Drugged Driving - July 2008 - New Laws

Police expect challenges to roadside drug test law
DOUG MACKENZIE
The Cape Breton Post



SYDNEY — Drivers who operate a motor vehicle while high will no longer be able to refuse road side drug tests under new laws which came into affect last week.

Police can now require drivers to submit to roadside tests and also have the power to take suspected drug-impaired drivers to a police station or hospital to get a blood, urine or saliva sample.

Under the old law, police were obliged to tell drivers suspected of being high that roadside tests weren’t mandatory.
While the new law is being heralded by law enforcement officials, they also realize there will be challenges involved with enforcement.
“To us, this is a great thing, it’s another tool in our toolbox in terms of our officers out on the streets dealing with people they believe are drug induced and driving and now we actually have the law in place which gives us the authority to deal with these issues,” said deputy chief Myles Burke, of the Cape Breton Regional Police. “I think this is a great thing for law enforcement and a great thing for the community – it’s a positive step. There will no doubt ... be challenges to the law, challenges to the constitutionality of the demand and even the expertise of the experts themselves …
“This stuff can be challenged, but that’s fine. That comes with every law we’re dealing with, but at the end of the day we will have people here who are certified experts, who will be doing the field testing that is required and will be going to court in cases where they feel someone is driving under the influence of narcotics.”
Burke said training of officers within the traffic safety unit will be the key to successful enforcement of the law and he would like to see experts on call 24/7 to help deal with situations when they arise.
“The training is very specialized and although there are funds available to train officers, it does require a significant commitment and officers have to leave the local area (for training),” said Burke. “One component of the course, the officers are actually trained at a U.S. prison doing testing of people going in and out of the prison. Their field subject testing is actually live at a prison.
“We have requested for the next training course available to have a couple of seats made available. We are very interested in having a couple of our officers trained as experts.”

Random Student Drug Testing - 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

Random Student Drug Testing

Drug education programs and parental advice often aren’t as strong as peer pressure.

Studies show in the last year more than one in three high school seniors used illicit drugs.

Scott County Superintendent, Dr. Dallas Blankenship -
“We think that if we have a drug testing program it will help students to explain to their peers that they are not going to do drugs.”Somerset High School began randomly drug testing students involved in “privileged activities”, like sports and cheerleading last fall. Their principal, Jeff Perkins, calls it “one of the best things I think we’ve done.”

The Program
Both students and parents are required to sign drug testing consent forms in order to participate in privileged activities. Curricular or academic based activities like band, debate and choir are not currently tested, even though they too are competitive extracurricular activities.Students be tested are randomly selected and the process takes about five minutes per student. The test looks for the presence of drugs like marijuana, meth and ecstasy as well as prescription drugs such as oxycodone and hydrocodone. If a test is non-negative, a second test is sent to a laboratory for additional testing. If the confirmatory test is positive, the student receives counseling and may have to perform certain tasks such as writing a paper and performing community service. The student is also suspended from participating in the privileged activity for a short period of time.

The Intent
Overall the random drug testing program is designed to be preventative and not punitive. It’s also designed to give kids who do test positive a second chance.“We’re getting on the other side of this now, some education and getting these kids in some type of rehabilitation program. And hopefully we can salvage that versus the other way which was throwing them away.”“The safety of students and to have a drug free environment are extremely important, so our board’s already made a commitment.”

Original Source: Chris Dietz, ABC News

Drug Testing for Traffice Accidents

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

Truck Drivers Driving Drugged?

Can Big Rig Drivers Beat Drug Tests?

By Robert ArnoldPOSTED: 10:03 am CST December 20, 2007UPDATED: 12:46 pm CSTDecember 22, 2007HOUSTON --
Local 2 investigates potentially dangerous loopholes in federal drug testing laws. Our hidden cameras expose a flawed system that can allow drug addicts to get behind the wheel of an 18-wheeler or even a school bus.
Local 2 investigative reporter Robert Arnold shows us how what we uncovered now has Congress and the industry demanding change.
We sent our hidden cameras to a Houston drug testing facility where we signed up to take an official Department of Transportation drug test.

Federal law requires every driver to get a drug test before they're allowed to drive an 18-wheeler, a school bus or any kind of commercial vehicle.But before Local 2 went for the test, we were able to order drug-free urine off the Internet.The kit Local 2 purchased came with a tube of dehydrated urine, a vial and a small heater. We mixed the powdered urine with water then used the heater to bring the sample up to the temperature of the human body.At the collection facility, Arnold was ordered to take off his sport coat and place the contents of his pockets in a secure locker.
That was the extent of the search, which meant no one at the facility knew Arnold had the vial of mail-order urine hidden as he entered the bathroom.Once inside the bathroom, Arnold was allowed to close and lock the door, which allowed him to use the vial of mail-order urine as his sample for the drug test.Arnold was then sent to a bathroom to provide a urine specimen for drug test.A few days later the results of Arnold's drug test came back negative. The mail-order urine passed with no problems at all.

The facility Local 2 tested did absolutely nothing wrong. Employees followed every procedure they are required to follow when collecting a specimen for a Department of Transportation drug test. Yet, Local 2 still found it easy to beat the test.

"Your investigation shows how easy it is to circumvent the law," said U.S. Rep. Ted Poe, who sits on Congress' Transportation Committee."Those regulations were written based on the premise that the person giving the sample was going to be honest about it," said Poe. "That's not the world we live in."

Poe said what concerns him is if Arnold had been a drug user, then that negative test would still allow him to drive an 18-wheeler, a school bus or any kind of commercial vehicle."When it's so easy to circumvent the law, the law becomes meaningless," said Poe."Whatever needs to be done to tighten the regulations to ensure that we don't have anyone slip through the cracks like you did, then I think that needs to be addressed," said Van O'Neal, the head of Houston Community College's truck driving school.O'Neal's program is one of the largest in the country and requires 50 percent of students and faculty to undergo random drug tests. He says that's why Congress has to tighten the regulations."Those policies must be followed, not need to be followed, but I believe must be followed to ensure that our roadways are safe," O'Neal said.Congress is promising to come up with tougher regulations because what Local 2 did was not an isolated case. A report from the Government Accountability Office shows federal investigators also circumvented drug testing laws at several facilities. The report even warns Congress it impossible to determine how many drivers have been able to beat the federally required drug test.Federal law also requires trucking companies to randomly test employees to hopefully catch those who may have beat the test the first time. But after Local 2 Investigates combed through tens of thousands of federal violations, we found not everyone is following the law.

Oxycodone / Hydrocodone Drug Related 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

DOT Urine 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.