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
Showing posts with label urine drug testing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label urine drug testing. Show all posts
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Unions 1, Nevada Legislators 0
Source: 2008 - August - Casino City - Las Vegas Gaming Wire
(Note: Drug Testing, including Random Drug testing is legal in all 50 States, despite political attempts to distort this fact. Furthermore, oral fluid-based on-site drug screening is the only feasible, cost-effective, and accurate method to conduct random testing at construction site. Oral fluid sceening can be directly observed, preventing the prevalent practice of drug abuser adulterating or substituting urine-based testing, and corporate security staff can administer the tests vs. relying upon $8-$10/hr third party collection personnel and sites with transient workers. Furthermore, leading on-site oral fluid tests screen for drugs commony found today on construction sites such as oxcodone and hydrocodone - tranditional NIDA-5 and/or SAMHSA-5 tests do not. )
Union rep in favor of drug test
11 August 2008
LAS VEGAS, Nevada -- Building contractors should be given authority to conduct random drug and alcohol tests of construction workers, either through legislation or through negotiations with unions, a spokesman for a construction trades group said a day after three union members were fired for entering the CityCenter job site after drinking at nearby bars.
Steve Holloway, executive vice president of the Las Vegas chapter of the Associated General Contractors, said Friday that the number of construction workers who are drinking on the job represents a small fraction of the total work force on the site.
However, "it's a large enough minority that it needs to be dealt with, probably by legislation that would allow a construction contractor to perform random drug and alcohol testing," he said.
Holloway is a member of an eight-person task force that was set up in the wake of a series of 12 construction worker deaths at Strip sites in the past 18 months. The committee is looking at possible legislation to be considered by the 2009 Legislature.
Holloway said none of the union contracts now in effect locally allow for random testing of construction workers. (NOTE: UNIONS, OWNERS, INSURERS & CONTRACTORS NEED TO ACT NOW TO ALLOW AND IMPLEMENT RANDOM TESTING VIA ALL SPECIMEN TYPES)
"That needs to be changed by statute, or by negotiations with the union," he said. "It should probably be by statute because we have just as many nonunion workers as we do union."
Steve Redlinger, spokesman for the Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, an affiliate for 17 labor unions, said lawmakers can't legislate personal responsibility without coming dangerously close to treading on civil liberties. (NOTE: THIS STATEMENT IS COMPLETELY FALSE - U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT RANDOM DRUG TESTING IS LEGAL AND THAT COMPANIES CAN (AND DO) IMPLEMENT RANDOM TESTING FOR SAFETY PURPOSES - IT IS FIRST AND FORMOST A FEDERAL LEGAL OBLIGATION FOR COMPANIES TO ENSURE A SAFE WORKPLACE FOR ALL EMPLOYEES... THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE AT CONTRUCTION SITES WITHOUT RANDOM DRUG TESTING (VIA OBSERVED SPECIMEN COLLECTION) IN CONCERT WITH EDUATIONAL PROGRAMS AND SUPPORT.)
Another member of the committee, state Assemblyman John Oceguera, D-Las Vegas, said he would not support giving employers "unfettered abilities" to randomly drug test employees because that would infringe on the individuals' rights. (NOTE- A PERSONAL OPINION VS. FACT)
A company should need to show there is "some indication" a worker is impaired by drugs or alcohol before it could demand a test, the state Assembly's majority leader said. (NOTE-THIS IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LACK OF EDUCATION ON THE TOPIC OF SUBSTANCE MISUSE-VISUAL OBSERVATION FAILS OVER 90% OF THE TIME TO DETECT SUBSTANCE MISUSE-ONLY RANDOM DRUG TESTING PROVIDES THE REQUISITE LEVEL OF DETERENCE AND DECTECTION).
Committee member and state Sen. Maggie Carlton, D-Las Vegas, sided with Oceguera in expressing concern over individual rights.
Existing union contracts already say companies can request a drug or alcohol test if an employee displays erratic behavior or is slurring speech, a union official said. Most of the current agreements also let employers demand tests before someone is hired or if they are involved in an accident.
Other committee members, Clark County commissioners Chris Giunchigliani and Rory Reid, Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman and state Senate Minority Leader Steven Horsford, D-Las Vegas, did not return calls for comment. Trades Council President Rick Johnson also is on the committee.
The committee will probably reconvene in late August or early September and begin drafting a bill for next year, Holloway said.
The committee members' comments come two days after the Review-Journal reported that it had photographed 10 construction workers drinking at Strip bars before they went on to the CityCenter work site, a violation of rules set by the general contract, its subcontractors and the unions.
Dozens of additional workers were seen drinking alcohol outside convenience stores and inside bars, but they were identified as being off for the day.
On Thursday, three ironworkers members who were photographed returning to the job site were identified and fired by general contractor Perini Corp.
Perini officials said they have not identified any other workers yet, but the company will continue its investigation next week, said Doug Mure, Perini's vice president of human resources and risk management.
Chuck Lenhart, business agent for Ironworkers Local 433, said he met Friday with one of the disciplined workers, who admitted his behavior was inappropriate.
"When I spoke to one of them this morning, he got it," said Lenhart, who declined to give the workers' names or to describe their jobs. "He understood and I believe he is going to get some help."
Lenhart said the fired workers will need to go through counseling, at the union's expense, before they can be cleared to work on other jobs -- in two or three months, at the earliest. The workers won't be reassigned to another job site until they are cleared by a counselor, he added. (NOTE: AN EXCELLENT APPROACH BY THE UNION - SUPPORT, YET MONITOR)
However, each case is different and, if the workers have any prior disciplinary action on their records, they could be removed from the union.
But that is not a step the union wants to take, he said.
"When there is somebody that may have a problem they're not out the door," said Lenhart, who noted the Ironworkers local also screens workers before they join the union.
"We try to get help for them. Some people accept it and some people don't."
However, the responsibility ultimately lies with the individual worker to do the right thing for themselves and the workers around them. (NOTE: TRUE-HOWEVER, IN VIRTUALLY ALL CASES ABUSERS WILL NOT SEEK ASSISTANCE ON THERE OWN UNLESS DETECTED, OR AN INCIDENT OCCURS)
"They have free will and they can make their choices," Lenhart said. "Sometimes, they make bad choices. That's what I'm concerned about in this industry: When you have people who make these types of choices to (drink alcohol before work), there's a possibility of them hurting someone else on the job site."
Perini plans to look at what the company can do to control alcohol problems on its job site, although Mure said: "Our focus right now is the immediate identification (of the workers in the photos)."
The Perini executive did dismiss one rumor that went around the job site Thursday suggesting the company planned to "close" the job site so workers could not leave during lunch.
Mure said trying to close the 77-acre construction site, which employs 7,700 workers, would be impractical.
"That's not even really feasible on a project like CityCenter or any of the major construction projects in Las Vegas," he said. "Rumors are rumors. You've seen the site, it isn't something that could even be considered."
(Note: Drug Testing, including Random Drug testing is legal in all 50 States, despite political attempts to distort this fact. Furthermore, oral fluid-based on-site drug screening is the only feasible, cost-effective, and accurate method to conduct random testing at construction site. Oral fluid sceening can be directly observed, preventing the prevalent practice of drug abuser adulterating or substituting urine-based testing, and corporate security staff can administer the tests vs. relying upon $8-$10/hr third party collection personnel and sites with transient workers. Furthermore, leading on-site oral fluid tests screen for drugs commony found today on construction sites such as oxcodone and hydrocodone - tranditional NIDA-5 and/or SAMHSA-5 tests do not. )
Union rep in favor of drug test
11 August 2008
LAS VEGAS, Nevada -- Building contractors should be given authority to conduct random drug and alcohol tests of construction workers, either through legislation or through negotiations with unions, a spokesman for a construction trades group said a day after three union members were fired for entering the CityCenter job site after drinking at nearby bars.
