Urinalysis Drug Tests

Urinalysis Drug Tests

Testing is most frequently performed on small samples of urine,
although hair, saliva, and blood can also be used. Urine samples are
collected by personnel under carefully controlled circumstances to
avoid mismatches resulting in false positives, and to prevent
adulteration of the specimen by the swapping of samples or the
addition of foreign substances. In particular, urine samples heavily
diluted with water can skewer results, and so highly diluted specimens
are routinely rejected. In certain legal cases involving individuals
known to be repeat drug offenders, personnel are usually required to
witness the sample being provided in order to ensure that no
adulteration has taken place.

Samples can be tested at the same site in which they were provided.
More frequently, it is shipped to a large facility that specializes in
mass-testing specimens. Care must be taken in shipping to ensure the
integrity of the specimen, and those that indicate contamination are
not processed. A special tamper-proof seal is routinely placed on
bottles to indicate whether or not this has occurred
http://www.getgift.com.cn/Drug-Testing.htm

"anganb" wrote in message
oups.com...
Urinalysis Drug Tests

Testing is most frequently performed on small samples of urine,
although hair, saliva, and blood can also be used. Urine samples are
collected by personnel under carefully controlled circumstances to
avoid mismatches resulting in false positives, and to prevent
adulteration of the specimen by the swapping of samples or the
addition of foreign substances. In particular, urine samples heavily
diluted with water can skewer results, and so highly diluted specimens
are routinely rejected. In certain legal cases involving individuals
known to be repeat drug offenders, personnel are usually required to
witness the sample being provided in order to ensure that no
adulteration has taken place.

Samples can be tested at the same site in which they were provided.
More frequently, it is shipped to a large facility that specializes in
mass-testing specimens. Care must be taken in shipping to ensure the
integrity of the specimen, and those that indicate contamination are
not processed. A special tamper-proof seal is routinely placed on
bottles to indicate whether or not this has occurred
http://www.getgift.com.cn/Drug-Testing.htm


And? 80% test positive because they are on some sort of prescription dope
anyway!

anganb wrote:
Urinalysis Drug Tests

Testing is most frequently performed on small samples of urine,
although hair, saliva, and blood can also be used. Urine samples are
collected by personnel under carefully controlled circumstances to
avoid mismatches resulting in false positives, and to prevent
adulteration of the specimen by the swapping of samples or the
addition of foreign substances. In particular, urine samples heavily
diluted with water can skewer results, and so highly diluted specimens
are routinely rejected. In certain legal cases involving individuals
known to be repeat drug offenders, personnel are usually required to
witness the sample being provided in order to ensure that no
adulteration has taken place.

Samples can be tested at the same site in which they were provided.
More frequently, it is shipped to a large facility that specializes in
mass-testing specimens. Care must be taken in shipping to ensure the
integrity of the specimen, and those that indicate contamination are
not processed. A special tamper-proof seal is routinely placed on
bottles to indicate whether or not this has occurred
http://www.getgift.com.cn/Drug-Testing.htm

guilty until proven innocent; it's the american way!

NW_Pilot wrote:
"anganb" wrote in message
oups.com...
Urinalysis Drug Tests

Testing is most frequently performed on small samples of urine,
although hair, saliva, and blood can also be used. Urine samples are
collected by personnel under carefully controlled circumstances to
avoid mismatches resulting in false positives, and to prevent
adulteration of the specimen by the swapping of samples or the
addition of foreign substances. In particular, urine samples heavily
diluted with water can skewer results, and so highly diluted
specimens are routinely rejected. In certain legal cases involving
individuals known to be repeat drug offenders, personnel are usually
required to witness the sample being provided in order to ensure
that no adulteration has taken place.

Samples can be tested at the same site in which they were provided.
More frequently, it is shipped to a large facility that specializes
in mass-testing specimens. Care must be taken in shipping to ensure
the integrity of the specimen, and those that indicate contamination
are not processed. A special tamper-proof seal is routinely placed on
bottles to indicate whether or not this has occurred
http://www.getgift.com.cn/Drug-Testing.htm


And? 80% test positive because they are on some sort of prescription
dope anyway!


Not even close and I paid for over 450 drug screens on employees this year.

"the warlock society" wrote in message
oups.com...

guilty until proven innocent; it's the american way!

This is sobering: http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

According to "Law Enforcement Against Prohibition" the War on Some Drugs has
cost $44 billion dollars, put nearly 10,000 Americans in prison, and drugs
are cheaper and more accessible to kids and inmates now than alcohol or
cigarettes. The FBI keeps raiding the Lakota indians for growing
hemp--which the government taught and encouraged them to grow in the first
place--to feed their buffalo and livestock, and so Americans are being made
destitute for something that -looks- like marijuana.

