Employee Drug Testing Initiative

I was told today that the drug testing that DOC employees would be subject to is a saliva test. I was somewhat suprised at this because from everything that is out there on the net about drug testing, saliva tests are considered to be among the least accurate means of obtaing an accurate result. If we are going to implement this new policy, than why waste money on an inaccurate test method? Why doesn't DOC just go ahead and force us to provide a urine sample? If DOC really wanted to find the corrupt so-called "law enforcement officers" who are using drugs, why use a test method that has been statistically proven to be unreliable in terms of its validity?
Most of us would have NO problem providing a urine sample as we all took an oath to uphold the law as LEO's. Most of us have nothing to hide and so this new employee drug testing initiative is no big deal. The big deal however is that DOC is wasting money on a bogus testing method. There is so much more that DOC could be using this money for.
My point in short, if DOC is going to go all out and make us take a drug test, at least make us take a test that will show an accurate result as opposed to wasting money on a test that shows nothing and can be easily fooled.

This is just one of the many pieces of information on the net that is available in terms of saliva testing vs. urine testing

http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/tes ... nfo1.shtml (http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/testing/testing_info1.shtml)

Urine Tests

* Are the least expensive of the test methods (~$7-$50 for home version).
* Are considered an intrusive method of testing.
* Can be done at home (for example by parents) though require lab verification for accurate results.
* Detect use primarily within the past week (longer with regular use).
* Can be affected by abstaining from use for a period of time before the test.
* Are often temperature tested to insure sample integrity.

Saliva Tests

* Are a little more expensive than urine testing, but less than hair or blood. (~$15-$75).
* Are considered a relatively unintrusive method of drug testing.
* Are becoming more common.
* Are easy to administer but require lab processing to ensure accuracy.
* Detect use primarily within the past few days.
* Can detect more recent use than other testing methods.
* Have no nationally accepted standards or cutoff concentrations for detection, making results greatly dependent on the specific product purchased. This could also make results less-reliable and/or acceptable for legal cases.
* More reliable for detection of Methamphetamine and Opiates, less reliable for THC or Cannabinoids (2004).

I heard all that herbal tea stuff from GNC etc. wont help you beat a saliva test but it will a urine test. I think we shouldnt have it at all just shows how much of a joke DOC is - what other L.E.A. has this ? That stuff about showing the public were clean is a joke also - it just gives more headlines when someone gets terminated probably. The PBA should be ashamed signing off on this - just shows we are looked at as a joke when they can push this through even with a bargaining unit.... :roll:

on the saliva you go for a urine confirmation. You have the option of saying no thanks to saliva and go straight to urine. I do nto do drugs and do not want to work with someone who does.

[NIGHT RANGER]

If I take Tylenol PM on a regular basis will it make the test positive for cocaine?

on the saliva you go for a urine confirmation. You have the option of saying no thanks to saliva and go straight to urine. I do nto do drugs and do not want to work with someone who does.

I dont either but it still bs we are getting tested like this - lets also let them do a search of our houses every week to make sure nothing illegal is there or maybe let them strip search CO's before entering the compound to 100% make sure they are not smuggling something - This is nothing but a public relations joke and makes us look silly for letting it happen.

on the saliva you go for a urine confirmation. You have the option of saying no thanks to saliva and go straight to urine. I do nto do drugs and do not want to work with someone who does.

I dont either but it still bs we are getting tested like this - lets also let them do a search of our houses every week to make sure nothing illegal is there or maybe let them strip search CO's before entering the compound to 100% make sure they are not smuggling something - This is nothing but a public relations joke and makes us look silly for letting it happen.

I think this is great, I will get to drive 70 miles to take the saliva test and I was told that If i test positive for anything that I would have to go to a lab that same day and to bring all my scripts. So even if you bring your meds that you test positive for you still have to go for the lab confirmation and waste even more DOC money and spend an entire day doing this rather then my investigations and field work...What a great agency to work for!!!

of saliva. 70 miles not.