Steve Holloway, executive vice president of the Las Vegas chapter of the Associated General Contractors, said Friday that the number of construction workers who are drinking on the job represents a small fraction of the total work force on the site.
However, "it's a large enough minority that it needs to be dealt with, probably by legislation that would allow a construction contractor to perform random drug and alcohol testing," he said.
Holloway is a member of an eight-person task force that was set up in the wake of a series of 12 construction worker deaths at Strip sites in the past 18 months. The committee is looking at possible legislation to be considered by the 2009 Legislature.
Holloway said none of the union contracts now in effect locally allow for random testing of construction workers. (NOTE: UNIONS, OWNERS, INSURERS & CONTRACTORS NEED TO ACT NOW TO ALLOW AND IMPLEMENT RANDOM TESTING VIA ALL SPECIMEN TYPES)
"That needs to be changed by statute, or by negotiations with the union," he said. "It should probably be by statute because we have just as many nonunion workers as we do union."
Steve Redlinger, spokesman for the Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, an affiliate for 17 labor unions, said lawmakers can't legislate personal responsibility without coming dangerously close to treading on civil liberties. (NOTE: THIS STATEMENT IS COMPLETELY FALSE - U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT RANDOM DRUG TESTING IS LEGAL AND THAT COMPANIES CAN (AND DO) IMPLEMENT RANDOM TESTING FOR SAFETY PURPOSES - IT IS FIRST AND FORMOST A FEDERAL LEGAL OBLIGATION FOR COMPANIES TO ENSURE A SAFE WORKPLACE FOR ALL EMPLOYEES... THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE AT CONTRUCTION SITES WITHOUT RANDOM DRUG TESTING (VIA OBSERVED SPECIMEN COLLECTION) IN CONCERT WITH EDUATIONAL PROGRAMS AND SUPPORT.)
Another member of the committee, state Assemblyman John Oceguera, D-Las Vegas, said he would not support giving employers "unfettered abilities" to randomly drug test employees because that would infringe on the individuals' rights. (NOTE- A PERSONAL OPINION VS. FACT)
A company should need to show there is "some indication" a worker is impaired by drugs or alcohol before it could demand a test, the state Assembly's majority leader said. (NOTE-THIS IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LACK OF EDUCATION ON THE TOPIC OF SUBSTANCE MISUSE-VISUAL OBSERVATION FAILS OVER 90% OF THE TIME TO DETECT SUBSTANCE MISUSE-ONLY RANDOM DRUG TESTING PROVIDES THE REQUISITE LEVEL OF DETERENCE AND DECTECTION).
Committee member and state Sen. Maggie Carlton, D-Las Vegas, sided with Oceguera in expressing concern over individual rights.
Existing union contracts already say companies can request a drug or alcohol test if an employee displays erratic behavior or is slurring speech, a union official said. Most of the current agreements also let employers demand tests before someone is hired or if they are involved in an accident.
Other committee members, Clark County commissioners Chris Giunchigliani and Rory Reid, Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman and state Senate Minority Leader Steven Horsford, D-Las Vegas, did not return calls for comment. Trades Council President Rick Johnson also is on the committee.
The committee will probably reconvene in late August or early September and begin drafting a bill for next year, Holloway said.
The committee members' comments come two days after the Review-Journal reported that it had photographed 10 construction workers drinking at Strip bars before they went on to the CityCenter work site, a violation of rules set by the general contract, its subcontractors and the unions.
Dozens of additional workers were seen drinking alcohol outside convenience stores and inside bars, but they were identified as being off for the day.
On Thursday, three ironworkers members who were photographed returning to the job site were identified and fired by general contractor Perini Corp.
Perini officials said they have not identified any other workers yet, but the company will continue its investigation next week, said Doug Mure, Perini's vice president of human resources and risk management.
Chuck Lenhart, business agent for Ironworkers Local 433, said he met Friday with one of the disciplined workers, who admitted his behavior was inappropriate.
"When I spoke to one of them this morning, he got it," said Lenhart, who declined to give the workers' names or to describe their jobs. "He understood and I believe he is going to get some help."
Lenhart said the fired workers will need to go through counseling, at the union's expense, before they can be cleared to work on other jobs -- in two or three months, at the earliest. The workers won't be reassigned to another job site until they are cleared by a counselor, he added. (NOTE: AN EXCELLENT APPROACH BY THE UNION - SUPPORT, YET MONITOR)
However, each case is different and, if the workers have any prior disciplinary action on their records, they could be removed from the union.
But that is not a step the union wants to take, he said.
"When there is somebody that may have a problem they're not out the door," said Lenhart, who noted the Ironworkers local also screens workers before they join the union.
"We try to get help for them. Some people accept it and some people don't."
However, the responsibility ultimately lies with the individual worker to do the right thing for themselves and the workers around them. (NOTE: TRUE-HOWEVER, IN VIRTUALLY ALL CASES ABUSERS WILL NOT SEEK ASSISTANCE ON THERE OWN UNLESS DETECTED, OR AN INCIDENT OCCURS)
"They have free will and they can make their choices," Lenhart said. "Sometimes, they make bad choices. That's what I'm concerned about in this industry: When you have people who make these types of choices to (drink alcohol before work), there's a possibility of them hurting someone else on the job site."
Perini plans to look at what the company can do to control alcohol problems on its job site, although Mure said: "Our focus right now is the immediate identification (of the workers in the photos)."
The Perini executive did dismiss one rumor that went around the job site Thursday suggesting the company planned to "close" the job site so workers could not leave during lunch.
Mure said trying to close the 77-acre construction site, which employs 7,700 workers, would be impractical.
"That's not even really feasible on a project like CityCenter or any of the major construction projects in Las Vegas," he said. "Rumors are rumors. You've seen the site, it isn't something that could even be considered."
Monday, July 21, 2008
Unions Oppose Safety & Random Drug Testing?
Some Unions just don't get it, preferring to spread misinformation and rely upon scare tactics vs. acting responsibly and in the best interests of safety.
1. Random drug testing is NOT unconstitutional, nor illegal in the United States
2. Teachers should be subject to random drug testing, just as should firefighters, police, and other individuals in occupations where drug abuse would create serious safety issues.
3. Random drug testing via observed speciment collection, has proven to be effective at both detection and deterrence.
(Source: ABC News, KITV.com)
Random Drug Test For Teachers Meets Opposition
Teachers Union Says Drug Test Unconstitutional
HONOLULU -- There are more problems with a plan to randomly drug test school teachers. The union that represents public school teachers now said it can't knowingly agree to a plan it believes is unconstitutional.
The Hawaii State Teachers Association sent a letter to the school board that revealed where the two sides were far apart. The two sides had agreed to have a drug testing plan in place at the end of June, but missed the deadline.
Those eager to begin the new school year said the start is being clouded by drug testing controversy."I hope there is some reasonable resolution to this. It just going to take away from education and that's a shame," principal Mike Haramo said.
"We are starting the school year and they are still talking about it. You just wonder how long it's going to go on for," parent Rikki Wells said.
Wells said he worries it's all about red tape and politics and not enough focus on the children.Dragging it on, going into the courts, the political fees, the arguing back and forth and the truth," Wells said.
The first day of class for most public schools is the end of July, and at some campuses, teachers are to report to work next week.
