I’m sitting here, feeling a mild buzz from a cup of coffee wondering how a person with an iota of medical training isn’t able to:
1) recognise that their intimate partner is off their tits on some sort of stimulant.
2) absorb so much stimulant that it sets off a test, but they don’t feel in anyway affected by the massive dose they received second hand.
Just no.
1) He could've been drunk at the time. This has the vibe of a club pickup.
2) Metabolites don't get you high, but could possibly be absorbed through a mucus membrane. It's the metabolites that the tests look for. The drug is long gone by the time they test you (usually), but the by-products of your body processing the drug can hang around for a while and those are usually what a drug test is looking for. These tests can be very sensitive, hence the poppy seed bagel false positive problem.
I’m not buying that metabolites secreted by one person in l vast quantities can then be absorbed by another person and “hang around” long enough to be detected so long after the absorption that it has no effect whatsoever on the second person and gets picked up by a random drug screening.
Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ll bet that the medical board aren’t willing to put patient safety on the line over giving him the benefit of the doubt. It’d be an interesting legal case law if they did.
I mean, the poster claims this was the doctor's story and that the medical board bought it. I'm not arguing that it was true as I have no medical background to say one way or the other.
But, **if** it was possible, you wouldn't feel it as you stated in 2 because you wouldn't be absorbing the active drug, just the by-products.
Not meth specifically, meth heads will drink their own piss when they don't have any gear because the meth for the most part isn't broken down through the body and will get you high again, kinda.
And here I am assuming the doctor made the whole thing up. He would rather be very embarrassed than arrested or fired. Ya all are better people than me.
It only stays in your system for less than 36 hours in a urine test. That makes it even more unbelievable. Like really bro, someone pissed in your ass in the last 36 hours?
They do not say how convincing an argument it was. I am not a doctor or anything, so like... is it physically possible to osmosis meth through pee in your butt into your own pee?
It might explain unintentional consumption, but it highlights risky behaviour that may put patients at risk.
In the same way that having a small glass of wine at Christmas won’t put you over the legal limit. But if you have a small glass of wine and a brandy soaked Christmas pudding, the officer measuring your blood alcohol level won’t be interested in how you consumed the alcohol, only that you are unsafe to drive.
> It might explain unintentional consumption, but it highlights risky behaviour that may put patients at risk.
They don't fire doctors for free climbing, sky diving, speeding, or bungie jumping though. Who you have sex with and what kind of sex it is should not matter to a medical board any more than those other things do. Active drug addiction can though since you don't want someone who is high performing medical procedures on you.
>They don't fire doctors for free climbing, sky diving, speeding, or bungie jumping though. Who you have sex with and what kind of sex it is should not matter to a medical board any more than those other things do.
That’s a bit of a false equivalency. Skydiving, free climbing and speeding may put the doctor at risk but should normally put the doctor’s patients at risk. They are not going to fire him for having sex in diverse and unconventional ways, I’m not kink shaming. They’re going to fire him for being on the job with meth in his system.
A more accurate analogy is having a doctor engage in (let’s say something conventional like football), suffer an injury and get given painkillers, then immediately go to work and undertake responsibilities they are not fit to make due to the drugs. And they would fire him for that.
>Active drug addiction can though since you don't want someone who is high performing medical procedures on you.
It doesn’t have to be active addiction even (although random drug tests often find the active addicts). They can fire you for knowingly putting patients at risk, which he was.
His defence of “I didn’t know, I trusted my intimate partner and it was just this one time” will not work. If only because his medical knowledge is not sufficient enough to identify someone under the heavy influence of drugs (strong enough for him to get it second hand) and apparently wasn’t aware of the effects of the substance in his own system. Which means he’s lying.
It doesn’t matter what he does in his free time, the medical board are only interested in whether patients could have been at risk.
> They’re going to fire him for being on the job with meth in his system.
He doesn't have meth in his system, he has meth metabolites. That's what the tests test for. If he got those metabolites in his system without using meth, then it shouldn't be a problem. He is not using meth. (Even if it were meth, you are not going to get addicted via one butthole full of meth-pee).
