1. Establish an Employee Assistance Program that includes confidential substance abuse screening, education, treatment referral, and recovery support.
2. Develop a policy for dealing with substance abuse in the workplace: at a minimum, provide training for supervisors in recognizing and dealing with drug or alcohol problems and support treatment for and recovery from substance use disorders.
3. Offer employees health insurance that provides comprehensive benefits for substance abuse treatment, including a broad range of service options, such as therapy, medications, and recovery support.
4. Be sure that health plans require their physicians to screen patients confidentially for substance use problems.
5. Support drug-free workplace policies.
Showing posts with label drug free workplace. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drug free workplace. Show all posts
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Urine Drug Screens and Potential False Positives
The following have been shown to react with urine drug screens.
PHARMACEUTICAL NAME BRAND NAME USE
Amantadine Amantadine Parkinsonism
Bupropion Wellbutrin & Zyban Antidepressant&Smoking cessation
Chloroquine AralenTreats Malaria
Chlorpromazine Thorazine, Largactil Psychotic disorders
Desipramine Norpramin Antidepressant
Dextroamphetamine Dexedrine Narcolepsy "sleep
Ephedrine Ephedra and Ma Huang Amphetamines
Fenfluramine Fen Phen Diet pill outlawed by FDA Labetalol Labetalol Blood Pressure
Mexiletine Mexitil Cardiovascular
n-acetyl procainamide Procainmide Cardiovascular
Phentremine Adipex/Obenix/Oby-Trim Diet Pills
Propranolol Inderal Cardiovascular
Phencyclidine
(PCP)
Dextromethorphan Dextromethorphan Cough treatment
Diphenhydramine Benadryl Allergies
Thioridazine Mellaril RidarilinCanada Tranquilizer
Venlafaxine Effexor Antidepressant
PHARMACEUTICAL NAME BRAND NAME USE
Amantadine Amantadine Parkinsonism
Bupropion Wellbutrin & Zyban Antidepressant&Smoking cessation
Chloroquine AralenTreats Malaria
Chlorpromazine Thorazine, Largactil Psychotic disorders
Desipramine Norpramin Antidepressant
Dextroamphetamine Dexedrine Narcolepsy "sleep
Ephedrine Ephedra and Ma Huang Amphetamines
Fenfluramine Fen Phen Diet pill outlawed by FDA Labetalol Labetalol Blood Pressure
Mexiletine Mexitil Cardiovascular
n-acetyl procainamide Procainmide Cardiovascular
Phentremine Adipex/Obenix/Oby-Trim Diet Pills
Propranolol Inderal Cardiovascular
Phencyclidine
(PCP)
Dextromethorphan Dextromethorphan Cough treatment
Diphenhydramine Benadryl Allergies
Thioridazine Mellaril RidarilinCanada Tranquilizer
Venlafaxine Effexor Antidepressant
Friday, April 3, 2009
Workplace Drug Testing Overview
Drug tests in the USA can be divided into two general groups, federally and non-federally regulated testing.
Federally regulated drug testing started when Ronald Reagan enacted executive order 12564, requiring all federal employees refrain from using illegal substances in specified DOT regulated occupations. Drug testing guidelines and processes, in these areas exclusively, are established and regulated (by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration or SAMHSA, formerly under the direction of the National Institute on Drug Abuse or NIDA) require that companies who use professional drivers, specified safety sensitive transportation and/or oil and gas related occupations, and certain federal employers, test them for the presence of certain drugs. These test classes were established decades ago, and include five specific drug groups. They do not account for current drug usage patterns. For example, SAMHSA / DOT tests exclude semi-synthetic opioids, such as oxycodone, oxymorphone, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, etc., and other prescription medications that are widely abused in the United States
Non-federally regulated or General workplace drug testing allows for far more effective drug testing procedures. While SAMHSA / NIDA guidelines only allow laboratories to report quantitative results for the " NIDA-5 " / " SAMHSA-5 " for their official SAMHSA-approve tests, many drug testing laboratories and on-site tests offer a wider, " more appropriate " set of drug screens to better detect current drug use patterns. As noted above, these tests include synthetic pain killers such as Oxycodone (Oxycontin, Percocet), Oxymorphone, Hydrocodone (Vicodin), Hydromorphone. Some also include benzodiazepines (Valium, Xanax, Klonopin, Restoril) and barbiturates in other drug panels (a "panel" is a predetermined subset of tests run). The confirmation test (usually GC/MS, or LC/MS/MS) can tell the difference between chemically similar drugs such as methamphetamine and methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA or ecstasy). In the absence of detectable amounts of methamphetamine in the sample, the lab wold report the sample as negative, or report it as positive if present.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
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.
