home

False Positives Abound in Drug Field Tests

Researchers warned the media this week that the field tests used by cops to determine whether drugs are present in substances are unreliable and produce too many false positives.

More....

The National Press Club in Washington, DC took on the aspect of a chemistry lab for a short while Tuesday afternoon as scientists and researchers sponsored by the Marijuana Policy Project gave a startling demonstration of false positive drug test results obtained using some of the most widely used field testing kits employed by law enforcement to detect the presence of marijuana and other drugs.

As a lab-coated and rubber glove wearing researcher from the South Carolina Center for Biotechnology dumped a sample of oregano into a field test kit, Mintwood Media's Adam Eidinger produced a positive test result for cocaine with another kit simply by exposing it to the atmosphere. "This is just air," Eidinger said, opening up a test and waving it as the reagent turned orange, indicating a positive result.

"While testing the specificity of the KN Reagent test kits with 42 non-marijuana substances, I observed that 70% of these tests rendered a false positive," said Dr. Omar Bagasra, director of the Center for Biotechnology, who conducted the experiments.

Here's the report, False Positives, False Justice (pdf).

This two-year scientific/legal investigation reveals a drug testing regime of fraudulent forensics used by police, prosecutors, and judges which abrogates every American’s Constitutional rights. The report is a call to action by former FBI chief scientist and narcotics officer, Dr. Frederic Whitehurst and writer and forensic drug expert, John Kelly, for lawmakers to enact a moratorium on the use of these tests and to create the necessary oversight and control of drug testing to protect the public’s basic freedoms.

While the report does not examine blood or urine drug tests, it does examine in depth lab tests as well as field tests used by police, jails, schools, border guards, parents and others to determine if a suspected substance is in fact an illegal drug.

< New Report: Blacks Disproportionately Busted for Drugs | Prosecutor Signals Madoff Plea Deal Imminent >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    In fairness, I would note that (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by Think Before You Type on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 11:07:24 AM EST
    if a scientific study that supports a conservative position had been sponsored by a conservative advocacy group, we progressives would surely discount it.  Such sponsorship could easily bias the study in a subtle way.

    The fact that this study was sponsored by a pro-legalization group should make us pause before accepting its results.

    in fairness (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 11:44:19 AM EST
    I would be more inclined to take your comment to heart if you provided some evidence of objectionable tactics or erroneous conclusions of the study.

    That is fair game, and it should be the gold standard on either side for posting a complaint as opposed to the basic ideological differences.

    Parent

    I don't have such evidence, but (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Think Before You Type on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 11:59:58 AM EST
    I have a strong feeling most of us would object to a study about smoking that was funded by big tobacco even in the absence of that type of evidence.

    Do you disagree?

    Parent

    The Marijuana Policy Project... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:07:52 PM EST
    isn't selling a product like a tobacco company...they're trying to make this country a better place to live.  Sun god bless them.

    Parent
    Obviously (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:11:42 PM EST
    Think Before YOu Type does not seem to be living up to his or her moniker.

    Parent
    In fairness... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:17:28 PM EST
    they have an agenda, but who doesn't?

    They are up against the two most powerful machines known to man...Corporate America and their protection racket, the US Govt.

    If they were bullsh*tting the Drug Czar would hold a press conference and let us know right quick.

    Parent

    So Did Rev Martin Luther King (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:19:32 PM EST
    Did that discredit him when he pointed out the injustice of racism?

    Parent
    Yes I do (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Jlvngstn on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:58:13 PM EST
    I would be suspect of anything that came out of tobacco industry due to the documented pattern of falsifying information.  I don't know that this organization has that history. It would be more appropriate to use the abstinence lobby as they have an axe to grind but as far as I know do not have a history of outright deception.  

    This is trickier because an arrest and conviction can change your life forever, sometimes irreparably.  Based on presumed innocence we should get a fair shake at trial and even if this test gave false positives 20% of the time as opposed to 70% of the time, those in that 20% will suffer immensely.  Which of course should result in huge financial remuneration for their pain and suffering.