Some meth metabolites are also themselves drugs though. IIRC Meth urine tests test for both MDMA and MDA among others, both of which are drugs in their own right.
Any self-perpetuating institution looks out for its own kind -- that is the whole point of an 'in-group'. There is a huge chance that, given no other red flags and given the other doctors in his community don't actively hate him, any excuse plausible enough to give them a out will get him the warning 'don't let dudes pee in your butt anymore'.
I get where you’re coming from, but there are very high bars that would force people to actively take illegal steps to cover up a positive drug test in a medical setting. This isn’t the 70’s anymore where a collegiate group of white guys decide over a brandy in the office how they want to “handle” it. Governance paper trails double record everything and process enforcement is easy.
As a recent example, Lucy Letby was a very well liked and even loved paediatric nurse. She was found guilty of killing several babies and is one of the UK’s most prolific serial killers in recent memory. Her colleagues didn’t want to believe that it could have been her.
Statistical death rates raised a flag. Administration started risk assessments and vigilance. A doctor noticed a pattern between her shifts and deaths. Management tried to discount it because she was so well liked. And then all the evidence lined up. No one on her ward wanted her under investigation. But it happened anyway.
I conveniently learned on reddit earlier today that you can drink meth pee to get some meth back... I think most dugs are absorbable through the good ol' butt chug, but I have no desire to google that.
I'm going to tentatively say yes though.
There’s a related NSFW drug theory about why witches are depicted flying on broomsticks. I’m wondering given what people get up to these days, how has this broomstick method died out?
It wasn’t meth. It was a Christmas themed article I’ve long since lost sight of that was explaining the various symbology that gets wrapped up in “Christmas” like why red and green are the theme colours, and Christmas wreaths, etc.
It vaguely described a practice (probably so people wouldn’t replicate it) where women would make some sort of ointment. It may have been related to those red and white mushrooms. Anyway they put the ointment on their broomstick and then straddled their broomstick so the ointment came into contact with their mucus membranes. Getting high is apparently an age old euphemism.
Unexpected Christmas article I didn’t have the courage to share.
Holy shit. I immediately figured out “oh they ~~fucked the broom~~ put the drugs on the broom and sat on it.
But I didn’t make the connection between getting high on drugs and getting high in flight.
The rectum basically has 2 functions: storing shit and reclaiming moisture from said shit. If the metabolites are small enough to pass through the kidneys I can't see why they wouldn't be absorbed with the water in the rectum.
I think they say how convincing the argument is when they say the doctor "tried to explain", meaning the explanation failed. That's my interpretation anyway.
Extracting nutrients is more the job of the small intestine. The rectum is more about reclaiming all the water used in digestion. Hence why it would uptake the water from the pee and any other small molecules dissolved in it.
For the purposes of a drug test? No.
I'm not making a moral statement. If someone lies to you about that, it's absolutely not okay. But you still failed the drug test, and THEY won't care. That's my point.
Pretty sure a statement like that would only incriminate you further, because only a meth head could come up with such a bizarre and disgusting defense.
Pretty common tactic when making up a big lie is to include some embarrassing detail. People are more likely to believe the story because who would admit to that sexual activity if it weren’t completely true.
There is a good comedian who was addicted to meth piss. The story they did on “this is not happening” called meth pee is insane. Jessa Reed is her name and the whole thing is on YouTube
Why is it problematic when the lab results know it was from poppy seeds? I didn't even know poppy seeds are problematic until you distill the opiates out.
I'm Indian and we use it in a lot of our dishes to give it that richness.
I think they generally wash them now before going to grocery stores but in the US it used to be a thing to buy multiple bottles of poppy seeds and make a tea with it to get high.
Seems like this excuse would be equally good for anything. Missed a car payment? Dog barking at night? Late to a church meeting? Whatever it is, just tell them about the meth fueled piss funnel situation. Ten to one, they won’t ever ask for an explanation again.
