Wednesday 28 November 2012

Abuse vs. Addiction


Interview with Paul Karras – Hunterlink Recovery Services

Last week I caught up with Paul Karras, from Hunterlink Recovery Services. I met with Paul to get a better understanding of drugs and addiction, substance abuse and their effect on people in Australia, and we discussed many topics, chief among them substance abuse and addiction.

Paul Karras has 10 years experience with The Salvation Army as a senior counsellor in Dual Diagnosis, with emphasis on Addiction and Mental Health. With a wealth of experience and information on Drug use, addiction, patterns and recovery, who better to talk to about Substance Abuse and addiction?

Why do people use drugs?

A frequently asked question; in Paul’s breadth of experience the most common answer is ‘it makes me feel good’.

Drugs; be they alcohol, cannabis, cocaine, methamphetamine, depressants, stimulants or psychoactive; all have a common effect on users…….The effect of a ‘numbing’ anaesthesia.

This means the user is 'numbed’ to the world around them. This means they don’t have to deal with their problems……. they are numb to them. They don’t have to experience the emotion, the depth or breadth of issues that a person may feel, as the drug numbs them to the outside world, reality, and all the harsh things in it.


Abuse vs. Addiction

One of the key themes that were present in my talk with Paul was Abuse vs. addiction, and how this plays out in people’s lives. The two are not mutually exclusive, but there is a clear distinction.

Within abuse of substances, there are great variations in patterns of use, frequency, amount etc.

Using Marijuana as an example, we can say that within the spectrum of people that use this drug, some are; very frequent (everyday); some less frequent and some perhaps only on few occasions per year, and then everything in between. This makes for a very broad spectrum of users of this drug.

Within this spectrum lie many different types of users with different reasons for their use. Some could be considered a more social user, one that consumes only when in an ‘appropriate’ situation, or with peers. Another on the other ends of the scale; may use the drug frequently when alone and not in social situations.
Using alcohol as an example, we could say that a social user is someone that seldom drinks, and then only on occasions when friends/colleagues are also enjoying a few. On the other end of the spectrum, someone that is abusing the substance may do so when not in a socially accepted situation, or at home alone, and in high quantity or frequency.


When we come to discuss addiction, we can say that abusers can be addicts, but that not all abusers are addicts. Drug addiction or substance dependence is a complex issue. There are many factors at play;
·         It can be agreed that addiction is a compulsive behaviour that originates in the unconscious mind.
·         Addiction can be inherited, through genetics and family background.

·         Many people with addictions may have other psychiatric disorders, which complicates matters.
·         Addiction can be classified as with physiological dependence, or without.

Addiction is a progressive illness, it is not static. An addict of a certain substance will use an amount, and when this amount no longer has the desired effect, they will up the amount. This has the effect of leading to an increased tolerance to the drug, and an escalation of need.

There are also a whole host of other issues including; cultural factors, peer pressure, social norms and psychological issues. These will not be discussed here in detail, but enough to acknowledge that these and other factors all combine to make this a complex issue.


Drug Dependence

Drug dependence means that a person needs a drug to function normally. Abruptly stopping the drug leads to withdrawal symptoms. Drug addiction is the compulsive use of a substance, despite its negative or dangerous effects.

There is much contention over whether cannabis is addictive or not. In Paul’s years of experience, it very much is.

Reliance on substances is a mental reliance. It is a coping mechanism, a living process that leaves users with a lack of coping skills, beyond reaching for their ‘crutch’.

When a person with dependence does not consume the drug, the effect is called detox. Heroin, Methamphetamine and certain other drugs, when not consumed, will result in a period of withdrawal, or detox.

According to Paul, the detox period for heavy users of opiates (heroin etc.), amphetamines etc. varies, but should be no longer than 5 days. For marijuana, though the period can be significantly longer. A  physiological dependence may not be present, but a mental dependence is. Detoxification for users of higher amounts of drugs is always worse; more prolonged, more traumatic.

