Prescription Pain Reliever Abuse in Schools

SAMHSA Report - United Stated Department of Health and Human Services

12.4 percent of young adults age 18 to 25 used prescription pain relievers nonmedically in the past year.

How did these young adults get these medications?
According to a recent report from SAMHSA's Office of Applied Studies, among young adults age 18 to 25 who used prescription pain relievers nonmedically in the past year, over half (53.0 percent) obtained their most recent pain reliever used nonmedically from a friend or relative for free.

Among young adults age 18 to 25 who used prescription pain relievers nonmedically in the past year and met the criteria for prescription pain reliever dependence or abuse, 37.5 percent obtained their most recent prescription pain relievers for nonmedical purposes for free from a friend or relative, 19.9 percent bought them from a friend or relative, and 13.6 percent obtained them from one doctor.

www.navigent3.com
Oral Fluid-based Drug Free Workplace Solutions

Workplace Drug Testing Primer

Drug tests in the USA can be divided into two general groups, federally and non-federally regulated testing.



Federally regulated drug testing started when Ronald Reagan enacted executive order 12564, requiring all federal employees refrain from using illegal substances in specified DOT regulated occupations. Drug testing guidelines and processes, in these areas exclusively, are established and regulated (by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration or SAMHSA, formerly under the direction of the National Institute on Drug Abuse or NIDA) require that companies who use professional drivers, specified safety sensitive transportation and/or oil and gas related occupations, and certain federal employers, test them for the presence of certain drugs. These test classes were established decades ago, and include five specific drug groups. They do not account for current drug usage patterns. For example, SAMHSA / DOT tests exclude semi-synthetic opioids, such as oxycodone, oxymorphone, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, etc., and other prescription medications that are widely abused in the United States

Non-federally regulated or General workplace drug testing allows for far more effective drug testing procedures. While SAMHSA / NIDA guidelines only allow laboratories to report quantitative results for the " NIDA-5 " / " SAMHSA-5 " for their official SAMHSA-approve tests, many drug testing laboratories and on-site tests offer a wider, " more appropriate " set of drug screens to better detect current drug use patterns. As noted above, these tests include synthetic pain killers such as Oxycodone (Oxycontin, Percocet), Oxymorphone, Hydrocodone (Vicodin), Hydromorphone. Some also include benzodiazepines (Valium, Xanax, Klonopin, Restoril) and barbiturates in other drug panels (a "panel" is a predetermined subset of tests run). The confirmation test (usually GC/MS, or LC/MS/MS) can tell the difference between chemically similar drugs such as methamphetamine and methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA or ecstasy). In the absence of detectable amounts of methamphetamine in the sample, the lab wold report the sample as negative, or report it as positive if present.

At Least One Union Group Sees the Light On Drug Testing

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."

More Trouble with DOT Drug Testing

Problems with urine-base DOT drug testing continue.... 2008

GAO: Truck drivers taking illegal drugs get hired


WASHINGTON (AP) — Tractor-trailer and bus drivers who tested positive for illegal drugs have flouted federal regulations by returning to work without the required treatment, in some cases transporting hazardous materials for many months, congressional investigators say.

The study by the Government Accountability Office, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, is the latest to detail problems involving unfit commercial drivers who can operate vehicles weighing 40 tons or more.

The GAO found that 19 out of 37 commercial drivers who had a positive drug test in the last two years were hired elsewhere less than a month later — keeping quiet about their previous test result.

These tractor-trailer or bus drivers, who had tested positive for cocaine, amphetamines or marijuana, passed a new pre-employment drug test either by quickly going clean or using products such as synthetic urine to mask drug use. They subsequently operated commercial vehicles for periods ranging from one month to over a year, GAO said.

Transportation Department regulations require that prospective employers request drug-testing records — with the commercial driver's consent — from previous employers. But because some drivers testing positive do not go through treatment and do not disclose test results, the new company might not be aware of drug use if it does not vigorously investigate.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, led by Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., is currently looking at ways to help get unfit commercial drivers off the nation's highways. One proposal would create a clearinghouse for drug test results for commercial truck drivers to make it easier for employers to conduct checks.

