Monday 29 October 2012

How are Drugs Classified? Frequently Asked Questions


Posted by Drug Test Australia,

Drugs are commonly classified according to their legal status or their effects on the central nervous system. There are three main types of drugs that affect the central nervous system:
Depressants are drugs that slow down the functions of the central nervous system. They include:
  • Alcohol
  • Cannabis
  • Barbiturates, including Seconal, Tuinal and Amytal
  • Benzodiazepines (tranquillisers), such as Rohypnol, Valium, Serapax, Mogadon, Normison and Eupynos
  • GHB (gamma-hydroxybutrate), or "fantasy"
  • Opiates and opioids, including heroin, morphine, codeine, methadone and pethidine
  • Some solvents and inhalants, of which many are household products.
In small quantities, depressants can cause the user to feel more relaxed and less inhibited. In larger quantities, they can cause unconsciousness, vomiting and even death. Depressants affect concentration and coordination. They slow down a person's ability to respond to unexpected situations.
Stimulants act on the central nervous system to speed up the messages to and from the brain. They can make the user feel more awake, alert or confident. Stimulants increase heart rate, body temperature and blood pressure. Other effects include reduced appetite, dilated pupils, talkativeness, agitation and sleep disturbance. Mild stimulant include ephedrine used in medicines for bronchitis, hay fever and asthma, caffeine in coffee, tea and cola drinks; and nicotine in tobacco.
Stronger stimulants include:
  • Methamphetamines, including illegal methamphetamines
  • Cocaine
  • MDMA / Ecstasy
  • Slimming tablets such as Duromine, Tenuate Dospan and Ponderax.
Large quantities of stimulants can "over-stimulate" the user, causing anxiety, panic, seizures, headaches, stomach cramps, aggression and paranoia. Prolonged use of strong stimulants can mask some of the effects of depressant drugs, such as alcohol, making it difficult for a person to judge their effects.
Hallucinogens affect perception. People who have taken hallucinogens may believe they see or hear things that are not really there, or what they see may be distorted in some way. The effects of hallucinogens vary a great deal, so it is impossible to predict how they will affect a particular person at a particular time.
  • Datura
  • Ketamine
  • LSD magic mushrooms
  • Mescaline
Cannabis is an hallucinogen as well as a depressant. It could be deemed a psychoactive drug. Ecstasy can also have hallucinogenic qualities.
Some effects of hallucinogens include dilation of pupils, loss of appetite, emotional and psychological euphoria and well-being  jaw clenching, sweating, panic, paranoia, loss of contact with reality, irrational or bizarre behaviour, stomach cramps, nausea and increased activity, talking or laughing.
http://www.drugtestaustralia.com.au/frequently-asked-questions/drug-classification

Contact us at Drug Test Australia
Website; www.drugtestaustralia.com.au
Email; Sales@drugtestaustralia.com.au
Phone; 1300 660 636

More airline staff fail drug, alcohol tests


Posted by Drug Test Australia

 By Chris Zappone October 30, 2012 - 10:26AM -  Sydney Morning Herald


Less than three months after a Qantas pilot was stood down from a flight on suspicion of alcohol use, data from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority shows more than 100 airline employees have tested positive for drugs and alcohol over a 17-month period.

Random drug and alcohol tests of airline staff - including pilots, ground crews, air traffic controllers and other ‘‘safety sensitive’’ workers - showed 80 positives for drug use out of 19,402 tests, as well as another 24 positives for alcohol use out of 27,459 tests, data from the CASA has shown.

The drug and alcohol tests, conducted from September 2010 to February 2012, were used for pre-employment testing, upon suspicion of a staff member or for employees returning from rehabilitation for substance abuse. From 2008 and March 2012, random drug and alcohol sampling by the airlines themselves revealed 27 positives out of 51,645 tests for both substances.


The drug and alcohol use figures come after the pilot of a Qantas plane bound for Brisbane from Sydney was stood down minutes before take-off in August on suspicion of alcohol use. The government has implemented a drug and alcohol management regulatory regime since 2008, with random testing occurring since then.