Others who get random drug tests frequently said the same should apply to teachers.
"I think everyone in the HSTA should be drug tested just for the safety of the children," a construction worker said. Gloria Chi thinks random testing a good idea, but she thinks taking classroom money to pay for it is bad. "BOE should be doing something for the kids for education but the government should really pay for it," Chi said.
And when pressed about what appears to be an about face for the teachers union...
"Random is what teachers agreed to. We agreed to random and reasonable suspicion, but when we got into procedures we found complications of constitutional issues," HSTA Executive Director Mike McCartney said.
McCartney said the latest proposal is unworkable. Both sides have appealed to the labor board to help resolve the conflict.
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.
Monday, May 12, 2008
What Drugs Should I Test for ? Workplace
While a complex issue, deaths directly related to drug misuse or abuse is one set of statistics worth noting. These are compiled by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mealth Health Services, SAMHSA, Drug Abuse Warning Network, DAWN
1%-2% of U.S. Population - Deaths resulting from drug misuse / abuse.
Demographics - 68% male
- 50% 35-54 year olds
- Highest percentage among 21-34 years olds
Most commonly death related - Opiates / Opiods
- 75% muliple drugs (average 2.7 drugs per case)
- Opiates and cocaine, opiate with alcohol, etc.
1%-2% of U.S. Population - Deaths resulting from drug misuse / abuse.
Demographics - 68% male
- 50% 35-54 year olds
- Highest percentage among 21-34 years olds
Most commonly death related - Opiates / Opiods
- 75% muliple drugs (average 2.7 drugs per case)
- Opiates and cocaine, opiate with alcohol, etc.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Unions - Drug Testing & The Boston Fire Fighters Union
Random drug-testing programs are problematic for some unions.
Union leadership claims random drug testing is a violation of workers' right to privacy. Yet, this is appears to be an indefensible position.
Concerns of employee safety and public safety should be the #1 priority with union leaders. Sadly, it may not case for some.
Many non-union employees are required to have a pre-employment drug test and a random drug test. If workers refuse testing, they are terminated. If employees fail a drug test ... they are terminated - (which I don't view as best practice)-, or suspended and subsequently referred to an employee assistance program (EAP), which may or may not be funded by company insurance.
Simple... straight forward... and effective.
Random drug testing, conducted properly, is an effective deterrent to on-the-job substance abuse, as well as a detection mechanism. What an employee does at home is not the business of any employer. When employee's behaviors effect the safety of their colleagues or the public... it's not only their employers' business... it's their employers' legal obligation.
While many unions have adopted, or at least allowed random drug and alcohol testing, the Boston / Massachusetts Fire Fighters Union has failed to protect its members and the public at large.
No employee, or the public wants a drug or alcohol impaired individual in a safety sensitive position.
The Boston Fire Department had a recent tragedy in which two fatalities tested "positive" for drugs and/or alcohol. Whether this information should have been released to the public the way it was... is certainly questionable. No one should question the bravery of the individual involve, and most would not consider it.
The subsequent stonewalling of the fire fighters unions relative to drug testing is unconscionable, however, and a disgrace to everyone.
Union leadership claims random drug testing is a violation of workers' right to privacy. Yet, this is appears to be an indefensible position.
Concerns of employee safety and public safety should be the #1 priority with union leaders. Sadly, it may not case for some.
Many non-union employees are required to have a pre-employment drug test and a random drug test. If workers refuse testing, they are terminated. If employees fail a drug test ... they are terminated - (which I don't view as best practice)-, or suspended and subsequently referred to an employee assistance program (EAP), which may or may not be funded by company insurance.
Simple... straight forward... and effective.
Random drug testing, conducted properly, is an effective deterrent to on-the-job substance abuse, as well as a detection mechanism. What an employee does at home is not the business of any employer. When employee's behaviors effect the safety of their colleagues or the public... it's not only their employers' business... it's their employers' legal obligation.
While many unions have adopted, or at least allowed random drug and alcohol testing, the Boston / Massachusetts Fire Fighters Union has failed to protect its members and the public at large.
No employee, or the public wants a drug or alcohol impaired individual in a safety sensitive position.
The Boston Fire Department had a recent tragedy in which two fatalities tested "positive" for drugs and/or alcohol. Whether this information should have been released to the public the way it was... is certainly questionable. No one should question the bravery of the individual involve, and most would not consider it.
The subsequent stonewalling of the fire fighters unions relative to drug testing is unconscionable, however, and a disgrace to everyone.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Drugged Driving - A Leading Cause of Death - SAMHSA 2008 REPORT
Impaired driving is the #1 cause of deaths from all other causes among persons aged 3 to 33.
5% percent (approximately 10 million drivers) of Americans drove under the influence of illicit drugs in the past year
Highest drugged driving rates
District of Columbia (7.0 percent),
Rhode Island (6.8 percent),
Massachusetts (6.4 percent),
Montana (6.3 percent), and
Wyoming (6.2 percent).
Illicit drugs, as defined above, includes marijuana/hashish, cocaine (including crack), inhalants, hallucinogens, heroin, or prescription-type drugs used nonmedically.
15% of Americans drove under the influence of alcohol.
Friday, April 4, 2008
14% of High Schools Drug Test 2008
CALVERTON, Md., April 2, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --
A substantial proportion of the nation's public school districts have instituted random drug testing among their high school students, some possibly going beyond sanctions set by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a study led by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE).
These sanctions limit testing to students involved in sports and extracurricular activities.
The study, funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, includes data collected from 1,343 drug prevention coordinators in a nationally representative sample of school districts that include high school students. Fourteen percent of the nation's school districts reported conducting random drug testing of students in high school grades in the 2004-2005 academic year.Nearly all school districts that implemented random drug testing procedures subjected their athletes to the possibility of being tested, and two-thirds randomly tested high school students who participated in other extracurricular activities.
More than a quarter of the districts that implemented random drug testing subjected all their high school students to the possibility of being tested.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that testing student athletes for drugs is constitutional, even in the absence of any suspicion of substance use. In a subsequent case, the Court extended its ruling to include students participating in extracurricular activities.
"Random student drug testing will likely continue to be controversial and the practice is likely to be contested, just as we saw with the recent ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court," said Dr. Chris Ringwalt, Senior Research Scientist at PIRE. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled on March 13, 2008, based on a lawsuit that student athletes brought against a local school district, that random drug testing of student athletes is not allowed under the state's constitution, despite the U.S. Supreme Court's 1995 ruling (Supreme Court of the State of Washington. York v. Wahkiakum School District No. 200. Docket No: 99-2-00075-6, March 13, 2008).
Dr. Ringwalt concluded, "This study will provide a benchmark for monitoring the prevalence of random drug testing of high school students in the future."
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation
A substantial proportion of the nation's public school districts have instituted random drug testing among their high school students, some possibly going beyond sanctions set by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a study led by the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE).
These sanctions limit testing to students involved in sports and extracurricular activities.
The study, funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, includes data collected from 1,343 drug prevention coordinators in a nationally representative sample of school districts that include high school students. Fourteen percent of the nation's school districts reported conducting random drug testing of students in high school grades in the 2004-2005 academic year.Nearly all school districts that implemented random drug testing procedures subjected their athletes to the possibility of being tested, and two-thirds randomly tested high school students who participated in other extracurricular activities.
More than a quarter of the districts that implemented random drug testing subjected all their high school students to the possibility of being tested.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that testing student athletes for drugs is constitutional, even in the absence of any suspicion of substance use. In a subsequent case, the Court extended its ruling to include students participating in extracurricular activities.