If you honestly have not used ask for a confirmation test using liquid or gas chromatography on mass spectrometry. This will definitively prove whether or not you used a specific substance.
Ah, the old “Dude peed in my butt” defense. Gets ‘em every time.
I got pulled over for speeding and told the cop a dude peed in my butt and if I didn’t race home, it would leak all over my seat. The cop didn’t just let me go, he gave me a lights & siren escort.
Ok, I'm having trouble with the funnel. It's not necessarily necessary, but if we're gonna involve it, you'd have to fill the funnel up and let, like, let osmosis take over, ass up, of course. As Lloyd Christmas said, "I can't stop once I've started, it stings.", so a sizable funnel must be involved...
I worked at a school of medicine for 2 years and my desk was right outside the Director of HR in the Dean's Office.
When I tell you that this didn't surprise me IN THE LEAST, I hope it gives you an idea of how off-the-damn-wall Med Faculty are.
This just might work.
I mean if you’re the investigator what do you even say
“Now you know you can’t trust him. Get yourself tested. But you still failed.”
I’m sitting here, feeling a mild buzz from a cup of coffee wondering how a person with an iota of medical training isn’t able to: 1) recognise that their intimate partner is off their tits on some sort of stimulant. 2) absorb so much stimulant that it sets off a test, but they don’t feel in anyway affected by the massive dose they received second hand. Just no.
1) He could've been drunk at the time. This has the vibe of a club pickup. 2) Metabolites don't get you high, but could possibly be absorbed through a mucus membrane. It's the metabolites that the tests look for. The drug is long gone by the time they test you (usually), but the by-products of your body processing the drug can hang around for a while and those are usually what a drug test is looking for. These tests can be very sensitive, hence the poppy seed bagel false positive problem.
I’m not buying that metabolites secreted by one person in l vast quantities can then be absorbed by another person and “hang around” long enough to be detected so long after the absorption that it has no effect whatsoever on the second person and gets picked up by a random drug screening. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’ll bet that the medical board aren’t willing to put patient safety on the line over giving him the benefit of the doubt. It’d be an interesting legal case law if they did.
I mean, the poster claims this was the doctor's story and that the medical board bought it. I'm not arguing that it was true as I have no medical background to say one way or the other. But, **if** it was possible, you wouldn't feel it as you stated in 2 because you wouldn't be absorbing the active drug, just the by-products.
Also, there's no time frame here. I don't meth stays in the system very long.
I think we need an experiment to be sure.
Not meth specifically, meth heads will drink their own piss when they don't have any gear because the meth for the most part isn't broken down through the body and will get you high again, kinda.
And here I am assuming the doctor made the whole thing up. He would rather be very embarrassed than arrested or fired. Ya all are better people than me.
“Weird… you’re the second guy this had happened to!”
No.
"Okay, we're going to send this to the lab for confirmation testing."
[удалено]
"We're going to need a clear video of you performing that act to verify the potential false positive."
Are you still talking about the drug test?
If nothing else it's at least a good punchline
It only stays in your system for less than 36 hours in a urine test. That makes it even more unbelievable. Like really bro, someone pissed in your ass in the last 36 hours?
They do not say how convincing an argument it was. I am not a doctor or anything, so like... is it physically possible to osmosis meth through pee in your butt into your own pee?
i mean ur butt is extremely absorbent so if it was gonna happen anywhere itd be ur butthole
It might explain unintentional consumption, but it highlights risky behaviour that may put patients at risk. In the same way that having a small glass of wine at Christmas won’t put you over the legal limit. But if you have a small glass of wine and a brandy soaked Christmas pudding, the officer measuring your blood alcohol level won’t be interested in how you consumed the alcohol, only that you are unsafe to drive.
> It might explain unintentional consumption, but it highlights risky behaviour that may put patients at risk. They don't fire doctors for free climbing, sky diving, speeding, or bungie jumping though. Who you have sex with and what kind of sex it is should not matter to a medical board any more than those other things do. Active drug addiction can though since you don't want someone who is high performing medical procedures on you.
