Adaptation to Workplace Drug Testing Policies
Filed under Ongoing Research
“The ubiquity of workplace drug testing is nothing new for my generation. Reflecting on my own work history, there were several times in which I was confronted with illicit drug screening and all but two employers required my signature on company drug-free policy agreements. In fact, the owner/proprietor of one of these latter companies was a daily drug user himself while the other business was a restaurant, which the food-service industry is notoriously known for their lack of formal or rigid drug-free policies.
Looking back, a particular moment stands out in my mind that speaks volumes on the effects of workplace drug-free policies. While taking a break with one of my managers on an uneventful workday, our conversation about the usual monotonous workings of the business slipped into some of our own personal problems – things that were bugging us at the moment. My manager had been seemingly upset for the entire morning and I finally figured out why. On the previous day, she went home from work to find her husband shaved bald – with not only the top of his head glowing from the handiwork of a razorblade – but bald from head to toe. After the dirty looks and shock subsided, she soon learned that her husband, an illicit drug habitué (namely marijuana), had made an attempt to escape the drug-free policies of the company that was buying out his current employer.
He and several of his coworkers in his department had all purchased “detox” products to flush out the recreational “toxins” in their bodies to prevent testing positive for illicit drugs via urinalysis as well as shaved themselves and purchased specialty products to remove “toxins” from hair (for the areas in the hard-to-reach nether-regions and eyebrows) to avoid testing positive via hair analysis. While raising the eyebrows of their employers, the “Mr. Clean” shave-therapy seemed to have worked as none of the bald-brothers-in-arms were terminated for initially breaking the new company’s drug-free policy. Much to the dismay of my manager, who hoped the ordeal would bring her husband – a father of two – to limit his drug use or quit, the new policy only served to change the length of his hair, which he now kept cut very short, and also made him stock up on “detox” products such that they are readily available when he needs to pee clean or appear drug free when one examines his hair using toxicological measures.”
This is an excerpt of a recent research proposal aimed at identifying the incidence and prevalence of dodging drug testing via the utilization of countermeasure products available from local stores or on the Internet. According to the Drug Testing Index, a comprehensive ongoing assessment from the nation’s largest workplace drug testing firm Quest Diagnostics, the amount of affirmed samples utilizing such countermeasures are quite minimal. This contradicts the widespread use of these products as revealed in ethnographies by social science researchers – including Kenneth Tunnell (see “Pissing on Demand“) – and the information available via the National Household Survey of Drug Use and Health. The question remains: How have people adapted to workplace drug testing policies? If they have, how often are they successful?
I would like to open up this topic for debate and guidance for this line of research. At what point in the chain of custody is there a breakdown that allows tainted samples not to appear such official statistics? Is it just that the common result is an “invalid” test that must be repeated at the behest of employers?
April 23rd, 2007 at 6:09 PM
I work in a SAMHSA lab where we test federally regulated COC urine samples. Validity testing is performed on every sample. There is no shortage of adulterants available. Just do a google search and see how many hits you get. However, it is true that there are few reported adulterated samples, the key word being reported. There are cutoff levels for adulterating substances just like there are for illegal drugs. Sometimes there are substances present but they are below the reportable value. Also there may be a combination of adulterating substances such as a low nitrite with a low chromate. Together they interact with the sample but at levels that are too low to report. The main factor is that these substances are always changing. Companies that produce them are usually 2-3 steps ahead of the labs trying to detect them. By the time an approved method of testing and official cutoff levels are established the original adulterant may be reformulated. The most widely used adulterant today is water. Excessive hydration can cause a dilute sample and ultimately an invalid result. Some adulterant companies instruct their customer to drink a lot of water with their detox kit.
I’m not sure that it is a breakdown, but the first step of the drug test is the collection. The collector needs to be aware of all the ways people try to beat the test and how to prevent it. This includes washing hands, proper temperature, color of samples, and even an observed collection to ensure that there is no substitution.
This past weekend my manager did a presentation at the Drug and Alcohol Testing Industry Administration Conference (DATIA) on this very topic. He called a couple adulterant companies for information on their products and how to beat a drug test. He also cited two bills that were never enacted that would make it illegal to produce, distribute, and sell adulterants with the intent to fraudulently beat a drug test.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:30 PM
Hi Jeff!