Friday, March 28, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Benefits of Oral Fluid / Saliva Point-of-Care Testing
Protein map of human spit created
By Julie Steenhuysen 27 minutes ago
CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. researchers have identified all 1,116 unique proteins found in human saliva glands, a discovery they said on Tuesday could usher in a wave of convenient, spit-based diagnostic tests that could be done without the need for a single drop of blood.
As many as 20 percent of the proteins that are found in saliva are also found in blood, said Fred Hagan, a researcher at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York who worked on the study.
"This is potentially a large field that has many clinical implications in the area of disease diagnostics," said Hagan, whose work was published in the Journal of Proteome Research.
The researchers hope saliva-based tests could be used to diagnose cancer, heart disease, diabetes and a number of other conditions.
"To be able to diagnose disease using saliva, you really have to have a comprehensive understanding of the saliva proteome," Hagan said in a telephone interview.
Like a genome, which lists all of the genes in an organism, a proteome is a complete map of proteins. While genes provide the instruction manual, proteins carry out the instructions by regulating cellular processes.
Researchers from five universities -- the University of Rochester, The Scripps Research Institute, the University of Southern California, The University of California San Francisco and the University of California Los Angeles -- sought to determine the complete set of proteins secreted by the major salivary glands.
BLOOD, SPIT AND TEARS
They collected saliva from 23 healthy men and women of several races. They tested saliva samples using some form of mass spectrometry, which determines the identity of proteins based on measurements of their mass and charge.
They compared their findings with recent protein maps of human blood and tears.
Early analysis has already turned up a number of proteins with known roles in Alzheimer's, Huntington's and Parkinson's diseases; breast, colorectal and pancreatic cancer and diabetes.
Most of the proteins were part of signaling pathways, which are key to the body's response to system wide diseases.
Hagan said the work should accelerate the development of new tools for tracking disease throughout the body.
Already there are saliva-based antibody tests to detect human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, and hepatitis infections, Hagan said. He said this protein map will provide new targets.
"Monitoring disease as well as drug use could be more easily done with saliva as opposed to blood or urine," he said.
Other groups are working on a saliva-based test for breast cancer that would detect a protein fragment from the HER2 protein. Hagan said such tests could eventually replace uncomfortable and costly mammograms.
"We envision in the future spitting in a tube and looking for a marker like this breast cancer marker. It would be much easier to do, potentially at home," he said.
"Given that we've made this information publicly available, we fully expect a number of research groups will be picking their favorite targets and developing their own tests. That is the intent -- to create a wealth of data to stimulate more research and increase the chances of producing better diagnostic tests," Hagan said.
(Editing by Maggie Fox and Mohammad Zargham)
By Julie Steenhuysen 27 minutes ago
CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. researchers have identified all 1,116 unique proteins found in human saliva glands, a discovery they said on Tuesday could usher in a wave of convenient, spit-based diagnostic tests that could be done without the need for a single drop of blood.
As many as 20 percent of the proteins that are found in saliva are also found in blood, said Fred Hagan, a researcher at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York who worked on the study.
"This is potentially a large field that has many clinical implications in the area of disease diagnostics," said Hagan, whose work was published in the Journal of Proteome Research.
