Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SMS" data-source="post: 1621818" data-attributes="member: 42">I know for a fact those strips are acceptable to a judge/court of law...so going the &#039;lab only&#039; route is an uneccesary extra step.&nbsp; I&#039;ve run hundreds of them myself (and my wife has run tens of thousands) and never once has a &quot;postive&quot; strip that was sent to a lab for confirmation ever come back as a false positive.&nbsp; Of course the strips only show most recent use, but I think randomly testing a couple times a year at $3-7 a pop is more effective than one lab a year at $35+ a pop...and it&#039;s cheaper.Again, we are looking for the 80% solution here, not the 100% one....insisting that every test goes to a lab is just setting up the program for failure, which might have been their motivation in the first place.But hey, we are never going to see either solution; stop giving handouts, or make sure those getting handouts really need it/aren&#039;t wasting it, so this is all just an exercise in theory.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SMS, post: 1621818, member: 42"] I know for a fact those strips are acceptable to a judge/court of law...so going the 'lab only' route is an uneccesary extra step. I've run hundreds of them myself (and my wife has run tens of thousands) and never once has a "postive" strip that was sent to a lab for confirmation ever come back as a false positive. Of course the strips only show most recent use, but I think randomly testing a couple times a year at $3-7 a pop is more effective than one lab a year at $35+ a pop...and it's cheaper. Again, we are looking for the 80% solution here, not the 100% one....insisting that every test goes to a lab is just setting up the program for failure, which might have been their motivation in the first place. But hey, we are never going to see either solution; stop giving handouts, or make sure those getting handouts really need it/aren't wasting it, so this is all just an exercise in theory. [/QUOTE]

Verification