It's been possible for a while now, thanks to hyphenated techniques that are far more sensitive
than TLC. the problem is cost of the assays...a lab would need to specifically screen an assay for dmt, a "drug" that is not widely abused. with a sensitive enough method, you can test for anything.

You can test for anything just like benzyme said. But that doesnt mean its worth it or that its needed.

Most drug tests need to be quick and easy so that they can be done by the police on the spot.

These kind of test are aviable for many common drugs but not dmt.

https://www.erowid.org/p...ting/testing_info1.shtml

Most psychedelics (exept for MDMA and its analogues) are left out of the tests because they are harder to test for.

The article never clarified how they are able differentiate exogenous DMT from endogenous DMT...

It said normal dmt levels should be around .5 micrograms...

So if you test positive for higher than half a micrgram of DMT do they assume it was exogenous?

A person who had ingested exogenous DMT would excrete a ratio of 63% indole-3-acetic acid to 28% DMT-N-oxide and 10% DMT in their urinary sample...are they using this ratio of DMT to metabolites to gauge exogenous use?

-eg

Also if you would take MAOI for depression therapy and would just eat DMT containing plants would that mean you did something illegal?

Probably, as they are not considered food plants, and while DMT containing plants may not be specifically mentioned as being illegal, the DMT contained in them is, and if they can prove that you have intention to extract or consume that DMT, then you become amenable to prosecution.

(Below is the humor section of this post)
Psilocybin and psilocin are listed as schedule one hallucinogens, though there are never any specific mushroom species mentioned by any law*, however, the law considers the mushroom the container for a scheduled substance and thus possession of the mushroom itself is illegal...
...so, since DMT is a schedule one substance, and because it is contained in the human body, would possession of a human body be considered possession of a container of a scheduled substance and thus be considered illegal?...oh, I guess you would have to prove that you have intentions to extract or consume your endogenous DMT, which probably isn't possible, at least not in any reasonable way...wait, then could you legally posses psilocybin mushrooms if you did not intend to extract or consume the psilocybin?

These laws are just as absurd as the above written excerpt contemplating them sounds....

*

-eg

...some are left out just because their use is not common, while they would be just as easy to test for.

...i guess it's one benefit of psychedelic consumption being fairly limited.



-eg

It's always been my assessment that there's multiple factors in whether or not a drug is tested for in any individual drug test, or generic panels.

The drug tests that your everyday average person will encounter in their lifetime will test for the biggies. Coke, amphetamines, opiates, etc. These panel tests are widely used in employment screening and other tests simply because of their presence on the required list of drugs to test for as specified by the D.O.T. (Speaking rather nationally centric here, The Department of Transportation)

Because of the sheer number of CDL drivers in the states, and the volume and frequency at which they're tested, this specific panel of tests is incredibly cheap to perform. and because of the pretty wide net that it casts on the illicit drug usage, it's just picked up about everywhere else because of the economies of scale.

That is to say in another way: If there were a sudden and continued rash of truckers crashing on the interstate causing deaths, maiming, and "coming up on the six o'clock news" stories on the television caused by drivers tripping balls and driving under the influence of LSD, you can bet your sweet biffy the DOT would quickly amend the required panel to include LSD testing. And since the panel tests are produced as unit kits, 16 year old jimmy trying to get a job bagging groceries at the grocery store might end up not passing the drug test because of that tab he dropped last friday.

-eg

Nobody is going to bother doing this.

A buddy of mine went to counseling for addicts after having his drugged out rampage, they highly suggested it when they let him go after the cops got involved and all. It supposedly "lowered the chance of further persecution" because it showed that he was a responsible citizen that tries to change.

He claims the counseling was mind numbing and he had to lie each word he said so they wouldn't bother him. The questions were ridiculous. For example; Rate how much you love your mother from 1 to 10.

If he showed any kind of resistance like saying "this is stupid, why am I doing this?", they would jump ahead and drug test him but only to THC.

They went by "if he used THC, he used other stuff too". This just shows how cheap, and ignorant the people are who call themselves doctors.

Besides the whole idea behind it seems unnecessary, it doesn't prove anything.

So you need a job and they don't hire you because you failed the test? How does smoking a doobie or sniffing a line of coke few days prior that prove you're not a good worker?

Even if someone gets hospitalized because of their drug use, the only thing someone can do is to put the patient on detox and monitor their vital signs. What does the drug test prove for this one? It doesn't change the way they treat you regardless of what you took.

I've got interviews coming up and some require drug tests. I'm not worried about a DMT test, lol - but does anyone know whether in a common (employment) piss test they check for barbiturates like phenobarbital? I take one of those every once in awhile for insomnia and I know those can last in your system for more than a couple of days.

NIDA-5 panel is typically cannabinoids, cocaine, opiates, pcp, and amphetamines.

I did not know the name of the common test was NIDA-5 panel (looks like it's actually samhsa.gov these days), that is very useful information. I can literally rest easy now Thanks!

np, and yes you can... barbiturates fell out of vogue in the late 70's/early 80's, so they're not widely abused. hence, they are not commonly tested for.

the assays generally follow the demand of the street markets. My lab is going to be doing tox soon, and I have coworkers with tox backgrounds, so I'll relay info accordingly,as I am distrusting of the establishment.

Depending on the employer, a ten panel screen may be used. A ten panel does test for barbiturates. Virtually every health care related employer in my area mandates a ten panel screen. I know some require an expanded opioid (twelve panel) assay. This is likely to vary from place to place, but it's possible, depending on your employer that barbiturates could be included on their drug screen assays.

Maybe it's a stupid question but

When you send a drug sample for analysis (of purity for exemple, or to check how bad is the RC on the markets), they seems they can know quite good the content with mass spectrum or something like that, right ???

But the cops don't use this ? there's probably something i don't understand

the pigs get paid to enforce corrupt laws, not analyze samples. that's what analytical chemists get paid to do.

The typical urine immunoassay drug screens tend to be cheap and easy to employ. However, quantitative testing for specific substances and their metabolites using tools such as GC-MS, IR Spec, high performance liquid chroma and so on are much more costly, require validation protocols and calibration and much a more nuanced approach to use. As already stated, this is something that someone with robust analytical expertise should be doing. However, some places will perform more nuanced quantitative testing if immunoassays come back positive.