    I would expect an argument as to how they reach 70% or to Whitehursts' credibility as a whistleblower.  But to make a blanket statement about ideologies without specifics areas of concern seems to me to be bellyaching to bellyache, no ill will intended.

    I don't think the greater portion of our populace believes that it is better a thousand guilty go free than one innocent suffer the indignities and consequences of conviction.  I think the war on terror and last eight years have made us more callous in that regard and certainly is a measure of the imbalance of fear and vengeance to commitment to human rights.

     

    Parent

    until you do (none / 0) (#61)
    by cpinva on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 10:11:34 PM EST
    I don't have such evidence, but

    stick with the facts at hand. as noted, the tobacco industry is in the business of selling their products; they have a vested financial interest in falsifying data. same goes for the alcohol industry. this group isn't selling pot.

    this is a false comparison. the true test is whether or not these same results can be replicated by other scientists, using the same equipment. if so, they meet the scientific standard of acceptable.

    Parent

    Why's That (1.00 / 0) (#3)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 11:09:46 AM EST
    Work for a drug testing co? Or are you just heavily invested in one?

    Parent
    Another Reason (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 11:08:20 AM EST
    That the drug war will continue: Drug testing is a big bucks industry, $5.9 billion/year.

    Good luck.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 11:29:50 AM EST
    fighting the authorities and/or the lab...ya can't beat City hall, and ya can't beat Tyranny Corp. when they are in bed with City Hall.

    I can't view the report (none / 0) (#5)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 11:30:22 AM EST
    It says it's corrupt.

    Does anyone else know what the number of false negatives is in something like this?  (Taking this group's results, of course, with a grain of salt).

    Grain Of Salt (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 11:42:05 AM EST
    Do you work for the police? The reason I ask is that most here would take the police depts sworn testimony that the tests are 100% reliable with a big grain of salt.

    If you were actually interested, rather than debunking the study, a quick google search might eliminate your grain of salt.

    Parent

    Does law enforcement claim (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 11:45:35 AM EST
    100% accuracy on field tests of suspected controlled substances?  That would surprise me a great deal.  

    Parent
    Of Course They Do (none / 0) (#11)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:01:31 PM EST
    Otherwise the reasonable doubt would make all their tests questionable. If they arrest someone based on a false positive, or a positive, I am sure that they claim that the results are accurate.

    Parent
    I am sure they don't. (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:03:53 PM EST
    The field test must be confirmed by lab test results.  If the impounded grocery bag full of what the preliminary field test showed as MJ turns out to be a bag full of oregano, the case is dismissed.  

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#14)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:06:41 PM EST
    And much has been written about bad police lab practices where the science is hardly neutral.

    Parent
    I do not work for the police (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 11:50:34 AM EST
    But it's the same rationale as when discussing politics here that stories and quotes are dismissed by some because they come from FOX news or Politico.  Apparently FOX is always wrong and Greenwald is always right, for example.

    I think it's obvious that a group called the Marijuana Policy Project would have a bias and would more than likely have slanted results - which is why I asked about how many false negatives they got.

    Parent

    As I Said (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:03:11 PM EST
    If you are actually interested in doing anything than supporting the drug testing industry and police by casting aspersions on this study, you would do a quick google and find that these tests that put people in jail have a high fail rate.

    Parent
    And again (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:21:42 PM EST
    My question is how many false negatives do they also get on these tests?  In other words, how many people who are currently breaking the law get away with it?  If the MPP says none or very few, then I would question their testing methods.

    Look - I agree these tests are flawed, and I agree that pot should be legalized, regulated, and then tax the h#ll out of it.  But for people who want to legalize pot and want us to believe the results, it's going to take more than them to stand up and say "Hey, our tests prove that the police tests are bad" by showing us anecdotal evidence, then I think it's perfectly rational to be skeptical of those results.

    And the poster who talked about smoking research done by the tobacco companies is right on - DO you believe research put out by tobacco companies when they say smoking is not dangerous?

    Believing this study is just as ludicrous.