The researchers hope saliva-based tests could be used to diagnose cancer, heart disease, diabetes and a number of other conditions.
"To be able to diagnose disease using saliva, you really have to have a comprehensive understanding of the saliva proteome," Hagan said in a telephone interview.
Like a genome, which lists all of the genes in an organism, a proteome is a complete map of proteins. While genes provide the instruction manual, proteins carry out the instructions by regulating cellular processes.
Researchers from five universities -- the University of Rochester, The Scripps Research Institute, the University of Southern California, The University of California San Francisco and the University of California Los Angeles -- sought to determine the complete set of proteins secreted by the major salivary glands.
BLOOD, SPIT AND TEARS
They collected saliva from 23 healthy men and women of several races. They tested saliva samples using some form of mass spectrometry, which determines the identity of proteins based on measurements of their mass and charge.
They compared their findings with recent protein maps of human blood and tears.
Early analysis has already turned up a number of proteins with known roles in Alzheimer's, Huntington's and Parkinson's diseases; breast, colorectal and pancreatic cancer and diabetes.
Most of the proteins were part of signaling pathways, which are key to the body's response to system wide diseases.
Hagan said the work should accelerate the development of new tools for tracking disease throughout the body.
Already there are saliva-based antibody tests to detect human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, and hepatitis infections, Hagan said. He said this protein map will provide new targets.
"Monitoring disease as well as drug use could be more easily done with saliva as opposed to blood or urine," he said.
Other groups are working on a saliva-based test for breast cancer that would detect a protein fragment from the HER2 protein. Hagan said such tests could eventually replace uncomfortable and costly mammograms.
"We envision in the future spitting in a tube and looking for a marker like this breast cancer marker. It would be much easier to do, potentially at home," he said.
"Given that we've made this information publicly available, we fully expect a number of research groups will be picking their favorite targets and developing their own tests. That is the intent -- to create a wealth of data to stimulate more research and increase the chances of producing better diagnostic tests," Hagan said.
(Editing by Maggie Fox and Mohammad Zargham)
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Sometimes Unions on the Wrong Side of Drug Testing Debate
Sometimes unions don't act in the best interests of their membership or the community.
THE Massachusetts Joint Labor-Management Committee has taken jurisdiction of the contract dispute between the City of Boston and the firefighters' union (Local 718). However, this step does not mean that mandatory alcohol and drug testing is any closer to becoming a reality in the Boston Fire Department.
The president of the state firefighters' union has argued that the Joint Labor-Management Committee cannot consider drug testing in arbitration.
That view should not prevail, as this contract must begin the effort to break through the imbedded culture of the Fire Department by including basic management reform measures and mandatory drug testing.
Actually, the more relevant question is why is drug testing subject to collective bargaining?
Clearly, it is in the broader interest of the Commonwealth that all uniformed public safety employees be required to annually undergo standard drug and alcohol testing.
While this contract may be settled before such change, drug testing should be a state public safety requirement, not subject to local negotiations.
Following a tragic restaurant fire in West Roxbury in August, in which two firefighters died, city officials in early October presented to Local 718 a comprehensive alcohol and drug testing policy for negotiation. The union has yet to respond in writing to the city's proposal.
The Menino administration had put drug testing on the table in contract negotiations with Local 718 in 1999 !!!!!, and 2004 but no agreement was reached.
Union resistance and the city's desire to secure other needed management reforms in the Fire Department at a reasonable cost are why drug testing has not been yet approved.
The firefighters' union maintains that the Joint Labor-Management Committee cannot consider drug testing as an issue for arbitration in the Boston dispute because the city did not list drug testing in its petition filed last August. The union would prefer to negotiate this matter separately with the city for a reported 21 percent salary increase rather than have the Joint Labor-Management Committee require drug testing in an arbitration decision.
The union's position is not supported by state law or the Joint Labor-Management Committee's case history, which shows several examples of decisions rendered in fire union cases that include issues not listed in the initial petitions, including drug testing.