From my conversations with Paul, he was able to give me some very good information on drugs of abuse and substance addiction, changing some of my preconceived notions about abuse and addiction, and giving me a real insight into addiction and substance abuse.

Hunterlink logo

Hunterlink Recovery Services provide a vital link in support, recovery and welfare services available to the community and for workers and their families nationwide; they help with recovery of people with Substance abuse and other issues such as problem gambling, anxiety and depression. They work in conjunction with employers with established Employee Assistance Program (EAP) as well as members of the community. A link to their website can be found here http://hunterlink.org.au/

Original Article by Drug Test Australia
For more information please contact us;
Phone: 1300 660 636
Email: sales@drugtestaustralia.com.au


Monday 26 November 2012

Drug testing pits privacy against safety


Posted by Drug Test Australia


Drug testing pits privacy against safety; 

Judges to hear Suncor arguments



Original 
By Amanda Stephenson, Calgary Herald November 24, 2012 http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/Drug+testing+pits+privacy+against+safety/7605165/story.html#ixzz2DOosEK6t

Drug testing pits privacy against safety
A lab technician tests samples for drugs.
A three-judge Alberta Court of Appeal panel will next week hear from Suncor Energy Inc. as the oilsands giant argues against an injunction blocking its proposed random employee drug testing program.

Next month, the Supreme Court of Canada will hear the case of Irving Pulp and Paper, a New Brunswick company whose plan to have its employees submit to mandatory breathalyzer tests has been fought tooth and nail by the same union that represents Suncor workers.

Both cases will be watched closely by employers, safety companies and privacy experts, as the courts try to find a balance between safety on the job and an individual's right to privacy.

Unlike the United States, where workplace drug tests are relatively common, Canada has had little experience with randomly administered on-the-job tests. But that could be about to change.

"Employers have to take action. They're responsible for maintaining a safe work environment," says Pat Atkins, administrator of Alberta's Drug and Alcohol Risk Reduction Pilot Project (DARRPP). "There are problems in the oilsands related to alcohol and drugs ... and we think it would be irresponsible for organizations not to take action, given the concerns they're seeing."
Those concerns range from drug paraphernalia found on work sites to workplace accidents caused by drunk or stoned employees.

Suncor has stated three of the seven deaths that have occurred at its Fort McMurray oilsands operation since 2000 involved workers under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
"Every day that passes, the risk increases," Suncor lawyer Tom Wakeling told the Alberta Court of Appeal last month. "The Suncor workplace is inherently a dangerous space.

The consequences of mistakes in this hazardous environment may include catastrophes."
Most oilsands companies already have some form of drug-testing policy in place - in most cases, testing occurs after an accident takes place, or if an employee exhibits behaviour that provides "just cause." In some cases, employees must pass a drug test before being hired for a certain position or before being contracted to work on a certain job site.

DARRPP is different. The two-year pilot project, led by a working group of oilsands industry employers and labour providers, aims to introduce completely random drug testing in "safety sensitive" positions at participating workplaces.

Organizers of the project point to U.S. data that indicates random testing is more likely to catch workplace drug and alcohol problems than incident-driven testing.

One of the first companies to get on board with DARRPP was Suncor, which announced in June its plan to implement mandatory random drug tests for safety sensitive employees at its oilsands facilities. However, before Suncor could implement its proposal, a grievance was filed by the Communications, Energy, and Paperworkers Union. The union, which represents 3,400 workers at the Suncor site, argued random drug testing violates its members' right to privacy.
"This is about the right to preserve their bodily integrity, quite frankly. Their privacy, their dignity," union lawyer Ritu Khullar told the appeals court last month.

Days earlier, a Court of Queen's Bench Judge issued an injunction, ruling Suncor cannot move ahead with its program until the union's grievance can be reviewed by a labour arbitration board. Suncor appealed, and that appeal is set to be heard on Wednesday.

The same union is also fighting Irving Pulp and Paper, the New Brunswick company that introduced a workplace safety policy in 2006 that included random alcohol testing for employees. That case will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada in December.
Atkins said DARRPP is confident it is well within its legal rights.
"We believe we have designed the project in such a way to respect privacy and human rights," Atkins said.