Some cases cited by GAO:

_A Tennessee truck driver tested positive for cocaine in May 2007. He moved to a different employer and was rehired after passing a new test eight days later. Prior to his tests, the driver was charged with possession of a controlled substance. He worked for several months afterward, driving trucks containing cargo and hazardous material.

_An Oklahoma truck driver tested positive for marijuana in October 2007 and passed a subsequent test with another company nine days later. The driver told investigators he "took appropriate measures to clean his system before applying at the second employer." The new employer said it was unaware of the prior drug test during the hiring and let him drive for a couple of months, but that he was now no longer working for the company.

The latest review comes after a GAO safety study disclosed by the AP earlier this month found hundreds of thousands of drivers carry commercial licenses even though they also qualify for full federal disability payments

. According to that report, 563,000 commercial drivers were determined by the Veterans Affairs Department, Labor Department or Social Security Administration to be eligible for benefits over health issues, with alarming examples that raised doubts about the safety of the nation's highways.

Last week, lawmakers in the House scolded federal regulators for failing to implement recommendations made in 2001 that are aimed at keeping medically unfit commercial truck and bus drivers off the roads.

In the latest GAO study, investigators looked at data from a third-party administrator for commercial drivers who had tested positive for illegal drugs with one employer and then negative for another employer. The GAO then identified cases from the past two years where drivers had tested negative less than a month after a positive result.

On the Net:
Government Accountability Office: http://www.gao.gov
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee: http://transportation.house.gov/

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

SAMHSA TO APPROVE ORAL FLUID / SALIVA DRUG TESTING

(source: Forensic Sci Int. 2007 Apr 12)

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


The U.S. Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs: Current status and future considerations.
Donna M Bush - Division of Workplace Programs, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, One Choke Cherry Road, Room 2-1033, Rockville, MD 20857, USA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Saliva / Oral Fluid Proteins Mapped

Protein map of human spit created
By Julie Steenhuysen 27 minutes ago

CHICAGO (Reuters) - U.S. researchers have identified all 1,116 unique proteins found in human saliva glands, a discovery they said on Tuesday could usher in a wave of convenient, spit-based diagnostic tests that could be done without the need for a single drop of blood.

As many as 20 percent of the proteins that are found in saliva are also found in blood, said Fred Hagan, a researcher at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York who worked on the study.

"This is potentially a large field that has many clinical implications in the area of disease diagnostics," said Hagan, whose work was published in the Journal of Proteome Research.

The researchers hope saliva-based tests could be used to diagnose cancer, heart disease, diabetes and a number of other conditions.

"To be able to diagnose disease using saliva, you really have to have a comprehensive understanding of the saliva proteome," Hagan said in a telephone interview.

Like a genome, which lists all of the genes in an organism, a proteome is a complete map of proteins. While genes provide the instruction manual, proteins carry out the instructions by regulating cellular processes.

Researchers from five universities -- the University of Rochester, The Scripps Research Institute, the University of Southern California, The University of California San Francisco and the University of California Los Angeles -- sought to determine the complete set of proteins secreted by the major salivary glands.

BLOOD, SPIT AND TEARS

They collected saliva from 23 healthy men and women of several races. They tested saliva samples using some form of mass spectrometry, which determines the identity of proteins based on measurements of their mass and charge.

They compared their findings with recent protein maps of human blood and tears.

Early analysis has already turned up a number of proteins with known roles in Alzheimer's, Huntington's and Parkinson's diseases; breast, colorectal and pancreatic cancer and diabetes.

Most of the proteins were part of signaling pathways, which are key to the body's response to system wide diseases.

Hagan said the work should accelerate the development of new tools for tracking disease throughout the body.

Already there are saliva-based antibody tests to detect human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, and hepatitis infections, Hagan said. He said this protein map will provide new targets.

"Monitoring disease as well as drug use could be more easily done with saliva as opposed to blood or urine," he said.

Other groups are working on a saliva-based test for breast cancer that would detect a protein fragment from the HER2 protein. Hagan said such tests could eventually replace uncomfortable and costly mammograms.

"We envision in the future spitting in a tube and looking for a marker like this breast cancer marker. It would be much easier to do, potentially at home," he said.