Oh this are some juicy details. I will have to contact you off of this blog – but I did want to add something.
I know in Florida and Texas, there are criminal statutes for drug testing “fraud”. The sales of the products are still in that gray area – but I cannot find one case that prosecuted someone under both acts. I would expect the first case to derive from someone trying to defraud the government out of subsidies – and I am surprised that I cannot find anything in Florida. I have heard of a case in Texas – but I am yet to find it.
Ken Tunnell, a sociologist up at Eastern Kentucky, suggests that there may be a lot of slippage at the collection level – the folks that are in that job position may become disillusioned with the monotony and just do the least common denominator of what is required. Both are things I would like to get at in my research in the upcoming years.
Thanks for your insight, indeed!
Dave
May 9th, 2007 at 6:13 PM
I’ve been screwing these tests for 15 years. There is no test I can not pass with one hour notice. The key is to over hydrate and take B complex. It covers the clairty, specific gravity, and PH test.
May 25th, 2007 at 4:07 PM
Does not cover cretin over-hydration causes the body to loss cretin so a simple test will discover you handed water not urine. Not to mention you have to be careful since water poisoning is just as bad if not worse then alcohol poisoning. Work places have not started testing cretin levels in samples. I am type 1 Diabetic now this is not recommended I let me blood glucose level reach 250 to 300 now this will have almost the same effect as over-hydration with out the chance of water poisoning. Low cretin level is explained by high glucose and the spilling of key tones into the urine making the body dehydrated so you have an extreme thirst which is why your chance of water poisoning is pretty much gone since your body is using (sort of it really just sends if off to the bladder fast diluting everything in the bladder and eventually filling with nothing but water) what is being put in there. Now there are ways to artificially raise your glucose level for a short period of time IE before a drug test or if they question your sample to get a DR script for low cretin (you can not fail a drug test if levels are off but you supply a DR note/script with the reason the level was off).
I will not post them since CHANGING YOUR BODIES GLUCOSE LEVELS IS DANGEROUS if you use to much you can spike and go into Diabetic Ketone(or keto) acidosis which is where your body thinks it is starving and breaks down stored fat cells for energy but spills ketones into the body causing extreme dehydration which causes your blood glucose to raise even higher shutting own vital organs or causing serious damage it is a deadly cycle that can be only fixed by slowly lowering glucose levels with the use of insulin. If you are not a diabetic your body should recover on its own eventually but no one knows since no one wants to go into DKA.
Also if your glucose spikes and you are not a diabetic your body may try to fight off the spike but over compensate causing what is called the roller coaster effect (glucose levels go high then come back down fast) this alone will not kill you but you will not feel good at all. If your body over compensates (I’m covering all bases as I can only speak for someone who is type 1 diabetic) and you go from a high glucose level to a extremely low glucose level you can go into diabetic shock. Normal glucose levels are 80-120.
This method was not a problem for me since i produce no insulin of my own and average ratio of insulin is 1 unit per 15g of Carbohydrate eaten. I could control how high and the time span for lowering it back to normal range of 90. I can not vouch for these items that raise glucose levels for a short period of time but I do know there is one you will find that SHUTS DOWN BETA ISLET CELL FUNCTION so as long as you are taking that pill you would need insulin shots.
This is the only method of beating a drug test that can truly work 100% of the time no matter what urine test you are given or how advanced the test is.
One last thing your brain has an endocannabinoid system so low levels can be detected after running (runners high) there is a reason it is popular.
June 17th, 2007 at 11:42 AM
While I appreciate the complexity of the drug testing issues, what I see is one side of the issue focused upon building a better testing system and the other side finding better ways to beat the testing. What is disconcerning for me is we are no longer focused upon the intent of testing, which was creating a safe environment for the workplace, public, or home.
If we are truly seeking safety, is drug testing the panacea some believe it is? Or should we look at testing that demonstrates the ability of a person to be safe? Having been in healthcare/medicine/biotechnology for over 17 years now, the escalation of technology to test for drugs will consequently lead to systems for beating the testing. If we are looking for the right type of testing for an employer the we need to reorient ourselves to use tests (computer based, or other…) that ACTUALLY demonstrate a person’s ability or inability to be safe or if they are impaired.