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson noted that 0.41 per cent of totals had tested positive for drug use and only 0.087 per cent had test positive for alcohol. The airlines’ testing revealed a positive rate of 0.052 per cent.

‘‘The rate of positives for both the testing by aviation organisations and the random testing, is very, very low,’’ he said. ‘‘[But] naturally we'd like to see no positives at all.

‘‘To strive to achieve that, there are comprehensive education and training programs for all aviation employees to warn them about the dangers of drugs and alcohol, while at work.’’

In the test, the blood alcohol concentration limit was a 0.02 per cent. Drug limits were ‘‘in accordance with the Australian standard for oral fluid testing,’’ CASA said.

Drugs and Alcohol; Over 100 airline employees tested positive over 17 months


  • From:Herald Sun 
  • October 29, 2012 11:00PM
  • http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/more-than-100-airline-employees-have-tested-positive-to-drugs-or-alcohol-over-17-months/story-e6freon6-1226505683021

    drugs

    MORE than 100 airline industry employees have tested positive to drugs or alcohol in internal tests over a 17-month period, data from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority has revealed. 
    The tests, which included 80 positive drug detections and 24 alcohol breaches, are those taken by air and cabin crew, maintenance personnel, air traffic control staff, ground and baggage workers, refuellers and security screening employees who have a direct effect on air safety.
    The results of internal tests, administered by commercial airlines and private aviation firms, have previously not been made public but were released by CASA for transparency reasons on the basis they did not identify individual operators or personnel.
    CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said despite the positive results, they reflected breaches by 0.41 per cent of the 19,402 drug tests and 0.087 per cent of the 27,459 alcohol tests.
    While CASA said any positive results for people operating in "safety sensitive" aviation positions was concerning, it is believed only two breaches were recorded by pilots or flight crew with most instances relating to ground staff, baggage handlers or cabin crew.
    In a two-tier testing system introduced in 2008, random testing by CASA turned up a further 45 positive drug or alcohol results from 51,000 tests, of which 18 were subsequently overturned following medical reviews that identify prescription medication breaches.
    The second tier of testing sees industry operators undertaking internal testing of SSAA (safety sensitive aviation activity) personnel for alcohol and drugs including amphetamines, cannabis, heroin, LSD, Ecstasy, cocaine, sleeping pills and PCP (Phencyclidine).
    The legal alcohol limit for airline staff is 0.02 per cent.
    A Qantas captain suspected of having consumed alcohol was stood down from the controls of a Boeing 767-300 shortly before it was due to take-off from Sydney on July 30.
    It is believed cabin crew raised concerns about the pilot amid suspicions the captain had been drinking prior to the flight.
    Eight cabin crew tested positive, five aircraft engineers, one refueller, a security guard, four baggage handlers and two foreign staff.

    RailCorp Cuts Drug Tests by Thosands


    Posted by Drug Test Australia, October 30th, 2012

    THOUSANDS FEWER RAILCORP DRUG TEST


    Original:Lee Jeloscek, 7News Sydney
    RailCorp has been accused of putting cost cutting ahead of public safety by slashing the number of drug and alcohol tests on staff.
    Its latest report shows there have been thousands fewer tests catching fewer intoxicated train drivers and station staff.
    RailCorp says it's a drug and alcohol free workplace, but its commitment to ensuring that is under question.
    "Public transport drivers and others are on safety critical jobs and it's absolutely critical that they be drug and alcohol free." Action for Public Transport spokesman Jim Donovan said.
    The latest RailCorp stats reveal it's slashed testing of employees which includes drivers.
    In the last financial year the number of random breath tests has dropped from nearly 20,000 to fewer than 14,000; down more than 30 per cent.
    While the number of staff detected with a blood alcohol level above 0.02 has dropped from 13 to three.
    The Shadow Transport Minister Penny Sharpe says that’s 6000 fewer tests.
    “It's got to be cost cutting and it's not acceptable," Sharpe said.
    "This is a massive cut to the drug and alcohol testing regime in New South Wales safety is of the utmost importance for passengers and public transport workers."
    Drug testing has also been cut by 10 per cent from nearly 7000 to just over 6000.
    Disturbingly, 21 staff had drugs in their system.
    RailCorp says it's comfortably meeting the government's requirements.
    "RailCorp is committed to ensuring that the safety to our passengers and our staff is our number one priority," spokesman Tony Eid said.
    Following the Waterfall and Glenbrook train disasters staff testing was overhauled, and the union is calling for more change. It wants to replace the urine tests with oral swabs.
    "RailCorp can investigate what a rail worker has done two weeks ago but they can't investigate what a rail worker has done two hours ago that doesn't improve safety," Rail Tram and Bus Union spokesman Bob Nanva said.

