Kiwi Kronic 'king' facing drug charges in Australia

New Zealand's "king" of legal cannabis faces trafficking charges in Australia after allegedly being found with a "commercial quantity" of drugs.

Matthew Wielenga was arrested about 8pm on Friday in the Melbourne suburb of Southbank. The 30-year-old is facing charges of trafficking a commercial quantity of synthetic cannabinoids and two counts of possessing a drug of dependence.

The Melbourne Magistrates Court yesterday heard he was found with more than 100kg of Kronic, a synthetic marijuana product, and 1kg of white powder said to be a synthetic cocaine sold as Diablo.

The alleged drugs are yet to be analysed and Wielenga had made no admissions, the court heard.

Defence lawyer Greg Barns said the elements of Kronic kept changing and might not fall within the substances banned by Victorian law.

Wielenga was granted bail on a A$100,000 surety and is to reappear in court on March 18.

Dressed in jeans and a dark T-shirt, he appeared to be listening intently throughout the court hearing.

The New Zealander must stay at an address in the suburb of Richmond, report to local police daily and surrender his passport.

Wielenga is a director of Lightyears Ahead, the company responsible for bringing Kronic to New Zealand. Kronic is laced with chemicals mimicking cannabis and is often much stronger than the real thing. It was banned in New Zealand in August.

Wielenga, who ran his lucrative Kronic empire from Albany on Auckland's North Shore, is understood to have travelled to Australia with about nine of his employees last week. The group were in Australia for a music festival, a source said.

Nisha Din, described as the general manager of Lightyears Ahead, said the firm strongly denied any illegal activity.

She referred the Herald to Wellington law firm Chen Palmer.

Partner Mai Chen did not return calls last night.

Wielenga describes his party pill business on his Facebook page: "I run my own company that provides products to get people high. They are sold all over the world, which gives me a great excuse to travel."

- Anna Leask, NZ Herald

APNZ

original; http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/238659/kiwi-kronic-king-facing-drug-charges-australia

For more information on Synthetic Cannabis Testing Devices visit Drug Test Australia online or;

Phone: 1300 660 636

Email enquiries to; sales@drugtestaustralia.com.au

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

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.

tony.blais@sunmedia.ca

http://www.edmontonsun.com/2012/10/17/suncor-argues-stopping-drug-testing-could-lead-to-risk-of-injury-death-or-environmental-catastrophe

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.

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.

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