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
Showing posts with label saliva drug testing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label saliva drug testing. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Random Student Drug Testing
Drug education programs and parental advice often aren’t as strong as peer pressure.
Studies show in the last year more than one in three high school seniors used illicit drugs.
Scott County Superintendent, Dr. Dallas Blankenship “We think that if we have a drug testing program it will help students to explain to their peers that they are not going to do drugs.”
Somerset High School began randomly drug testing students involved in “privileged activities”, like sports and cheerleading last fall. Their principal, Jeff Perkins, calls it “one of the best things I think we’ve done.”
The Program
Both students and parents are required to sign drug testing consent forms in order to participate in privileged activities. Curricular or academic based activities like band, debate and choir are not currently tested, even though they too are competitive extracurricular activities.
Students be tested are randomly selected and the process takes about five minutes per student. The test looks for the presence of drugs like marijuana, meth and ecstasy as well as prescription drugs such as oxycodone and hydrocodone. If a test is non-negative, a second test is sent to a laboratory for additional testing. If the confirmatory test is positive, the student receives counseling and may have to perform certain tasks such as writing a paper and performing community service. The student is also suspended from participating in the privileged activity for a short period of time.
The Intent
Overall the random drug testing program is designed to be preventative and not punitive. It’s also designed to give kids who do test positive a second chance.
“We’re getting on the other side of this now, some education and getting these kids in some type of rehabilitation program. And hopefully we can salvage that versus the other way which was throwing them away.”“The safety of students and to have a drug free environment are extremely important, so our board’s already made a commitment.”
Original Source: Chris Dietz, ABC News
Studies show in the last year more than one in three high school seniors used illicit drugs.
Scott County Superintendent, Dr. Dallas Blankenship “We think that if we have a drug testing program it will help students to explain to their peers that they are not going to do drugs.”
Somerset High School began randomly drug testing students involved in “privileged activities”, like sports and cheerleading last fall. Their principal, Jeff Perkins, calls it “one of the best things I think we’ve done.”
The Program
Both students and parents are required to sign drug testing consent forms in order to participate in privileged activities. Curricular or academic based activities like band, debate and choir are not currently tested, even though they too are competitive extracurricular activities.
Students be tested are randomly selected and the process takes about five minutes per student. The test looks for the presence of drugs like marijuana, meth and ecstasy as well as prescription drugs such as oxycodone and hydrocodone. If a test is non-negative, a second test is sent to a laboratory for additional testing. If the confirmatory test is positive, the student receives counseling and may have to perform certain tasks such as writing a paper and performing community service. The student is also suspended from participating in the privileged activity for a short period of time.
The Intent
Overall the random drug testing program is designed to be preventative and not punitive. It’s also designed to give kids who do test positive a second chance.
“We’re getting on the other side of this now, some education and getting these kids in some type of rehabilitation program. And hopefully we can salvage that versus the other way which was throwing them away.”“The safety of students and to have a drug free environment are extremely important, so our board’s already made a commitment.”
Original Source: Chris Dietz, ABC News
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
Friday, January 18, 2008
FAQs - Oral fluid / Saliva Drug Testing - Frequently Asked Questions
FAQ – Oral Fluid-based / Saliva Workplace Drug Testing
What is a preliminary test?
A preliminary (qualitative) test is a single test result based on an initial screen, providing a negative or non-negative result. The technology used for the Avitar ORALscreen is lateral flow immunoassay.
Why is a confirmatory test necessary?
The purpose of a confirmation test is to eliminate any false positive test results from an initial screening. A confirmatory test provides a quantitative result through a GC/MS or LC/MS/MS instrumented process. The substance and the concentration of substance can be accurately determined.
Is there any health risk involved in placing the sample collection device in the test subject's mouth?
No. The sample collection device is stored in hygienic sealed packaging until it is used. When used correctly there is no direct contact between the sample collection foam an the test. Biocompatibility testing has been conducted on the basis of the requirements and has shown that the sample collection device can be classified as biocompatible with regard to its intended use.
How long is the shelf-life of the test kits?
The shelf-life is stated as expiration date, “Exp.” on the device packaging.