Local 718 has high expectations for a new contract with drug testing and points to the 1998 police contract that provided for drug testing and also accepted the Quinn Bill. However, in that contract, the police accepted no salary increases in fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2002 when firefighters received 4 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively.
Also, drug testing was considered innovative nine years ago and not the norm that it is today. Indeed, random alcohol and drug testing is more common in major urban fire departments around the country, including Baltimore, Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Francisco.
The contract with Local 718 should include mandatory random alcohol and drug testing, but if it does not include other significant reform measures at a cost consistent with the recently negotiated public safety contracts, it should not be approved.
The stakes are too high for the welfare of the public and firefighters to settle for small incremental change in this contract.
Orignal Source: Boston Globe
THE Massachusetts Joint Labor-Management Committee has taken jurisdiction of the contract dispute between the City of Boston and the firefighters' union (Local 718). However, this step does not mean that mandatory alcohol and drug testing is any closer to becoming a reality in the Boston Fire Department.
The president of the state firefighters' union has argued that the Joint Labor-Management Committee cannot consider drug testing in arbitration.
That view should not prevail, as this contract must begin the effort to break through the imbedded culture of the Fire Department by including basic management reform measures and mandatory drug testing.
Actually, the more relevant question is why is drug testing subject to collective bargaining?
Clearly, it is in the broader interest of the Commonwealth that all uniformed public safety employees be required to annually undergo standard drug and alcohol testing.
While this contract may be settled before such change, drug testing should be a state public safety requirement, not subject to local negotiations.
Following a tragic restaurant fire in West Roxbury in August, in which two firefighters died, city officials in early October presented to Local 718 a comprehensive alcohol and drug testing policy for negotiation. The union has yet to respond in writing to the city's proposal.
The Menino administration had put drug testing on the table in contract negotiations with Local 718 in 1999 !!!!!, and 2004 but no agreement was reached.
Union resistance and the city's desire to secure other needed management reforms in the Fire Department at a reasonable cost are why drug testing has not been yet approved.
The firefighters' union maintains that the Joint Labor-Management Committee cannot consider drug testing as an issue for arbitration in the Boston dispute because the city did not list drug testing in its petition filed last August. The union would prefer to negotiate this matter separately with the city for a reported 21 percent salary increase rather than have the Joint Labor-Management Committee require drug testing in an arbitration decision.
The union's position is not supported by state law or the Joint Labor-Management Committee's case history, which shows several examples of decisions rendered in fire union cases that include issues not listed in the initial petitions, including drug testing.
Local 718 has high expectations for a new contract with drug testing and points to the 1998 police contract that provided for drug testing and also accepted the Quinn Bill. However, in that contract, the police accepted no salary increases in fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2002 when firefighters received 4 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively.
Also, drug testing was considered innovative nine years ago and not the norm that it is today. Indeed, random alcohol and drug testing is more common in major urban fire departments around the country, including Baltimore, Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Francisco.
The contract with Local 718 should include mandatory random alcohol and drug testing, but if it does not include other significant reform measures at a cost consistent with the recently negotiated public safety contracts, it should not be approved.
The stakes are too high for the welfare of the public and firefighters to settle for small incremental change in this contract.
Orignal Source: Boston Globe
Drug Testing Educators
The West Des Moines school district is believed to be the first in Iowa to adopt alcohol and illicit drug testing for all potential employees.
The new policy was approved Monday and mimics private sector drug screening.
It is uncommon for public schools nationwide.
“We can say with a fair amount of confidence that this is the first such policy in Iowa,” said Lisa Bartusek, associate executive director for the Iowa Association of School Boards.The school board unanimously approved the policy, which affects all potential employees and also current ones who are suspected of drug use.
Employees who test positive for drug use or who arrive at work with a blood-alcohol concentration of .04 percent or more could be fired or forced to seek rehabilitation.