Ed Secondiak, president of ECS Services - which has designed drug testing programs for large and small corporations for 18 years - says there are ways to ensure employees' rights are respected while still reducing the risk of on-the-job substance abuse.

Secondiak said when he designs a program, all drug test results are reviewed by a medical review officer. If a test comes back positive, the medical review officer will speak privately to the employee in question, and if he or she can provide a medical reason for why they might have a drug in their system, they are given an all-clear without their employer ever being informed of the original test results.

Test results are kept under lock and key with limited access, and are never shared with outside agencies without the employee's permission.

Secondiak says in most cases, when a person fails a test, he or she is sent for a substance abuse assessment. An addictions counsellor will decide whether the individual can come back to work, or needs more treatment. He said in many cases, being flagged by a workplace test is exactly the push some addicts need to get treatment and turn their lives around.
"I would say there's a high success rate when you're dealing with alcohol and marijuana in terms of being able to bring people back (to the job)," he says.

Dr. Charl Els, an addictions psychiatrist with the University of Alberta, agrees substance abuse in the workplace is a serious issue. Using U.S. statistics as a base - because there are no reliable Canadian statistics - he estimates that 8.3 per cent of full-time workers use illicit drugs.
"We likely are only seeing the tip of the iceberg in terms of the visible cases of substance use and abuse," Els says. "It's well accepted that we underestimate the prevalence and the actual impact."

Els also believes the nature of the oilsands industry means workers there are more likely to use drugs.

"It's typically a young, male population, there's a lot of excess time when they don't work, there's a lot of disposable income and cash in the pocket. They're typically not with their families, they're isolated. So there's a number of factors that make people more prone to use," he says.
However, Els says random drug testing is the wrong approach. He says a typical urine test only detects the presence of a substance in a person's system - it can't detect whether the person is impaired. That means it cannot differentiate between a person who smoked marijuana 20 minutes earlier and is stoned on the job versus a person who smoked a joint at a weekend party three days ago.

"The vast majority of people who use cannabis instead of having a beer on Friday evening may well test positive on Monday morning, and without it remotely having any impact on workplace impairment or occupational risk," Els says. "What they will detect is a whole lot of normal, recreational users with no risk to the workplace. And that I view as an invasion of privacy."
Els adds there are a lot of workers and professionals other than oil sands employees who can be considered to be doing "safety specific" work, and they aren't being subjected to random drug tests.

"You can imagine the uproar if I suggested tomorrow we need to start testing all physicians for cannabis," he said. "By this logic, any individual operating a vehicle for work should not be able to do so unless they can test negative."

Els says he has no problem with post-accident or just cause workplace drug testing, it's the random testing he opposes. He says there simply isn't enough solid evidence that random drug testing reduces the rates of workplace accidents, adding he too will be watching the Suncor case and the Irving Pulp and Paper case with interest.

"I would be surprised if random testing will actually be cleared as acceptable and not in violation," he says.

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

Sunday 25 November 2012

Synthetic Drugs; Australian Crime Commission


Posted by Drug Test Australia

Original; http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/publications/illicit-drug-data-reports/2010-11/index/other-drugs#analogues