Can an opened test kit be left unused?
No. The test kit must be used immediately after opening.
How quickly must the result read once it has been developed?
Negatives can be read once all red lines (5), are visible. Non-negative results should be read at the 15 minute mark. No on-site device results should be interpreted after 15 minutes.
The test subject has a very dry mouth. Will it be possible to obtain a sufficient sample of oral fluid?
Certain drugs have an inhibitory effect on the production of oral fluid or saliva.
Prior the collection, instruct the donor to drink a glass (8 ounces) of water, and wait 5 minutes. If after three minutes of sample collection the collector foam is not completely saturated with oral fluid repeat the collection.
Which substances can be identified using the ORALscreen?
At the present time, the ORALscreen system can detect 96% or drugs typically tested for in the workplace, including the following substances or classes of substances; in samples of oral fluid: Amphetamines: METHAMPHETAMINE and MDMA / Ecstasy.
Opitates:CODIENE, HEROINEi, MORPHINE, 6-AM (heroin metabolite), OXYCODONE (Oxycontin, Peroset, etc.), OXYMORPHONE, HYDROCODONE (Vocodin, Lortab, etc.), HYDROMORPHONE, Di-hydrocodine,
Marijana: delta-9 THC,
Cocaine: COCAINE, BENZYCLONIE (cocaine metabolite)
Which prescription drugs and designer drugs can be detected?
The ORALscreen is one of the only on-site oral fluid-based devices available that can accurately dectect the commonly abused classes of prescription pain releivers. Common brand names are Oxycontin, Percoset, Vicodin, Lortab, etc.
The METH test of ORALscreen allows detection not only of methamphetamine, but also other important designer amphetamines such as methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA,
"Ecstasy“).
What is the NIDA 5, SAMSHA, DOT-5 panel
This panel consists of tests for amphetamines, cocaine, morphine (heroin), PCP, and THC (marijuana). It is important to note the following:
1. PCP has a positivity rate of less that 0.3%
2. The cut-off level for OPIATES is set at 2000 ng/ml, thus making the test less effective than ORALscreen for detecting OPIATE use / abuse.
3. NIDA-5 / DOT-5, SAMSHA CAN NOT detect the commonly abuse prescription pain releivers OXYCODONE, HYDROCODONE, etc., perhaps the number one threat to workplace safety today.
Does the test show cross-reactions with other legal substances?
Because the ORALscreen system, is an immunoassay process, based on the
antigen/antibody reaction, cross-reactivity are possible. However, the antibodies used are very specific, thus cross reactivity is minimal. Confirmatory testing and MRO procedures are established to elminate false positives.
How quickly is the test result ready?
The entire on-site screen result, from the start of the sample-collection process to display of the result, takes 5 to 15 minutes on average.
Does the device have to be disposed of after analysis, or can it be sent off for a confirmation analysis?
For a negative result, the device can be disposed of. Oral fluid, without any visible signs of blood, is not considered a biohazard by the CDC.
For a non-negative result, a second sample can be collectef for confirmation analysis. Confirmation directly from the device is also available. Please discuss this option with your Avitar representative
Are there limits below which drugs cannot be detected? If so, what are these limits?
Detection windows (times) and sensitivity, cut-off values, exist for all drugs.
Thus a negative result means either that the tested saliva contains no drugs, or that they are present in concentrations below the respective cut-off value. In general detection of drugs in oral fluid ranges from within minutes of consumption up to 2-3 days. Available research indicates on that marijana (THC-delta 9) can not be detected beyond 18-24 hrs. in oral fluid at ng/ml levels, regardless of the test / test technique.
What result does the ORALscreen test window display?
The test window displays the results of the analysis, distinct for each class of drugs, in the form of a qualitative reading with either an absent line for a non-negative sample (potentially containing drugs) or a line for a negative sample (not containing drugs or drugs below the cut-off level). A control line is also visible to indicate proper operation of the device.
What is the best measure of accuracy?
