The following have been noted to react and cause "false positive" results with urine drug screens.
Amantadine Amantadine Parkinsonism
Bupropion Wellbutrin & Zyban Antidepressant&Smoking cessation
Chloroquine AralenTreats Malaria
Chlorpromazine Thorazine, Largactil Psychotic disorders
Desipramine Norpramin Antidepressant
Dextroamphetamine Dexedrine Narcolepsy "sleep
Ephedrine Ephedra and Ma Huang Amphetamines
Fenfluramine Fen Phen Diet pill outlawed by FDA Labetalol Labetalol Blood Pressure
Mexiletine Mexitil Cardiovascular
n-acetyl procainamide Procainmide Cardiovascular
Phentremine Adipex/Obenix/Oby-Trim Diet Pills
Propranolol Inderal Cardiovascular
Phencyclidine
(PCP)
Dextromethorphan Dextromethorphan Cough treatment
Diphenhydramine Benadryl Allergies
Thioridazine Mellaril RidarilinCanada Tranquilizer
Venlafaxine Effexor Antidepressant
Showing posts with label problems with urine drug tests. Show all posts
Showing posts with label problems with urine drug tests. Show all posts
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
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
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
Monday, January 7, 2008
Drugged Driving
Drivers is Australia who tested positive to drugs in roadside checks have had their results confirmed in a laboratory and will be charged.
Police had to wait until Queensland Health Scientific Services analysed the drivers' saliva samples in its laboratory and confirmed the presence of drugs before they could be charged.
All 10 drivers tested positive to driving while under the influence of methamphetamine.
A 42-year-old man has been summonsed to appear in Brisbane Magistrates Court on January 31 and a 25-year-old man will appear in the same court on February 11.
Since random drug-testing of drivers was introduced on December 1, 19 drivers have tested positive to drugs, up until midnight on Thursday.
Police are still awaiting laboratory confirmation of the remaining nine test results.
Of the 19 drivers, 17 tested positive to methamphetamine, one tested positive to both methamphetamine and cannabis and one tested positive for ecstasy.
Drug-drivers can be fined up to $1050, lose their licence or face up to three months' jail.
Police hope to saliva-test about 20,000 drivers in the first year of the random roadside drug-testing operations and expect about 300 to test positive to illicit drugs.
The introduction of drug testing comes as Queensland cut its road toll by more than two-thirds for the official holiday period, with four deaths against last year's 13.
Across Australia, 45 people died on the roads this season compared with 62 last year.
Police had to wait until Queensland Health Scientific Services analysed the drivers' saliva samples in its laboratory and confirmed the presence of drugs before they could be charged.
All 10 drivers tested positive to driving while under the influence of methamphetamine.
A 42-year-old man has been summonsed to appear in Brisbane Magistrates Court on January 31 and a 25-year-old man will appear in the same court on February 11.
Since random drug-testing of drivers was introduced on December 1, 19 drivers have tested positive to drugs, up until midnight on Thursday.
Police are still awaiting laboratory confirmation of the remaining nine test results.
Of the 19 drivers, 17 tested positive to methamphetamine, one tested positive to both methamphetamine and cannabis and one tested positive for ecstasy.
Drug-drivers can be fined up to $1050, lose their licence or face up to three months' jail.
Police hope to saliva-test about 20,000 drivers in the first year of the random roadside drug-testing operations and expect about 300 to test positive to illicit drugs.
The introduction of drug testing comes as Queensland cut its road toll by more than two-thirds for the official holiday period, with four deaths against last year's 13.
Across Australia, 45 people died on the roads this season compared with 62 last year.
Monday, December 24, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