    Monday 22 October 2012

    Police force passes the drug test; Victorian police


    FEWER than 1 per cent of drug and alcohol tests of Victorian police have come up positive, with cannabis the most-detected drug.
    Figures obtained by The Age under freedom of information laws show the force checked 1625 of its members in the five years since tests began, with 13 returning positive results.

    Testing falls into four categories: targeted at police believed to be abusing drugs and alcohol; those obligatory after a ''critical incident'' such as a high-speed chase or police shooting; random and blanket testing of ''high risk'' work units; and testing on ''performance management'' grounds.

    Targeted, or 'investigative'', testing has returned seven positives since 2008; three police have returned positive results in performance-based testing and three members of high-risk units - such as the drug squad and special operations group - have tested positive.


    Two tested positive for both cocaine and heroin, five for cannabis, two for amphetamines, one for steroids, one for both steroids and amphetamines and two for alcohol.

    ''The alcohol and other drug testing policy focuses on the fitness for duty responsibilities of all Victoria Police employees,'' a police spokeswoman said. ''Employees need to be fit for duty and not affected by alcohol or other drugs. It is equally important that employees feel assured that colleagues are not affected by alcohol or other drugs. ''But it is as much a welfare-based issue as an ethical one. This is also about the community having trust in Victoria Police - and if our members are enforcing laws around illicit drug use, they also need to obey the same laws.

    ''The positive results confirm the drug and alcohol testing policy fully supports the ethical standards and behaviours expected of sworn members of Victoria Police.''

    Police union secretary Greg Davies welcomed the low number of positive results, but said Victoria Police was using its power to test in high-risk areas - or ''specific work units'' - to unfairly take aim at certain suburban police stations.
    ''We're pleased, but not at all surprised, that the results of the drug testing within the police force are at the low levels they are,'' he said.

    ''We do, however, retain our concerns that the police force can walk into a police station and, for no apparent reason, determine that that is a specific work unit for the purposes of drug-testing everybody that works there.''

    Adapted from The Age - Dan Oates

    link: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/police-force-passes-the-drug-test-20121021-27zlm.html