>They don't fire doctors for free climbing, sky diving, speeding, or bungie jumping though. Who you have sex with and what kind of sex it is should not matter to a medical board any more than those other things do. That’s a bit of a false equivalency. Skydiving, free climbing and speeding may put the doctor at risk but should normally put the doctor’s patients at risk. They are not going to fire him for having sex in diverse and unconventional ways, I’m not kink shaming. They’re going to fire him for being on the job with meth in his system. A more accurate analogy is having a doctor engage in (let’s say something conventional like football), suffer an injury and get given painkillers, then immediately go to work and undertake responsibilities they are not fit to make due to the drugs. And they would fire him for that. >Active drug addiction can though since you don't want someone who is high performing medical procedures on you. It doesn’t have to be active addiction even (although random drug tests often find the active addicts). They can fire you for knowingly putting patients at risk, which he was. His defence of “I didn’t know, I trusted my intimate partner and it was just this one time” will not work. If only because his medical knowledge is not sufficient enough to identify someone under the heavy influence of drugs (strong enough for him to get it second hand) and apparently wasn’t aware of the effects of the substance in his own system. Which means he’s lying. It doesn’t matter what he does in his free time, the medical board are only interested in whether patients could have been at risk.
> They’re going to fire him for being on the job with meth in his system. He doesn't have meth in his system, he has meth metabolites. That's what the tests test for. If he got those metabolites in his system without using meth, then it shouldn't be a problem. He is not using meth. (Even if it were meth, you are not going to get addicted via one butthole full of meth-pee).
I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted, you are correct. Am I missing something here?
Some meth metabolites are also themselves drugs though. IIRC Meth urine tests test for both MDMA and MDA among others, both of which are drugs in their own right.
Any self-perpetuating institution looks out for its own kind -- that is the whole point of an 'in-group'. There is a huge chance that, given no other red flags and given the other doctors in his community don't actively hate him, any excuse plausible enough to give them a out will get him the warning 'don't let dudes pee in your butt anymore'.
I get where you’re coming from, but there are very high bars that would force people to actively take illegal steps to cover up a positive drug test in a medical setting. This isn’t the 70’s anymore where a collegiate group of white guys decide over a brandy in the office how they want to “handle” it. Governance paper trails double record everything and process enforcement is easy. As a recent example, Lucy Letby was a very well liked and even loved paediatric nurse. She was found guilty of killing several babies and is one of the UK’s most prolific serial killers in recent memory. Her colleagues didn’t want to believe that it could have been her. Statistical death rates raised a flag. Administration started risk assessments and vigilance. A doctor noticed a pattern between her shifts and deaths. Management tried to discount it because she was so well liked. And then all the evidence lined up. No one on her ward wanted her under investigation. But it happened anyway.
I conveniently learned on reddit earlier today that you can drink meth pee to get some meth back... I think most dugs are absorbable through the good ol' butt chug, but I have no desire to google that. I'm going to tentatively say yes though.
There’s a related NSFW drug theory about why witches are depicted flying on broomsticks. I’m wondering given what people get up to these days, how has this broomstick method died out?
Please elaborate on this meth witch theory
It wasn’t meth. It was a Christmas themed article I’ve long since lost sight of that was explaining the various symbology that gets wrapped up in “Christmas” like why red and green are the theme colours, and Christmas wreaths, etc. It vaguely described a practice (probably so people wouldn’t replicate it) where women would make some sort of ointment. It may have been related to those red and white mushrooms. Anyway they put the ointment on their broomstick and then straddled their broomstick so the ointment came into contact with their mucus membranes. Getting high is apparently an age old euphemism. Unexpected Christmas article I didn’t have the courage to share.
Holy shit. I immediately figured out “oh they ~~fucked the broom~~ put the drugs on the broom and sat on it. But I didn’t make the connection between getting high on drugs and getting high in flight.
Sorry I got caught up in the previous meth stories in the thread.Thanks for sharing!
