Drug Watch International

OVERVIEW OF DRUG TESTING

Most common types of testing:

• #  Pre-employment, post-offer

• #  Reasonable suspicion/for cause

• #  Random

• #  Post-incident (must define injury, property damage)

• #  Return-to-duty

• #  Follow-up or periodic unannounced (must define in policy)

  The U.S. Dept. of Transportation (DOT) requires the above-types of testing for most DOT regulated companies. Non-regulated companies may add other types of testing (i.e. pre-promotion, annual physical, etc.), as would be applicable for the company and in compliance with any state laws.

  Standard illicit drug tests:

• #  5-panel: marijuana, PCP , opiates, amphetamines, cocaine

• #  10-panel: above 5 + barbiturates, benzodiazepines, methaqualone, methadone, & propoxyphene

• #  Alcohol

  Department of Transportation (DOT) requires that the 5-panel screen and alcohol testing be used for all DOT regulated companies. Non-regulated companies may test for as many drugs as they wish as would be applicable for the company and in compliance with any state laws.

  Specimens most-commonly used for testing:

• #  Urine (for illicit drugs)

• #  Breath (for alcohol testing)

• #  Blood (only in specific situations-rarely used)

• #  Hair (expected to be approved for DOT use)

• #  Oral fluids (expected to be approved for DOT use)

  Testing process best-practices overview:

• #  Urine specimen given in a secured restroom, unobserved

• #  Chain-of-custody form and procedures used with any specimen

• #  Specimen screened for selected drugs

• #  If positive result on screening test, specimen goes to confirmatory testing

• #  Confirmatory testing uses a different chemical method

• #  If confirmed positive, reviewed by a Medical Review Officer (MRO)

  DOT testing and some state laws require use of the above-listed procedures and an MRO.

  C. E. Edwards
  Arizona H.I.D.T.A., Demand-Reduction Program Drug-Free Workplaces, Schools & Communities 

HAIR TESTING

Hair testing, as a forensic tool, has been conducted for decades. Using hair as the designated specimen in drug-free workplace testing programs is appealing to many employers as the scientific knowledge base has expanded, the costs are decreasing and the collection procedures are the least invasive for workplace drug testing. Strict chain-of-custody documentation procedures are followed, thereby providing the same safeguards and protections for the employee and the employer as in urine specimen collections. Note: PCP, MDMA (Ecstasy) and 6-acetyl morphine, while dissipating quickly from urine, are easily detectable in hair.

Some facts about hair analysis and workplace testing:

• ‚  A swath of hair, from the back crown area, is taken to provide a testable sample measuring 1.5" long and about 0.5" wide (70-120 strands of hair) - only the 1.5" closest to the scalp is tested.1 1.5" of hair will provide information covering about 90 days.2

• ‚  The hair sample is tracked through chain-of-custody procedures, is packaged and sent to a laboratory that specializes in hair testing. Hair not used is stored.

• ‚  Hair specimens are thoroughly washed to remove contaminants (hair products, dust, sweat, smoke etc.), the melanin is removed to eliminate any bias, then the hair is liquified for testing.3

• ‚  The minimum time period that may be analyzed is about one month.

• ‚  Brief periods of abstinence from drugs will not alter the test results.4

• ‚  Trying to thwart hair drug testing is much more difficult than with urine testing. Employees may cut off the

  head hair - in which case body hair or fingernails may be used. Testing procedures for fingernails are identical

  to those used in hair analysis.

• ‚  Once a drug metabolite is embedded in the hair shaft during formation of a hair in the follicle, that metabolite

  is very nearly permanent in the hair shaft.5

• ‚  Drug metabolites will become detectable in the hair about one week after ingestion.6

• ‚  Hair analysis is a better indicator of chronic cocaine use, whereas urine analysis is a better measure of short-

  term cocaine use.7

• ‚  Hair testing is comparable to urine testing for presence of marijuana.8

• ‚  Hair testing is better at detecting morphine-based compounds than it is in detecting opiates, particularly

  codeine.9

1. Specimen Collection: Hair Testing for drugs of abuse. Procedures & Information. Associated Pathologists Laboratories.

2. Hair Testing Questions & Answers. Omega Labs website @ www.omegalabs.net

3. Drug Testing Technology: Assessment of Field Applications. Baumgartner, Werner A., Ph.D.; Hill, Virginia A., B.S.; and Kippenberger, Donald

Ph.D. Edited by Tom Mieczkowski. CRC Press LLC. 1999.
4. Hair Assays for Drugs of Abuse in a Probation Population: Implementation of a Pilot Study in a Correctional Field Setting. National Institute of Justice Research Brief. Mieczkowski, Tom, Ph.D.; Newel, Richard A.; Allison, Gail; and Coletti, Shirley. October 1995.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.

