Last updated : November 11, 2024
The internet world is laced with millions of pieces of information and misinformation. Included in these are hundreds of recommendations for individuals to “beat” standard drug testing procedures. These recipes and ploys are designed to either blur the results or eradicate the presence of drugs in an individual’s system prior to a test. Computer-savvy users can easily locate options to pass less sophisticated drug urine tests. However, employers and professional drug testing companies are learning to identify and eliminate these ploys with random testing.
1. Tampering with Urine Samples
Certain substances, including common household chemicals and seasonings, can adulterate a urine sample to the extent that analysis may not detect the presence of drugs. Salt, soap, eye drops, vinegar, drain cleaner and bleach for example can be carried into the sampling room and added to the sample before submitting it for analysis. However, upon analysis at the lab, any adulterant will likely cause the test to be cancelled as a result of the unidentifiable substance that is detected.
2. Swapping Urine Samples
There have been instances of individuals carrying clean urine samples with them to “swap” with their own before submitting for analysis. Again, this must be done in a closed bathroom where swapping and other tampering may occur.
3. Diluting
Adding water to the sample can dilute the presence of drugs in the urine. Diluting can come from drinking excessive amounts of water prior to a test. To prevent cases when water has been added to the sample from a faucet, reputable collectors add dye to the toilet water and even shut off the taps while samples are being given. While the urine may show a higher percentage of water than normal, the dilution does not necessarily erase the residual presence of drugs. Additionally, too much water can throw off the creatinine level (which is detectable at the lab), and there are also such things as “positive dilute” results. While the urine sample may be dilute, the presence of drugs can still be detected.
4. Niacin or Vitamin B3
This vitamin is credited with the ability to speed up metabolism and purge the system quicker than normal following drug use. There have been reports of individuals actually dying from an overdose of B3, though they still tested positive for drug use.
5. Urinating Before the Test
Urinating frequently before a drug test is believed to dilute the presence of the metabolites that indicate recent drug use. One suggestion is to even take the sample at the end of a urination rather than at the beginning.
6. Aspirin
Taking 4 aspirin at least four hours before a drug test is believed to alter the urine sample and create blurred results.
7. System Cleaning Products
While many of these methods are either ineffective or the products of legend, there are some companies that offer “cleaning” products guaranteed to remove all evidence of the presence of drug use instantly or in a matter of days. With pills or liquids, these claim to remove indications of drug use with “cleansing herbs” and “metabolic boosters” that supposedly work with any urine, saliva or blood test.
Value of On-Site and Random Drug Testing
The above are examples of strategies used to beat workplace drug testing. A more intense internet search will yield many more possibilities.
Note that in every case, unless the individual always carries a replacement urine sample in his or her pocket, the methods require preparation and advance notice of the test. This would be the case with pre-employment or predictable, regularly scheduled testing, especially if the employee has an opportunity to travel to the testing facility, allowing them a chance to obtain an agent to try to beat the test.
Companies that employ on-site, unannounced drug testing and sampling are far more likely to achieve accurate results.
Unannounced, random sampling combined with the most advanced procedures will beat all of these ploys. Some companies even delay their new employee testing until some random time after the employee starts, believing that the employee is less prepared for testing than at the time just before hiring.