Main Forms

Drug analogues and other synthetic drugs have been present in Australia and overseas since at least the mid-2000s. Analogues available within the illicit drug market are variants of a parent compound which is usually a prohibited or scheduled drug. These substances are typically marketed as ‘legal highs’14 and used as substitutes for illicit drugs such as methylamphetamine and 3,4-methylenedioxymethylamphetamine (MDMA). In recent years, an analogue drug market has been established as users have increasingly sought out specific analogues rather than using them as substitutes.
A wide range of analogue and other synthetic drugs are available to users. Many of these substances are sourced from online ‘legal high’ stores, legitimate fine chemical suppliers and sites selling ‘research chemicals’. In some countries illicit cannabimimetics are marketed as ‘herbal smoking blends’; herbal incense and as ‘plant foods’ (TGA 2011).
A review of overseas online legal high stores identified up to 500 different analogue drugs being advertised. Analogues are frequently marketed as being natural and legal and are perceived by many users to be less harmful than illicit drugs. As many of these substances are novel, there is limited research or knowledge about the short or long-term health consequences of use, the risk of dependence, possible adverse effects of use in combination with other drugs, or potential fatal dosage levels.
In an attempt to circumvent legislative and regulatory measures, many of these substances are marketed under the guise of other products not intended for human consumption, such as bath salts, plant food, incense and room deodorisers. Further, to avoid detection, packaging may not accurately reflect the ingredients leaving users unaware of the true ingredients within. Even when ingredients are correctly listed, users may remain unaware of the related implications and effects of use.
Two groups of analogues and other synthetic drugs that have received considerable public attention during 2010–11 are cannabimimetics (which mimic cannabinoids) and cathinones, in particular 4-methylmethcathinone. This section covers these two groups in more detail.

Cannabimimetics

Cannabimimetics, also referred to as synthetic cannabinoids15, are synthetic chemicals which mimic the effects of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)—the principal psychoactive component of the illicit drug cannabis. Analysis in a number of European countries identified a large number of chemicals which could be classed as cannabimimetics. While some cannabimimetics share a chemical structure similar to THC, the vast majority of identified to date have no structural relationship to THC (EMCDDA 2011d). With the exception of a small number of substances which have very limited legitimate uses, the vast majority of identified substances have no legitimate industrial, scientific or medicinal uses.
Cannabimimeticsthat have been used for medicinal purposes and are scheduled within the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Poisons (SUSMP) are:
  • Rimonabant (currently in Schedule 4): A selective CB1 receptor antagonist historically used to treat obesity, but was withdrawn from the market due to severe side effects
  • Nabilone (currently in Schedule 8): A synthetic cannabinoid used for treatment of anorexia and for its antiemetic effects; its chemical structure is closely related to THC
  • Dronabinol (currently in Schedule 8 for therapeutic use): Synthetically produced pure THC used in the treatment of multiple sclerosis and pain patients (TGA 2011).
Illicit cannabimimetics, commonly known as synthetic cannabis, consist of a combination of neutral plant materials, similar in appearance to cannabis, which have been sprayed with one or more synthetic cannabinoids. Synthetic cannabis is best known by the brand names ‘Kronic’, ‘Northern Lights’, ‘Spice’, ‘Kaos’, ‘Voodoo’ and ‘Mango’ (NSW Health 2011b; ACT Health 2011).
As packaging of synthetic cannabisrarely identifies the ingredients from which the substance is formulated (in particular the synthetic cannabinoid component), people dealing in synthetic cannabispreparations may be hindered in their ability to determine the legal status of the product. This potentially causes legal issues for importers, distributors, retailers and consumers (TGA 2011).
Synthetic cannabis, like natural cannabis, can cause memory and thinking impairment in small doses. Short-term effects from consuming synthetic cannabis can include fatigue, headaches, disorientation, hallucinations, high blood pressure, tachycardia, paranoia, agitation, restlessness, panic attacks, anxiety and depression (WADAA 2011). Heavy and regular use may cause hallucinations, confusion, anxiety, depression, paranoia, psychosis and heart palpitations (ACT Health 2011).
As synthetic cannabisis a manufactured substance, there can be considerable variety and quantity of substances present, resulting in unpredictability in the effects of use (NSW Health 2011b).

