New Urine Test Ruling Ineffective

The recent "final rule" for urine-based "Specimen Validity Testing" (outlined below) is clearly of limited value, as it does little to address the prevalent practice of drug abusers cheatig urine tests.

Observed collection is the only method to assure specimen validity.

The ODAPC / DOT / & SAMHSA must stop their "political crumbling" to private interest groups such as large urine laboratories and accept alternative specimen types - oral fluid, hair - where observed specimen collection is the norm.

While the General Workplace can develop effective drug free workplace programs, those subject to Federal Mandated Drug Testing clearly can not.


Summary of Final Rule for Specimen Validity Testing

Published in today’s Federal Register is a Department of Transportation Final Rule:



Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs





In summary:



1. This Final Rule makes it mandatory for laboratories to test all DOT specimens for specimen validity (i.e., adulterants and urine substitutes) and for laboratories to follow all Department of Health and Human Resources (HHS) protocols for doing so.



2. Observed collections will afford less privacy in order to guard against employee use of items designed specifically to beat the testing process.



a. Directly observed collections will continue to occur only when there is a specific reason to believe that an employee may be attempting, or have sufficient reason, to evade the testing process.



b. Items such as prosthetic devices designed to carry clean urine will be checked for by observers with both male and female donors. The observer will have the employee raise and lower clothing, and then put it back into place for the observed collection.



c. Observed collections will now be required, rather than optional, for all return-to-duty and follow-up drug testing.



3. In an effort to thwart those who would manufacturer products designed to adulterate specimens, the Final Rule will no longer have easy-to-follow tables and charts outlining the adulterants for which laboratories are testing and the scientific cutoff levels at which laboratories are testing them.



4. Definitions in the Final Rule have been changed to harmonize with the HHS.



5. During an invalid result Medical Review Officer (MRO) review, an employee admission of adulterating or substituting a specimen is now a refusal to test.



6. Pursuant to MRO requests, the Final Rule will close the potentially endless loop on invalid specimen results; and employees requiring negative results [for example, pre-employment tests], when they have medical reasons for providing invalid results, will be able to obtain them through medical evaluations to rule out signs and symptoms of drug use.



7. The Final Rule will also streamline and simplify the potential myriad of complicated laboratory-confirmed and MRO-verified drug test results.



8. The Final Rule requires drug testing laboratories to report to DOT semi-annual statistical summaries on all of their DOT testing.



9. The Final Rule effective date is August 25, 2008.

Unions - Drug Testing & The Boston Fire Fighters Union

Random drug-testing programs are problematic for some unions.

Union leadership claims random drug testing is a violation of workers' right to privacy. Yet, this is appears to be an indefensible position.

Concerns of employee safety and public safety should be the #1 priority with union leaders. Sadly, it may not case for some.

Many non-union employees are required to have a pre-employment drug test and a random drug test. If workers refuse testing, they are terminated. If employees fail a drug test ... they are terminated - (which I don't view as best practice)-, or suspended and subsequently referred to an employee assistance program (EAP), which may or may not be funded by company insurance.

Simple... straight forward... and effective.

Random drug testing, conducted properly, is an effective deterrent to on-the-job substance abuse, as well as a detection mechanism. What an employee does at home is not the business of any employer. When employee's behaviors effect the safety of their colleagues or the public... it's not only their employers' business... it's their employers' legal obligation.

While many unions have adopted, or at least allowed random drug and alcohol testing, the Boston / Massachusetts Fire Fighters Union has failed to protect its members and the public at large.

No employee, or the public wants a drug or alcohol impaired individual in a safety sensitive position.

The Boston Fire Department had a recent tragedy in which two fatalities tested "positive" for drugs and/or alcohol. Whether this information should have been released to the public the way it was... is certainly questionable. No one should question the bravery of the individual involve, and most would not consider it.

The subsequent stonewalling of the fire fighters unions relative to drug testing is unconscionable, however, and a disgrace to everyone.