"Given that we've made this information publicly available, we fully expect a number of research groups will be picking their favorite targets and developing their own tests. That is the intent -- to create a wealth of data to stimulate more research and increase the chances of producing better diagnostic tests," Hagan said.

(Editing by Maggie Fox and Mohammad Zargham)

Unions Wrong About Drug Testing

Why is drug testing subject to collective bargaining?

The Massachusetts Joint Labor-Management Committee has taken jurisdiction of the contract dispute between the City of Boston and the firefighters’ union (Local 718). However, this step does not mean that mandatory alcohol and drug testing is any closer to becoming a reality in the Boston Fire Department.

The president of the state firefighters’ union has argued that the Joint Labor-Management Committee cannot consider drug testing in arbitration.

That view should not prevail, as this contract must begin the effort to break through the imbedded culture of the Fire Department by including basic management reform measures and mandatory drug testing.



Clearly, it is in the broader interest of the Commonwealth that all uniformed public safety employees be required to annually undergo standard drug and alcohol testing.
While this contract may be settled before such change, drug testing should be a state public safety requirement, not subject to local negotiations.

Following a tragic restaurant fire in West Roxbury in August, in which two firefighters died, city officials in early October presented to Local 718 a comprehensive alcohol and drug testing policy for negotiation. The union has yet to respond in writing to the city’s proposal.

The Menino administration had put drug testing on the table in contract negotiations with Local 718 in 1999 !!!!!, and 2004 but no agreement was reached.

Union resistance and the city’s desire to secure other needed management reforms in the Fire Department at a reasonable cost are why drug testing has not been yet approved.

The firefighters’ union maintains that the Joint Labor-Management Committee cannot consider drug testing as an issue for arbitration in the Boston dispute because the city did not list drug testing in its petition filed last August. The union would prefer to negotiate this matter separately with the city for a reported 21 percent salary increase rather than have the Joint Labor-Management Committee require drug testing in an arbitration decision.

The union’s position is not supported by state law or the Joint Labor-Management Committee’s case history, which shows several examples of decisions rendered in fire union cases that include issues not listed in the initial petitions, including drug testing.

Local 718 has high expectations for a new contract with drug testing and points to the 1998 police contract that provided for drug testing and also accepted the Quinn Bill. However, in that contract, the police accepted no salary increases in fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2002 when firefighters received 4 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively.

Also, drug testing was considered innovative nine years ago and not the norm that it is today. Indeed, random alcohol and drug testing is more common in major urban fire departments around the country, including Baltimore, Chicago, New York City, Philadelphia, and San Francisco.

The contract with Local 718 should include mandatory random alcohol and drug testing, but if it does not include other significant reform measures at a cost consistent with the recently negotiated public safety contracts, it should not be approved.

The stakes are too high for the welfare of the public and firefighters to settle for small incremental change in this contract.

Orignal Source: Boston Globe

Drug Testing Educators

The West Des Moines school district is believed to be the first in Iowa to adopt alcohol and illicit drug testing for all potential employees.The new policy was approved Monday and mimics private sector drug screening.

It is uncommon for public schools nationwide.

“We can say with a fair amount of confidence that this is the first such policy in Iowa,” said Lisa Bartusek, associate executive director for the Iowa Association of School Boards.


The school board unanimously approved the policy, which affects all potential employees and also current ones who are suspected of drug use. Employees who test positive for drug use or who arrive at work with a blood-alcohol concentration of .04 percent or more could be fired or forced to seek rehabilitation.

"It was surprising to me that other districts don’t do this,” said board member Susan Moritz, who helped craft the policy. “It came out of the idea that our bus drivers were already being tested, and if we felt that was important for our bus drivers, wasn’t it also important for the people who were in our buildings?”

The purpose is to “help new applicants understand that we simply don’t tolerate any kind of drug abuse on the job.”

Original Source: Des Moines Register

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

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.

BCTD Building Construction Trades Department " New " Drug Testing Program - A Costly Mistake

For Safety Professionals attempting to innovate and improve efforts can be frustrating, largel 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:

Abuse in the Construction SectorWe 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 should every construction site 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, HawaiiAlso 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

Construction Safety / Drug Testing: Michigan AGC / MUST Drug Testing

The Need for Change: Drug Testing in Construction

Lynn A. Corlett, C.S.P.