4-MMC (4-Methylmethcathinone)

An analogue which has received significant media and law enforcement attention is 4-methylmethcathinone (also known as 4-MMC or mephedrone). 4-MMC is a synthetic stimulant and an analogue of the drug methcathinone. It is known to produce central nervous system stimulation, psychoactivity and hallucinations (DEA 2011a). In Australia, there are no legal uses for 4-MMC and it is listed as a prohibited import under Schedule 4 of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations 1956 and is a Border Controlled Drug under Section 314.4 (2) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995.
Other common names for 4-MMC include; meph, meow, miaow-miaow, m-cat, plant food, drone, bubbles and kitty cat. The most common form is an off-white or yellowish powder and it is also available in tablet or capsule form. The powder can be snorted or swallowed in bombs (wraps of paper). There has been limited reporting of injection as a form of administration of the drug (Sindicich & Burns 2011; ADF 2011d).
Users report that 4-MMC produces a similar experience to drugs such as amphetamines, ecstasy or cocaine. Reported effects include euphoria, increased energy and alertness, loss of appetite, dilated pupils, tremors or convulsions, insomnia, anxiety and paranoia. The long-term effects of 4-MMC are difficult to identify due to limited research in this area (ADF 2011d).

International Trends

In 2011, products containing new psychoactive substances became available in many parts of the world, including the Americas, the Middle East, Oceania and parts of Asia. Many countries are now facing the challenge of identifying an ever‑increasing range of substances in a rapidly changing market (EMCDDA 2011a).
In 2010, the US Drug Enforcement Agency reported that an estimated 2 977 samples of synthetic cannabinoids were submitted to State and local forensic laboratories in the US. This was a considerable increase from the estimated 15 synthetic cannabinoid samples identified during 2009. In 2010, nearly two-thirds of these samples were identified as JWH-01816 (63 per cent) and about one-quarter as either JWH-25017 (14 per cent) or JWH-07318 (9 per cent) (DEA 2011d).
Europe continues to see an increase in new synthetic substances with a total of 41 new synthetic psychoactive substances reported to the European Early Warning System in 2010 (Europol 2011). Of the 41 new psychoactive substances identified in 2010, 15 were synthetic cathinones and 11 were synthetic cannabinoids(EMCDDA 2011a; Europol 2011)
The 2010–11 British Crime Survey of UK residents reported that respondents aged 16–24 years of age had the highest rates of synthetic cannabinoids use. Among 16–59 year olds, the proportion of respondents reporting 4-MMC use was equal to the proportion reporting ecstasy use (1.4 per cent) and in the 16–24 years age group, the proportion was equal to powder cocaine use (4.4 per cent) (Smith & Flatley 2011). An online survey targeting club-goers in the UK found that 4-MMC was the fourth most commonly used drug (after cannabis, ecstasy and cocaine) among the 2 295 respondents (EMCDDA 2010).
In 2010–11, the increasing variety and expanding market in analogues saw many countries—including Australia—take steps to prohibit their importation, sale and use. In some countries, including the US and New Zealand, synthetic cannabinoids have been temporarily categorised as controlled substances as these governments seek to appropriately amend legislation to ensure that all current and emerging cannabimimetics are captured.
As of December 2010, the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) banned five synthetic cannabinoids by placing them in Schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act, which is for substances considered to have a high potential for abuse and no known medical benefits. This ban will continue for a year, making it illegal to possess or sell products that contain synthetic cannabinoids and allowing the DEA time to gather information regarding these five synthetic cannabinoids (DEA 2011b).
In 2011, the New Zealand Government approved amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, creating a new mechanism to place a temporary ban on unregulated substances of concern. This new mechanism enabled the New Zealand Minister for Health to place a 12-month ban on any current or emerging synthetic cannabinoids. The New Zealand Government intends to implement recommendations from the New Zealand Law Commission that reverse the onus of proof, requiring industry to prove its products are safe (NZ Government 2011).
In response to potential health concerns, Austria, Germany, France, Luxembourg, Poland, Lithuania, Sweden and Estonia have taken legal action to ban or otherwise control synthetic cannabis products and related compounds. In December 2010, while mephedrone was banned in the countries of the EU it is still available in illicit drug markets (UNODC 2011a).