Drugged Driving - A Leading Cause of Death - SAMHSA 2008 REPORT

Impaired driving is the #1 cause of deaths from all other causes among persons aged 3 to 33.

5% percent (approximately 10 million drivers) of Americans drove under the influence of illicit drugs in the past year

Highest drugged driving rates
District of Columbia (7.0 percent),
Rhode Island (6.8 percent),
Massachusetts (6.4 percent),
Montana (6.3 percent), and
Wyoming (6.2 percent).



Illicit drugs, as defined above, includes marijuana/hashish, cocaine (including crack), inhalants, hallucinogens, heroin, or prescription-type drugs used nonmedically.

15% of Americans drove under the influence of alcohol.

SAMHSA TO APPROVE ORAL FLUID / SALIVA DRUG TESTING

(source: Forensic Sci Int. 2007 Apr 12)

Despite the lack of speed, likely due program mismangement and lobbying on the part of urine labs and large TPAs that have a vested interest in urine testing, SAMHSA will (per the below) have to approve alternative forms of drug testing in order to manage workplace drug abuse.


The U.S. Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs: Current status and future considerations.

Donna M Bush - Division of Workplace Programs, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, One Choke Cherry Road, Room 2-1033, Rockville, MD 20857, USA.

" The addition of accurate and reliable workplace drug testing using hair, oral fluid, and sweat patch specimens will complement urine drug testing, and aid in combating industries devoted to suborning drug testing through adulteration, substitution, and dilution. " - Donna M. Bush, SAMHSA

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) drug testing standards were published in 1988 and revised in 1994, 1998, and 2004.

In a separate notice, HHS proposed to establish scientific and technical guidelines for the Federal Workplace Drug Testing Program to:

(1) permit laboratory testing of hair, oral fluid, and sweat patch specimens in addition to urine specimens for marijuana, cocaine, phencyclidine, opiates (with focus on heroin), and amphetamines [including methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA), methylenedioxyethamphetamine (MDEA), methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA)];

(2) permit use of on-site point of collection test (POCT) devices to test urine and oral fluid at collection sites;

(3) permit use of instrumented initial test (screening only) facilities [IITF] to quickly identify negative specimens; and (

4) add training requirement for collectors, on-site testers, and MROs.

This proposal was published in the Federal Register on 13 April 2004, with a 90-day public comment period.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, HHS, reviewed those comments and is preparing the Final Notice that will define the requirements for such testing, including: specimen collection procedures, custody and control procedures that ensure donor specimen identity and integrity, testing facility, initial and confirmatory test cutoff concentrations, analytical testing methods, result review and reporting, evaluation of alternative medical explanations for presence of drug or metabolite in the donor's specimen, and laboratory certification issues.

Voluntary pilot performance testing (PT) programs for each specimen type are on-going since April 2000 to determine how to prepare PT materials for specimens other than urine to evaluate laboratories' ability to routinely achieve accuracy and precision required.


Certification programs will be developed using the current urine drug testing National Laboratory Certification Program model.

Kansas House approves bill to require drug testing in ‘major’ wrecks.

Drivers and passengers involved in “major” traffic wrecks in Kansas would be required to submit to drug testing, if a bill approved by the state’s House becomes law.

State law now allows law enforcement officers to order drug testing, if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is under the influence.

The House voted 117-5 to forward a bill to the Senate that would require truckers and other drivers, as well as their passengers, to undergo drug testing when they are involved in certain types of wrecks.

Officers would no longer need a presumption of a drug violation to force drivers to submit to the testing.

Supporters say changes are needed to make it easier to test people involved in wrecks resulting in fatalities or serious injuries. The bill would allow law enforcement to collect evidence for potential criminal prosecutions, they say.
Opponents say it is unconstitutional to force someone to submit to a blood or urine test if there is no probable cause to suspect them of a crime.
A provision added to the bill would permit people to refuse to a test. Taking that route, however, could result in loss of driving privileges.
Another change to the bill would authorize officers to waive the test requirement if they believe the actions of the driver did not contribute to the wreck.