    Thursday 18 October 2012

    UCI knew Drug Testing System Flawed


    LOS ANGELES (AFP) - Cycling's governing body set up a drug testing system that was designed to fail and allow Lance Armstrong and other riders to avoid detection, said the ex-boss of the World Anti-Doping Agency.
    Doping officials knowingly ran a testing regimen that the sport's top teams circumvented and where competitors would be tipped-off in advance, Richard Pound, who headed up the WADA between 1999 and 2007, told AFP in an interview.
    Despite alleging eight years ago that cheating was rife, his complaints to the UCI (International Cycling Union) about the sport's anti-doping measures were repeatedly ignored, Pound said.
    "It is not credible that they didn't know this was going on," Pound said.
    "I had been complaining to UCI for years. They come in in the morning at 5.00 am and do tests then go away, and riders are not chaperoned.
    "The race starts at 1.00 pm to 2.00 pm in the afternoon and there are no tests prior to race to see if they are bumped up," adding that after a day in the saddle, riders would be unchaperoned for an hour before being tested again.
    "So then you go in and get saline solutions and other means of hiding the effects (of performance-enhancing drug) EPO and whatever else it is," he said.
    "You have to say 'I wonder if it was designed not to be successful?'" Pound said of the system, lambasting the UCI, which is under attack in the wake of a devastating US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) report on Armstrong.
    The report, which was released Wednesday, detailed Armstrong's alleged use of testosterone, human growth hormone, blood doping and EPO and included sworn statements from 26 people, including 11 former teammates.
    The sports agency, which had already stripped the cyclist of his seven Tour de France titles, said Armstrong orchestrated the most complex doping scheme in sports history.
    Pound, a Canadian lawyer turned sports official whose reported comments in 2004 about alleged doping earned a rebuke from Armstrong, said the buck must stop with the UCI.
    "If they persist with denial then they put their whole sport in jeopardy," he said, noting that doping investigations may spread to the Spanish and Italian professional cycling communities, among others.
    UCI President Pat McQuaid argued earlier this week that the sport "has moved on" and better tests mean riders are now much cleaner than in the previous era, in which Armstrong, now aged 41, competed.
    "The peloton today is completely different," McQuaid said.
    Pound, in reference to the USADA report, said he was dismayed by the scope and vivid details of the alleged doping practices by Armstrong and his US Postal Service teammates.
    "I thought it was a very thoroughly researched report with evidence sworn or otherwise," said Pound, who remains on WADA's 38-member Foundation Board.
    Armstrong has always maintained that he did not use banned substances during his career, but in August he chose not to contest the USADA's charges.
    The Texan rider's days of sparing no expense to hire big-ticket lawyers to muzzle critics may also be coming to an end, Pound suggested.
    "I don't think it is credible for Armstrong to say 'all 26 of these people are liars and cheats and axe grinders,'" the former WADA president said in reference to the sworn statements in the USADA dossier.
    "I am afraid his time has just run out on that."
    "What is going to be a surprise is (if) after all this, Lance persists in saying he never did it. You got to hope he will ... admit 'I was the best of the worst.'"
    Pound said cancer survivor Armstrong should also speak out against the use of performance-enhancing drugs, not just for himself but his five children.
    "What are his kids going to think of him? They are going to carry around this burden," said Pound, while stating that many Armstrong supporters, especially in the United States, are still likely to dismiss the allegations.
    "There are a lot of people who have a big emotional investment in Armstrong," he said, alluding to the rider's comeback from cancer and the tens of millions of dollars he has raised to help people affected by the disease.
    "They don't want to know that he was a cheater ... but if the pedestal he is on proves to be something he got by cheating, it isn't much of a pedestal."

    http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/15117251/uci-knew-drug-testing-system-was-flawed/

    Stopping drug testing could lead to risk of injury, death or environmental catastrophe; Suncor argues


    Suncor went to Alberta’s highest court Wednesday seeking to block a temporary injunction stopping them from starting a random alcohol-and-drug-testing operation.
    Arguing that any delay could lead to a “greater risk” of injury, death or “environmental catastrophe,” Suncor lawyer Tom Wakeling asked Court of Appeal of Alberta Justice Jack Watson to stay the temporary injunction — which was granted in Court of Queen’s Bench on Friday — pending an appeal of the decision set for Nov. 26.
    “Every day that passes, the risk increases,” said Wakeling, who suggested that the judge who granted the injunction was wrong to put the privacy rights of unionized Suncor workers above the company’s desire to have a safer workplace at its “inherently dangerous” oilsands operation near Fort McMurray.
    Union lawyer Ritu Khullar asked for the stay application to be dismissed after questioning how Suncor could be facing “irreparable harm” by the temporary injunction when the company had announced in June that the random testing was going to begin on Oct. 15.
    Khullar also argued that the random testing was a serious invasion of the privacy rights of the unionized workers and could cause irreparable harm to innocent employees.
    Watson told the lawyers he would make a ruling as quickly as possible, but did not set a date for it.
    On Friday, Justice Eric Macklin granted the temporary injunction and ordered the two sides to get to arbitration on an “expedited basis” regarding a grievance about the random testing which was earlier filed by the union.
    Macklin also noted records show there are clearly alcohol and drug problems among workers at the oilsands plant.
    Court heard there are 3,400 members of CEP (Communications, Energy and Paperworkers) Local 707 working at Suncor’s Fort McMurray oilsands operation.
    Another 3,400 private contractors who work at the operation are slated to face the random testing on Jan. 1.