C. E. Edwards
Arizona H.I.D.T.A., Demand-Reduction Program Drug-Free Workplaces, Schools & Communities 

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
ON MARIJUANA-USE PUBLIC POLICY

C. E. Edwards March 2006

During the past decade, the United States has been experiencing renewed efforts to change perceptions of marijuana from that of a dangerous, addictive drug of abuse1 to one where the message is that marijuana is a medicine that treats illnesses. The individual state ‘medicalization’ efforts, in contravention of federal law and international treaties, are dedicated to normalizing and eventually legalizing the use of marijuana and other drugs.2

The foundations of public policy should be built upon valid research findings and available historical experience. Therefore, it is appropriate to review the experiences of U. S. states and other countries that have embraced the message that marijuana is a harmless herb and a medicine. Inherent within the consideration of any change in public policy is a responsibility to arrive at an effective public policy based upon considerations for long-term impact of such a policy change.

United States Historical overview:
About the year 1900, between 2% and 5% of adults in the U.S. were addicted to drugs - many to morphine which was commonly found in medications. Reductions in the addiction rate were 

EL ABUSO DE ALCOHOL Y OTRAS DROGAS EN EL LUGAR DE TRABAJO IMPACTO AL EMPLEADO, ASI COMO DE COSTOS DE SEGUROS, Y GANANCIAS DE LA IMPRESA

• ‚  El 75,2% de los usuarios de drogas ilícitas están empleados1

• ‚  Actualmente 19.5 millones de Norteamericanos son usuarios de drogas ilícitas2

• ‚  77,6%de los adultos clasificados como usuarios o abusadores de drogas ilicitas son

  empleados3

• ‚  35% de los trabajadores han precenciado/escuchado sobre el uso de drogas en el lugar de

  trabajo.4

• ‚  11% de los trabajadores han recebido ofertas de drogas en el lugar de trabajo5

• ‚  Resultados-positivos en la prueba del uso de anfetaminas han aumentado 85% entre los años

  2001-2005.6

• ‚  48% de los casos de emergencias en hospitáles, de bido al abuso de drogas, son personas de

  35-44 años de edad.7

• ‚  15% (19,2 millones) de empleados reportan impedimentos debido al consumo de bebidas

  alcohólicas ensu trabajo, beben antes de empezar a trabajar, o tienen resaca en el trabajo

  durante un periodo de doce meses.8

• ‚  Pruebas hechas al azar pueden identificar 93% de los que usan drogas diariamente o

  semanalmente.9

• ‚  En comparación con empleados sin un problema de abusar sustancias: abusadores de alcohol

  son dos veces mas propensos de tener tiempo en un hospitál, resulta de un accidente; abusadores de drogas tres veces y abusadores de alcohol-drogas combinados quatro veces10

  El uso de alcohol y drogas en el lugar de trabajo le costará a su negocio tiempo,productividad, compensaciones más altas, costos médicos, y la reducción de sus ganancias.

1. 1  Encuesta Nacional 2004, Departamento de Salubridad y Servicios Humanos

2. 2  Encuesta Nacional 2004, Departamento de Salubridad y Servicios Humanos

3. Encuesta Nacional 2004, Departamento de Salubridad y Servicios Humanos

4. 4  Instituto para un Lugar de Trabajo Libre De Drogas: Actitudes de Empleado Respecto a el Uso de Drogas

5. 5  Instituto para un Lugar de Trabajo Libre De Drogas: Actitudes de Empleado Respecto a el Uso de Drogas

6. 6  Quest Diagnostics, Inc., El Índice de Prueba de Uso de Drogas 2005

7. 7  Red de Avisos del Abuso de Drogas (DAWN) Encuesta 2002

8. 8  Frone, M.R., “Predominio y distribución del useo de alcohol e impedimento en el lugar de empleo: Estudio nacional de U.S.A.,” Diario de Estudios sobre

Alcohol, 67, No. 1, pagina 147. Enero 2006
9 Diario de Enfermedades Adictivas “Identificación de Usuarios Frequentes e Infrequentes de Drogas Ilícitas” : Robert

Dupont, M.C. et..Vol 14 No. 3
10. Miller, Ted R., Ph.D. Informe: "Alcoholismo: Estudio Clinicál y Experimentál" Enero 2001

C. E. Edwards
Arizona H.I.D.T.A., Demand-Reduction Program Drug-Free Workplaces, Schools & Communities