July 18th, 2007 at 4:02 PM
There are likely more traditional laboratory urine-based drug tests “cheated” today than there are “positives”.
Quest stats (Drug Testing Index) show that a “postive” rate of less than 4.3% in the general workplace while we know that 8% or more of drug abusers have used an illict drug within the past month (SAMHSA2007).
Since most tests done in the use are pre-employment, and specimen collection is unobserved, the it is clear that traditional methods of testing are little more than an intelligence test.
Drug testing is a critical component of any effective substance abuse testing program, however, until employers and schools “get it right”, drug abuse will continue to be prevalent.
An effective drug free workplace program must include the following at a minimum:
1. Education / Awareness Programs (ongoing, thorough, and professionally administered)
2. Observed specimen collection (only realistically possible with oral fluid or hair presently).
3. Random testing (effective deterrent), as well as post-accident, reasonable suspicion, and return to duty/job change.
4. EAP (employee assistance program) offered as alternative to firing. If drug free workplace programs as largely punitive, vs. suppportive, you don’t really solve anything. (the problem just moves to another company/location).
August 9th, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Hello,
Thanks for all the valuable information that has been documented on this page. I have been to a couple of the major drug test sites such as http://www.drugtest.com and Drug Test dot Org
I have learned through these website’s that there are a variety of cleaners that may work or do work based on the content of the website and their “sales’ pitch. I have also found that there are a large number of new website’s in the drug test kit arena offering same day cleansing that lasts for 5-6 hours.
Is it true that public schools will be starting educated or random drug testing of students and faculty? I read that on http://www.msnbc.com today.
Looking forward to your follow up,
Jimmy
August 12th, 2007 at 9:02 AM
Well, Jimmy, that depends on the jurisdiction. Obviously, anyone that works for the government can easily be placed into a drug testing program – many are. The precedent is already there.
As for students — right now…students can be placed into a program, but parents are allowed to opt out for their children. The only programs that exist out there in large quantities are for student athletes, but the ONDCP has plans to expand that to the rest of the student body. There should be pilot programs first – and at that point, we will be better able to tell if these programs will be more widely adapted. Chances are there will be a heated discussion before we advance to this step. Thus, there are no guarantees that this will happen.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Hi Dave,
Thanks for the reply, so in a sense it’s kind of like a teen could be “emancipated” by their parent’s giving them a way out. That makes a lot of sense, I could see our government allowing that.
Yes, I’ve heard about the athletes which I think use substances much less than other categories of students anyway. I believe what I was reading about could have been one of those pilot programs as you mention where certain schools are opting for the entire body in random drug testing. I will look into it a little more and see if I can find that article.
Thanks Dave!
Jimmy
August 22nd, 2007 at 7:55 AM
There is no method to “beat” an oral fluid-based drug test. On the other hand, beating a urine test is relatively easy.
Yes… Capt. Jeff…that’s a challenge.
Just, FYI…. I personally beleive what people do at home is their own business as long as they are not hurting others. Drugs abuse in the workplace, however, can not be justified.
March 19th, 2008 at 8:33 PM
cool post dude
March 19th, 2008 at 9:22 PM
good post man thx
March 19th, 2008 at 11:03 PM
hi nice site thx
November 1st, 2008 at 11:38 PM
I stopped smoking weed within the last two weeks of August 2008 and I was tested for THC 2 times since then and the test showed positive the first test ( sept 12th, 2008 )and Negative the 2nd test ( Oct 12th, 2008 )but then I was tested again October 31, 2008 and I tested postive for THC again. I promise you that I have not smoked or knowingly ingested THC since Aug, 2008.
How is this possible?
My theory is as follows. I weigh about 449 pounds and I don’t excerise at all. The day of the urine test I had went to the doctor to get a check up and get a FLU vaccine so I had not eaten but two tacos from taco bell and only drank about 5 ounces of water the entire day. I took the urine test at 4:45pm later that day and my urine was very dark yellow ( I assume from being dehydrated )and I tested postive for THC.