    Did Nike Attempt to Cover Up a Positive Lance Armstrong Drug Test?


    Lance Armstrong’s slow and steady fall from grace turned into a complete freefall on Wednesday.
    In the span of about 30 minutes, he lost both the chairmanship position at Livestrong and his endorsement deal with Nike. The former happened by choice, the latter was decided for him. Then, throughout the rest of the day, an assortment of other partners -- beginning with RadioShack and ending with Trek Bicycles -- announced that they would be cutting ties with this one-time American hero.
    Could things possibly get any worse for Armstrong? Apparently, yes.
    According to an interesting article by the New York Daily News (via Larry Brown Sports), at least part of the reason Armstrong hadn’t been exposed prior to now is because Nike allegedly bribed former UCI president Hein Verbruggen to cover up a 1999 drug test for him. Per that report:
    One of those critics is Kathy LeMond, the wife of American cyclist Greg LeMond, who testified under oath during a 2006 deposition that Nike paid former UCI president Hein Verbruggen $500,000 to cover up a positive drug test… During a 2006 deposition related to the suit, Kathy LeMond testified that Julian Devries, a mechanic for Armstrong's team who was once close to her husband, had told her and others that Nike and Thom Weisel, a Bay Area banker who sponsored Armstrong's team, had wired $500,000 to a Swiss bank account that belonged to Verbruggen…The money, Kathy Lemond said Devries told her and several others, was sent to cover up a 1999 positive drug test for corticosteroids, which Armstrong had used to treat saddle sores. Devries, Kathy Lemond said during the deposition, had been disgusted by the way performance-enhancing drugs had polluted cycling
    As you would expect, Nike vehemently denied the notion that they were a part of any cover-up whatsoever.
    "Nike vehemently denies that it paid former UCI president Hein Verbruggen $500,000 to cover up a positive drug test," the company said in a statement. "Nike does not condone the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs."
    That statement came out on Tuesday of this week. Nike announced that they were terminating their deal with Armstrong one day later.
    One day.
    "Due to the seemingly insurmountable evidence that Lance Armstrong participated in doping and misled Nike for more than a decade, it is with great sadness that we have terminated our contract with him," the company said on Wednesday (via ESPN). "Nike does not condone the use of illegal performance enhancing drugs in any manner. Nike plans to continue support of the Livestrong initiatives created to unite, inspire and empower people affected by cancer."
    Of course Nike doesn’t condone it. Sure, they condoned it just a few days earlier, but that was totally different. How? Ah…
    Look, an entire novel can be written about how badly Nike has botched this whole thing. Did they really bribe someone to protect Armstrong 13 years ago? It’s impossible to say. Frankly, it seems like a really huge risk for a company that has so much to lose. Nike is bigger than any one athlete – even one who was as huge as Armstrong in his heyday. And the unverifiable word of a banker who told a mechanic who told the wife of a bicyclist isn’t exactly something that deserves a whole lot of credence by itself.   
    But this whole mess speaks to a broader problem for Nike. People’s perception of the company right now is that they severed ties with Armstrong not because they were truly morally outraged by the lie that he purportedly built his whole legacy on, but rather because they had milked all of the financial benefits they could out of him. And then, once they were done, they just tossed him aside.
    Michael Vick killed dogs? No problem – he can still sell gear. Tiger Woods is a serial cheater? No problem – he can still sell gear. Kobe Bryant was once accused of rape? No problem – he can still sell gear. Armstrong perhaps (read: probably) misled a legion of cancer patients who were inspired by him regarding whether or not he abused performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) in a sport where PED usage runs rampant? Problem. Why? Because he can’t sell gear anymore.
    This has been a brutal 24 hours for Armstrong, no doubt about it. But Nike’s public image hasn’t fared much better.