Domestic Market Indicators

In 2011, the Australian Government announced the addition of eight synthetic cannabis compounds to Schedule 9 of the SUSMP. The eight synthetic cannabis compounds were scheduled on the basis that they are used for the purpose of obtaining a psychoactive effect, may be dependence producing, have no legitimate therapeutic uses and have documented harmful effects which may be significant in some individuals (TGA 2011). Several synthetic cannabis compounds were added to state and territory legislation during 2010–11 (see State and territory legislative amendments and initiatives chapter).
4–MMC is a prohibited import under the Schedule 4 of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations Act 1956 and is a Border Controlled Drug under the Commonwelth Criminal Code Act 1995. On 9 April 2011, 4–MMC became a prescribed substance under the Criminal Code Regulations Act 2002.
The extent of synthetic cannabis use among the general population in Australia is currently unknown.
According to a 2010 study of regular ecstasy users, 16 per cent of respondents reported recent use (in the last 6 months) of 4MMC, while 18 per cent reported in lifetime use. Recent 4–MMC use was reported primarily in Tasmania and Victoria. Snorting, followed by swallowing, was the most common method of administration, with minimal reporting of smoking and injecting 4MMC (Sindicich & Burns 2011). Early findings from the 2011 study indicate a small decline in recent use, with only13 per cent reporting recent use of 4-MMC (NDARC 2011d).

Price

Law enforcement price data for synthetic cannabis and 4-MMC is limited. In Tasmania in 2010–11, a cap of 4-MMC ranged between $15 and $50. The price of one gram of synthetic cannabis leaf in Queensland ranged between $20 and $30.
Contact us;
Website; www.drugtestaustralia.com.au
Email; Sales@drugtestaustralia.com.au
Phone; 1300 660 636

Lack of testing leads to Kronic problem: NZ Emergency Doctor

Posted by Drug Test Australia

Original; Emma Dawe, The Southland Times; http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/5264514/Lack-of-testing-leads-to-Kronic-problem-emergency-doctor


An emergency physician believes people are using party drugs, including Kronic, under the misguided belief they have been rigorously tested by authorities.
Paul Gee, from Christchurch Hospital, said that was not the case at all and party drugs were actually in a "twilight zone" between legal and illegal drugs because they were not covered by legislation.

"They're not a named drug covered by legislation. Nor are they a food, so they escape legislation covering foods.
"They're being slickly marketed and people are buying them not realising they've never been tested before in humans."
Speaking at the winter symposium of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine held in Queenstown yesterday, Dr Gee called for the onus to be put on manufacturers to prove new psychotropic drugs were safe.
"At present we have to wait until people reach intensive care before there is any action."
The herbal ingredients in the products were mixed with unlisted synthetic Cannabinoids that had been declared illegal in some countries but were unregulated in New Zealand.
Dr Gee said he was seeing more patients affected by the drugs – those patients were showing symptoms similar to those of people using cannabis, such as drowsiness, increased heart rate and feelings of euphoria.
Those symptoms were what doctors had expected, but what was not expected were the amphetamine-type symptoms some party drug users were displaying, including seizures, he said.
"We've seen some people probably close to unconsciousness," he said.
While it was too soon to determine what the long-term effects of using the drugs were, Dr Gee said there was evidence prolonged cannabis use could lead to long-term memory loss, and there was no reason why that would not be the case for the prolonged use of party drugs.
Dr Gee said his main concern was nobody had done any scientific research on the drugs.
While any new food or medicine was stringently tested before being licensed for consumption in New Zealand, the chemicals in these substances were not.
"It basically amounts to experimentation but without the upside of gathering any information."
Meanwhile, former Central Otago District Mayor Malcolm Macpherson is calling for people to join him in a footpath demonstration outside the only shop in Alexandra selling Kronic – C&C Traders.
Mr Macpherson said there was no justification for the owner to sell Kronic, and other products that exposed the community to health risks.
C&C Traders owner Bill Clements said he was being "pushed into a corner" for no reason, as the products were not to blame for the problems parents were having with their teenagers.
Contact us at Drug Test Australia
Website; www.drugtestaustralia.com.au
Email; Sales@drugtestaustralia.com.au
Phone; 1300 660 636