Accuarcy is a comparative ratio of sensitivty and specificity. Accuracy for any device should be measured by comparing the device to a quantitative test (GC/MS or LC/MS/MS) on a “paired sample” basis using the same speciment type. Accuracy should not be measured by comparing results between two device or between different specimen types due to varying detection windows and other factors.
Sensitivity refers to the ratio of true positive (TP) samples to the total number of samples rated positive by the test kit ((TP + FP, false positive).
Specificity refers to the ratio of true negative (TN) samples to the total number of samples rated as negative by the test kit (TN + FN, false negative).
Accuracy refers to the ratio of correctly identified samples to the total number of samples.
Sensitivity:
TP
(TP+FF)
Specificity:
TN
(TN+FN)
Accuracy:
(TP+FN)
(TP)FP+TN+FN)
How were the system's key performance data determined?
By tests with spiked synthetic saliva the system's key performance data of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were determined, and some limited field trials were conducted by Avitar and third parties.
Can the test kits be purchased individually?
The test kits are available in boxes (containing 20 test kits), or cases (containing 5 boxes).
The test subject has just eaten or drunk something or has just been smoking. Will this affect the test result?
The test subject must have nothing in their mout for a minimum of 5 minutes berfore the test.
Can eating poppy seeds cause a false positive drug test for heroin?
Eating poppy seeds cannot turn a confirmatory drug test positive for heroin. However, poppy seeds to contain morphine. Therefore, eating poppy seeds (e.g. a poppy seed bagel) can result a in a non-negative on-site result. This effect can be mitigated by waiting 45 minutes and retesting the individuals, as it’s a very short term issues
Can passive inhalation of marijuana cause a false positive drug test?
Sometimes people who test positive for marijuana will claim it was the result of passive inhalation.
Available research show that an individual must have been in an confined space, such as an automobile, for a period of time in order for detectable levels of THC-delta 9 to be found in oral fluid. Any potential effect is also of short (45min-one hour) duration. Thus, claims of passive inhalation “over the weekend” or even “last night”, would not cause a non-negative on-site test result.
Can over-the-counter cold medications cause a false positive drug test?
No. Avitar’s methamphetamine tests are very specific, and will not react with OTC cold remedies, with the GC/MS confirmatory test also serving as a safeguard.
By the end of the sampling process, the sampling collector doesn’t appear
saturated with oral fluid . Will this affect the test result?
The device will not run (no read wash and/or no control line) without adequate sample. It is important that the foam collector is completely saturated, thus extend the collection time and provide additional water as needed.
Do the on-site results provide legal proof of drug abuse?
No. An on-site drug test can only deliver general qualitative "screening" results.
Any “non-negative” screening result should be following with a confirmatory (GC/MS or LC/MS/MS) analysis with all associated processes and documentation completed properly.
After collecting a sample, the sponge is found to contain some blood. Does this affect the test result?
No. Blood does not affect the test result, however, the specimen should be considered a bio-hazard.
How is it possible to tell which test result relates to which test subject?
By means donor ID inscribed into the device, and or chain of custody number assigned for confirmatory testing.
Can the test subject manipulate the test result?
No. Sample collection can directly observed during the entire process avoiding any type of manipulation. The subject may attempt to hold the foam collector away from any oral fluid, however, this practic is also observable. If intentional, the practice should be considered an attempt to interfere with the testing process and be handled per company policy.
.
How comparable are oral fluid / saliva and blood substance abuse readings?
Study data reveal an overall correlation / correspondence in positive oral fluid samples with positive blood samples in more than 95 percent of cases.
Which method of analysis is most suitable for a confirmation analysis?
The usual reference method is gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) or liquid chromatography (LC/MS/MS).
How quickly can drug consumption be detected by means of an oral fluid analysis?
The individual drugs and/or their metabolites can be detected in the saliva immediately, or within minutes after oral ingestion. On average, it takes several hours for drug metabolites to be detected post-consumption in urine.
How long after consumption can the individual drugs be detected in saliva?
The time window during which drugs can be detected in oral fluid depends on various factors; e.g. the quantity consumed, the frequency of consumption, the time between the drug consumption and the test and a person's individual metabolism.