"Random student drug testing will likely continue to be controversial and the practice is likely to be contested, just as we saw with the recent ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court," said Dr. Chris Ringwalt, Senior Research Scientist at PIRE. The Washington State Supreme Court ruled on March 13, 2008, based on a lawsuit that student athletes brought against a local school district, that random drug testing of student athletes is not allowed under the state's constitution, despite the U.S. Supreme Court's 1995 ruling (Supreme Court of the State of Washington. York v. Wahkiakum School District No. 200. Docket No: 99-2-00075-6, March 13, 2008).
Dr. Ringwalt concluded, "This study will provide a benchmark for monitoring the prevalence of random drug testing of high school students in the future."
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Prescription Pain Releiver Abuse up Nearly 40%
A review of the data shows that drug abuse rates among workers have been stagnant for past decade... drug abuse is NOT declining.
Any statement that workplace drug abuse is lower, would be unsupportable by the findings.
The data does potentially indicate that that drug abusers have learned to cheat urine-based drug tests. This being supported by research recently concluded by the U.S. Government General Accounting Office (GAO) noting that cheating urine-based testing is easily accomplished and virtually undetectable.
The report also neglects to point out the opiate detection rates continue to climb. .. particularly oxycodones have gone up nearly 40% in one year!
" Use of Methamphetamine Among U.S. Workers and Job Applicants Drops 22 Percent in 2007 and Cocaine Use Slows Dramatically, Reports Quest Diagnostics"
Findings from Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index® also show that overall drug positivity remains at record lows
MADISON, NJ, March 12, 2008 — The percentage of positive tests for methamphetamine among U.S. job applicants and workers in the general U.S. workforce dropped more than 22 percent between 2006 and 2007.
These findings, from the Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index®, reflect the reversal of an upward trend in use of the drug by more than 73 percent from 2002 to 2004. These data were released today by Quest Diagnostics Incorporated (NYSE: DGX), the nation's leading provider of employment-related drug testing services.
The report also shows that positive tests for cocaine in the general U.S. workforce were down 19 percent between 2006 and 2007 and that overall drug use, among workers subject to drug testing, remains at an all-time low.
Methamphetamine, the most commonly abused type of amphetamine, increased in production and trafficking during the 1990’s to become the most prevalent illegally manufactured synthetic drug in the United States. Analysis of the Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index, released semi-annually, suggests that efforts to reduce illicit, clandestine production of methamphetamine may be having an impact on workplace positive tests for the drug.
"The fact that America's workers are using cocaine and methamphetamine at some of the lowest levels in years is further evidence of the tremendous success that law enforcement is having at impacting the nation's illicit drug supply," said DEA Acting Administrator Michele M. Leonhart. "DEA will continue its relentless assault on the drug supply to help keep these dangerous drugs out of our neighborhoods."
While the 2007 Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index shows that positive methamphetamine tests have decreased, it also indicates that the use of amphetamine in the general workforce has increased slightly, by about five percent. Testing for methamphetamine and amphetamine was conducted among employees and applicants in the U.S. workforce tested for the class of drugs called amphetamines.
"Although some may conclude that there is a reduced availability for methamphetamine, the fact that our data show an increase in amphetamines suggests that some workers might be replacing one stimulant drug for another in the larger drug class of amphetamines," said Barry Sample, Ph.D., Director of Science and Technology for Quest Diagnostics' Employer Solutions division.
Methamphetamine and amphetamine are both types of stimulants, which typically are used by individuals to increase alertness and relieve fatigue. Stimulants are also used for euphoric effects or to counteract the "down" feeling of tranquilizers or alcohol. Possible side effects of stimulants include increased heart and respiratory rates, elevated blood pressure, dilated pupils and decreased appetite. High doses may cause rapid or irregular heartbeat, loss of coordination or collapse. Indications of possible misuse may include excessive activity, talkativeness, irritability, argumentativeness or nervousness.
Cocaine Use Continues to Decline
The Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index shows that the percentage of positive tests for cocaine was down 19 percent among the U.S. general workforce since the first half of 2007 - the largest single-year drop since 1997. Positive tests for cocaine among the general workforce declined to 0.58 percent in 2007 from 0.72 percent in 2006.
Overall Drug Use Remains at All-Time Low
Additionally, drug use by employees remains at its lowest level since Quest Diagnostics began publishing the Drug Testing Index in 1988. Among the combined U.S. workforce, only 3.8 percent of the tests had positive results — the same level reported in 2006 — compared to a high of 13.6 percent in 1988. Further, among safety-sensitive federal workers only, the Drug Testing Index showed that drug use was at an all-time low of 1.8 percent of the tested work force.
The 2007 Drug Testing Index is a summary of results from 8.4 million workplace drug tests performed by Quest Diagnostics between January and December 2007. Results are based on tests that Quest Diagnostics performs for employers that conduct pre-employment, random or for-cause drug testing. For more information, see additional results below.
About the Drug Testing Index
The Drug Testing Index is published as a public service for government, media and industry and has been considered a benchmark for national trends since its inception in 1988. It examines positivity rates — the proportion of positive results for each drug to all such drug tests performed — among three major testing populations: federally mandated, safety-sensitive workers; the general workforce; and the combined U.S. workforce. Federally mandated, safety-sensitive workers include pilots, bus and truck drivers, and workers in nuclear power plants, for whom routine drug testing is mandated by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
About Quest Diagnostics
Quest Diagnostics is the leading provider of diagnostic testing, information and services that patients and doctors need to make better healthcare decisions. The company offers the broadest access to diagnostic testing services through its national network of laboratories and patient service centers, and provides interpretive consultation through its extensive medical and scientific staff. Quest Diagnostics is a pioneer in developing innovative new diagnostic tests and advanced healthcare information technology solutions that help improve patient care. Additional company information is available at: www.questdiagnostics.com.
The statements in this press release which are not historical facts or information may be forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results and outcomes to be materially different. Certain of these risks and uncertainties may include, but are not limited to, competitive environment, changes in government regulations, changing relationships with customers, payers, suppliers and strategic partners and other factors described in the Quest Diagnostics Incorporated 2005 Form 10‑K and subsequent SEC filings.