    By Alex Groberman, Thu, October 18, 2012

    Illicit drug expulsions up 50 per cent, Queensland state school


    SCHOOLYARD drug expulsions have soared with one state school expelling 10 students involved with illicit substances last financial year.
    Teachers warn the rise reflects an increase in drug use in the community.
    The Department of Education, Training and Employment's (DETE) annual report reveals the number of exclusions handed out to state school students for "substance misconduct involving an illicit substance" jumped about 50 per cent last financial year from 160 in 2010-2011 to 237.
    Six were in primary school levels. The illicit drugs category does not include alcohol or cigarettes.
    Merrimac State High School had the highest number of illicit drug exclusions with 10 students expelled in 2011-12.
    Mabel Park, Dakabin and Maroochydore state high schools excluded seven pupils each.
    The State Government declared last year that it had cracked down on drugs in schools following an increase in pupils caught with them in 2009 and 2010
    Last financial year was also the first in recent history that Government principals were able to expel students, over the entire 12 months, without departmental approval.
    The Government had predicted the new powers would spark a jump in exclusions, but principals disagreed.
    Queensland Secondary Principals' Association president Norm Fuller said he still didn't think the principal power was behind the jump, with many more cautious because they had to withstand any challenges.
    "I would certainly say there has been a tough stance on drugs," Mr Fuller said.
    Queensland Teachers' Union president Kevin Bates said the number of students excluded for illicit drugs was "minuscule" given 500,000 attended state schools, "but any number is concerning".
    "Because the reality is any issue of drugs in schools is a major concern because clearly for many of those more serious offences it's not just about possession, which is serious enough, but it is often about kids providing drugs to other kids," Mr Bates said.
    DETE acting assistant director-general Marg Pethiyagoda said drugs were a community problem "and schools are part of the community". She said any incident involving drugs in schools were reported to police.
    DETE Minister John-Paul Langbroek said illicit drugs had no place in any school and principals had his full support in taking a tough stance.
    Independent and Catholic schools do not have to provide exclusion and suspension figures, leaving the state sector in the spotlight over the issue.


  • From:The Courier-Mail 
  • October 19, 2012 1:00AM

  • http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/queensland-state-school-illicit-drug-expulsions-up-50-per-cent/story-e6frg6n6-1226498898148

    Sunday 14 October 2012

    New Drug Test! - ToxSure Q


    ToxSure Q is the newest edition to Drug Test Australia’s ToxSure saliva drug testing range.

    After much research and development by Drug Test Australia, as well as liaising with key clients and stakeholders in the market and industry, we identified both; a gap in the current market for saliva drug testing devices, as well as a solution to fill that gap.

    We came up with the ‘ToxSure Q’. Our aim was to create a test that accurately and effectively delivers results for onsite testing, and still comes in at under $20 per test to the end user.

    We wanted to create a test that was within the range of Australian Standard for detection of drugs of abuse in oral fluid testing (see ToxSure II) that produced a faster, accurate result but which was functional and easy to use.

    Oral fluid testing detects recent drug use. Our test ToxSure Q, tests for Amphetamines, Cocaine, Methamphetamine, Opiates and THC. Most other drugs enter the saliva by ‘passive diffusion’ from the blood-stream. Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the active drug in marijuana, does not pass from the bloodstream to the saliva and therefore must be tested by detection of the residual THC parent drug in the oral fluid. Our test aims to accurately detect these drugs in human saliva, providing a preliminary analytical test result.

    For accuracy in your next testing procedure, choose Drug Test Australia.

    For more information please see our website http://www.drugtestaustralia.com.au/

    Thursday 11 October 2012

    Synthetic Cannabis, Frequently Asked Questions


    Magic Dragon, Spice, Kronic, Purple Haze, Northern Lights, Dust, Serenity, Pulse, Hush, K2, K3, Mystery, Earthquake, Ocean Blue, Genie, Stroke! Do any of these names ring a bell?
    What do they all have in common? Well, in street talk, "they all get you severely wasted" - but in laboratory language they all contain at least one of the following compounds: JWH-018, JWH-073, CP-47, or 497. These are chemicals that mimic the effect of THC, the principle active ingredient of cannabis. Just like THC, they bind to cannabinoid receptors in the brain to cause a similar psychoactive response to cannabis - only in some cases many times stronger (depending on the brand/type).
    This 'fake weed' is made by spraying the chemical compounds (JWH-018, etc.) on a variety of herbal smoking blends that would otherwise not cause such an effect. There is no physical resemblance to cannabis and these blends do not smell like cannabis when smoked or burnt. In most cases these blends are sold as incense and marked "not for human consumption", so one can only wonder what damage these chemicals are capable of causing.
    HISTORY: A chemical substance was first synthesized in 1995 in a university laboratory in the USA purely for experimental purposes. The synthetic substance JWH-018 (a cannabinoid receptor agonist) has fascinated chemists because the chemical structure is nothing like THC and yet produces a similar effect.
    This chemical substance is now being used by people all over the world to get a marijuana-like high and is causing concern among health officials as nothing is known about possible toxicity.