Is it possible that because I am over 45% body fat, the THC could still be in my fat cells and because I was so dehydrated and had only eaten 2 tacos earlier in the day that maybe my body was burning fat cells and this caused my urine to be concentrated with the THC from my fat cells.
I would apprciate any feedback on my comment. Thanks.
November 2nd, 2008 at 9:17 PM
Hi Clifton,
THC, as you have suggested, does get stored in fatty tissues. Habitual smokers and those with additional weight tend to keep traces of THC in their system for longer and by test positive several weeks after their last consumption of marijuana in any form.
Now note that even being around marijuana smoke (indoors) can result in a positive screen for THC – so even though you may have avoided consuming, if you were around people that were consuming, this could have resulted in your positive test weeks later.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:23 AM
It is important for employers to have strong drug and alcohol policies in place to address employee who try to cheat drug tests. ie. shaving all their body hair. It is completely obvious that the reason that they shaved, was to avoid taking a hair drug test. This in an of itself should have some form of consequence.
http://www.surehire.ca
May 31st, 2009 at 7:52 PM
I dont have a problem with drug testing until a mistake happens. I have been giving randoms for 28 years never a problem. Now very very very starnge I was just told I failed a drug test for cocaine, which is bull. There is no way, I just had a stroke a year ago and I know either quest lab screwed it up or somebody’s setting me up. I have very high uncontrollable high blood pressure. There is no way I would have ever used that crap, I once thought drug test was a good thing, but now that i’m getting totally screwed this is horrible program because everyone looks at you as guilty when you know with out a doubt that your not.
August 2nd, 2009 at 11:57 AM
I took a drug test on May 30, 2009 and it came back possitve for marijauna with a THC reading of 200.(I stopped smoking after that) I took another test about a week later and I was well hydrated(urine was clear) and got another positive test for Marijauna with a THC reading of 35.(still haven’t smoked any marijauna). I took another test about a week later and was NOT hydrated(urine was dark yellow)I got another postive reading for THC except the THC reading was a little higher than the second Test with a THC reading of 52(still have not smoke marijauna, this is showing that I smoked during this time – WHICH IS NOT TURE)
I work outside and I try ti stay hydrated but on this day I know I didn’t drink that much water and took the test and I saw how yellow my urine was I was thinking, “man, I’m Dehydrated” not thinking that it would matter in the THC reading.
I took another test about 14 days later and I was well hydrated and got a THC reading of 26(still have not smoked any marijauna)but this reading was lower that the second test.
I know it takes about a 30 days for marijauna to get out of your system for urinalysis testing and all these tests were giving with in a 5 week period.
I also know I didn’t smoke anymore marijauna after the first test was taken.
After the last test with the reading of a THC of 26 that was taken on March 8, 2009 I took another test about a week later and it came back negitive and I have not recieved a postitive reading for marijauna since and I am currently still taking urinalysis tests.
I believe that if I had smoked marijauna after the second test the THC reading on the third test would have had a THC reading closer to the first test I gave, not slightly higer than the second. The fourth test would have a higher THC reading not the lowest reading of all the tests.
I just want to know if it is possible to not smoke any marijauna during this time and if I was dehydrated during the test were the was a slight spike in the THC levels. Could it be because of the lack of water in my system, since if you overhydrate you can diluite your urine witch can give a lower THC reading too. Does it work both ways?
November 1st, 2009 at 12:28 PM
Europe is moving towards integration of alcohol licences. This will be like a dream come true for responsible drinking!
January 4th, 2010 at 2:31 AM
Im not too sure that even hair alcohol or drug testing should or can be used accurately enough to come to a conlcusion, such as the that sold by Trimega Laboratories in the UK. see http://hairanalysistesting.blogspot.com
February 24th, 2010 at 6:37 AM
Interesting article, thanks for posting
February 26th, 2010 at 3:48 PM
nice article
February 28th, 2010 at 12:47 AM
Thank you for the information, it’s kind of required in here.
March 2nd, 2010 at 2:43 AM
The goal of a drug testing is to encourage an employee with a substance abuse problem to seek treatment, recover, and return to work. Thanks for posting this informative blog.
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:16 AM
thanks for this useful article.
March 4th, 2010 at 7:38 PM
I agree with drug testing. The world is getting so messed up and now so is the wokrplace due to drugs.