The Drug Testing Index © 2008 Quest Diagnostics Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Tables Follow
Positive Prevalence Rates for Amphetamine and Methamphetamine —
Percentage of All Tests for “Amphetamines“
2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Amphetamine 0.40% 0.38% 0.44% 0.45% 0.41% Methamphetamine 0.14% 0.18% 0.28% 0.33% 0.32% Percent Difference - Amphetamine 5.3% -13.6% -2.2% 9.8% Percent Difference - Methamphetamine -22.2% -35.7% -15.2% 3.1%
Positivity Rates for Cocaine
2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Cocaine 0.58% 0.72% 0.70% 0.72% 0.74% Percent Difference - Cocaine -19.4% 2.9% -2.8% -2.7%
Annual Positivity Rates
For Combined U.S. Workforce
(More than 8.4 million tests from January to December 2007)
Year Drug Positive Rate 1988 13.6% 1989 12.7% 1990 11.0% 1991 8.8% 1992 8.8% 1993 8.4% 1994 7.5% 1995 6.7% 1996 5.8% 1997 5.0% 1998 4.8% 1999 4.6% 2000 4.7% 2001 4.6% 2002 4.4% 2003 4.5% 2004 4.5% 2005 4.1% 2006 3.8% 2007 3.8%
Positivity Rates By Testing Category
Testing Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workforce 1.8% 2.0% 2.3% 2.3% 2.5% General U.S. Workforce 4.4% 4.4% 4.5% 4.9% 5.0% Combined U.S. Workforce 3.8% 3.8% 4.1% 4.5% 4.5%
Positivity Rates By Testing Reason
For Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workforce
(More than 1.8 million tests from January to December 2007)
Testing Reason 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Follow-Up 2.8% 3.0% 3.1% 3.3% 3.4% For Cause 11.1% 12.5% 13.4% 14.1% 13.8% Periodic 0.75% 0.59% 0.76% 0.51% 0.75% Post-Accident 2.6% 2.7% 3.0% 2.9% 3.1% Pre-Employment 2.0% 2.3% 2.6% 2.7% 2.9% Random 1.5% 1.5% 1.8% 1.8% 1.9% Returned to Duty 3.3% 3.2% 3.0% 2.9% 2.8%
Positivity Rates By Testing Reason
For General U.S. Workforce
(More than 6.6 million tests from January to December 2007)
Testing Reason 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Follow-Up 7.7% 7.4% 9.6% 9.9% 9.6% For Cause 19.2% 18.1% 28.3% 27.8% 28.2% Periodic 1.4% 1.9% 2.4% 1.9% 2.2% Post-Accident 5.8% 5.7% 5.8% 5.7% 5.7% Pre-Employment 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 4.1% 4.1% Random 5.7% 5.5% 6.6% 7.1% 6.6% Returned to Duty 5.6% 5.8% 6.0% 5.5% 5.6%
Positivity Rates By Drug Category
For Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workforce, as a percentage of all such tests
(More than 1.8 million tests from January to December 2007)
Drug Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Amphetamines 0.25% 0.28% 0.35% 0.31% 0.29% Cocaine 0.44% 0.58% 0.60% 0.57% 0.59% Marijuana 0.88% 0.94% 1.10% 1.25% 1.34% Opiates 0.18% 0.17% 0.18% 0.17% 0.19% PCP 0.04% 0.03% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04%
Positivity Rates By Drug Category
For General U.S. Workforce, as a percentage of all such tests
(More than 6.6 million tests from January to December 2007)
Drug Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Amphetamines 0.44% 0.42% 0.48% 0.52% 0.49% Barbiturates 0.24% 0.23% 0.25% 0.27% 0.29% Benzodiazepines 0.67% 0.62% 0.58% 0.58% 0.60% Cocaine 0.58% 0.72% 0.70% 0.72% 0.74% Marijuana 2.34% 2.38% 2.54% 2.88% 2.96% Methadone 0.23% 0.22% 0.23% 0.21% 0.20% Opiates 0.35% 0.32% 0.32% 0.32% 0.34% Oxycodones 0.88%1 0.64%2 0.56%3 -- -- PCP 0.02% 0.01% 0.02% 0.01% 0.03% Propoxyphene 0.58% 0.55% 0.57% 0.63% 0.67%
Positivity Rates By Drug Category
For Combined U.S. Workforce, as a percentage of all such tests
(More than 8.4 million tests from January to December 2007)
Drug Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Amphetamines 0.40% 0.39% 0.46% 0.49% 0.45% Barbiturates 0.24% 0.23% 0.25% 0.27% 0.29% Benzodiazepines 0.67% 0.62% 0.58% 0.58% 0.60% Cocaine 0.55% 0.69% 0.69% 0.70% 0.71% Marijuana 2.01% 2.04% 2.28% 2.59% 2.67% Methadone 0.23% 0.22% 0.23% 0.21% 0.20% Opiates 0.32% 0.28% 0.29% 0.29% 0.31% Oxycodones 0.88%1 0.64%2 0.56%3 -- -- PCP 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.03% Propoxyphene 0.58% 0.55% 0.57% 0.63% 0.67%
Non-Negative Rates By Specimen Validity Test (SVT)4 Category
For Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workforce, as a percentage of all such tests
(More than 1.8 million tests from January to December 2007)
SVT Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Acid-Base 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% Invalid 0.11% 0.12% 0.12% 0.08% 0.08% Oxidizing Adulterants 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.03% Substitution 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 0.06% 0.06%
Non-Negative Rates By Specimen Validity Test (SVT)4 Category
For General U.S. Workforce, as a percentage of all such tests
(More than 6.6 million tests from January to December 2007)
SVT Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Acid-Base 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% Invalid 0.13% 0.15% 0.16% 0.10% 0.10% Oxidizing Adulterants 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.02% Substitution 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.03% 0.03%
Non-Negative Rates By Drug/SVT Category
For Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workers, as a Percentage of All Non-Negatives
(More than 35 thousand non-negative test results from January to December 2007)
Drug/SVT Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Acid/Base 0.47% 0.15% 0.27% 0.32% 0.37% Amphetamines 12.7% 12.6% 14.8% 12.7% 11.4% Cocaine 22.2% 26.3% 25.4% 23.2% 22.7% Invalid 5.5% 5.7% -- -- -- Marijuana 45.2% 43.8% 47.8% 52.4% 53.6% Opiates 9.2% 7.8% 7.7% 7.1% 7.4% Oxidizing Adulterants 0.00% 0.00% 0.06% 0.42% 0.52% PCP 2.1% 1.6% 1.8% 1.4% 1.7% Substituted 2.7% 2.2% 2.3% 2.4% 2.3%
Non-Negative Rates By Drug/SVT Category
For General U.S. Workforce, as a Percentage of All Non-Negatives
(More than 315 thousand non-negative test results from January to December 2007)
Drug/SVT Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Acid/Base 0.04% 0.04% 0.06% 0.11% 0.16% Amphetamines 9.2% 8.8% 10.1% 10.0% 9.0% Barbiturates 2.8% 2.6% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% Benzodiazepines 6.9% 6.1% 5.4% 5.0% 5.1% Cocaine 12.2% 15.0% 14.7% 13.8% 13.8% Invalid 2.8% 3.2% -- -- -- Marijuana 48.8% 49.5% 53.0% 55.0% 55.0% Methadone 2.2% 2.0% 2.0% 1.7% 1.6% Methaqualone 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Opiates 7.4% 6.6% 6.6% 6.1% 6.3% Oxycodones 1.5% 0.74% -- -- -- Oxidizing Adulterants 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.16% 0.48% PCP 0.35% 0.31% 0.31% 0.28% 0.51% Propoxyphene 5.6% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 5.0% Substituted 0.26% 0.27% 0.26% 0.49% 0.58%
Non-Negative Rates By Drug/SVT Category
For Combined U.S. Workforce, as a Percentage of All Non-Negatives
(More than 350 thousand non-negative test results from January to December 2007)
Drug/SVT Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Acid/Base 0.09% 0.05% 0.08% 0.13% 0.18% Amphetamines 9.6% 9.3% 10.6% 10.2% 9.3% Barbiturates 2.5% 2.3% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% Benzodiazepines 6.1% 5.4% 4.9% 4.5% 4.7% Cocaine 13.2% 16.4% 15.7% 14.7% 14.6% Invalid 3.0% 3.5% -- -- -- Marijuana 48.4% 48.8% 52.5% 54.8% 54.9% Methadone 2.0% 1.8% 1.8% 1.5% 1.4% Methaqualone 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Opiates 7.6% 6.7% 6.7% 6.2% 6.4% Oxidizing Adulterants 0.00% 0.00% 0.09% 0.19% 0.52% Oxycodones 1.4% 0.65% -- -- -- PCP 0.53% 0.46% 0.45% 0.38% 0.61% Propoxyphene 5.0% 4.3% 4.4% 4.4% 4.5% Substituted 0.51% 0.49% 0.45% 0.66% 0.73%
1 More than 500,000 tests
2 Approximately 400,000 tests
3 More than 200,000 tests
4 Specimen validity testing is the evaluation of a specimen to determine if it is consistent with a normal human specimen. Tests for specimen validity include tests to determine whether a specimen is adulterated or substituted.