The bill – HB2617 – has moved to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Source: By Keith Goble, state legislative editorkeith_goble@landlinemag.com

School Drug Testing

Bethlehem Schools Adopt Drug Testing Policy

Anyone looking to work in the Bethlehem Area School District will now have to take a drug test.

Monday night, the school board voted to approve a pre-employment drug testing policy. Starting immediately, new and prospective employees will have to get tested before they can work.

The policy was proposed after Nitschmann Middle School principal John Acerra was arrested on drug charges.

Loretta Leeson: "A drug test doesn't always screen everything but I think we're taking the right steps to at least protecting the children in the district and other employees in the district."


One board member has requested looking into testing all employees.

Source: http://wfmz.com/view/?id=228306

Courts Uphold Workplace Drug Testing - Once Again

Alberta Court of Appeal ruling upholds construction workplace drug testing
(Source: Canadian News)

EDMONTON - Construction and energy companies are happy with an Alberta court ruling that upholds the right of employers to test workers for drugs.

The Alberta Court of Appeal's decision overturned a lower court judgment that said Kellogg, Brown & Root Co. discriminated against a man in 2002 when it fired him from an oilsands project near Fort McMurray after he tested positive for marijuana.

John Chiasson, who admitted to being a recreational pot smoker, filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, which ruled against him. The commission said there needs to be a balance between an individual's human rights and the needs of an employer in protecting others.
But Court of Queen's Bench Justice Sheilah Martin then ruled in his favour. She said he should have been treated the same as someone with a drug addiction, which is considered a disability in human rights case law.

The panel of three Appeal Court justices disagreed. The judges said it is legitimate for Kellogg, Brown & Root to presume that people who use drugs at all are a safety risk in an already dangerous workplace.

"We see this case as no different than that of a trucking or taxi company which has a policy requiring its employees to refrain from the use of alcohol for some time before the employee drives one of the employer's vehicles," the justices wrote.
"Extending human rights protections to situations resulting in placing the lives of others at risk flies in the face of logic."

Kellogg, Brown & Root, one of the largest construction firms in the world, was helping to build an expansion to Syncrude Canada's plant at the time of Chiasson's case and is still active in the oilsands.
Andrew Robertson, a lawyer for the company, said the Appeal Court's decision is important to energy and construction industries.

"It is refreshing to see the Alberta Court of Appeal factor in risk management in safety-sensitive workplaces in a circumstance when there had been a recent focus on human rights issues," he said.
Heather Browne, a spokeswoman for Texas-based Kellogg, Brown & Root, hailed the ruling.
"KBR is a leader in workplace safety, and maintaining that commitment is the company's top priority," Browne said Wednesday.

"The court ruling upholds that commitment and we look forward to continuing our work in that regard."
Robertson noted that the Alberta appeal justices did not follow an Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in a similar case that said employees who test positive for drugs are to be dealt with as if they have an addiction even if they don't.

He said courts in provinces outside of Alberta and Ontario hearing similar cases will now have two different precedents to refer to.
Commission lawyer Janice Ashcroft said the Court of Appeal ruling will be reviewed before determining whether to seek leave to have the case heard by the Supreme Court of Canada.
"It is important to employers and employees to clarify what is the role of human rights when it comes to drug testing," Ashcroft said.

"This affects a lot of people and it is important. The commission does have a duty to ensure that the rights of all Albertans - both employers and employees - are balanced in this respect."
During the original court case, officials with oilsands giant Syncrude testified that the company's lost-time rate from accidents has dropped in part because of drug and alcohol testing.
Syncrude, Suncor, Albian Sands and other major oilsands heavyweights test their employees for drugs before they are allowed on jobsites.

Kara Flynn, a spokeswoman for Syncrude, said that in a broad sense, the Appeal Court ruling supports the company's drug-testing policy and goals.