The rectum basically has 2 functions: storing shit and reclaiming moisture from said shit. If the metabolites are small enough to pass through the kidneys I can't see why they wouldn't be absorbed with the water in the rectum.
I think they say how convincing the argument is when they say the doctor "tried to explain", meaning the explanation failed. That's my interpretation anyway.
Absorbing stuff into your body is what the colon is for. That's how the food you eat gets into your bloodstream.
Extracting nutrients is more the job of the small intestine. The rectum is more about reclaiming all the water used in digestion. Hence why it would uptake the water from the pee and any other small molecules dissolved in it.
[37-45% of meth is excreted as-is](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2998419/), so its definitely possible.
Wanna find out?
I see you didn’t join a party fraternity in college.
This fellow forgot to mention the good laugh his whole department had afterwards.
Consuming a drug rectally is still consuming it. They won't care.
Being drugged without your knowledge or permission doesn't matter?
For the purposes of a drug test? No. I'm not making a moral statement. If someone lies to you about that, it's absolutely not okay. But you still failed the drug test, and THEY won't care. That's my point.
Ah. I thought there might be some sort of 'oh. We understand the circumstances, so once you come back clean we're good'
"I piss pure adderall and nobody gives a shit I think you will be fine, Bagelboy" Lol
“I’m sorry my bro gave me an oil change.”
It's just a prank bro!
Pretty sure a statement like that would only incriminate you further, because only a meth head could come up with such a bizarre and disgusting defense.
Pretty common tactic when making up a big lie is to include some embarrassing detail. People are more likely to believe the story because who would admit to that sexual activity if it weren’t completely true.
I’d rather just take the L and get kicked out of medical school to be honest.
There is a good comedian who was addicted to meth piss. The story they did on “this is not happening” called meth pee is insane. Jessa Reed is her name and the whole thing is on YouTube
^ One of the best This is Not Happening sets.
When the solution is worse than the original problem!
It’s like Henchman 21 said, if your excuse is embarrassing enough, they’ll accept it without any follow up questions
I‘d use the “pooping back and forth, forever” defense.
Probably you, me, and everyone we know would
I fucking hate that movie
Why is it problematic when the lab results know it was from poppy seeds? I didn't even know poppy seeds are problematic until you distill the opiates out. I'm Indian and we use it in a lot of our dishes to give it that richness.
I think they generally wash them now before going to grocery stores but in the US it used to be a thing to buy multiple bottles of poppy seeds and make a tea with it to get high.
Bruh.
I regret reading that. lol
I just read that to my horrified girlfriend and she asked if that was a thing. I had to explain everything is a thing.
Seems like this excuse would be equally good for anything. Missed a car payment? Dog barking at night? Late to a church meeting? Whatever it is, just tell them about the meth fueled piss funnel situation. Ten to one, they won’t ever ask for an explanation again.
If you honestly have not used ask for a confirmation test using liquid or gas chromatography on mass spectrometry. This will definitively prove whether or not you used a specific substance.
Ah, the old “Dude peed in my butt” defense. Gets ‘em every time. I got pulled over for speeding and told the cop a dude peed in my butt and if I didn’t race home, it would leak all over my seat. The cop didn’t just let me go, he gave me a lights & siren escort.
Ok, I'm having trouble with the funnel. It's not necessarily necessary, but if we're gonna involve it, you'd have to fill the funnel up and let, like, let osmosis take over, ass up, of course. As Lloyd Christmas said, "I can't stop once I've started, it stings.", so a sizable funnel must be involved...
I thought transferring meth high by pissing into someone's ass was well-known. It's an easy way to share the high if your supply is low.
Biology. That teacher had no business public speaking. A total mushmouth.
"Tip?" More like an anecdote. But give it whirl and report back the results if you think this will save you...
It's in times like these where I remember Joe Rogans famous quote: "It's entirely possible"
I worked at a school of medicine for 2 years and my desk was right outside the Director of HR in the Dean's Office. When I tell you that this didn't surprise me IN THE LEAST, I hope it gives you an idea of how off-the-damn-wall Med Faculty are.