Things could be worse

[Guest guest]

I guess if you really tried you could see that ya'll don't have it so

bad. I mean really, what's a little incidential exposure that will

ruin your lives? What's wrong with being called to the alter of urine

purity every whipstitch? (Isn't that a great saying, read it somewhere

on drug war rant) Ya'll could have IT REALLY BAD like this poor guy.

http://news./s/nm/20061018/od_nm/picasso1_dc

[Guest guest]

see the penis???

[Guest guest]

I think you'd like the following from one of my favorite web sites:

http://www.despair.com/

http://www.despair.com/consulting.html

>

> very insightful posting,lbfg 70191...it is a giant inquisatorial

harm system that

> feeds itself on the " broken " recovering who are different

[Guest guest]

I think all the hospitals I've worked for have this series of

demotivational tapes! In this area it seems they practice that all

can be replaced and the environment is very depersonalized. We are

rarely noticed for what we contribute, but they are quick to find

blame if a complaint arises!~

> >

> > very insightful posting,lbfg 70191...it is a giant inquisatorial

> harm system that

> > feeds itself on the " broken " recovering who are different

>

[Guest guest]

Endogenous alcohol, eh? That one's new to me.

I beg to differ, however, with respect to the idea of EtG being used

to diagnose a disease. I don't think that's the case at all,

although I'm sure that quite a few people have been diagnosed as

addicts by unscrupulous substance abuse professionals on the basis of

one positive drug test.

Anyway, once we are in the monitoring situation, impairment's got

nothing to do with it. We're not being monitored for impairment,

we're being monitored for abstinence. I don't think anyone's

claiming that EtG is a test for impairment and, I agree with you, if

they did, they are really stupid...if one wanted to test for

impairment, it seems obvious that breathalyzer or blood alcohol would

be the test of choice.

But I digress. I do see what you're getting at with that

statement...at least raise the cutoff. After all, a random blood

sugar in the 200s could be anything, but one that's way up there is a

much more reliable indicator of diabetes. Similarly, the labs and

the state boards need to use this test in accordance with the current

knowledge, which seems to indicate that nobody really knows why

people who aren't drinking are coming up with low-level positives.

I would feel much more comfortable if the 1000 ng/ml cutoff were

employed.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I guess if you really tried you could see that

> > > > > > ya'll don't have it so

> > > > > > > bad. I mean really, what's a little incidential

> > > > > > exposure that will

> > > > > > > ruin your lives? What's wrong with being called

> > > > > > to the alter of urine

> > > > > > > purity every whipstitch?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > __________________________________________________

> > > > >

[Guest guest]

Ditto ditto ditto.isanahlei <ddm2903@...> wrote: I think all the hospitals I've worked for have this series of demotivational tapes! In this area it seems they practice that all can be replaced and the environment is very depersonalized. We are rarely noticed for what we contribute, but they are quick to find blame if a complaint arises!~> >> > very insightful posting,lbfg 70191...it is a giant inquisatorial> harm system that> > feeds itself on the "broken" recovering who are different>

All-new - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

[Guest guest]

i gf,i think EtG is being used every day in error to diagnose the disease of acute relapse,a complex manifestation of the disease of chronic alcoholism without an md history physical examination other confirming laboratory tests. regards,r giantsfan70191 <flamingo@...> wrote: Endogenous alcohol, eh? That one's new to me. I beg to differ, however, with respect to the idea of EtG being used to diagnose a disease. I don't think

that's the case at all, although I'm sure that quite a few people have been diagnosed as addicts by unscrupulous substance abuse professionals on the basis of one positive drug test.Anyway, once we are in the monitoring situation, impairment's got nothing to do with it. We're not being monitored for impairment, we're being monitored for abstinence. I don't think anyone's claiming that EtG is a test for impairment and, I agree with you, if they did, they are really stupid...if one wanted to test for impairment, it seems obvious that breathalyzer or blood alcohol would be the test of choice.But I digress. I do see what you're getting at with that statement...at least raise the cutoff. After all, a random blood sugar in the 200s could be anything, but one that's way up there is a much more reliable indicator of diabetes. Similarly, the labs and the state boards need to use this test in accordance with