We all know that a drug free workplace is a safe workplace and the Michigan union skilled trades and contractors were ahead of their time when the MUST drug screening program was implemented 16 years ago in 1991.
However, times change, the drugs of choice change and the numbers of ways to “beat” the tests have changed.
It’s time again for the union skilled trades and contractors to leap ahead of the national status quo.

Recently the States of Hawaii and Georgia passed legislation to improve safety and reduce workers compensation costs through the implementation of on-site oral fluid / saliva drug screening.
The construction industry played a key role in driving these changes, especially in Hawaii. Organized labor in particular, as well as contractors, owners, and insurers recognized the following:

Drug abuse in the construction sector is as bad, if not worse than ever,

Effective drug testing, especially random drug testing is required to truly manage workplace substance abuse,

Observed specimen collection, convenience, and low cost are mandatory to ensure compliance.

This article attempts to address ... 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.
10% of employees aged 18 – 49 years abuse drugs (not including alcohol), the construction industry runs 2x-3x this rate. 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. Multiple case studies have documented significant improvements in accident reduction due to switching from urine-based to oral fluid-based drug screening.

Where do we go from here?
Occupational health, safety, and risk management professionals must lead the charge to effect change. We know what truly happens every day on our job sites. At the end of day, we “get it”. It’s time for us to update our current drug and alcohol free workplace program.
It’s time for the Michigan union skilled trades and contractors to again lead the charge in effecting change.
It’s time to implement oral fluid-based testing techniques at a few “pilot sites” and demonstrate the advantage of effective drug testing programs vs. the status quo.

References:
2006 United States Department of Health – Substance Abuse and Mental Health Agency (SAMSHA) National Survey on Drug Use & Health (NHSDA)- Office of Applied Studies. (2007) Results from the 2006 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National findings (DHHS Publication No. SMA 07-4293, NSDUH Series H-32). Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

Peter N. Cholakis and Roger Bruce (July 2007) Drug Testing in the Workplace – A look at oral fluid-based testing. Professional Safety Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers, July 2007, 31-36.

Significant Changes to Employee Drug Testing Laws

Significant Changes to Substance Abuse Testing Laws

Recently the States of Hawaii and Georgia passed legislation in support of workplace drug testing, specifically relative to oral fluid-based/saliva drug on-site screening, and workers compensation premium credits. These actions highlight the need for effective drug-free workplace programs as well convenient drug screening technologies that can be applied consistently, across all modes of testing, especially, however, for random, post-incident, and reasonable suspicion.

It is critical that drug-free workplace safety initiatives are enhanced for the betterment of the American workplace as a whole: employers, employees and families, insurors, etc.
Drug abuse is as bad as it has ever been in our places of employment as well as school systems, and hopefully, these new statutes are a sign of a commitment to change.

Our society cannot continue to sweep America's drug abuse problem under the rug. Abuse of prescription drugs, especially pain-relievers, has superseded marijuana and is is a dangerous trend world-wide.

Arguably, “recreational” marijuana use outside of the workplace may have little, if any, impact to employers or employees, excluding the obvious legal issues. The non-medical use of prescription pain relievers, however, in addition to being potentially lethal, commonly leads to addiction and even escalates to heroin use. The safety and wellness aspect of prescription drug abuse is a very serious issue that must be addressed.
Hawaii
A law that became effective on July 1, 2007, now allows employers to perform on-the-job drug testing using instant, on-site oral fluid/saliva drug screening devices. Oral fluid tests are cheaper, faster and easier to use than urinalysis, hopefully leading to more widespread and consistent drug testing programs.