Call for drug tests to catch patient's dealing their medication


Posted by Drug Test Australia

Original; Call for drug tests to trap patient dealersSave


PATIENTS being given powerful painkillers should be routinely drug tested to make sure they are not selling their drugs on the booming black market, doctors say.
While addicts ''doctor shopping'' for prescriptions is well known, the head of pain management at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, Penny Briscoe, said there was now evidence of ''fossil pharming'' in Australia where elderly people sell their medication to supplement their pensions.Leading pain and addiction medicine experts say there is increasing evidence of doctors being scammed for large doses of prescription drugs, particularly addictive opioids such as OxyContin.
Dr Briscoe said an elderly palliative care patient recently admitted to selling his drugs to boost his income, raising the prospect that more patients were doing the same without their doctors knowing.
''I think we should be screening a lot more patients than we are and if you're going to do it, you have to do it to everybody and tell patients about it. You can't discriminate on age, sex or the number of tattoos,'' she said.
The head of clinical services at Turning Point Alcohol and Drug Centre, Matthew Frei, said that while most people abusing prescription opioids were getting them from doctors for themselves, some were getting them from elderly relatives who were either selling them or passing them on.
''I certainly have seen people who say their source for the drug was an elderly relative,'' he said. ''I don't think it's extraordinarily common but it's possible we're not hearing about it.''
Another addiction medicine specialist, Philip Crowley, said urine testing patients on opioids should be standard treatment.
''There's a strong economic incentive to sell these drugs. You can sell one Kapanol [morphine] tablet for up to $80 so if you get a pack of 20, you can certainly make enough to pay your rent and power bill.''
It comes as doctors are increasingly falling prey to sophisticated scams to get large amounts of prescription drugs.
State health departments have advised doctors about various scams this year including fraudulent prescriptions and fake letters from doctors to get hundreds of OxyContin tablets from dozens of doctors.
Some people stole pages from GPs' prescription pads while they weren't looking.
Others created fake prescriptions using images on the internet, or posed as doctors.
In one extraordinary case, a Victorian man got prescriptions for anabolic steroids by calling a GP and successfully pretending to be a hospital specialist who was referring a patient (himself) to the GP to obtain the prescriptions.
''The same offender obtained more than 800 anabolic steroid injections by presenting forged prescriptions, and obtained enough testosterone to treat 87,000 sheep by convincing a veterinary practitioner that he was a sheep farmer,'' a Victorian health department document says.
Health authorities say prescription opioids are increasingly becoming a drug of choice on the streets because of their purity and low cost. Sydney's medically supervised injecting centre recently reported that two thirds of its 225 daily clients were now injecting prescription opiates, especially OxyContin.Another patient has been using a fraudulent letter from an interstate medical clinic that has a number on it that connects to his female accomplice.
The dangerous trend appears to be causing more deaths. An analysis by researchers at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre at the University of NSW found 500 Australians aged 15 to 54 died of an opiate overdose in 2008, up from 360 in 2007.
Only one third were from heroin. Preliminary figures suggest there were 612 such deaths in 2009, a 22 per cent increase from 2008, and 705 in 2010, a 15 per cent increase from the year before.


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

Workers attempt to hide drug use

Posted by Drug Test Australia
Original By DONNA PAGE, Nov. 26, 2012, 4:21 a.m.  http://www.theherald.com.au/story/1144689/poll-workers-attempt-to-hide-drug-use/?cs=311


HUNTER workers are using a range of new and sophisticated masking and detox agents to 