Any statement that workplace drug abuse is lower, would be unsupportable by the findings.
The data does potentially indicate that that drug abusers have learned to cheat urine-based drug tests. This being supported by research recently concluded by the U.S. Government General Accounting Office (GAO) noting that cheating urine-based testing is easily accomplished and virtually undetectable.
The report also neglects to point out the opiate detection rates continue to climb. .. particularly oxycodones have gone up nearly 40% in one year!
" Use of Methamphetamine Among U.S. Workers and Job Applicants Drops 22 Percent in 2007 and Cocaine Use Slows Dramatically, Reports Quest Diagnostics"
Findings from Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index® also show that overall drug positivity remains at record lows
MADISON, NJ, March 12, 2008 — The percentage of positive tests for methamphetamine among U.S. job applicants and workers in the general U.S. workforce dropped more than 22 percent between 2006 and 2007.
These findings, from the Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index®, reflect the reversal of an upward trend in use of the drug by more than 73 percent from 2002 to 2004. These data were released today by Quest Diagnostics Incorporated (NYSE: DGX), the nation's leading provider of employment-related drug testing services.
The report also shows that positive tests for cocaine in the general U.S. workforce were down 19 percent between 2006 and 2007 and that overall drug use, among workers subject to drug testing, remains at an all-time low.
Methamphetamine, the most commonly abused type of amphetamine, increased in production and trafficking during the 1990’s to become the most prevalent illegally manufactured synthetic drug in the United States. Analysis of the Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index, released semi-annually, suggests that efforts to reduce illicit, clandestine production of methamphetamine may be having an impact on workplace positive tests for the drug.
"The fact that America's workers are using cocaine and methamphetamine at some of the lowest levels in years is further evidence of the tremendous success that law enforcement is having at impacting the nation's illicit drug supply," said DEA Acting Administrator Michele M. Leonhart. "DEA will continue its relentless assault on the drug supply to help keep these dangerous drugs out of our neighborhoods."
While the 2007 Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index shows that positive methamphetamine tests have decreased, it also indicates that the use of amphetamine in the general workforce has increased slightly, by about five percent. Testing for methamphetamine and amphetamine was conducted among employees and applicants in the U.S. workforce tested for the class of drugs called amphetamines.
"Although some may conclude that there is a reduced availability for methamphetamine, the fact that our data show an increase in amphetamines suggests that some workers might be replacing one stimulant drug for another in the larger drug class of amphetamines," said Barry Sample, Ph.D., Director of Science and Technology for Quest Diagnostics' Employer Solutions division.
Methamphetamine and amphetamine are both types of stimulants, which typically are used by individuals to increase alertness and relieve fatigue. Stimulants are also used for euphoric effects or to counteract the "down" feeling of tranquilizers or alcohol. Possible side effects of stimulants include increased heart and respiratory rates, elevated blood pressure, dilated pupils and decreased appetite. High doses may cause rapid or irregular heartbeat, loss of coordination or collapse. Indications of possible misuse may include excessive activity, talkativeness, irritability, argumentativeness or nervousness.
Cocaine Use Continues to Decline
The Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index shows that the percentage of positive tests for cocaine was down 19 percent among the U.S. general workforce since the first half of 2007 - the largest single-year drop since 1997. Positive tests for cocaine among the general workforce declined to 0.58 percent in 2007 from 0.72 percent in 2006.
Overall Drug Use Remains at All-Time Low
Additionally, drug use by employees remains at its lowest level since Quest Diagnostics began publishing the Drug Testing Index in 1988. Among the combined U.S. workforce, only 3.8 percent of the tests had positive results — the same level reported in 2006 — compared to a high of 13.6 percent in 1988. Further, among safety-sensitive federal workers only, the Drug Testing Index showed that drug use was at an all-time low of 1.8 percent of the tested work force.
The 2007 Drug Testing Index is a summary of results from 8.4 million workplace drug tests performed by Quest Diagnostics between January and December 2007. Results are based on tests that Quest Diagnostics performs for employers that conduct pre-employment, random or for-cause drug testing. For more information, see additional results below.
About the Drug Testing Index
The Drug Testing Index is published as a public service for government, media and industry and has been considered a benchmark for national trends since its inception in 1988. It examines positivity rates — the proportion of positive results for each drug to all such drug tests performed — among three major testing populations: federally mandated, safety-sensitive workers; the general workforce; and the combined U.S. workforce. Federally mandated, safety-sensitive workers include pilots, bus and truck drivers, and workers in nuclear power plants, for whom routine drug testing is mandated by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
About Quest Diagnostics
Quest Diagnostics is the leading provider of diagnostic testing, information and services that patients and doctors need to make better healthcare decisions. The company offers the broadest access to diagnostic testing services through its national network of laboratories and patient service centers, and provides interpretive consultation through its extensive medical and scientific staff. Quest Diagnostics is a pioneer in developing innovative new diagnostic tests and advanced healthcare information technology solutions that help improve patient care. Additional company information is available at: www.questdiagnostics.com.
The statements in this press release which are not historical facts or information may be forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results and outcomes to be materially different. Certain of these risks and uncertainties may include, but are not limited to, competitive environment, changes in government regulations, changing relationships with customers, payers, suppliers and strategic partners and other factors described in the Quest Diagnostics Incorporated 2005 Form 10‑K and subsequent SEC filings.
