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
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Drug Testing in Schools
School Drug Testing
Bethlehem Schools Adopt Drug Testing PolicyAnyone looking to work in the Bethlehem Area School District will now have to take a drug test.Monday night, the school board voted to approve a pre-employment drug testing policy.
Starting immediately, new and prospective employees will have to get tested before they can work.
The policy was proposed after Nitschmann Middle School principal John Acerra was arrested on drug charges.
Loretta Leeson: "A drug test doesn't always screen everything but I think we're taking the right steps to at least protecting the children in the district and other employees in the district."One board member has requested looking into testing all employees.
Source: http://wfmz.com/view/?id=228306
Bethlehem Schools Adopt Drug Testing PolicyAnyone looking to work in the Bethlehem Area School District will now have to take a drug test.Monday night, the school board voted to approve a pre-employment drug testing policy.
Starting immediately, new and prospective employees will have to get tested before they can work.
The policy was proposed after Nitschmann Middle School principal John Acerra was arrested on drug charges.
Loretta Leeson: "A drug test doesn't always screen everything but I think we're taking the right steps to at least protecting the children in the district and other employees in the district."One board member has requested looking into testing all employees.
Source: http://wfmz.com/view/?id=228306
Friday, January 18, 2008
Accuracy of On-site Oral Fluid / Saliva Drug Testing
Journal of Psychoactive Drugs
A comparison between instant and laboratory oral fluid analysis among arrestees.
Yacoubian GS; Wish ED.
Research studies that collect biological measures of drug use have traditionally utilized laboratory urinalysis.
Several recent studies have also documented the utility of laboratory oral fluid (OF) analysis.
A new method of drug testing -- instant OF technology -- may offer a quicker, equally accurate alternative to laboratory OF assays.
To date, however, no field studies have compared the two methods.
In the current study, an instant OF test (Avitar ORALscreen (TM)) was administered to adult arrestees surveyed through Maryland's Substance Abuse Need for Treatment among Arrestees (SANTA) study.
Following a research interview, a second OF sample was collected (Avitar ORALconfirm (TM)) and shipped to the manufacturer's laboratory for analysis.
The Avtiar ORALscreen instant OF test was -
Following a research interview, a second OF sample was collected (Avitar ORALconfirm (TM)) and shipped to the manufacturer's laboratory for analysis.
The Avtiar ORALscreen instant OF test was -
96% sensitive and 83% specific for cocaine,
100% sensitive and 75% specific for opiates, and
100% sensitive and 94% specific for marijuana.
Copyright 2006, Haight-Ashbury Publishing
100% sensitive and 94% specific for marijuana.
Copyright 2006, Haight-Ashbury Publishing
Reference Source: Yacoubian GS; Wish ED. A comparison between instant and laboratory oral fluid analysis among arrestees. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 38(2): 207-210, 2006. (10 refs.)
Monday, 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.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Courts Uphold Workplace Drug Testing - Once Again
Alberta Court of Appeal ruling upholds construction workplace drug testing
(Source: Canadian Press)
EDMONTON - Construction and energy companies are happy with an Alberta court ruling that upholds the right of employers to test workers for drugs.
The Alberta Court of Appeal's decision overturned a lower court judgment that said Kellogg, Brown & Root Co. discriminated against a man in 2002 when it fired him from an oilsands project near Fort McMurray after he tested positive for marijuana.
John Chiasson, who admitted to being a recreational pot smoker, filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, which ruled against him. The commission said there needs to be a balance between an individual's human rights and the needs of an employer in protecting others.
But Court of Queen's Bench Justice Sheilah Martin then ruled in his favour. She said he should have been treated the same as someone with a drug addiction, which is considered a disability in human rights case law.
The panel of three Appeal Court justices disagreed. The judges said it is legitimate for Kellogg, Brown & Root to presume that people who use drugs at all are a safety risk in an already dangerous workplace.
"We see this case as no different than that of a trucking or taxi company which has a policy requiring its employees to refrain from the use of alcohol for some time before the employee drives one of the employer's vehicles," the justices wrote.
"Extending human rights protections to situations resulting in placing the lives of others at risk flies in the face of logic."
Kellogg, Brown & Root, one of the largest construction firms in the world, was helping to build an expansion to Syncrude Canada's plant at the time of Chiasson's case and is still active in the oilsands.
Andrew Robertson, a lawyer for the company, said the Appeal Court's decision is important to energy and construction industries.
"It is refreshing to see the Alberta Court of Appeal factor in risk management in safety-sensitive workplaces in a circumstance when there had been a recent focus on human rights issues," he said.
Heather Browne, a spokeswoman for Texas-based Kellogg, Brown & Root, hailed the ruling.
"KBR is a leader in workplace safety, and maintaining that commitment is the company's top priority," Browne said Wednesday.
"The court ruling upholds that commitment and we look forward to continuing our work in that regard."
"This affects a lot of people and it is important. The commission does have a duty to ensure that the rights of all Albertans - both employers and employees - are balanced in this respect."