HUNTER workers are using a range of new and sophisticated masking and detox agents to avoid detection in workplace drug tests.
The products come in a range of forms, including drinks, tablets, mouthwash and capsules, and range in price from $50 to $200.A Newcastle Herald investigation has found workers in a range of industries, including drivers, machinery operators, explosive technicians, miners and contractors using the products that can be bought online or at some Hunter stores.
Mayfield’s Drug Test Australia general manager Tom Somerville said workplace drug and alcohol testing had ‘‘exploded’’ in the Hunter over the past two years.
The most common drug detected was cannabis, followed by opiates.
Mr Somerville said he was aware of a ‘‘range of techniques’’ used by people in an effort to avoid detection.
But ‘‘high quality’’ Australian standard test kits, as used by his firm, could detect many masking agents and synthetic cannabis.
‘‘Technology has caught up in recent months and the testing products are far more sophisticated,’’ he said.
Workers told the Herald several products were effective in passing urine tests just hours after smoking cannabis or using other illegal and synthetic drugs. Most worked within an hour and lasted for up to eight hours.
Six users said they had used readily available masking agents or detox kits to pass urine and saliva tests that they would have otherwise failed.
A Merewether man said he passed a pre-employment medical carried out by a doctor, that included a urine drug test, after smoking cannabis daily for six months.
Cannabis can be detected in urine up to a month after use.
‘‘I tested myself after using a flushing kit months before I was offered the job and it worked perfectly, so I did the same thing again and I passed,’’ he said.
But Mr Somerville said workers were ‘‘dreaming’’ if they thought masking agents or detox kits were going to ensure they passed all tests.
‘‘My understanding is these things take some time to take effect and most workers have no idea they are going to be tested when they turn up to work, it’s random,’’ he said.
‘‘They might be able to use masking agents once or twice and get lucky with some forms of testing, but they will get caught.’’
Mr Somerville said there had been a shift in recent months away from urine testing to saliva testing.
‘‘Saliva testing is used to detect [skills] impairment, while urine testing will show [a drug’s] presence,’’ he said.
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union northern district president Peter Jordan said he believed many coal industry employers, one of the last industries in the Hunter to use widespread urine testing, wanted to ‘‘know what employees get up to in their own time’’.
Coal companies say testing is necessary to ensure a safe working environment. He was aware of employees being caught using masking agents or tampering with urine samples.
Mr Jordan said employees who failed one test could be targeted for testing at any time.

‘‘They will resist any attempt to implement more socially acceptable procedures like saliva testing ... We believe saliva testing can provide appropriate and sufficient information to a company in the event an employee is impaired. What you get up to in your own time, is your own business.’’‘‘My view is that employers in the coal industry who use urine testing will attempt to hold onto that testing at whatever cost,’’ he said.
Contact us at Drug Test Australia
Website; www.drugtestaustralia.com.au
Email; Sales@drugtestaustralia.com.au
Phone; 1300 660 636

Tuesday 20 November 2012

Rise of Synthetic Drugs in Australia; Implications


Posted by Drug Test Australia
> 

There has been recent media and government attention paid to the rise in the prevalence of use, sales and manufacture of Synthetic Drugs, such as Synthetic Marijuana (‘Kronic’ and like products) and Synthetic Stimulants (i.e. Synthetic Cocaine, Synthetic Amphetamines and Synthetic MDMA [Ecstasy]) among other harmful substances.

Of particular concern to employers in Australia, is that these types of drugs cannot be screened for in traditional drug tests; only by drug tests that specifically test for these substances.

European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, has released a report raising concerns over the great quantity of these substances available; with a total of 49 new psychoactive substances officially notified for the first time in 2011. Preliminary data shows over 50 new substances already detected for 2012. This is of concern to the Australian market, as these items can easily be purchased online and sent to Australia, from retailers residing overseas.


Queensland Attorney-General and Minister for Justice Jarrod Bleijie has proposed changes to the Drugs Misuse Act, that would include a plethora of synthetic drugs, with similar effects to presently illegal drugs to be made illegal.


The main issue faced is that drug ‘manufacturers’ aim to stay one step ahead of legislation and are constantly changing and developing the contents and make-up of these substances.

We must be vigilant and stay on top of this phenomenon, as impairment from these substances poses a significant safety risk in workplaces; effective testing is the only way to limit risk.

For more information, please see our blog articles below, or contact us about our synthetic marijuana testing kits.



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