    Questions & Answers

    Q: Is this substance legal? Where is it sold?

    A: At present it is legal in Australia (although authorities are working towards having it banned). It can be purchased on the internet and at a variety of herbal shops and markets throughout the country.

    Q: Are the effects really like normal pot?

    A: The effects are very similar to cannabis, reportedly up to 4 times stronger but perhaps not lasting as long.

    Q: How are these products being used?

    A: These "legal herbs" are being smoked in much the same way as cannabis – in joints, cigarettes, pipes, water bongs, and atomizers.

    Q: Is the substance safe to use?

    A: Very little is known about the side effects on health. Because the substance is a synthesized chemical there is concern among health officials. There is no recommended dose; in fact, the warning on the packet specifies that it is “not for human consumption”. Therefore it is highly probable the substance is harmful to health.

    Q: How is this synthetic cannabis manufactured?

    A: The liquid chemical JWH-018 (and other similar compounds) is manufactured in a laboratory and distributed (mainly out of China) to various parts of the world where it is sprayed onto "smoking herbs", packaged and sold as 1, 2 or 3 gram packets carrying a range of names as noted above.

    Q: If the effects are similar to cannabis and yet it is not cannabis how does this chemical work?

    A: The most common compounds, JWH-018 and JWH-073, are synthetic cannabinoid receptor agonists (a neurotransmitter or drug that triggers a response by binding to specific cell receptors) that cause the same euphoric and psychoactive effects that imitate marijuana.

    Q: Are there any known adverse side effects?

    A: There have been many reports of adverse effects such as rapid heart rate, confusion, agitation, dizziness and nausea. The American Association of Poison Control Centres issued a warning about the dangers of synthetic cannabis products in March 2010. Because these products are legal it is often assumed they are not harmful or less harmful than native cannabis and this is dangerous assumption.

    Q: What is the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) position on this?

    A: The FDA does not regulate herbal products but maintains that they are not approved for human consumption; without proper ingredient labeling and measured potency, the risk of overdosing is increased. To complicate the labeling issue and dose concerns it is now reported that many popular brands are now counterfeit or fake. These products are certainly not TGA approved in Australia.

    Q: Are these substances banned in other countries?

    A: In the USA under federal law products containing JWH-018 and JWH-073 are banned in several states and by the US armed forces. On March 1, 2011 The United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) exercised its emergency scheduling authority to control five chemicals (JWH-018, JWH-073, JWH-200, CP-47,497, and cannabicyclohexanol). A number of European countries including Britain, France, Germany, Poland and Russia as well as South Korea have banned the substances.

    Q: Will a conventional urine drug test detect synthetic cannabis?

    A: No, this new synthetic compound is not targeted by a standard drug test and to date there is no "instant test" available. However, to detect the compound in urine and they are able to assist companies with introducing this to their Drug & Alcohol test regime.

    Q: What are the cut-off levels for these compounds?

    A: Cut-off levels have not been determined to date and are not required as results are reported as "detected" or "not detected" and the laboratory outcome is fully supported.

    Q: What do employers need to do to ensure this intoxicating compound is not putting workers at risk on worksites?

    A: The process in not complicated and may only require minor amendments before control measures can be introduced to identify if the substance is present in your workplace and if so be able to effectively monitor the situation. However, it is important that your policy permits such action.

    Q: How long after consumption can the metabolites be detected in urine?

    A: The presence of the metabolites in urine confirming the use of these compounds can generally be discovered for up to 72 hours post use (depending on usage and potency). As is the case with THC, the parent compound has not been reported present in human urine to date.