What a bunch of winers. So you have to take a drug test- WHO CARES. This is just the first of many steps towards rebuilding the public trust. Secretary Crosby really screwed us with the media. The sad part is that he did more to ensure their safety then any other secretary in the past 20 years. I personally don't know of any officers that will test positive. If they do, they should be gone. Even if they test positive they will be given a chance if they come forward prior to testing. The key is to stop now you have been forewarned if you are using. If you can't then seek private help. (No the department doesn;t have to know.)

PBA backed drug testing. It is not a negative thing. I personally don't want my backup to be high or under the influence.

We should be embracing the policy not *****ing.

THE KICKER THOUGH IS THAT IT WILL BE REPORTED TO CJSTC AND THEN YOUR CERTIFICATION MAY BE GONE. NO CERTIFICATION= NO JOB. BE CAREFUL. PBA NEEDS TO LOOK INTO THIS ASPECT.

Its not a problem taking the test its the hoops they make us jump through in order to take the test, 1-drive 60 to 70 miles to take it, 2-show your scripts for meds your on and still have to drive to a lab, and not one close to you, 3- a subpoena will not excuse you from a drug test i.e. if you get called to report for a drug test the next morning and you have to be in court with a subpoena you have to explain to the judge that you can not be in court because you have to drive 70 miles to go take a drug test, some judges will throw you in jail and our office said owell you better make arrangements...THATS B.S...

[mystikwarrior]

This whole thread is tooooooo funny :D :D

I can't tell if the posts are by Probation Officers or their cases. The whining and excuses are the same :shock:

What a bunch of winers. So you have to take a drug test- WHO CARES. This is just the first of many steps towards rebuilding the public trust. Secretary Crosby really screwed us with the media. The sad part is that he did more to ensure their safety then any other secretary in the past 20 years. I personally don't know of any officers that will test positive. If they do, they should be gone. Even if they test positive they will be given a chance if they come forward prior to testing. The key is to stop now you have been forewarned if you are using. If you can't then seek private help. (No the department doesn;t have to know.)

PBA backed drug testing. It is not a negative thing. I personally don't want my backup to be high or under the influence.

We should be embracing the policy not *****ing.

THE KICKER THOUGH IS THAT IT WILL BE REPORTED TO CJSTC AND THEN YOUR CERTIFICATION MAY BE GONE. NO CERTIFICATION= NO JOB. BE CAREFUL. PBA NEEDS TO LOOK INTO THIS ASPECT.

PBA was stupid for going along with this in the first place. This will not build public trust this just gives the impression we are on drugs and out of control and need to be tested unlike other L.E.O. The bottom line is the PBA looks weak for allowing this and maybe the PBA should see if they can get them to breathalyze us at work every morning to prove we are not drunk. The media overblew this whole thing lately and the Governor and now PBA are just giving into them. The next time the law enforcement hating media reports an improper use of force we should send all officers to anger management classes to placate them for the actions of a few.... :roll:

PBA will do a better job for us as soon as the dues are increased about 50%.

[Darth Duck]

No, not the breathalyzer :!: :shock:

Now that's comedy, people. Thanks Darth Duck! :lol:

This whole thread is tooooooo funny :D :D

I can't tell if the posts are by Probation Officers or their cases. The whining and excuses are the same :shock:

The POs are the ones with the badge. The issue is, will they still have a badge after they fail their drug test?

[mystikwarrior]

The issue is, will they still have a badge after they fail their drug test?
Well, if the tests are flawed and they lose their job over a false-positive that's better than what may have happened to God knows how many of their cases they violated for the same false-positive. Those guys no doubt caught a one-way ticket to prison and the PO didn't want to hear anything about any bagels with poppy seeds on them.

The issue is, will they still have a badge after they fail their drug test?
Well, if the tests are flawed and they lose their job over a false-positive that's better than what may have happened to God knows how many of their cases they violated for the same false-positive. Those guys no doubt caught a one-way ticket to prison and the PO didn't want to hear anything about any bagels with poppy seeds on them.

Having a lab confirmation will assure most every test is legit - Its just that we shouldnt have allowed this in the first place - it is the equivalent of a civilian being tested because their neighbor did drugs and got busted. The PBA should be ashamed of theirselves for signing off on this.