the current knowledge, which seems to indicate that nobody really knows why people who aren't drinking are coming up with low-level positives.I would feel much more comfortable if the 1000 ng/ml cutoff were employed.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I guess if you really tried you could see that> > > > > > ya'll don't have it so> > > > > > > bad. I mean

really, what's a little incidential> > > > > > exposure that will> > > > > > > ruin your lives? What's wrong with being called> > > > > > to the alter of urine> > > > > > > purity every whipstitch?> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > __________________________________________________> > > > >

[Guest guest]

I would feel more comfortable with real research, like some members here have touched on here, to determine an actual fair cut off. There have been some with levels close to 2500ng that have not drank!joygiantsfan70191 <flamingo@...> wrote: Endogenous alcohol, eh? That one's new to me. I beg to differ, however, with respect to the idea of EtG being used to diagnose a disease. I don't think that's the case at all, although I'm sure that quite a few people have been diagnosed as addicts by

unscrupulous substance abuse professionals on the basis of one positive drug test. Anyway, once we are in the monitoring situation, impairment's got nothing to do with it. We're not being monitored for impairment, we're being monitored for abstinence. I don't think anyone's claiming that EtG is a test for impairment and, I agree with you, if they did, they are really stupid...if one wanted to test for impairment, it seems obvious that breathalyzer or blood alcohol would be the test of choice. But I digress. I do see what you're getting at with that statement...at least raise the cutoff. After all, a random blood sugar in the 200s could be anything, but one that's way up there is a much more reliable indicator of diabetes. Similarly, the labs and the state boards need to use this test in accordance with the current knowledge, which seems to indicate that nobody really knows why

people who aren't drinking are coming up with low-level positives. I would feel much more comfortable if the 1000 ng/ml cutoff were employed. > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I guess if you really tried you could see that > > > > > > ya'll don't have it so > > > > > > > bad. I mean really, what's a little incidential > > > > > > exposure that will > > > > > > > ruin your lives? What's wrong with being called > > > > > > to the alter of urine > > > > > > > purity every whipstitch? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > > > >

[Guest guest]

agree joyous,same design as the UAE study would be perfect correlating endogenous BAC with EtG would be perfect...make it so,#1(just kidding)...regards,rJoy <joyous1_1210@...> wrote: I would feel more comfortable with real research, like some members here have touched on here, to determine an actual fair cut off. There have been some with levels close to 2500ng that have not drank!joygiantsfan70191 <flamingoloveable> wrote: Endogenous alcohol, eh? That one's new to me. I beg to differ, however, with respect to the idea of EtG being used to diagnose a disease. I don't think that's the case at all, although I'm sure that quite a few people have been diagnosed as addicts by unscrupulous substance abuse professionals on the basis of one positive drug test.Anyway, once we are in the monitoring situation, impairment's got nothing to do with it. We're not being monitored for impairment, we're being monitored for abstinence. I don't think anyone's claiming that EtG is a test for impairment and, I agree with you, if they did, they are really stupid...if one wanted to test for impairment, it seems obvious that breathalyzer or blood alcohol would be the test of choice.But I digress. I do see what you're getting at with that

statement...at least raise the cutoff. After all, a random blood sugar in the 200s could be anything, but one that's way up there is a much more reliable indicator of diabetes. Similarly, the labs and the state boards need to use this test in accordance with the current knowledge, which seems to indicate that nobody really knows why people who aren't drinking are coming up with low-level positives.I would feel much more comfortable if the 1000 ng/ml cutoff were employed.> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I guess if you really tried you could see that> > > > > > ya'll don't have it so> > > > > > > bad. I mean really, what's a little incidential> > > > > > exposure that will> > > > > > > ruin your lives? What's wrong with being called> > > > > > to the alter of urine> > > > > > > purity every whipstitch?> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > __________________________________________________> > > > >