    Parent

    With all these refer(ence)s (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by dead dancer on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 01:24:17 PM EST
    to MJ:
     Somebody please pass me the chips, I'm suddenly very hungry ;)

    Parent
    apparently, (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by cpinva on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 10:25:29 PM EST
    you don't know the definition of the word:

    by showing us anecdotal evidence

    this wasn't "anecdotal", it was based on actualtests, using the actual kits used by actual police in actual states, with actual, verified results.

    not anecdotal at all.

    now, does it mean that every jurisdiction in the land has the exact same level of false positives? no, it doesn't. what it does mean is that the state's wholehearted reliance on those results might be a tad misplaced, and a lot of scarce, allocable resources are being wasted in the process.

    states look for the easy, cheap way to do things. we get radar that clocks trees at 80mph, breath tests that show sober people at .08bal, and drug tests that show oregano as pot. the states aren't getting what they're (we) paying for, and lives are being ruined in the process.

    i should think you would be concerned about that.

    Parent

    Breaking: Misspellings Abound in MSWord (none / 0) (#64)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Mar 07, 2009 at 10:31:38 AM EST
    Again You Miss My Point (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:27:11 PM EST
    And prove that you are totally uninterested in the subject, save for continually questioning the credibility of the study.

    Once again my point is that if you were remotely concerned about the validity of this study you would do a quick google search.

    Obviously your interest is only to support the drug test industry and police, and discredit MJ reform movement.

    Parent

    Are you seriously claiming (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:28:53 PM EST
    marijuana is frequently field-tested positive but isn't really marijuana?  

    Parent
    Sorry (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:31:35 PM EST
    To call into question your prosecutorial knee jerk defense of police evidence, but yes.

    There is much evidence that these tests show false positives.

    Parent

    Let's see it. (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 04:04:59 PM EST
    Google Is YOur Friend (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 04:10:30 PM EST
    Even Patrick admits it.

    Have never mistaken a bag of oregano for marijuana or a chocolate bar for tar heroin.  Needless to say, there are any number of substances in the world that can produce fasle positives in the tests, but the tests are not used in a vacuum.


    Parent
    Somehow (none / 0) (#43)
    by Patrick on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 04:17:33 PM EST
    I think there was more to that post, and you're being deliberately dishonest in the way you are using that statement.  

    Parent
    NOt Hiding Anything (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 04:22:00 PM EST
    Nor misrepresenting your view. Your entire comment is below for all to see. I quoted the pertinent part relating to Oculus' querry,

    Oculus does not believe that there are false positives. That is not true. What you argue is different. Just because you claim to be ethical does not mean others are not, as we have seen many times before.

    Parent

    Oh, I know there are false positives (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 04:28:07 PM EST
    on preliminary in the field tests of suspected controlled substances.  I just never heard of such a false positive in the field test of impounded marijuana.  

    Parent
    Confused (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 04:32:09 PM EST
    field test of impounded marijuana

    Isn't that an oxymoron?

    Parent

    Maybe I'm not (none / 0) (#50)
    by Patrick on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 04:36:44 PM EST
    looking carefully enough, but I don't see a comment that claims there are no false positives.  

    Parent
    Link (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 04:40:18 PM EST
    Are we having fun yet? (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 04:46:12 PM EST
    New thought I'd live to see the day Squeaky cited Oculus as a source.

    Parent
    Why's That? (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 04:49:21 PM EST
    Apart from your ODS and law enforcement bias, we often agree.

    Parent
    Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, . . . (none / 0) (#60)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 09:14:44 PM EST
    Had To Look That Up (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 11:26:21 PM EST
    But I get it now. I was obviously wrong in my assumption. Sometimes I am a bit slow.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#23)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:32:54 PM EST
    My question is  - how many times are people who do have marijuana in their system shown NOT to have marijuana in their system?  False negatives.

    Parent
    Oh I See (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:35:58 PM EST
    You are arguing for the police. Not sure why, but you are on a roll. As I said try googling and if you gather enough material perhaps you can apply for a job as a drug war PR point person.