"It was surprising to me that other districts don’t do this,” said board member Susan Moritz, who helped craft the policy. “It came out of the idea that our bus drivers were already being tested, and if we felt that was important for our bus drivers, wasn’t it also important for the people who were in our buildings?”The purpose is to “help new applicants understand that we simply don’t tolerate any kind of drug abuse on the job.”
Source: Des Moines Register
The new policy was approved Monday and mimics private sector drug screening.
It is uncommon for public schools nationwide.
“We can say with a fair amount of confidence that this is the first such policy in Iowa,” said Lisa Bartusek, associate executive director for the Iowa Association of School Boards.The school board unanimously approved the policy, which affects all potential employees and also current ones who are suspected of drug use.
Employees who test positive for drug use or who arrive at work with a blood-alcohol concentration of .04 percent or more could be fired or forced to seek rehabilitation.
"It was surprising to me that other districts don’t do this,” said board member Susan Moritz, who helped craft the policy. “It came out of the idea that our bus drivers were already being tested, and if we felt that was important for our bus drivers, wasn’t it also important for the people who were in our buildings?”The purpose is to “help new applicants understand that we simply don’t tolerate any kind of drug abuse on the job.”
Source: Des Moines Register
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
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
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
Monday, December 24, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
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
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
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Construction Safety / Drug Testing: Michigan AGC / MUST Drug Testing
The Need for Change:
Drug Testing in Construction
Lynn A. Corlett, C.S.P.
We all know that a drug free workplace is a safe workplace and the Michigan union skilled trades and contractors were ahead of their time when the MUST drug screening program was implemented 16 years ago in 1991. However, times change, the drugs of choice change and the numbers of ways to “beat” the tests have changed. It’s time again for the union skilled trades and contractors to leap ahead of the national status quo.
Recently the States of Hawaii and Georgia passed legislation to improve safety and reduce workers compensation costs through the implementation of on-site oral fluid / saliva drug screening.
The construction industry played a key role in driving these changes, especially in Hawaii. Organized labor in particular, as well as contractors, owners, and insurers recognized the following:
Drug abuse in the construction sector is as bad, if not worse than ever,
Effective drug testing, especially random drug testing is required to truly manage workplace substance abuse,
Observed specimen collection, convenience, and low cost are mandatory to ensure compliance.
This article attempts to address this from the construction industry’s point of view:
Why should every construction site drug test?
A need for change.
Where do we go from here?
Why drug test?
Simple. While 10% of employees aged 18 – 49 years abuse drugs (not including alcohol), the construction industry runs 2x-3x this rate.
“This measure (on-site oral fluid drug testing) provides a cost effective on-the-job alternative to laboratory tests that can be costly and difficult to schedule."
- Aiona, Lt. Governor, HawaiiWith over 50% of reportable job-site accidents linked to substance abuse, it’s clear that employee safety and the corporate bottom line are sufficient reasons to implement a drug free workplace program.
A need for change
Pre-employment drug testing has become an intelligence test. Access to the internet has made defeating drug tests an easy task. Workers are able to get information on how to “flush” their system; adulterate samples; and there are even products like the Whizinator, which uses synthetic urine undetectable by current drug testing methods, designed to defeat observed urine collection.
Random drug testing, post-incident and reasonable suspicion modes are required components of any comprehensive, effective safety program. The goal of any drug / alcohol policy is deterrence vs. “catching” employees. Random testing has consistently demonstrated to be singularly effective in reducing on-the-job substance abuse.
Any effective testing mode must involve direct observation of specimen collection. But observed urine collection is embarrassing and degrading to both the observed and the observer.
Arguably, there are more instances of drug abusers defeating unobserved techniques, such as traditional urine-based testing, than there are “positives”. Just look at nationwide statistics for validation. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of drug abusers are employed. Furthermore most drug testing (approx. 90%) involves traditional urine laboratory-based pre-employment testing.
Oral fluid works
Oral fluid tests are cheaper, faster and easier to use than urinalysis… and unlike urine, can not be easily defeated.