The Drug Testing Index © 2008 Quest Diagnostics Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Tables Follow
Positive Prevalence Rates for Amphetamine and Methamphetamine —
Percentage of All Tests for “Amphetamines“
2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Amphetamine 0.40% 0.38% 0.44% 0.45% 0.41% Methamphetamine 0.14% 0.18% 0.28% 0.33% 0.32% Percent Difference - Amphetamine 5.3% -13.6% -2.2% 9.8% Percent Difference - Methamphetamine -22.2% -35.7% -15.2% 3.1%
Positivity Rates for Cocaine
2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Cocaine 0.58% 0.72% 0.70% 0.72% 0.74% Percent Difference - Cocaine -19.4% 2.9% -2.8% -2.7%
Annual Positivity Rates
For Combined U.S. Workforce
(More than 8.4 million tests from January to December 2007)
Year Drug Positive Rate 1988 13.6% 1989 12.7% 1990 11.0% 1991 8.8% 1992 8.8% 1993 8.4% 1994 7.5% 1995 6.7% 1996 5.8% 1997 5.0% 1998 4.8% 1999 4.6% 2000 4.7% 2001 4.6% 2002 4.4% 2003 4.5% 2004 4.5% 2005 4.1% 2006 3.8% 2007 3.8%
Positivity Rates By Testing Category
Testing Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workforce 1.8% 2.0% 2.3% 2.3% 2.5% General U.S. Workforce 4.4% 4.4% 4.5% 4.9% 5.0% Combined U.S. Workforce 3.8% 3.8% 4.1% 4.5% 4.5%
Positivity Rates By Testing Reason
For Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workforce
(More than 1.8 million tests from January to December 2007)
Testing Reason 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Follow-Up 2.8% 3.0% 3.1% 3.3% 3.4% For Cause 11.1% 12.5% 13.4% 14.1% 13.8% Periodic 0.75% 0.59% 0.76% 0.51% 0.75% Post-Accident 2.6% 2.7% 3.0% 2.9% 3.1% Pre-Employment 2.0% 2.3% 2.6% 2.7% 2.9% Random 1.5% 1.5% 1.8% 1.8% 1.9% Returned to Duty 3.3% 3.2% 3.0% 2.9% 2.8%
Positivity Rates By Testing Reason
For General U.S. Workforce
(More than 6.6 million tests from January to December 2007)
Testing Reason 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Follow-Up 7.7% 7.4% 9.6% 9.9% 9.6% For Cause 19.2% 18.1% 28.3% 27.8% 28.2% Periodic 1.4% 1.9% 2.4% 1.9% 2.2% Post-Accident 5.8% 5.7% 5.8% 5.7% 5.7% Pre-Employment 3.9% 3.9% 3.9% 4.1% 4.1% Random 5.7% 5.5% 6.6% 7.1% 6.6% Returned to Duty 5.6% 5.8% 6.0% 5.5% 5.6%
Positivity Rates By Drug Category
For Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workforce, as a percentage of all such tests
(More than 1.8 million tests from January to December 2007)
Drug Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Amphetamines 0.25% 0.28% 0.35% 0.31% 0.29% Cocaine 0.44% 0.58% 0.60% 0.57% 0.59% Marijuana 0.88% 0.94% 1.10% 1.25% 1.34% Opiates 0.18% 0.17% 0.18% 0.17% 0.19% PCP 0.04% 0.03% 0.04% 0.04% 0.04%
Positivity Rates By Drug Category
For General U.S. Workforce, as a percentage of all such tests
(More than 6.6 million tests from January to December 2007)
Drug Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Amphetamines 0.44% 0.42% 0.48% 0.52% 0.49% Barbiturates 0.24% 0.23% 0.25% 0.27% 0.29% Benzodiazepines 0.67% 0.62% 0.58% 0.58% 0.60% Cocaine 0.58% 0.72% 0.70% 0.72% 0.74% Marijuana 2.34% 2.38% 2.54% 2.88% 2.96% Methadone 0.23% 0.22% 0.23% 0.21% 0.20% Opiates 0.35% 0.32% 0.32% 0.32% 0.34% Oxycodones 0.88%1 0.64%2 0.56%3 -- -- PCP 0.02% 0.01% 0.02% 0.01% 0.03% Propoxyphene 0.58% 0.55% 0.57% 0.63% 0.67%
Positivity Rates By Drug Category
For Combined U.S. Workforce, as a percentage of all such tests
(More than 8.4 million tests from January to December 2007)
Drug Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Amphetamines 0.40% 0.39% 0.46% 0.49% 0.45% Barbiturates 0.24% 0.23% 0.25% 0.27% 0.29% Benzodiazepines 0.67% 0.62% 0.58% 0.58% 0.60% Cocaine 0.55% 0.69% 0.69% 0.70% 0.71% Marijuana 2.01% 2.04% 2.28% 2.59% 2.67% Methadone 0.23% 0.22% 0.23% 0.21% 0.20% Opiates 0.32% 0.28% 0.29% 0.29% 0.31% Oxycodones 0.88%1 0.64%2 0.56%3 -- -- PCP 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.03% Propoxyphene 0.58% 0.55% 0.57% 0.63% 0.67%
Non-Negative Rates By Specimen Validity Test (SVT)4 Category
For Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workforce, as a percentage of all such tests
(More than 1.8 million tests from January to December 2007)
SVT Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Acid-Base 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% Invalid 0.11% 0.12% 0.12% 0.08% 0.08% Oxidizing Adulterants 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02% 0.03% Substitution 0.05% 0.05% 0.05% 0.06% 0.06%
Non-Negative Rates By Specimen Validity Test (SVT)4 Category
For General U.S. Workforce, as a percentage of all such tests
(More than 6.6 million tests from January to December 2007)
SVT Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Acid-Base 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% Invalid 0.13% 0.15% 0.16% 0.10% 0.10% Oxidizing Adulterants 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.02% Substitution 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.03% 0.03%
Non-Negative Rates By Drug/SVT Category
For Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workers, as a Percentage of All Non-Negatives
(More than 35 thousand non-negative test results from January to December 2007)
Drug/SVT Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Acid/Base 0.47% 0.15% 0.27% 0.32% 0.37% Amphetamines 12.7% 12.6% 14.8% 12.7% 11.4% Cocaine 22.2% 26.3% 25.4% 23.2% 22.7% Invalid 5.5% 5.7% -- -- -- Marijuana 45.2% 43.8% 47.8% 52.4% 53.6% Opiates 9.2% 7.8% 7.7% 7.1% 7.4% Oxidizing Adulterants 0.00% 0.00% 0.06% 0.42% 0.52% PCP 2.1% 1.6% 1.8% 1.4% 1.7% Substituted 2.7% 2.2% 2.3% 2.4% 2.3%
Non-Negative Rates By Drug/SVT Category
For General U.S. Workforce, as a Percentage of All Non-Negatives
(More than 315 thousand non-negative test results from January to December 2007)
Drug/SVT Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Acid/Base 0.04% 0.04% 0.06% 0.11% 0.16% Amphetamines 9.2% 8.8% 10.1% 10.0% 9.0% Barbiturates 2.8% 2.6% 2.7% 2.7% 2.8% Benzodiazepines 6.9% 6.1% 5.4% 5.0% 5.1% Cocaine 12.2% 15.0% 14.7% 13.8% 13.8% Invalid 2.8% 3.2% -- -- -- Marijuana 48.8% 49.5% 53.0% 55.0% 55.0% Methadone 2.2% 2.0% 2.0% 1.7% 1.6% Methaqualone 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Opiates 7.4% 6.6% 6.6% 6.1% 6.3% Oxycodones 1.5% 0.74% -- -- -- Oxidizing Adulterants 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.16% 0.48% PCP 0.35% 0.31% 0.31% 0.28% 0.51% Propoxyphene 5.6% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 5.0% Substituted 0.26% 0.27% 0.26% 0.49% 0.58%
Non-Negative Rates By Drug/SVT Category
For Combined U.S. Workforce, as a Percentage of All Non-Negatives
(More than 350 thousand non-negative test results from January to December 2007)
Drug/SVT Category 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 Acid/Base 0.09% 0.05% 0.08% 0.13% 0.18% Amphetamines 9.6% 9.3% 10.6% 10.2% 9.3% Barbiturates 2.5% 2.3% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% Benzodiazepines 6.1% 5.4% 4.9% 4.5% 4.7% Cocaine 13.2% 16.4% 15.7% 14.7% 14.6% Invalid 3.0% 3.5% -- -- -- Marijuana 48.4% 48.8% 52.5% 54.8% 54.9% Methadone 2.0% 1.8% 1.8% 1.5% 1.4% Methaqualone 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Opiates 7.6% 6.7% 6.7% 6.2% 6.4% Oxidizing Adulterants 0.00% 0.00% 0.09% 0.19% 0.52% Oxycodones 1.4% 0.65% -- -- -- PCP 0.53% 0.46% 0.45% 0.38% 0.61% Propoxyphene 5.0% 4.3% 4.4% 4.4% 4.5% Substituted 0.51% 0.49% 0.45% 0.66% 0.73%
1 More than 500,000 tests
2 Approximately 400,000 tests
3 More than 200,000 tests
4 Specimen validity testing is the evaluation of a specimen to determine if it is consistent with a normal human specimen. Tests for specimen validity include tests to determine whether a specimen is adulterated or substituted.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
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
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.)
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, November 6, 2007
Urine DOT Drug Testing Not Working - New Government GAO Report
Now even the US Government knows the obvious ....
Drug testing without observed specimen collection, is a waste of time and money.