    Parent
    Riiiiiggghhhhttttt (none / 0) (#25)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:45:53 PM EST
    Because police are all bad and everything they do is always wrong.

    Pot smokers are all good and do all good things, therefore anything they say is all truth as well.

    Got it.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 12:49:29 PM EST
    But many lose their job and go to jail based on false evidence, that is what this thread is about.

    Parent
    I assumed the preliminary tests at (none / 0) (#46)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 04:29:15 PM EST
    issue in the diary are tests of suspected controlled substances, not of blood/urine of suspected ingesters of same.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#48)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 04:33:41 PM EST
    I expanded the context to damage done by false positives in the workplace.

    Parent
    I for one (none / 0) (#29)
    by Patrick on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 02:50:51 PM EST
    Have never mistaken a bag of oregano for marijuana or a chocolate bar for tar heroin.  Needless to say, there are any number of substances in the world that can produce fasle positives in the tests, but the tests are not used in a vacuum.  There are other circumstances present that help develop probable cause for an arrest....Again, probable cause for an arrest, not a conviction.  My particular county will not accept the tests as proof, only presumption.  The substannce must them be confirmed as an illegal drug, usually throught the use of a gas chromatograph mass spectrometer.  

    Coincidentally, I was just thinking the other day that I've never had a false positive test, when doing the test correctly.  Of course, I've had positive test results from susbtances I was pretty sure weren't controlled subtances, but there was always something questionable about the color change, (Which for the test to truly be considered positive, mnust be immediate)

    I can tell from the video that they are not doing the tests correctly, since I have received formal training on the NIK testing system, and they clearly advise to use minute particles of the substance, not chucks chunks the size of that piece of cholcolate or that crsuhed up pill.   Also the video is edited, so I can't tell for sure if they followed the guidlines for the amounts of time you're supposed to wait before breaking subsequent ampules.   I also suspect that many cops, who aren't properly trained could make those same mistakes.  

    I see this whole study as a red herring.   But then I'm biased too.  


    Patrick, I wondered if this thread (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 03:03:44 PM EST
    would bring you out of lurkdom. Great to see your moniker.

    Parent
    Yeah it did (none / 0) (#31)
    by Patrick on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 03:07:02 PM EST
    Something this seriously flawed portrayed as "proof" was like an irresistable lure to a hungry bass.   I just couldn't resist.  

    Parent
    Yep, (none / 0) (#32)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 03:18:58 PM EST
    Coincidentally, I was just thinking the other day that I've never had a false positive test, when doing the test correctly.
    This would seem to be a perfect exmple of that:
    As a lab-coated and rubber glove wearing researcher from the South Carolina Center for Biotechnology dumped a sample of oregano into a field test kit, Mintwood Media's Adam Eidinger produced a positive test result for cocaine with another kit simply by exposing it to the atmosphere. "This is just air," Eidinger said, opening up a test and waving it as the reagent turned orange, indicating a positive result.
    Maybe the thread's headline should read:
    False Positives Abound in Drug Field Tests When Purposely Induced.


    Parent
    The sad part (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Patrick on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 03:21:48 PM EST
    is that both sides will collectively dig in there heels and nothing good will come of it.  You can see it happening even in here.  

    Parent
    I don't know, (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 03:28:55 PM EST
    I think publicly displaying the inherent faults of something like this has got to be of some societal benefit. Maybe not though.

    Parent
    Absolutely, (none / 0) (#37)
    by Patrick on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 03:32:44 PM EST
    but what is likely to happen, instead of better training or some other benefit, both sides will try to shout each other down.  

    Parent
    Yep. (none / 0) (#39)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 03:45:11 PM EST
    Red Herring (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 03:28:08 PM EST
    Yes, the real issue is to legalize MJ and put all the bad guys out of business.

    Parent
    If I (none / 0) (#36)
    by Patrick on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 03:30:19 PM EST
    thought that legalizing marijuana would put all the bad guys out of business, I'd be right there with you.  Sadly I think that's a gross  overstatement of the cost benefit analysis.  