Random testing via on-site oral fluid is fast, provides results within 5-15 minutes, and averages $20 per test. It has the additional advantage of detecting current, vs. historical drug use. Oral fluid tests typically detect from within minutes of consumption up to 2-3 days for most drugs (for THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, the maximum is 24 hours.). Urine testing can not detect drugs for up to the first several hours and is only an indicator of historical drug use. Furthermore, for THC, detection can go back as far as 30 days. Do you as an employer really care what an otherwise dependable employee does at his/her home on the weekend? Do you even have a right to know?
Also look at the true costs of urine-based random testing. In many cases our current program requires we send our employees off site for random testing. The cost involved includes not only the hourly labor rate, probably $50/hour with benefits, but the productivity loss also. The end result is that a typical off-site urine test is truly costing a job about $300 per test, and the effectiveness is questionable at best.
On-site oral fluid based testing works. Here are actual results from a contractor who switched from urine-based to oral fluid-based drug screening:
Where do we go from here?
Occupational health, safety, and risk management professionals must lead the charge to effect change. We know what truly happens every day on our job sites. At the end of day, we “get it”.
It’s time for us to update our current drug and alcohol free workplace program.
It’s time for the Michigan union skilled trades and contractors to again lead the charge in effecting change.
It’s time to implement oral fluid-based testing techniques at a few “pilot sites” and demonstrate the advantage of effective drug testing programs vs. the status quo.
References:
2006 United States Department of Health – Substance Abuse and Mental Health Agency (SAMSHA) National Survey on Drug Use & Health (NHSDA)- Office of Applied Studies. (2007) Results from the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National findings (DHHS Publication No. SMA 07-4293, NSDUH Series H-32). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Peter N. Cholakis and Roger Bruce (July 2007) Drug Testing in the Workplace – A look at oral fluid-based testing. Professional Safety Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers, July 2007, 31-36.
Drug Testing in Construction
Lynn A. Corlett, C.S.P.
We all know that a drug free workplace is a safe workplace and the Michigan union skilled trades and contractors were ahead of their time when the MUST drug screening program was implemented 16 years ago in 1991. However, times change, the drugs of choice change and the numbers of ways to “beat” the tests have changed. It’s time again for the union skilled trades and contractors to leap ahead of the national status quo.
Recently the States of Hawaii and Georgia passed legislation to improve safety and reduce workers compensation costs through the implementation of on-site oral fluid / saliva drug screening.
The construction industry played a key role in driving these changes, especially in Hawaii. Organized labor in particular, as well as contractors, owners, and insurers recognized the following:
Drug abuse in the construction sector is as bad, if not worse than ever,
Effective drug testing, especially random drug testing is required to truly manage workplace substance abuse,
Observed specimen collection, convenience, and low cost are mandatory to ensure compliance.
This article attempts to address this from the construction industry’s point of view:
Why should every construction site drug test?
A need for change.
Where do we go from here?
Why drug test?
Simple. While 10% of employees aged 18 – 49 years abuse drugs (not including alcohol), the construction industry runs 2x-3x this rate.
“This measure (on-site oral fluid drug testing) provides a cost effective on-the-job alternative to laboratory tests that can be costly and difficult to schedule."
- Aiona, Lt. Governor, HawaiiWith over 50% of reportable job-site accidents linked to substance abuse, it’s clear that employee safety and the corporate bottom line are sufficient reasons to implement a drug free workplace program.
A need for change
Pre-employment drug testing has become an intelligence test. Access to the internet has made defeating drug tests an easy task. Workers are able to get information on how to “flush” their system; adulterate samples; and there are even products like the Whizinator, which uses synthetic urine undetectable by current drug testing methods, designed to defeat observed urine collection.
Random drug testing, post-incident and reasonable suspicion modes are required components of any comprehensive, effective safety program. The goal of any drug / alcohol policy is deterrence vs. “catching” employees. Random testing has consistently demonstrated to be singularly effective in reducing on-the-job substance abuse.