While it may surprise many, the construction industry and locals unions in particular strongly advocate the new legislation as a means to replace the typical, more expensive laboratory-based urine drug testing. With oral fluid, initial results are available in minutes, and observing the sample collection mitigates the prevalent practice of drug abusers “beating the test” via sample adulteration or substitution. Urine laboratory testing typically required the expensive practice of sending employees off-site to a clinic or laboratory, a process that takes at least 3-4 hours with results available for 24-48 hours. As noted by Lt. Governor Aiona of Hawaii, "Drug and alcohol abuse remain a problem in Hawaii's workforce. The law will go a long way towards helping to promote a drug-free workplace. This measure provides a cost effective on-the-job alternative to laboratory tests that can be costly and difficult to schedule."According to the U.S. Department of Labor, drug or alcohol abuse is involved in the majority of fatal accidents in the workplace. These laws represent an effort by the State Government to make the workplace safer for everyone.Although the new law permitting oral drug testing was effective on July 1, 2007, in many cases collective bargaining agreements will have to be updated before companies can start using the non-FDA approved tests. This procedure isn't expected to take long, however, since the unions - as well as management and the State Government - are in favor of the new law. According to union sources, they welcome the improved safety and working conditions that the tests will introduce.
One representative of the Pacific Resource Partnership, an alliance between contractors and the Carpenters Union Local 745, said construction workers and the industry pushed for the new tests as a way to decrease costs and save time while keeping job sites safe."This is something that I think is going to be a great asset for employers, especially in the construction industry where public safety is a huge factor," said Lt. Governor Aiona.

Georgia
In a similar bill, Governor Perdue of Georgia recently signed Senate Bill 96 into law which provides the option for companies throughout Georgia to drug test employees using an on-site rapid result oral fluid/saliva devices.

As in Hawaii, initial qualitative results are available in minutes, and if “negative” an employee goes back to work. Any “non-negative” (preliminary positive) results are sent to a lab for a GC/MS or LC/MS/MS quantitative analytical testing prior to substantive employers’ actions such as mandatory enrollment in employee assistance programs/counseling, removal from safety-sensitive duties, and/or suspension.
Per Governor Perdue, the bill which overwhelmingly passed the State Senate and House of Representatives, "had the strong support of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce and many other advocates of safe and drug-free workplaces that protect not only business owners, but employees and consumers as well.Companies using on-site oral fluid/saliva screens will now receive a 7.5 percent reduction in their worker's compensation insurance premiums. Summary

Drug testing in the workplace is not only legal, it may very well be part of an employer’s responsibility to provide a safe workplace for employees. The United Supreme Court has ruled that drug testing, including random drug testing, is legal. Furthermore, per the Department of Labor, OSHA, it is an employer’s responsibility to provide a safe workplace for all employees.

Assuming a comprehensive safety program is in place, a safe workplace is simply not possible without also maintaining a comprehensive drug-free workplace program inclusive of employee education, drug testing, and employee assistance/counseling.
Regardless of the specimen type used such as oral fluid/saliva, urine, or hair, it is critical that specimen collection be directly observed, and that drug testing is done on a regular basis. This includes; random, post-incident, reasonable suspicion, and return-to-duty mode. Pre-employment testing, while currently the most widely practiced of modes, is referred to by many experts as an “intelligence test”, and should not be relied upon exclusively.

When combined with education, and employee assistance programs, comprehensive drug-free workplace programs consistently result in a reduction in reportable site accidents of up to 50% or more, as well as multiple other safety and “bottom-line” benefits.

Employee Drug Testing

Why Most Drug Testing Programs DON'T WORK !

Effective Substance Abuse Management or The Importance of Deterrence ....

Pre-employment drug screening, using traditional lab-based urine tests, is the most widespread method of drug testing. Yet, data shows that this mode of testing is not effective at deterring workplace drug abuse. Why ....

Scheduled drug screening allows abusers to either temporarily stop using drugs or take advantage of the abundance of products available on the Internet to adulterate urine-based tests.

RANDOM DRUG TESTING via OBSERVED SPECIMEN COLLECION is Required!

Urine is clearly out of the question in a workplace environment... are YOU going to WATCH SOMEONE PEE INTO A CUP?

Oral fluid-based testing for drugs of abuse, however, enables corporations to perform random drug testing – conveniently, easily, and accurately.

The unpredictability of a random drug test virtually eliminates the possibility of an employee temporarily abstaining from drug use.
With observed collections, oral fluid testing removes any possibility of sample adulteration or substitution.

