From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com (Steven B. Harris )
Subject: Re: Legal Cocaine Analog !!!
Date: 11 Sep 1995
Newsgroups: rec.drugs.misc,rec.food.drink,misc.health.alternative

In <032321Z11091995@anon.penet.fi> an333673@anon.penet.fi (Nimbus
Headset) writes:

>vinkers@gallium.chem.vu.nl (vinkers) proclaimed:
>> AllenMW writes:
>> > If someone had this drink, would a positive result for cocaine show
>> > up if tested?
>>
>> A bit depending on how close an analog this substance is, but most
>> probably not. When analyzing blood or urine for certain compounds, them
>> analytic chemists look specifically for this-and-that compound and
>> others will go unnoticed.
>
>Yes, but how do they test for this-and-that? By the
>reactions/interactions of functional group(s).


Only in some first-pass screening tests.  Verification, however, is
done by high performace liquid chromatography, if necessary backed up
with mass spectroscopy.  Just like at the olympics.  Your urine might
not make it past the first screen with a cocaine analog, but the second
test would not show anything.  Without both, there would not a be a
legally defendable case, and thus I suspect you (as urine provider)
would never even hear about it.

   >> Think about all the prescription medications that give false
positives for illegal drugs.<<

   Sorry, but that's no longer a problem.  Unless, of course, the
medication is broken down to the genuine controlled drug itself, as
codeine is metabolized to morphine, deprenyl/selegeline to amphetamine,
and so on.  The test measures only the drug, not your authorization to
have it in you.

                                          Steve Harris, M.D.

From: sbharris@ix.netcom.com(Steven B. Harris)
Subject: Re: Ritalin and Drug Screening Tests -- Need Advice
Date: 20 Apr 1997
Newsgroups: sci.med

In <5jc344$rmm@prometheus.acsu.buffalo.edu> iem@acsu.buffalo.edu (Irma
E Melzer) writes:

>	Note: the owner of this account is not the author of the
>message that follows.  I'm allowing the message author, a friend,
>to use my account for the sake of the author's anonymity.
>
>
>    Soon I begin a new job, and the company requires a drug screening
>test before starting.  I have no problem with this, save that I wish
>to keep the fact that I tried Ritalin (for ADD) private.  The Ritalin
>was legally prescribed, and the last time I took any was in December
>of 1996.  My drug test will be at the end of this month -- a total of
>four months without Ritalin use.
>
>    Would it be unwise for me not to reveal to the testers my former
>use of Ritalin?  That is, is there a chance that the methylphenidate
>will show up on whatever test the company is likely to use after four
>months without having taken any?  Am I "safe" at this point?  I would
>prefer not to list Ritalin, but it would extremely upsetting to me if
>I didn't get the job because the test revealed some unexpected drug
>in my system.
>
>    THANK YOU in advance for your feedback and advice.  I would rather
>keep my former Ritalin use to myself, so this is really troubling me.
>
>  -- Private Person



     Extremely unlikely you'll test positive, as the only drug which
hangs around longer than few days on drug tests is marihuana, and even
it doesn't stay for more than a few weeks.

     If you want to put your mind at rest, there are commercial labs
which test anybody who wants to be tested (look in the Yellow Pages).
Get tested on your own, and see how you do.

     Finally, if you are being made uncomfortable and outraged by all
of this, consider rethinking your attitude about the drug war.  Unless
you're politically libertarian, you probably have your nose stuck deep
in your neighbors' business.  So how does it feel when your neighbor
returns the compliment?  Learn anything here?

    Just to raise your ire a bit, you should know that Partnership For
a Drug Free America not only gets money from your taxes, but also is
heavily funded by private business (that's the "partnership.")    What
businesses?  Mainly makers of drug testing kits.  The more hysteria
there is, the better these people do.  They don't really care if most
of the people who use their product would rather not.  They only care
that they make money.  Sounds kind of like pushers, eh?   The
difference is that you can just say no to a pusher, but it's a little
more difficult to do so with your employer, and harder still when it
comes to cops, judges, etc, etc.  That's the thing about the Drug War--
it's kind of like chemotherapy.  When making society better with such
laws, you have to take care that the cure is not worse than the
disease.

                                    Have A Nice Drug Free Day

                                    Steve Harris, M.D.