Any effective testing mode must involve direct observation of specimen collection. But observed urine collection is embarrassing and degrading to both the observed and the observer.
Arguably, there are more instances of drug abusers defeating unobserved techniques, such as traditional urine-based testing, than there are “positives”. Just look at nationwide statistics for validation. Seventy-seven percent (77%) of drug abusers are employed. Furthermore most drug testing (approx. 90%) involves traditional urine laboratory-based pre-employment testing.
Oral fluid works
Oral fluid tests are cheaper, faster and easier to use than urinalysis… and unlike urine, can not be easily defeated.
Random testing via on-site oral fluid is fast, provides results within 5-15 minutes, and averages $20 per test. It has the additional advantage of detecting current, vs. historical drug use. Oral fluid tests typically detect from within minutes of consumption up to 2-3 days for most drugs (for THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, the maximum is 24 hours.). Urine testing can not detect drugs for up to the first several hours and is only an indicator of historical drug use. Furthermore, for THC, detection can go back as far as 30 days. Do you as an employer really care what an otherwise dependable employee does at his/her home on the weekend? Do you even have a right to know?
Also look at the true costs of urine-based random testing. In many cases our current program requires we send our employees off site for random testing. The cost involved includes not only the hourly labor rate, probably $50/hour with benefits, but the productivity loss also. The end result is that a typical off-site urine test is truly costing a job about $300 per test, and the effectiveness is questionable at best.
On-site oral fluid based testing works. Here are actual results from a contractor who switched from urine-based to oral fluid-based drug screening:
Where do we go from here?
Occupational health, safety, and risk management professionals must lead the charge to effect change. We know what truly happens every day on our job sites. At the end of day, we “get it”.
It’s time for us to update our current drug and alcohol free workplace program.
It’s time for the Michigan union skilled trades and contractors to again lead the charge in effecting change.
It’s time to implement oral fluid-based testing techniques at a few “pilot sites” and demonstrate the advantage of effective drug testing programs vs. the status quo.
References:
2006 United States Department of Health – Substance Abuse and Mental Health Agency (SAMSHA) National Survey on Drug Use & Health (NHSDA)- Office of Applied Studies. (2007) Results from the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National findings (DHHS Publication No. SMA 07-4293, NSDUH Series H-32). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Peter N. Cholakis and Roger Bruce (July 2007) Drug Testing in the Workplace – A look at oral fluid-based testing. Professional Safety Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers, July 2007, 31-36.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Drug Testing and Return on Investment
Return on Investment - Drug Testing
Employee Theft and Fraud
- Average cost Per employee involved: $650
- U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates 30% of all business failures are due to employee theft and fraud.
- 70% of these crimes are committed by repeat offenders.
- Up to 70% of employee theft is drug related
Cost of Negligent Hiring
- Average cost per incident: $150,000
- Courts are holding companies liable in negligent hiring cases not only for what they knew about a new employee, but also what they should have known.
Employee Turnover
- Average cost per incident: $32,000
- Turnover costs average 1.5 times a person’s yearly salary
Workplace Violence
- Average cost per incident: $1,000,000
- Violence at work is a serious problem, with homicide now the #2 cause of death in the workplace.
- Up to 70% of criminal arrests are drug related
Employee Theft and Fraud
- Average cost Per employee involved: $650
- U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates 30% of all business failures are due to employee theft and fraud.
- 70% of these crimes are committed by repeat offenders.
- Up to 70% of employee theft is drug related
Cost of Negligent Hiring
- Average cost per incident: $150,000
- Courts are holding companies liable in negligent hiring cases not only for what they knew about a new employee, but also what they should have known.
Employee Turnover
- Average cost per incident: $32,000
- Turnover costs average 1.5 times a person’s yearly salary
Workplace Violence
- Average cost per incident: $1,000,000
- Violence at work is a serious problem, with homicide now the #2 cause of death in the workplace.
- Up to 70% of criminal arrests are drug related
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