"Any judicial decisions that support that are greatly appreciated," she said.
The impact of the ruling is already starting to ripple beyond Alberta's boundaries.
Phil Hochstein, president of the Independent Contractors and Business Association in British Columbia, said while workplace drug testing is common on major projects in Alberta, it is the exception in B.C.
He expects that is going to change.
"I think that workplace testing of construction workers is probably an issue whose time has come," he said from Vancouver.
"I think this case is going to spur more of this jobsite testing, not only on big industrial jobs, but on commercial and institutional jobs throughout the country."

Big Rig Drivers Beat Drug Tests?

Can Big Rig Drivers Beat Drug Tests?

By Robert ArnoldPOSTED: 10:03 am CST December 20, 2007UPDATED: 12:46 pm CST

December 22, 2007HOUSTON -- Local 2 investigates potentially dangerous loopholes in federal drug testing laws. Our hidden cameras expose a flawed system that can allow drug addicts to get behind the wheel of an 18-wheeler or even a school bus. Local 2 investigative reporter Robert Arnold shows us how what we uncovered now has Congress and the industry demanding change.

We sent our hidden cameras to a Houston drug testing facility where we signed up to take an official Department of Transportation drug test. Federal law requires every driver to get a drug test before they're allowed to drive an 18-wheeler, a school bus or any kind of commercial vehicle.

But before Local 2 went for the test, we were able to order drug-free urine off the Internet.The kit Local 2 purchased came with a tube of dehydrated urine, a vial and a small heater. We mixed the powdered urine with water then used the heater to bring the sample up to the temperature of the human body.At the collection facility, Arnold was ordered to take off his sport coat and place the contents of his pockets in a secure locker. That was the extent of the search, which meant no one at the facility knew Arnold had the vial of mail-order urine hidden as he entered the bathroom.Once inside the bathroom, Arnold was allowed to close and lock the door, which allowed him to use the vial of mail-order urine as his sample for the drug test.Arnold was then sent to a bathroom to provide a urine specimen for drug test.A few days later the results of Arnold's drug test came back negative. The mail-order urine passed with no problems at all.

The facility Local 2 tested did absolutely nothing wrong. Employees followed every procedure they are required to follow when collecting a specimen for a Department of Transportation drug test. Yet, Local 2 still found it easy to beat the test."Your investigation shows how easy it is to circumvent the law," said U.S. Rep. Ted Poe, who sits on Congress' Transportation Committee."Those regulations were written based on the premise that the person giving the sample was going to be honest about it," said Poe. "That's not the world we live in."Poe said what concerns him is if Arnold had been a drug user, then that negative test would still allow him to drive an 18-wheeler, a school bus or any kind of commercial vehicle."

When it's so easy to circumvent the law, the law becomes meaningless," said Poe."Whatever needs to be done to tighten the regulations to ensure that we don't have anyone slip through the cracks like you did, then I think that needs to be addressed," said Van O'Neal, the head of Houston Community College's truck driving school.
O'Neal's program is one of the largest in the country and requires 50 percent of students and faculty to undergo random drug tests. He says that's why Congress has to tighten the regulations."Those policies must be followed, not need to be followed, but I believe must be followed to ensure that our roadways are safe," O'Neal said.Congress is promising to come up with tougher regulations because what Local 2 did was not an isolated case. A report from the Government Accountability Office shows federal investigators also circumvented drug testing laws at several facilities. The report even warns Congress it impossible to determine how many drivers have been able to beat the federally required drug test.Federal law also requires trucking companies to randomly test employees to hopefully catch those who may have beat the test the first time. But after Local 2 Investigates combed through tens of thousands of federal violations, we found not everyone is following the law.

Oxycodone & Hydrocodone Deaths Exceed Those For Heroin

Tampa, Florida -

Drug related deaths for oxycodone and hydrocondone exceed those for heroin in the State of Florida.

U.S. Drug Czar John Walters again voiced concern about the abuse of prescription drugs.

Walters, National Director of Drugs Control Policy, noted that many teens and young people believe prescription pills are not as dangerous as street drugs.

12% of people between the ages of 18 and 25 report abusing prescription drugs in the past year.

CBS NEWS - WTSP - Tampa Bay's 10 News - Tampa / St. Petersburg