June 5th, 2010 at 12:02 AM
I like it! I like it a lot. You know exactly what youre talking about, exactly where other people are coming from on this issue. Im glad that I had the fortune to stumble across your blog. Its definitely an important issue that not enough people are talking about and Im glad that I got the chance to see all the angles.
June 24th, 2010 at 1:26 AM
good, your info is very helpful, thank you very much. so cool. i like your bolg. nice.
July 3rd, 2010 at 12:33 PM
This is a really good article. Very informative and covers the topics clearly and concisely.
July 12th, 2010 at 1:56 AM
This post is very usefull, I will get back to read every new posts in future, keep posting!
August 9th, 2010 at 10:25 PM
This article is really great. Thanks for posting
August 13th, 2010 at 3:39 PM
I agree with what tech support said. That is the goal is to get them tested and then provide support to get the drug tester to stop and start recovery asap. Great post. thanks!
September 20th, 2010 at 10:57 PM
this is very nice. thanks.
September 29th, 2010 at 7:25 AM
thanks…. very useful and enter this beautiful and useful. worked for me too. A thousand times thank you for the beautiful unshared. good that you share with us these beautiful writings. I continue to follow you …
October 7th, 2010 at 12:11 AM
I really like your post. I found it incredibly usefull. I have to visit your website again some day.
October 21st, 2010 at 7:44 AM
Thanks.. Good article..
October 27th, 2010 at 3:17 AM
Bookmarked, I love your blog!
October 29th, 2010 at 12:12 AM
I am a faithful reader. Thanks for posting your insights and experiences.
November 5th, 2010 at 5:21 AM
thank you for sharing your article,i have study much
November 8th, 2010 at 8:55 AM
This was a great read, keep it up please.
November 11th, 2010 at 12:53 PM
Wow, the fact you have comments going back 2 years speaks to the quality of your information. Good post!
November 22nd, 2010 at 12:42 AM
All in all, its a good post, but you may have spent a littlemore time with it. but an excellent post
November 22nd, 2010 at 10:43 PM
I enjoyed reading this blogpage. I want useful information like this for my own.
December 3rd, 2010 at 10:20 PM
That just leads to the idea that the more you try to weed out the bad habits of employees they will look to get around these employee purges.
January 17th, 2011 at 4:21 PM
What do you think the impact of all the Medicinal Marijuana facilities will have upon testing procedures and how employers decided to drug test?
January 28th, 2011 at 12:23 PM
It looks like people don’t really understand that drugs are not dangerous for the employes or somebody else, but for those who use it and it is really doesn matter what will show your drug-test!
And we don’t ready to accept the drug-free policy, because we are not responsible enough!
February 9th, 2011 at 12:10 PM
really interesting!
March 5th, 2011 at 9:09 AM
Really interesting stuff.
It must happen rarely, but I have a friend who ordered some Coca tea from Amazon (the online store, not the forest!)
Anyway, he tested positive for cocaine metabolites recently, and had a lot of explaining to do that he was just drinking the tea!
August 3rd, 2011 at 12:07 PM
The goal of a drug testing is to encourage an employee with a substance abuse problem to seek treatment, recover, and return to work. Thanks for posting this informative blog
August 23rd, 2011 at 7:02 PM
Well, nothing beats than staying away from narcotics of drugs and living a clean life. Personally I have been health conscious all these years for the purpose of slowing down the aging process and I am successful in doing so and to be health conscious means that it includes staying away from harmful substances such as narcotics and drugs.
August 29th, 2011 at 5:39 PM
In fact, the owner/proprietor of one of these latter companies was a daily drug user himself while the other business was a restaurant, which the food-service industry is notoriously known for their lack of formal or rigid drug-free policies.
September 21st, 2011 at 11:43 PM
I personally do not use illicit drugs, but find drug screening an invasion of our personal liberties and privacy. Police need a search warrant to get into our home. Our employers on the other hand just need our signature to have a urine test for drugs. We can always say no. But then we more than likely will be terminated. What ever became of voluntary compliance?
September 23rd, 2011 at 7:23 PM
This blog is fantastic.I would like to introduce this nice website to my friends.