Jim Finnel
Fallen Cannabis Warrior & Ex News Moderator
For the past decade, U.S. regulators have been splitting hairs over whether to expand the specimens used to test federal workers for drug use.
A Department of Health and Human Services agency proposed in 2004 to set standards for adding hair, saliva and sweat to the current urine-sample technique. Final guidelines are being considered by the White House office that reviews regulations.
The decision will affect an estimated 40 million workers in the government and private business who are tested, including 10 million in the transportation industry, some who cheat and some with shy bladders who can't furnish the proper specimen. A testing company and trucking interests met with White House officials recently to tout the advantages of the newer technologies.
``We feel we have to do an inferior test to satisfy a federal requirement,'' said Greer Woodruff, senior vice president of safety and security for J.B. Hunt Transport Services Inc. in Lowell, Arkansas. Hunt and American Trucking Associations representatives discussed the issue at an Oct. 10 meeting. Psychemedics Corp., which tests for drugs using hair samples, held a similar meeting Sept. 19, urging the alternative methods be approved. The drug-testing market is estimated to be a more than a $620 million a year business, according to Marketdata Enterprises Inc. of Tampa.
Private companies that aren't covered by the federal rules may use other specimens. Hair, for example, can be used to trace drug use back for months, rather than days. Others follow the government template for urine collection and testing. The American Management Association estimated that about two-thirds of the nation's employers were drug testing workers by 2004.
Testing Since 1980s
Widespread U.S. government drug testing started with a 1986 executive order by President Ronald Reagan. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, known as Samhsa, issued the first mandatory guidelines two years later. The Transportation Department has been requiring periodic tests of airline, truck, railroad and other transit employees since 1989. Nuclear plant workers are covered separately.
The basic procedure is a urine sample that is tested for the presence of marijuana, *edit hard drugs. The government estimates there are 17.4 million illicit drug users in the U.S, 75 percent of them in the workforce.
Statistics compiled by Quest Diagnostics Inc. in Madison, New Jersey, the world's largest provider of diagnostic testing, show decreased use of some illegal drugs. Still, some employers say they want to be able to test for designer drugs that the government now doesn't target.
`Higher Positive Results'
J.B. Hunt, the third largest U.S. trucking company, now does urine tests on its 11,000 drivers to satisfy the federal rule, Woodruff said. It also has completed 21,000 tests in the last two years using both hair and urine. He said the hair tests ``had much higher positive results.''
The payoff, supporters of alternative testing say, would be a much-needed scientific update to a 20-year-old program and less invasive tests that would be harder to cheat on -- a growing problem with urine tests.
The Government Accountability Office, in a November 2007 report on ``collection'' centers and cheating, found that it was easy to beat the Transportation Department's system by adulterating the sample or substituting fake urine.
Investigators said they generated more than 2 million Web site hits when the words ``pass drug test'' were typed into a search engine. Those sites offered some 400 products to defeat urine tests.
Regulators Hesitate
Even with recognized weaknesses, regulators have hesitated to deviate from urine collections. Their proposal cited doubts about some aspects of the hair and saliva testing they were being considering.
Samhsa has kept most of its deliberations ``behind closed doors for four years,'' said William Thistle, vice president and general counsel for Acton, Massachusetts-based Psychemedics The company says it is the world's largest lab testing hair for drug presence and has about 4,000 corporate clients.
``The rumblings are that none of the alternative matrices are part of the submission to OMB,'' Thistle said. ``If so, they missed an opportunity to improve testing and eliminate the tremendous cheating that is going on with urine testing.''
The agency said it received more than 100 comments on its 2004 proposal and since then has been deliberating with its advisory board on final guidelines.
`Under No Obligation'
``We are under no obligation to tell them the status of the regulation and they are not part of the deliberation,'' said Joseph Faha, director of legislation for Samhsa, referring to industry complaints.
Members of Congress who support expanding the urine portfolio also weighed in. Representatives Joe Barton of Texas and John Shimkus of Illinois, both Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, wrote the White House on Aug. 6. They asked for at least a pilot program using alternative testing, ``given that the inter-agency process remains at an apparent impasse and the federal workplace drug testing program remains unchanged.''
Another group pushing for a change from urine testing is the International Paruresis Association in Baltimore, which advocates for employees who fail their drug tests because they can't produce a sufficient sample, or any sample at all.
``The whole situation for people with shy bladder is just a nightmare,'' said Steven Soifer, an associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Social Work and president of the group. ``People beg to have alternative tests and to pay for them.''
In the meantime, the Transportation Department is unveiling a new requirement to thwart cheaters on certain urine tests Nov. 1. It's called ``direct observation.'' You get the idea.