Oral fluid-based technology is changing the way companies drug test, allowing them to establish more effective drug free workplace programs to benefit employees and employers alike.

STATS support that Urine Drug Testing isn't the Solution
77% percent of drug abusers are employed
Nearly 10% of U.S. workers are abuse drugs
The average annual cost of drug abuse for U.S. businesses averages $10,000 per abuser and well over $140B nationwide.

Employees Reporting Drug Abuse Within Past Year by Industry
vs. 10% Average

Construction MORE
Manufacturing MORE
Hospitality / Lodging MORE
Retail MORE
Finance / Real Estate MORE

Why Drug Test?
The devastating impacts of drug abuse upon corporate safety, productivity, and the financial bottom-line are well documented. Up to 65% of on-the-job construction accidents can be related to substance abuse, while insurers note that drug and alcohol use is linked to 40% of construction fatalities. Drug abuse also negatively impacts employee turnover, absenteeism, workplace violence, inventory shrinkage/employee theft, and medical insurance utilization rates.

How can owners, employees, unions, and insurers, significantly improve job-site safety?
- Deterring and/or detecting on the job substance abuse. It is a first step to ensuring a safer, happier workplace environment, and one that just might just save a drug abuser’s life, or your own.



How should you drug test?
Manycorporations/contractors believe following “DOT Standards” is the most effective way to create a safer, drug free workplace. Unfortunately, this is a false, yet common belief.
DOT and other federally mandated drug testing regulations, are required in certain limited circumstances (truck drivers for specified classes of vehicles, vehicles carrying a certain number of passengers, etc.).
However, this traditional type of drug testing is over 20 years old and doesn’t test for many of today’s newer designer drugs. Furthermore, it is cumbersome to say the least, as it relies exclusively upon laboratory-based urine drug testing “Beating a test” by adding any of the hundreds of products readily available on Internet or substituting one’s specimen with drug-free urineor synthetic urine is commonplace. The practice has become so ineffective that thereare arguably more drug abuser’s “beating urine tests” than there are drug positives from this outdated method.

Drug Free Workplace Policy

A good place to start with any drug-free workplace program is to establish goals and objectives appropriate for your organization. These will help you create a foundation to write your workplace drug policy: a prerequisite to the implementation of any drug testing program.

When it comes to implementing a drug free workplace program, the documentation and impartial application of policy are critical. Not only do ad hoc approaches not work, they can cause serious employee moral and legal issues. Drug testing is a strategic corporate issue affecting everyone in the organization as well as corporate image. Therefore, company-wide involvement and “buy-in” are needed across all levels, including CEOs, CFOs, COOs, HR, Loss Prevention, Risk Management, Occupational Health and Safety, and employees. When implementing any drug testing program, it is recommended that the following areas be considered:·

Legal ramifications, a.k.a. “What rules apply”·

Type of testing: pre-employment, random, post accident, return-to-duty, reasonable suspicion/cause ·

Ease of use/administration of testing methods·

Immediacy of results

The following components are typically included in a comprehensive drug-free workplace program:

A written, signed drug testing policy

Drug tests: on-site as well as laboratory-based, using appropriate specimen types: oral fluid, urine, and hair

GC/LS/MS laboratory confirmatory testing

MRO (medical review officer) services

Employee assistance programs

Ongoing drug education and awareness programs

The problem with Pre-employment Testing ONLY:
While many companies have been practicing pre-employment testing for more than twenty years, it has been only marginally effective at reducing drugs in the workplace for two reasons: 1) Pre-employment testing, by definition, only addresses a small part of the workplace and 2) pre-employment testing ignores the fact that more than 77% of drug abusers are currently in the workforce.
Pre-employment testing can also be easily circumvented by drug abusers. Any type of testing with a previously scheduled date, allows applicants or employees that abuse drugs to employ a wide variety of methods to avoid detection as previously noted.

Random Testing
Random testing of the full workforce, while currently practiced by a small subset of corporate innovators, has proven to be the most effective deterrent to illicit drugs in the workplace.

Post-accident testing
Post-accident testing has become the norm for larger businesses, and most states allow employers to deny workers compensation benefits to employees who test positive for drugs of abuse.


