dirty test

[CARaven]

I think we all jumped on this person hard, because they admitted to doing drugs. I can tell you I do know a guy that tested dirty for "I think it was herion", and this was a urine test.

Anyone who knew him would know this was not the case. He was a very clean cut, hard working, family man and very religious. They finally asked him if he had eaten poppy seeds and he said yes, he had half eaten muffin in his lunch box. They still would not let him work. He was drug tested for a shut down, with lots of overtime, so he was denied the right to make a lot of money.

After all that, union became involved and he was paid all the money he would of earned if he had worked. So yes, urine tests are not the best test.

I have worked at nuclear power plants before and when you get ready to take their drug test they ask if youve had anything with poppy seeds in it. Ive been told the Costco poppy seed muffins will show up positive for herion. Something about the Turkish poppy seeds they use.

[Bad Boy Bad Boy]

I would never ask anyone to apologize for their opinions.

I haven't gave any what (If's) here at this point neither.

As I stated in my other Post Reply, I do not support the use of Street Drugs.

I do not, and will not support an Employer flipping a Medical Bill for Drug Rehab, or a person under the influnce at time of injury.

I do support a Urine test only if it was backed up with a Blood test when being tested. Having both test, leaves no room for a flase positive or negative for a user while at work under the influnce.

If we forget there are Laws, Regulations, Civil Rights, and the right to be found Guilty or Innocent. Laws state we are all (Innocent) till proven Guilty. I will not condemn this person for being honset here and coming forth. I wasn't there, and I did not see the Urine Test Report.

Take the Laws, Regulations, and Civil Rights away, and we all become Lawless.

[jayne]

this poster said he did the drugs.....he admitted it.....now he hinted at drug rehab AT THE COMPANIES EXPENSE....if he had said he didnt do it it would be a whole new ball game but the man admitted it....he did the crime now he can do the time

[Bummer Knees]

Bad Boy
My post wasn't directed at you.

Just sharing the facts of what we have gone thru as an employer.

[Bad Boy Bad Boy]

This poster didn't admit to smoking weed. They Stated; >

(I'll admit I got a little buzzed new years eve but do not remember imbibing in that area.)

They left a message with employer about possible drug rehab, to try and protect their job. They didn't say they want the employer to pay for it.

Our world is full of drinkers, and those that abuse Drugs. Don't let us remove the rights of one person, to the right of the laws, regulations and civil rights.

Remember, if W/C says we as injured workers can work, even with restrictions, and continue to take our medications, we are under the influnce also then. Being said, we would remove the Laws, Regulations, and Civil Rights, plus the Work Comp Laws and such. And if Re-Injured, due to our medications while working, one of us then may be fired and denied proper treatment. Should we then remove the Rights then?

Be fair, not Bias.

[Bad Boy Bad Boy]

Bummer, I know that. And I also was once an employer, and would have to of had to done what you and your husband had to do. I also would of sued the worker, and applied a Lien on his next up coming pay checks till the bills were paid. I too would not sit back, and say a person under the influnce at time of accident was innocent, and I would had been in the court room making sure the judge seen the point. But, let the Law work it out. Let the courts work it out.

[halftrak]

Been following this post, just thought I would jump in here, don't want to jump on anybody's toes but I don't see how a person pulling a pallet and hurting his shoulder could have been caused by having pot in his system, could have happened anyways.Yeah I agree that he it is illegal to be under of the influence while on the job,just my opinion

[Bad Boy Bad Boy]

Halftrak, so very true. But, the way I see this is, we don't know if this person was under the influnce. The Urine Test can only state the person has used at some point and time, or they were in an area where people were using. The THC lays in our Fat Cells, then is dispuurst through our Urine, only a small amount at a time. The THC can sometimes take a year to years to completely remove from a humans system. These are true medical facts. Now a non-user would show a lower lever THC in their Urine, say 25mg.ml or even lower. This then means the person was not under the influnce, but could have been close to others that were smoking the wacky weed.

Only a Blood test can tell if one is truely under the Influnce. If I were their employer, once I got the Urine test results, I would have asked the employee if they wanted a Blood test and explained why. Then if employee refused the Blood test, they know they were going to show they were under the influnce and the test would come back positive. And fire the employee. If employers or employee's do this, many of these issues become cut and dry. If they don't do the confirming blood test, the door is then opened for the employee to contest a Urine test.

I can't say if this person was using or not. I'm not with them, nor have I seen the test results from the Urine test. If they had a Urine test reading 50mg/ml, then their in trouble. That's a high level, and that is where the test ends also. Blood test would confirm.

My employer told me a few times they would like to send me for a Urine Test. (I never advised them of a Blood test.) I also simply told them I would willing go. But, that they should have their Attorney ready. They never sent me. I would have went too. But, I would of had them in court after it also. For, I was clean, and they really had no right to suspect I was under any influnce. Called the 4th Ammendment. The ammendent doest hold any water to an employer that has at will drug screening in their company policy though.

[Cycler]

BBBB;

I have seen you comment a couple of times about urine THC and cut-off levels and I want to clarify a often misunderstood point.

The cut-off limit has to do more with eliminating the false positive test because of the limits of testing. Every Scientific test has an error rate statistically and that is a different matter than the sensitivity and specificity issues of screening and confirmation tests. The cut off levels were derived from lab accuracy values so that the end user of the result can find it reliable.

CUt off values and elevated levels do not speak to impairment in the way that blood levels do. This has less to do with drug elimination rates, as you pointed out THC can leach from fat stores for weeks after last exposure, but rather with inherent differences in clearance rates between individuals and even the same person based on diet, exercise, hydration levels etc that may change on a day to day basis.

Forensic scientists have demonstrated that while impairment may begin within 20 minutes of a drug ingestion, sooner if inhaled etc, the impairment is short lived, measured in a few hours. There are performance tests that measure these things.

Drug clearance from the blood stream via urine and fecal elimination may take 3 - days for all but marijuana which may take much longer. However impairment is not implied by drug level, only exposure. Impairment can only be implied if you knew what drug, how much and at what time was ingested etc, which is rarely known OR ( in employment setting) there is documentation of suspected impairment based on observed behavior. THat documentation plus the positive drug test is the only way the IW can be dinged in the current court systems and state WC systems.

IN short, cutoff levels don't matter to the end user of the test, which is why quantitative levels are never given in federal DOT testing, but only to the lab scientists who can certify to the accuracy of the result.

In summary- a lab positive may or may not be a positive drug test.

[jayne]

yes you are right BBBB all I can say in my defense is ilegal drugs have distroyed my sister and her children and she has not never once took responsiabilty...not to mention what it did to my parents and the rest of us kids..it was always someones elses fault.....So I tend to color all with the same brush.....if he was hinting at rehab thru the company then that told me he knew he was dirty and had some bit of control.....but again just my opinion... and with that and 2 bucks you can get a cup of coffee.....