUMEROUS kids on the waiting list, and they'll drop you in a second
 
Do they sell those home drug test kit at retail stores? Any where i can get it beside those online sites?
 
as do i, :laugh: as do i

u were in a similar situation??

Just the fact that the OP is trying to be a pharmacist ... and the thing he/she requires is sold at the pharmacy counter.
 
Just the fact that the OP is trying to be a pharmacist ... and the thing he/she requires is sold at the pharmacy counter.

Now that you mention it, it is hilarious :laugh:
 
vroom vroom party starter
 
Does LIU contact you back once they received your drug screening results?
What do they do if you fail the drug screening, beside dropping you form the program?
Do they contact you right away if your drug test came back positive? I assume they wont refund your deposit.


You seriously got in?

Please let me know where you'll be when you get your pharmD degree, so I can advise my family and friends to stay far, far away!:scared:
 
Just the fact that the OP is trying to be a pharmacist ... and the thing he/she requires is sold at the pharmacy counter.


i dont know what state you live in or work at but in NJ, the walgreens stores have it as OTC
 
Yeah, believe it or not, it was a one time thing. I dont do it habitually and dont plan on continuing. Anyone know if they require you to get tested again? Probably before you start rotations right? Since i plan on staying clean im not too worried about the urine test, but more concerned about the hair test. Is THC detectable in your hair up to 1-2 years? Time to go bald huh? Better shave down there too^^
 
Top