Reasonable cause/suspicion testing
Reasonable cause/suspicion testing is helpful if employees and supervisors are trained to recognize the signs/ symptoms of drug abuse. Return-to-duty testing Return-to-duty testing is a means of enabling employees to come back to work, after testing positive to drugs of abuse. These employees usually complete an employee assistance program and/or similar substance abuse recovery program and undergo random testing.

Newer technologies are also important to consider
– A mini Case Study When one construction firm decided to institute a random drug testing program for all the company’s employees, they began researching drug testing tools. They discovered that many companies relied on lab-based urine testing. But, by nature, urine testing wouldn’t lend itself well to a construction environment. Collecting the sample would be troublesome, as laborers would have to be observed during the entire process to ensure no adulteration would take place. Furthermore, workers would have to leave the job site, possibly for hours at a time, for specimen collection. Plus, each test would cost more than $150-$200 including lost labor. Urine testing was determined to be cost-prohibitive. After further research, they discovered that oral-based drug testing eliminated many of the drawbacks of urine testing and offered more effective results. In fact oral-based testing was the only technology that would allow the company to implement a truly random drug testing program. By collecting just a swab of a person’s saliva oral fluid-based tests can detect drugs almost immediately after ingestion. Urine tests can only detect drugs six to nine hours after a drug has been ingested; enough time for the drug to metabolize show up in urine. Current oral-based testing tools were easy to administer and would allow the Director of Safety to do all the testing himself, with results ready in less than 15 minutes. The impacts on this construction firm were astounding. Its accident rate dropped to near zero, workers compensation premiums dropped 13%, and overall savings were calculated in the millions.

A Workplace Benefit
A carefully designed comprehensive drug-free workplace program is a clear benefit to everyone: employers, employees, unions, insurers, and owners/shareholders.
While zero tolerance relative to substance abuse is critical, however, programs can be non-punitive in nature.
The existence of a random drug testing program acts as a strong deterrent, however there will still be instances where employees are detected abusing drugs. When this occurs, it is recommended that the employee be offered an opportunity to participant in, and successfully complete, an employee assistance program. While not being allowed to work in a position that could negatively affect workplace safety during an interim period is a benefit, “firing” an employee, vs. temporary suspension, might not best serve anyone’s best interests. The company may be losing an otherwise excellent employee based upon the specific circumstances involved. Furthermore, fellow non-abusing employees are more likely to come forward and report incidents of drug abuse, if they know that fellow workers will be provided an opportunity to address the issue vs. being terminated.
Training employees, supervisors, and even families of the signs/symptoms of drug abuse may also be of significant benefit. How effective will an employee be if a family member has reached advanced stages of drug abuse?


The Future
Many, if not most, senior “C-level” professionals aren’t even aware of the significant threats posed by workplace drug abuse.

The following responses are typical to “Why don’t you drug test at XYQ corporation?” and demonstrate a cultural tendency to sweep the problem under the rug, and/or a lack of education/awareness:

“ We don’t have a drug abuse problem at OUR company”

“ Implementing a comprehensive drug-free workplace problem, inclusive of drug testing would be TOO HARD for our corporation.”

Unfortunately a catastrophic event is required to drive some corporation’s to effect change. Yet, more and more companies are beginning to take the advice of their safety and risk management teams, and pro-actively address workplace drug abuse.

Drug free-workplace programs and innovative technologies such as oral fluid-based random testing offer employers and employees a means to protect themselves, from this pervasive problem.

With multiple avenues available to help solve the problem of workplace drug abuse, the final question remains, “Why don’t you test?”

Prescription Drug Abuse #1 Problem in Schools and Workplace ?

Prescription Drug Abuse is a MAJOR PROBLEM

According to the 2006 annual report of the International Narcotics Control Board, (as well as recent SAMHSA survey results) the domestic and worldwide abuse of licit drugswill surpass that of illicit drug abuse (potentially excluding cannabis) in upcoming years. In fact, in middle schools and high schools the first drug a child abuses these days is likely a prescription drug such as a pain reliever such as OXYCONTIN or VICODIN (52%) vs. marijuana (48%) (SAMHSA Report). Worst yet …. is that the United States leads the way in its contribution to this international problem!