Drug teating has always been an option for the department just never done in this manner, this is just a procedure on how to do the testing. If you do not want the saliva test you can opt to take a urine screen, instead, if you have a scrip and teat pos for the scrip med a MRO will review and list it as a negative. CJST has a policy that if a leo tests pos for illegal drugs the department has to notify them. PBA monitored the procrdure to safe guard you, the officers, to ensure there were guidelines. Remember the department could always test you they just did not have guidelines.

Does all this mean I have to quitusing the stuff I take from my bad guys?

Gordon does not know what he is talking about.

No one used to be able to test anyone without "reasonable suspicion"...."probable cause"

DO NOT NEED THAT ANYMORE...EVERYONE IS GUILTY

I beg to differ. I've been here 5 years, and I distinctly remember paperwork I had to sign about being subjected to random drug testing. Had to take one before I got hired too. So, not sure about the "probable cause" stuff, I think most agencies have the right to test regardless. At least the papers I signed said DC can.

Drug teating has always been an option for the department just never done in this manner, this is just a procedure on how to do the testing. If you do not want the saliva test you can opt to take a urine screen, instead, if you have a scrip and teat pos for the scrip med a MRO will review and list it as a negative. CJST has a policy that if a leo tests pos for illegal drugs the department has to notify them. PBA monitored the procrdure to safe guard you, the officers, to ensure there were guidelines. Remember the department could always test you they just did not have guidelines.

They had to have cause then didnt they and they werent testing except to hire you. The PBA didnt stand up for us plain and simple in my opinion and now we are a bigger joke to other agencies who have heard about this. Way to go PBA - thanks for making me look stupid for the actions of a few people and giving in to the distorting law enforcement hating media.

If the PBA believes their mess about testing is good then lets see them push for testing of the local agencies they represent - they would drop PBA in a second if they tried to embarress their agency with this testing like they did DOC.

PBA will do a much better job for us after the dues are increased.

PBA will do a much better job for us after the dues are increased.

On some issues like pay I understand the PBA fought hard and the legislature wont budge much but on this they put up no fight and then have the nerve to spin it as a positive thing why we are laughed at because of it and the law enforcement hating media gets to dictate to us - what a joke - at least local law enforcement doesnt give in to the media's biased reporting.

Thats right reasonable suspicion, it has always been there, like I wrote previously. Now there is a procedure on drug testing. PBA is not backing it, it was presented as is, it violates nothing in the contract, the department can do what it likes, we wanted to ensure safe guards and he ability to have a confirmation test or opt for a ua. Personally I have no problem with taking a drug test, took one as mentioned when hired.
The testing is the fallout frorm the institution side.
It was mentioned it was a joke, do not see it that way, I do not want someone backing me that is using illegal drugs,
WOULD YOU?

Thats right reasonable suspicion, it has always been there, like I wrote previously. Now there is a procedure on drug testing. PBA is not backing it, it was presented as is, it violates nothing in the contract, the department can do what it likes, we wanted to ensure safe guards and he ability to have a confirmation test or opt for a ua. Personally I have no problem with taking a drug test, took one as mentioned when hired.
The testing is the fallout frorm the institution side.
It was mentioned it was a joke, do not see it that way, I do not want someone backing me that is using illegal drugs,
WOULD YOU?

It is a joke plain and simple - And puts DOC in a bad light doing this feeding that lying image the media fed everyone and the PBA as said before did not fight the good fight and caved on this just like the Brass did who knows they leave Jan. anyway and just wants Bush to look better to the media by caving into them. I like the spin of you dont want anyone on drugs working for you. Well reasonable suspicion would cover that and the PBA knows that but chose not to fight this or even try to with any effort. Thanks a lot we look silly now to everyone.

Been around since they first started drug testing here is what will happen. Some poor idiots will be caught and in high profile will be figuratively hung at sunrise. The pall cast upon the job will mean no one will apply ( it is tough enough already to hire qualified applicants). When the folks at CO see the effect it has on recruitment it will quietly fade away until next time. This is exactly what happened before. There has always been random UA's on the books why weren't they done before????

My friends from California tell me the way to go is LSD- no one is testing for it. The downside of using acid is they will make you an administrator.