    Parent
    Certainly One Drug Related Death (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 03:37:11 PM EST
    Because MJ is illegal is too much. Of course I believe that moving drug abuse to a Medical framework rather than a Criminal framework, and legalizing all drugs would substantially reduce the horrors surrounding the drug trades consumers, producers and distributors.

    Parent
    We've had (none / 0) (#41)
    by Patrick on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 04:07:50 PM EST
    this debate too many times to count.  I'm not going to change your mind and you're not going to change mine.  Just this point....People under the influence of marijuana, legally or otherwise, have in the past and will in the future make bad choices that result in deaths too.  So your point, as I understand it, is actually meaningless.  

    Parent
    lol (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 04:36:36 PM EST
    People under the influence of marijuana, legally or otherwise, have in the past and will in the future make bad choices that result in deaths too.

    Yes number of cases where MJ use resuted in death are legion.

    What are you smoking?

    Parent

    What (none / 0) (#51)
    by Patrick on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 04:39:43 PM EST
    are you smoking?  Are you claiming there as never been a death from a marijuana DUI?  Or a murder committed bu someone who was under the influence of marijuana?  Or a skater death where the skater was high and crashed?  

    Parent
    Statistically Irrelevant (none / 0) (#55)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 04:50:46 PM EST
    I would argue that MJ has more of an effect on reducing deaths than causing them.

    Parent
    Statistically Irrelevant (none / 0) (#57)
    by Patrick on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 05:25:16 PM EST
    is the first thing you've said that I agree with.  

    Parent
    Hi, Patrick (none / 0) (#59)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 05:35:23 PM EST
    So glad to see you. I've wondered where you've been. You are our only known drug enforcement officer on the site and even though we don't agree, I welcome your participation.  For others not familiar with Patrick, he's been a visitor here for many years.  If you disagree with him, please do it politely.

    Parent
    This country already imprisons more citizens (none / 0) (#56)
    by mexboy on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 05:08:42 PM EST
    than any other country. It's like a hobby for us.

    If only 10% of people are arrested under a false positive instead of 70%, then that is too much, and enough not to use this tests ever again.

    Being arrested may not be traumatic for a criminal who knows the hazards of his profession. But, to a law abiding citizen who has no reasonable expectation of being humiliated by such event, it has to be traumatic.

    Are you willing to have a loved one be arrested under such circumstances?

    I suspect (none / 0) (#58)
    by Patrick on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 05:26:15 PM EST
    that number of actual arrests based solely on a false positive test result is close to 0%.  

    Parent
    false arrest (none / 0) (#65)
    by diogenes on Sat Mar 07, 2009 at 08:13:34 PM EST
    If you're arrested based on a false test and the confirmation shows no drugs, you're released.  
    I have never heard of a case in which a Sunday School teacher is pulled over for some other just cause and somehow is arrested wrongly for drugs due to a false field test.  Please post some news story links of such things.


    Bet you never hear about this (none / 0) (#66)
    by Patrick on Tue Mar 10, 2009 at 08:05:21 PM EST
    Last night I arrested a guy who had a couple bags of white powder, glass pipe, scale and empty bags....The making of a decent sales case above and beyond his other charges.  Of course, I broke out my trusty field test and got a negative indication for controlled substance.   That saved him from some pretty serious charges.   So there's one anecdotal case where having a field test stopped someone from being charged.   Had I not been able to field test it, he would have been charged based on the probable cause standard and either had to bail with those additional charges or wait in custody until the powder was tested by the Dept of Justice.  

    Point is there're two sides to every argument, and sometimes the other side isn't always wrong.

    Of course I still sent it off and if it comes back as something chargeable, well...That's a horse of a different color.    

    But You Arrested Him Anyway? (none / 0) (#67)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 12, 2009 at 12:50:15 PM EST
    For different charges (none / 0) (#68)
    by Patrick on Wed Mar 25, 2009 at 11:26:01 PM EST
    yes....

    Parent