Various studies have shown that amphetamines/methamphetamines remain in the saliva in sufficient quantities for detection for up to 50 hours; cocaine can be detected for up to 12-36 hours, opiates for up to 24 hours and longer, and cannabinoids for up to 24 hours.
Do the test results provide legal proof of drug abuse?
Any on-site drug test can only deliver general "screening" results. After any non-negative screening result a confirmation analysis (e.g. with GC-MS / LC/MS/MS) should be performed.
The quantitative result is legally defensable.
What is a preliminary test?
A preliminary (qualitative) test is a single test result based on an initial screen, providing a negative or non-negative result. The technology used for the Avitar ORALscreen is lateral flow immunoassay.
Why is a confirmatory test necessary?
The purpose of a confirmation test is to eliminate any false positive test results from an initial screening. A confirmatory test provides a quantitative result through a GC/MS or LC/MS/MS instrumented process. The substance and the concentration of substance can be accurately determined.
Is there any health risk involved in placing the sample collection device in the test subject's mouth?
No. The sample collection device is stored in hygienic sealed packaging until it is used. When used correctly there is no direct contact between the sample collection foam an the test. Biocompatibility testing has been conducted on the basis of the requirements and has shown that the sample collection device can be classified as biocompatible with regard to its intended use.
How long is the shelf-life of the test kits?
The shelf-life is stated as expiration date, “Exp.” on the device packaging.
Can an opened test kit be left unused?
No. The test kit must be used immediately after opening.
How quickly must the result read once it has been developed?
Negatives can be read once all red lines (5), are visible. Non-negative results should be read at the 15 minute mark. No on-site device results should be interpreted after 15 minutes.
The test subject has a very dry mouth. Will it be possible to obtain a sufficient sample of oral fluid?
Certain drugs have an inhibitory effect on the production of oral fluid or saliva.
Prior the collection, instruct the donor to drink a glass (8 ounces) of water, and wait 5 minutes. If after three minutes of sample collection the collector foam is not completely saturated with oral fluid repeat the collection.
Which substances can be identified using the ORALscreen?
At the present time, the ORALscreen system can detect 96% or drugs typically tested for in the workplace, including the following substances or classes of substances; in samples of oral fluid: Amphetamines: METHAMPHETAMINE and MDMA / Ecstasy.
Opitates:CODIENE, HEROINEi, MORPHINE, 6-AM (heroin metabolite), OXYCODONE (Oxycontin, Peroset, etc.), OXYMORPHONE, HYDROCODONE (Vocodin, Lortab, etc.), HYDROMORPHONE, Di-hydrocodine,
Marijana: delta-9 THC,
Cocaine: COCAINE, BENZYCLONIE (cocaine metabolite)
Which prescription drugs and designer drugs can be detected?
The ORALscreen is one of the only on-site oral fluid-based devices available that can accurately dectect the commonly abused classes of prescription pain releivers. Common brand names are Oxycontin, Percoset, Vicodin, Lortab, etc.
The METH test of ORALscreen allows detection not only of methamphetamine, but also other important designer amphetamines such as methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA,
"Ecstasy“).
What is the NIDA 5, SAMSHA, DOT-5 panel
This panel consists of tests for amphetamines, cocaine, morphine (heroin), PCP, and THC (marijuana). It is important to note the following:
1. PCP has a positivity rate of less that 0.3%
2. The cut-off level for OPIATES is set at 2000 ng/ml, thus making the test less effective than ORALscreen for detecting OPIATE use / abuse.
3. NIDA-5 / DOT-5, SAMSHA CAN NOT detect the commonly abuse prescription pain releivers OXYCODONE, HYDROCODONE, etc., perhaps the number one threat to workplace safety today.
Does the test show cross-reactions with other legal substances?
Because the ORALscreen system, is an immunoassay process, based on the
antigen/antibody reaction, cross-reactivity are possible. However, the antibodies used are very specific, thus cross reactivity is minimal. Confirmatory testing and MRO procedures are established to elminate false positives.
How quickly is the test result ready?
The entire on-site screen result, from the start of the sample-collection process to display of the result, takes 5 to 15 minutes on average.
Does the device have to be disposed of after analysis, or can it be sent off for a confirmation analysis?
