Showing posts with label drug abuse. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drug abuse. Show all posts

Friday, April 17, 2009

Substance Abuse - Important Court Case for Teachers



Opposing view: Safety takes precedence
Educators need wide range of tools to protect students in their care.

By Francisco Negrón

Schools have a responsibility to ensure students are safe. When it comes to preventing drug abuse, educators have to make tough, on-the-spot decisions to stem the distribution of potentially harmful substances. Next week, the Supreme Court will consider whether educators can be held personally liable for money damages for searching the person of a middle school student believed to have unauthorized prescription drugs. At issue in Safford v. Redding is whether the search was reasonable.

The wisdom of zero-tolerance policies is not at issue in the court case, and such policies are up to local communities. Working with their elected school boards and school leaders, communities should decide what strategy works best for them. Schools are some of the safest places for students because school boards have policies to prevent and eliminate the dangers of drug abuse and weapons. The real question is whether educators will be able to use a wide range of tools to ensure the safety of the students in their care. Those tools may sometimes include searches based on reasonable suspicion to look for weapons or drugs.

As the Supreme Court held in Morse v. Frederick in 2007, the danger posed by drugs to our students is "serious and palpable." Indeed, the federal government's Office of National Drug Control Policy reported just last year that prescription-drug abuse among youth is increasing at an alarming rate. And, the accessibility of over-the-counter drugs can have harmful, unintended consequences for impressionable teens and adolescents. At a time of crucial emotional and psychological development, a student can quickly fall prey to the scourge of drug abuse.

Everyone agrees that if there is no threat to students' safety, highly invasive searches are inappropriate. But, that does not mean that when they have a reasonable suspicion, educators should stop looking for harmful drugs simply because they cannot find them in a student's backpack or pockets. The more a student's conduct poses a potential safety threat to herself and others, the greater the need for educators to prevent it — for her sake and the sake of her fellow students.

Francisco Negrón is general counsel to the National School Boards Association and its Council of School Attorneys.
Posted at 12:21 AM/ET, April 17, 2009 in USA TODAY editorial | Permalink

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Boston Massachusetts Fire Fighters Union - Not the Norm

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 deterent 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 collegues 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 and Alcohol DUI Leading Cause of Deaths


2008 SAMHSA REPORT - United Stated Department of Heatlh and Human Services

5% of people drove under the influence of illicit drugs in the past year (10 million drivers)
(15% under influence of alcohol).

States with the 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).

Impaired driving is the LEADING CAUSE OF DEATHS among persons aged 3 to 33.


Illicit drugs, as defined above, includes marijuana/hashish, cocaine (including crack), inhalants, hallucinogens, heroin, or prescription-type drugs used nonmedically.

Friday, April 4, 2008

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

Monday, October 1, 2007

Schools Infested with Drugs

New Study: Schools Infested with Drugs - August 17, 2007
A New Study from the National Center on Addiction & Substance Abuse (CASA) suggests that US Schools are infested with drugs. The survey revealed that at least once a week on their school grounds, 31 percent of high school students (more than four million) and nine percent of middle school students (more than one million) see illegal drugs used, sold, students high and/or drunk. At least weekly, 17 percent of all high and middle school students (4.4 million) personally see classmates high on drugs at school.

Thursday, August 2, 2007

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!