Showing posts with label oral fluid test. Show all posts
Showing posts with label oral fluid test. Show all posts

Thursday, 18 October 2012

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

    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