For a negative result, the device can be disposed of. Oral fluid, without any visible signs of blood, is not considered a biohazard by the CDC.
For a non-negative result, a second sample can be collectef for confirmation analysis. Confirmation directly from the device is also available. Please discuss this option with your Avitar representative
Are there limits below which drugs cannot be detected? If so, what are these limits?
Detection windows (times) and sensitivity, cut-off values, exist for all drugs.
Thus a negative result means either that the tested saliva contains no drugs, or that they are present in concentrations below the respective cut-off value. In general detection of drugs in oral fluid ranges from within minutes of consumption up to 2-3 days. Available research indicates on that marijana (THC-delta 9) can not be detected beyond 18-24 hrs. in oral fluid at ng/ml levels, regardless of the test / test technique.
What result does the ORALscreen test window display?
The test window displays the results of the analysis, distinct for each class of drugs, in the form of a qualitative reading with either an absent line for a non-negative sample (potentially containing drugs) or a line for a negative sample (not containing drugs or drugs below the cut-off level). A control line is also visible to indicate proper operation of the device.
What is the best measure of accuracy?
Accuarcy is a comparative ratio of sensitivty and specificity. Accuracy for any device should be measured by comparing the device to a quantitative test (GC/MS or LC/MS/MS) on a “paired sample” basis using the same speciment type. Accuracy should not be measured by comparing results between two device or between different specimen types due to varying detection windows and other factors.
Sensitivity refers to the ratio of true positive (TP) samples to the total number of samples rated positive by the test kit ((TP + FP, false positive).
Specificity refers to the ratio of true negative (TN) samples to the total number of samples rated as negative by the test kit (TN + FN, false negative).
Accuracy refers to the ratio of correctly identified samples to the total number of samples.
Sensitivity:
TP
(TP+FF)
Specificity:
TN
(TN+FN)
Accuracy:
(TP+FN)
(TP)FP+TN+FN)
How were the system's key performance data determined?
By tests with spiked synthetic saliva the system's key performance data of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were determined, and some limited field trials were conducted by Avitar and third parties.
Can the test kits be purchased individually?
The test kits are available in boxes (containing 20 test kits), or cases (containing 5 boxes).
The test subject has just eaten or drunk something or has just been smoking. Will this affect the test result?
The test subject must have nothing in their mout for a minimum of 5 minutes berfore the test.
Can eating poppy seeds cause a false positive drug test for heroin?
Eating poppy seeds cannot turn a confirmatory drug test positive for heroin. However, poppy seeds to contain morphine. Therefore, eating poppy seeds (e.g. a poppy seed bagel) can result a in a non-negative on-site result. This effect can be mitigated by waiting 45 minutes and retesting the individuals, as it’s a very short term issues
Can passive inhalation of marijuana cause a false positive drug test?
Sometimes people who test positive for marijuana will claim it was the result of passive inhalation.
Available research show that an individual must have been in an confined space, such as an automobile, for a period of time in order for detectable levels of THC-delta 9 to be found in oral fluid. Any potential effect is also of short (45min-one hour) duration. Thus, claims of passive inhalation “over the weekend” or even “last night”, would not cause a non-negative on-site test result.
Can over-the-counter cold medications cause a false positive drug test?
No. Avitar’s methamphetamine tests are very specific, and will not react with OTC cold remedies, with the GC/MS confirmatory test also serving as a safeguard.
By the end of the sampling process, the sampling collector doesn’t appear
saturated with oral fluid . Will this affect the test result?
The device will not run (no read wash and/or no control line) without adequate sample. It is important that the foam collector is completely saturated, thus extend the collection time and provide additional water as needed.
Do the on-site results provide legal proof of drug abuse?
No. An on-site drug test can only deliver general qualitative "screening" results.
Any “non-negative” screening result should be following with a confirmatory (GC/MS or LC/MS/MS) analysis with all associated processes and documentation completed properly.
After collecting a sample, the sponge is found to contain some blood. Does this affect the test result?
No. Blood does not affect the test result, however, the specimen should be considered a bio-hazard.