News Hawk: User: 420 Magazine
Source: Bloomberg.com
Author: Cindy Skrzycki
Copyright: 2008 Bloomberg.com
Contact: About Bloomberg: Contact Us
Website: Bloomberg.com: Opinion
A Department of Health and Human Services agency proposed in 2004 to set standards for adding hair, saliva and sweat to the current urine-sample technique. Final guidelines are being considered by the White House office that reviews regulations.
The decision will affect an estimated 40 million workers in the government and private business who are tested, including 10 million in the transportation industry, some who cheat and some with shy bladders who can't furnish the proper specimen. A testing company and trucking interests met with White House officials recently to tout the advantages of the newer technologies.
``We feel we have to do an inferior test to satisfy a federal requirement,'' said Greer Woodruff, senior vice president of safety and security for J.B. Hunt Transport Services Inc. in Lowell, Arkansas. Hunt and American Trucking Associations representatives discussed the issue at an Oct. 10 meeting. Psychemedics Corp., which tests for drugs using hair samples, held a similar meeting Sept. 19, urging the alternative methods be approved. The drug-testing market is estimated to be a more than a $620 million a year business, according to Marketdata Enterprises Inc. of Tampa.
Private companies that aren't covered by the federal rules may use other specimens. Hair, for example, can be used to trace drug use back for months, rather than days. Others follow the government template for urine collection and testing. The American Management Association estimated that about two-thirds of the nation's employers were drug testing workers by 2004.
Testing Since 1980s
Widespread U.S. government drug testing started with a 1986 executive order by President Ronald Reagan. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, known as Samhsa, issued the first mandatory guidelines two years later. The Transportation Department has been requiring periodic tests of airline, truck, railroad and other transit employees since 1989. Nuclear plant workers are covered separately.
The basic procedure is a urine sample that is tested for the presence of marijuana, *edit hard drugs. The government estimates there are 17.4 million illicit drug users in the U.S, 75 percent of them in the workforce.
Statistics compiled by Quest Diagnostics Inc. in Madison, New Jersey, the world's largest provider of diagnostic testing, show decreased use of some illegal drugs. Still, some employers say they want to be able to test for designer drugs that the government now doesn't target.
`Higher Positive Results'
J.B. Hunt, the third largest U.S. trucking company, now does urine tests on its 11,000 drivers to satisfy the federal rule, Woodruff said. It also has completed 21,000 tests in the last two years using both hair and urine. He said the hair tests ``had much higher positive results.''
The payoff, supporters of alternative testing say, would be a much-needed scientific update to a 20-year-old program and less invasive tests that would be harder to cheat on -- a growing problem with urine tests.
The Government Accountability Office, in a November 2007 report on ``collection'' centers and cheating, found that it was easy to beat the Transportation Department's system by adulterating the sample or substituting fake urine.
Investigators said they generated more than 2 million Web site hits when the words ``pass drug test'' were typed into a search engine. Those sites offered some 400 products to defeat urine tests.
Regulators Hesitate
Even with recognized weaknesses, regulators have hesitated to deviate from urine collections. Their proposal cited doubts about some aspects of the hair and saliva testing they were being considering.
Samhsa has kept most of its deliberations ``behind closed doors for four years,'' said William Thistle, vice president and general counsel for Acton, Massachusetts-based Psychemedics The company says it is the world's largest lab testing hair for drug presence and has about 4,000 corporate clients.
``The rumblings are that none of the alternative matrices are part of the submission to OMB,'' Thistle said. ``If so, they missed an opportunity to improve testing and eliminate the tremendous cheating that is going on with urine testing.''
The agency said it received more than 100 comments on its 2004 proposal and since then has been deliberating with its advisory board on final guidelines.
`Under No Obligation'
``We are under no obligation to tell them the status of the regulation and they are not part of the deliberation,'' said Joseph Faha, director of legislation for Samhsa, referring to industry complaints.
Members of Congress who support expanding the urine portfolio also weighed in. Representatives Joe Barton of Texas and John Shimkus of Illinois, both Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, wrote the White House on Aug. 6. They asked for at least a pilot program using alternative testing, ``given that the inter-agency process remains at an apparent impasse and the federal workplace drug testing program remains unchanged.''
Another group pushing for a change from urine testing is the International Paruresis Association in Baltimore, which advocates for employees who fail their drug tests because they can't produce a sufficient sample, or any sample at all.
``The whole situation for people with shy bladder is just a nightmare,'' said Steven Soifer, an associate professor at the University of Maryland School of Social Work and president of the group. ``People beg to have alternative tests and to pay for them.''
In the meantime, the Transportation Department is unveiling a new requirement to thwart cheaters on certain urine tests Nov. 1. It's called ``direct observation.'' You get the idea.
News Hawk: User: 420 Magazine
Source: Bloomberg.com
Author: Cindy Skrzycki
Copyright: 2008 Bloomberg.com
Contact: About Bloomberg: Contact Us
Website: Bloomberg.com: Opinion