Private interest groups, consisting largely of urine drug testing laboratories, urine-centric TPA's, occupational health clinics, some unions, as well as a select group of archaic government bureaucracies (DOT, FAA, etc.) continue to exclusively support urine-based testing vs. superior, user-friendly technologies - most notably oral fluid / saliva and hair-based drug screening.
Oral fluid / saliva and hair-based drug screening technologies allow for observed specimen collection and are relatively non-invasive vs. traditional urine drug testing. Oral fluid delivers information on "current" / "on-the-job" drug and/or alcohol use, while hair detects "historical drug abuse".
Oral fluid / saliva is suitable for random, post-accident, and reasonable suspicion testing, and also can be used for pre-employment testing.
Hair is most appropriate for pre-employment testing, especially for employers that wish to track drug use history for a period of up to 90 days.
The DOT and other government agencies, including "regulatory agencies" such as SAMHSA are largely to blame for the continued emphasis upon traditional urine-based testing, and ultimately serving to help perpetuate America's problem with substance abuse.
Why? Government agencies resist moving to newer technologies either due to the fear of having to "do more work", and/or are impacted by private interest groups with heavy lobbying budgets and well established "old boy networks".
In their defense, the DOT claims "success" by noting a "2% positive rate". This is a blatant misuse of statistics. Of course the is only a 2% positive rate... as most drug abusers are cheating the test!
As noted below, if drug testing involved observed specimen collection, and/or more stringent techniques the positive rate soars to 10%.
Urine-based drug testing is simply:
1. too difficult, costly, and noxious to apply consistently and on a corporate-wide / industry-wide basis,
2. prone to drug abusers "beating the test".
Several documented cases support the above facts:
For example, a recent construction site that had a low "positive rate" using tradition urine drug testing, but had several site issues and eventually discovered hypodermic needles on-site.
When they implemented Avitar's oral fluid-based testing, conducing a full site-based random screen, the positive rate registered 20%!
Urine testing laboratories, in most cases, are not able to determine if urine samples are adulterated or substituted, other than in the most basic and severe cases.
Despite this fact, they continue to spread misinformation, claiming the opposite.
The Director of Workplace Drug Testing for SAMHSA is on record, testifying before Congress, that detect adulterants, that labs can only detect a very small fraction of the many products available on the Internet available to beat urine-based drug tests, and that substituted drug free urine and synthetic urine also are undetectable.
GAO: Easy to cheat on trucker drug tests
Three-quarters of testing sites don’t provide secure conditions, report finds
The Transportation Department estimates that fewer than 2 percent of truck drivers test positive each year for controlled substances.
But when Oregon conducted its own tests, 9 percent of truck drivers tested positive.
Dozens of products on the Web are marketed to truckers as fail-safe ways to defeat the mandatory drug tests.
WASHINGTON - Undercover federal investigators discovered that it was surprisingly easy to cheat on random drug tests designed to catch truck drivers who use drugs, NBC News has learned.
Undercover investigators with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the investigative arm of Congress, used bogus truck driver’s licenses to gain access to 24 drug-testing sites.
They found that 75 percent “failed to restrict access to items that could be used to adulterate or dilute the [urine] specimen, meaning that running water, soap, or air freshener was available in the bathroom during the test.”
The GAO team also bought drug-masking products over the Web and was able to mix them with real specimens at the drug-testing sites “without being caught by site collectors,” the agency said in a report scheduled to be made public ThursdayDrug - screening labs never realized that there was a problem.
“Every drug masking product went undetected by the drug screening labs,” said the report, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News.Rep.
Jim Oberstar, D-Minn., chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said the report was “frankly astonishing and shocking and dismaying.
You can manipulate the tests, you can mask substance abuse and go undetected on the roadways.”Oberstar, who planned to hold a hearing Thursday, said the drug-testing system was broken and was placing other drivers in danger.“It fails, it is not sufficient, it is not protecting the public interest,” he said.
How many are cheating?
The Transportation Department estimates that fewer than 2 percent of truck drivers test positive each year for controlled substances in random federal tests.
But when Oregon law enforcement officials conducted their own random tests this year, 9 percent of truck drivers tested positive.
Dozens of products widely available on the Web are marketed to truckers as fail-safe ways to defeat the mandatory drug tests.
“My first reaction was total disbelief. I just felt sick,” said Kathleen Ellsbury, whose husband, Tony Qamar, was killed two years ago when a truck driver in Washington state lost his load of logs on a curve, crushing Qamar’s car.
Also killed was Daniel Johnson, a fellow seismologist at the University of Washington.Ellsbury learned later that the truck driver, who was sentenced to 4½ years in prison for vehicular homicide, had previously been convicted of possessing methamphetamines and that he had meth in his blood at the time of the crash.
“The system has big holes, let’s say that,” said Ellsbury, who said she had a message for truck drivers who might be tempted to cheat:
“I’d like to be standing right outside the bathroom and hold up a picture of my husband — remind them there's consequences.”
Truckers promise to do betterSpokesmen for the trucking industry said truck drivers were among the safest drivers on the road, with much lower rates of drug use than the general population. Still, they said, having roughly 30,000 drivers test positive each year was unacceptable.
Lisa Myers is chief investigative correspondent and Richard Gardella is an investigative producer for NBC.
Friday, October 5, 2007
" New " Building Construction and Construction Trades Department BCTD
For Safety Professionals attempting to innovate and improve efforts can be frustrating, largely due to the fact that politics can easily supersede logic.
That said, while potentially well-intentioned, the "new" Building and Construction Trades Department - BCTD drug testing program ( which oddly requires outdated and relatively ineffective urine-based testing as well as the use of a specific laboratory, third party administrator, and their specific product and services ) represents a step backwards ...
not forward ,
more importantly, however, this archaic structure does NOT serve the best interests of unions, union members, contractors, insurers, or owners.
The Need for Change: Substance Abuse in the Construction Sector
We all know that a drug free workplace is a safe workplace and the union skilled trades and contractors were ahead of their time years 16 years ago, when urine-based drug testing was introduce by innovators as evidence by the MUST program, LEAD, and others.
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.
It's time again for union's to put politics aside and address the issue from from a safety point of view:
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.
With 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?
“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, Hawaii
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 assist in driving change. This groups and only this group knows what truly happens every day on our job sites.
At the end of day, they “get it”.
It’s time for safety professionals to join with all constituencies to update current drug and alcohol free workplace programs to assure compliance and effectiveness.
It’s also time for the 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
That said, while potentially well-intentioned, the "new" Building and Construction Trades Department - BCTD drug testing program ( which oddly requires outdated and relatively ineffective urine-based testing as well as the use of a specific laboratory, third party administrator, and their specific product and services ) represents a step backwards ...
not forward ,
more importantly, however, this archaic structure does NOT serve the best interests of unions, union members, contractors, insurers, or owners.
The Need for Change: Substance Abuse in the Construction Sector
We all know that a drug free workplace is a safe workplace and the union skilled trades and contractors were ahead of their time years 16 years ago, when urine-based drug testing was introduce by innovators as evidence by the MUST program, LEAD, and others.
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.
It's time again for union's to put politics aside and address the issue from from a safety point of view:
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.
With 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?
“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, Hawaii
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 assist in driving change. This groups and only this group knows what truly happens every day on our job sites.
At the end of day, they “get it”.
It’s time for safety professionals to join with all constituencies to update current drug and alcohol free workplace programs to assure compliance and effectiveness.
It’s also time for the 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
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Construction Safety - Drug Testing - AGC - Michigan - MUST
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?
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.
With 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 worksOral 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.
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.
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?
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.
With 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 worksOral 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.
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