How is it possible to tell which test result relates to which test subject?
By means donor ID inscribed into the device, and or chain of custody number assigned for confirmatory testing.
Can the test subject manipulate the test result?
No. Sample collection can directly observed during the entire process avoiding any type of manipulation. The subject may attempt to hold the foam collector away from any oral fluid, however, this practic is also observable. If intentional, the practice should be considered an attempt to interfere with the testing process and be handled per company policy.
.
How comparable are oral fluid / saliva and blood substance abuse readings?
Study data reveal an overall correlation / correspondence in positive oral fluid samples with positive blood samples in more than 95 percent of cases.
Which method of analysis is most suitable for a confirmation analysis?
The usual reference method is gas chromatography mass spectrometry (GC-MS) or liquid chromatography (LC/MS/MS).
How quickly can drug consumption be detected by means of an oral fluid analysis?
The individual drugs and/or their metabolites can be detected in the saliva immediately, or within minutes after oral ingestion. On average, it takes several hours for drug metabolites to be detected post-consumption in urine.
How long after consumption can the individual drugs be detected in saliva?
The time window during which drugs can be detected in oral fluid depends on various factors; e.g. the quantity consumed, the frequency of consumption, the time between the drug consumption and the test and a person's individual metabolism.
Various studies have shown that amphetamines/methamphetamines remain in the saliva in sufficient quantities for detection for up to 50 hours; cocaine can be detected for up to 12-36 hours, opiates for up to 24 hours and longer, and cannabinoids for up to 24 hours.
Do the test results provide legal proof of drug abuse?
Any on-site drug test can only deliver general "screening" results. After any non-negative screening result a confirmation analysis (e.g. with GC-MS / LC/MS/MS) should be performed.
The quantitative result is legally defensable.
On-site Oral Fluid / Saliva Drug Screens - Accurate
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
A comparison between instant and laboratory oral fluid analysis among arrestees. Yacoubian GS; Wish ED.
Research studies that collect biological measures of drug use have traditionally utilized laboratory urinalysis.
A comparison between instant and laboratory oral fluid analysis among arrestees. Yacoubian GS; Wish ED.
Research studies that collect biological measures of drug use have traditionally utilized laboratory urinalysis.
Several recent studies have also documented the utility of laboratory oral fluid (OF) analysis.
A new method of drug testing -- instant OF technology -- may offer a quicker, equally accurate alternative to laboratory OF assays.
To date, however, no field studies have compared the two methods.
In the current study, an instant OF test (Avitar ORALscreen (TM)) was administered to adult arrestees surveyed through Maryland's Substance Abuse Need for Treatment among Arrestees (SANTA) study.
Following a research interview, a second OF sample was collected (Avitar ORALconfirm (TM)) and shipped to the manufacturer's laboratory for analysis.
The Avtiar ORALscreen instant OF test was:
96% sensitive and 83% specific for cocaine,
100% sensitive and 75% specific for opiates, and
100% sensitive and 94% specific for marijuana.
Copyright 2006, Haight-Ashbury Publishing
Reference Source: Yacoubian GS; Wish ED. A comparison between instant and laboratory oral fluid analysis among arrestees. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 38(2): 207-210, 2006. (10 refs.)
Thursday, January 3, 2008
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."
(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."
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.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Schools Infested with Drugs
New Study: Schools Infested with Drugs - 2007
A New Study from the National Center on Addiction & Substance Abuse (CASA) suggests that US Schools are infested with drugs. The survey revealed that at least once a week on their school grounds, 31 percent of high school students (more than four million) and nine percent of middle school students (more than one million) see illegal drugs used, sold, students high and/or drunk. At least weekly, 17 percent of all high and middle school students (4.4 million) personally see classmates high on drugs at school.
A New Study from the National Center on Addiction & Substance Abuse (CASA) suggests that US Schools are infested with drugs. The survey revealed that at least once a week on their school grounds, 31 percent of high school students (more than four million) and nine percent of middle school students (more than one million) see illegal drugs used, sold, students high and/or drunk. At least weekly, 17 percent of all high and middle school students (4.4 million) personally see classmates high on drugs at school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