During the original court case, officials with oilsands giant Syncrude testified that the company's lost-time rate from accidents has dropped in part because of drug and alcohol testing.
Syncrude, Suncor, Albian Sands and other major oilsands heavyweights test their employees for drugs before they are allowed on jobsites.
Kara Flynn, a spokeswoman for Syncrude, said that in a broad sense, the Appeal Court ruling supports the company's drug-testing policy and goals.
"Any judicial decisions that support that are greatly appreciated," she said.
The impact of the ruling is already starting to ripple beyond Alberta's boundaries.
Phil Hochstein, president of the Independent Contractors and Business Association in British Columbia, said while workplace drug testing is common on major projects in Alberta, it is the exception in B.C.
He expects that is going to change.
"I think that workplace testing of construction workers is probably an issue whose time has come," he said from Vancouver.
"I think this case is going to spur more of this jobsite testing, not only on big industrial jobs, but on commercial and institutional jobs throughout the country."
(Source: Canadian Press)
EDMONTON - Construction and energy companies are happy with an Alberta court ruling that upholds the right of employers to test workers for drugs.
The Alberta Court of Appeal's decision overturned a lower court judgment that said Kellogg, Brown & Root Co. discriminated against a man in 2002 when it fired him from an oilsands project near Fort McMurray after he tested positive for marijuana.
John Chiasson, who admitted to being a recreational pot smoker, filed a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, which ruled against him. The commission said there needs to be a balance between an individual's human rights and the needs of an employer in protecting others.
But Court of Queen's Bench Justice Sheilah Martin then ruled in his favour. She said he should have been treated the same as someone with a drug addiction, which is considered a disability in human rights case law.
The panel of three Appeal Court justices disagreed. The judges said it is legitimate for Kellogg, Brown & Root to presume that people who use drugs at all are a safety risk in an already dangerous workplace.
"We see this case as no different than that of a trucking or taxi company which has a policy requiring its employees to refrain from the use of alcohol for some time before the employee drives one of the employer's vehicles," the justices wrote.
"Extending human rights protections to situations resulting in placing the lives of others at risk flies in the face of logic."
Kellogg, Brown & Root, one of the largest construction firms in the world, was helping to build an expansion to Syncrude Canada's plant at the time of Chiasson's case and is still active in the oilsands.
Andrew Robertson, a lawyer for the company, said the Appeal Court's decision is important to energy and construction industries.
"It is refreshing to see the Alberta Court of Appeal factor in risk management in safety-sensitive workplaces in a circumstance when there had been a recent focus on human rights issues," he said.
Heather Browne, a spokeswoman for Texas-based Kellogg, Brown & Root, hailed the ruling.
"KBR is a leader in workplace safety, and maintaining that commitment is the company's top priority," Browne said Wednesday.
"The court ruling upholds that commitment and we look forward to continuing our work in that regard."
"This affects a lot of people and it is important. The commission does have a duty to ensure that the rights of all Albertans - both employers and employees - are balanced in this respect."
During the original court case, officials with oilsands giant Syncrude testified that the company's lost-time rate from accidents has dropped in part because of drug and alcohol testing.
Syncrude, Suncor, Albian Sands and other major oilsands heavyweights test their employees for drugs before they are allowed on jobsites.
Kara Flynn, a spokeswoman for Syncrude, said that in a broad sense, the Appeal Court ruling supports the company's drug-testing policy and goals.
"Any judicial decisions that support that are greatly appreciated," she said.
The impact of the ruling is already starting to ripple beyond Alberta's boundaries.
Phil Hochstein, president of the Independent Contractors and Business Association in British Columbia, said while workplace drug testing is common on major projects in Alberta, it is the exception in B.C.
He expects that is going to change.
"I think that workplace testing of construction workers is probably an issue whose time has come," he said from Vancouver.
"I think this case is going to spur more of this jobsite testing, not only on big industrial jobs, but on commercial and institutional jobs throughout the country."
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.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Oxycodone / Hydrocodone Drug Related Deaths Exceed Those for Heroin
Tampa, Florida -
Drug related deaths for oxycodone and hydrocondone exceed those for heroin in the State of Florida.
U.S. Drug Czar John Walters again voiced concern about the abuse of prescription drugs.
Walters, National Director of Drugs Control Policy, noted that many teens and young people believe prescription pills are not as dangerous as street drugs.
12% of people between the ages of 18 and 25 report abusing prescription drugs in the past year.
CBS NEWS - WTSP - Tampa Bay's 10 News - Tampa / St. Petersburg
Drug related deaths for oxycodone and hydrocondone exceed those for heroin in the State of Florida.
U.S. Drug Czar John Walters again voiced concern about the abuse of prescription drugs.
Walters, National Director of Drugs Control Policy, noted that many teens and young people believe prescription pills are not as dangerous as street drugs.
12% of people between the ages of 18 and 25 report abusing prescription drugs in the past year.
CBS NEWS - WTSP - Tampa Bay's 10 News - Tampa / St. Petersburg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