I occasionally fish around to find statistics on the percentage of aviation
accidents in which drugs (and which ones) and alcohol are involved. It's
as ridiculous to believe there aren't pilots who use drugs out there as it
is to believe the are pilots who aren't alcoholics, chain smokers or
terrible drivers, but other than rare really -weird- snockered-pilot
stories, you don't hear much about it. I suspect that's because aviator
mentality is a little more disciplined and self-policing; we understand
what's at stake if they blow it, so I'm not gonna get loaded on beer or
Benadryl and go flying on a Friday night, but that doesn't mean I don't
drink beer.

A former acquaintance told me that she was first explosed to cocaine until
her mom starting hanging out with airline pilots in the early '80s, and
didn't get into it because if adults were doing it it clearly wasn't cool.
That's kind of a backwardass way to keep your kids off drugs, I guess. My
dad's "I brought you into the world, and I can make another one just like
you" worked pretty well. :

-c

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

Not even close and I paid for over 450 drug screens on employees this
year.

Fascinating. I have questions for you, if you don't mind.

1) What do the employees do?
2) What was the ballpark failure rate?
3) What drugs/alcohol are most likely to show up?
4) How did postive or negative results align with job performance. IE, were
you -surprised- that somebody failed (or passed) based on their performance,
were otherwise-stellar employees let go because of the results? And,
lastly:
5) Was it worth it?

Usually you hear statistics from police, users, activists or just people
like me who simply view it as a (sometimes necessary) invasion of privacy,
so your insight is valuable.

-c

Gatt wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

Not even close and I paid for over 450 drug screens on employees this
year.

Fascinating. I have questions for you, if you don't mind.

1) What do the employees do?

Everything from Bank officers to minimum wage labor. The bell curve on this
group skews towards the lower end of the spectrum though.


2) What was the ballpark failure rate?

On new hires and random in service it is about 10% and all but 2 or 3 a year
come from the low end of the labor pool.

On post accident it is around 30% failure. By it's very nature the post
accident skews more towards the lower end of the wage base.

I did look about a year ago at only the $10.00/hr applicants and it was
about 20% positive on new hires.

3) What drugs/alcohol are most likely to show up?

THC (The Stuff that makes Pot enjoyable) is number one with about 70% of the
positives showing THC.

40% show Amphetamines

10% show Cocaine

The other stuff tested for only shows up occasionally though PCP is up
because there seems to be a bunch of pot out there that is laced with it.

And those percentages don't add up to 100 because several have multiple
drugs in them. Most notably I don't remember the last positive for
Amphetamines I saw that didn't also have THC.


4) How did postive or negative results align with job performance. IE,
were you -surprised- that somebody failed (or passed) based on
their performance, were otherwise-stellar employees let go because of
the results? And, lastly:


We've only got 4 or 5 positives from random over the last couple of years
and we the 2 probable cause tests we did this year both were positive.

Because most of the positives come from pre-hire tests it's hard to say.
Though on the rare occasion that we have allowed a positive applicant to
reapply and retest at a latter date they don't usually work out. Off the top
of my head I can only think of 1 out of 10 over the last 3 years that
failed, reapplied, was hired and was actually a good worker.



5) Was it worth it?

Sure it was. Injuries are down, absenteeism is lower than it was before we
put the testing program in and we get an automatic 5% discount on work comp.




Usually you hear statistics from police, users, activists or just
people like me who simply view it as a (sometimes necessary) invasion
of privacy, so your insight is valuable.

-c

"Gatt" wrote in message
...

"the warlock society" wrote in message
oups.com...

guilty until proven innocent; it's the american way!

This is sobering: http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php

According to "Law Enforcement Against Prohibition" the War on Some Drugs
has cost $44 billion dollars, put nearly 10,000 Americans in prison, and
drugs are cheaper and more accessible to kids and inmates now than alcohol
or cigarettes.

I would have guessed that those numbers were ANNUAL, not historic.

Somewhere in his writings, Thomas Jefferson scoffed at the notion of his day
that potatoes had odd side effect and should be banned. IIRC, he not only
was skeptical of the potato BS, but also about holding it to be illegal.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

5) Was it worth it?

Sure it was. Injuries are down, absenteeism is lower than it was before we
put the testing program in and we get an automatic 5% discount on work
comp.


Thanks for the info. I have friends who are ex-probation officers, college
professors, youth drug and alcohol counselors, etc, so we talk about this
kind of stuff (usually while drinking beer or whiskey and eating enough
barbequed red meat to kill us all.) Definately interesting hearing
different perspectives.

-c

"Gatt" wrote in message
...

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

5) Was it worth it?

Sure it was. Injuries are down, absenteeism is lower than it was before
we put the testing program in and we get an automatic 5% discount on work
comp.


Thanks for the info. I have friends who are ex-probation officers,
college professors, youth drug and alcohol counselors, etc, so we talk
about this kind of stuff (usually while drinking beer or whiskey and
eating enough barbequed red meat to kill us all.) Definately interesting
hearing different perspectives.


Now, if you were around here you'd add cigars and change the red meat to
venison, by which you'd live much longer.