Reader responses to: court case where confirmation testing wasn’t completed, 2021

We had an interesting response from a reader, regarding last the previous newsletter email (shared with permission, edited for clarity):

Thank you for your email, and very interesting case. Please note below my thoughts:

  1. The Commissioner in this case, in my opinion, has erred in the decision and the decision should be set aside.
  2. No empirical evidence was presented to suggest the donor had indeed consumed Cannabis, other than his admission. He may have purchased “oregano”.
  3. The onsite test is indicative only. Several other drugs can trigger a “not negative” result for the THC screen.
  4. Let’s assume the donor did indeed consume cannabis. There is no empirical evidence it had exceeded the cut-off (both onsite and confirmatory).
  5. Onsite at best works at +25% / -30% cut-off, more like +/- 50% cut off. This means the sample can be either not negative or negative between the range of 25 – 75 μg/L.

In my opinion, and if I was on the other side… this would have been a totally different decision.

Newsletter archive

This is an archive from the Sober Check newsletters, which are sent out every week.
Sign up to the newsletter to receive these as they come out.