>5000pg/mg from environmental exposure is literally unheard of.
This, right here, is something I wish I could make these doubters understand without having to pull out all the material going over this stuff from my old job and write a FAQ just for this thread about why that is (and in all honesty I wouldn’t even know where to look at this point, I haven’t worked there in years). The fact that Crackets originally tried to say this was from cocaine getting
on the hair sample, and people here were actually willing to entertain something that divorced from reality made my eyes roll so far back in my head that I could see my spine… just thinking about that again makes me want to effortpost on the topic:
To anyone curious, let me help put this into perspective: these SAHMSA-accredited labs don’t release these results unless they are 99.99999999% sure they are correct. Failing to do so would mean these labs are at risk of losing their accreditation, which last I checked would cost them somewhere in the hundreds-of-million dollar range to reacquire, which is obviously not worth the risk to them. This also means that the scientist who performed the test (whose name
will be on the result) could lose their job, which is obviously not worth the risk to them on a personal level either. Also, they set the cut-off levels to be consistent with an amount above environmental exposure, and from what I’ve read they set this
very generously to err on the side of caution (as in, theoretically, someone who actually used cocaine once could still pass a test because they tested low enough to not reach the cut-off). There are many factors they take into account when doing this, because there are so many incentives for them
not to fuck it up.
So now you might be asking: well what if they
can’t verify a result with that level of accuracy? In the event that they feel like there’s no way that they can stand behind a result with that level of certainty, they’ll usually send out the result as “invalid,” because they can’t just not send a result for a drug test that someone’s already paid for. There’s also “adulterated” and a few other situational “cancelled” results, but “invalid” with some comments explaining why it do be like that Mr. Stancil is the most common for this sort of situation. If you’ve been following this thread, you already know this was not the case for this particular test: the result was “positive,” not “invalid.”
So basically, the TL;DR is this:
the fact that it came back as positive is enough proof that the result is credible enough that it can, and WILL, hold up in a court of law. If this explanation still isn’t enough to get that through to you then I don’t know what else to tell you, you might actually just be retarded.