    Q: As an employer, what immediate steps should be taken to ensure the continued safety of employees?

    A: The team is constantly on the lookout for new or unusual drugs and intoxicating compounds that may infiltrate the work place and action is immediately taken to develop management protocols and discovery methods that will assist employers and employees in maintaining a safe working environment. Focus is not on punitive measures but on every employee’s basic right to a safe working environment, free from the risks associated with intoxication.

    Monday 8 October 2012

    Background


    Drug Test Australia is committed to helping create safer workplaces and reducing the risks associated with alcohol and drug abuse.

    We are a part of Hunter Healthcare Group, a corporate healthcare organisation with services spanning corporate immunisation, public and private hospitals, aged care nursing services and onsite occupational health.

    Because health and safety is important to us, we source only the highest quality testing equipment from the US and deliver unsurpassed service and procedures in accordance with AS/NZS ISO 9001:2000, AS ISO 15189:2009. Equipment cut-off levels are set to Australian Standard 4308 and 4760 and non negative specimens are assessed only at NATA approved laboratories.

    Our passion to help create safer work environments has also driven us to make major contributions to the research and development for the market. Our focus has been to develop a saliva device that consistently delivers results and is AS4760 compliant. We are also instrumental in refining Quality Controls and collection equipment for the Australian onsite collection industry.

    2012 has seen the release of new products, new collection devices and improvements in Quality Control and Logistics.

    Sunday 7 October 2012

    Urine vs Saliva Drug Testing

    Back and forth the arguments go, some for Urine testing as the drug test of choice, some for oral fluid testing as the most 'effective' method of testing.

    The main contention between proponents of Urine v Oral Fluid testing, is the detection window of drug use that is offered, with Urine being longer than that of oral fluid testing.

    Urine is able to detect a broad history of drug use. It is the detection times that mean that this is the case. Urine tests can pick up drug use days, even up to a month, depending on use. For example below; Several common types of drugs and their detection periods in urine testing:

    Amphetamines (except methamphetamine)
    1 to 5 days
    Methamphetamine
    3 to 5 days
    MDMA (Ecstasy)
    24 hours
    Cannabis
    2 to 7 days, up to >30 days after heavy use and/or in users with high body fat
    Cocaine
    2 to 5 days with exceptions for certain kidney disorders
    Codeine
    2 to 3 days
    Morphine
    2 to 4 days
    Heroin
    3 to 4 days
    Methadone
    3 days


    Oral Fluid (saliva) on the other hand, has a more narrow window of detection, and can pick up impairment (use of a drug within the preceding hours) in the person tested.

    It is for these reasons that the main sources of contention arise between proponents of each. The other reasons for friction to one method or another are more subtle.

    Lack of Privacy is a commonly cited point of friction, and feeling 'undignified' are another argument for Saliva over Urine testing.

    Urine testing can be viewed as more 'intrusive' by workers, who may feel it is beyond reasonable expectation to have knowledge of past drug use, up to one month for some drugs in some cases. In past it was difficult for female workers to attend urine drug tests, as no separate facilities were available, and the majority of testers were male.

    Saliva is a less well known, and less trusted means of testing by some, who argue that "it is not as accurate as urine" and that "uncovering a drug culture of use in the workplace is more important than knowing if workers are high".

    Unions argue that 'impairment' is what a drug and alcohol testing policy is meant to uncover, and that oral fluid testing is suitable for testing 'impairment', that is present use of the drug that would mean the person is 'impaired'.

    One client cited remote location as a hindrance for saliva testing being introduced. A simple matter of logistics. This client operated from a mine in remote Western Australia. They could not introduce saliva testing, over the existing urine testing, as when a positive sample is taken in oral fluid testing, a sample must be taken, frozen, and then it must be tested in a laboratory. They simply could not keep the sample frozen long enough to make it to the lab!

    The argument for either will always be present, but it is important that we get the facts straight and understand the issue before we make up our minds about which avenue is best for us.

    For more information, please visit our website; www.drugtestaustralia.com.au

    Phone:1300 660 636

    Email enquiries: sales@drugtestaustralia