Tag: drug testing

Failed Drug Test Prompts Woman To Warn About CBD Product Use

“I wanted to make sure that other people could learn [about THC content in CBD] and not have to go through what our family has.”

After taking hemp protein and CBD oil for their calming effect, an Oregon resident was shocked to learn that her prospective new job had been rescinded after a mandatory drug test revealed trace amounts of THC.

Suzan Chandler doesn’t blame her employer for taking back the job offer, but told an Oregon news outlet that individuals who buy CBD products may not know that certain ones contain THC.

The designation of which products contain the cannabinoid THC, which produces a euphoric response in users, and which do not, may not be immediately known to consumers like Chandler, who urged buyers to ask questions about and read labels on their CBD purchases.

According to the Portland-based Fox affiliate KPTV, Chandler, a nurse practitioner, was up for a new job at a local urgent care, and passed all of the preliminary requirements before taking a urine drug test to complete the process. Though her CBD intake was limited to the aforementioned products and no marijuana use, she was surprised to discover that she had tested positive for THC, which resulted in the loss of the job offer.

“I never used a product knowingly with THC,” she said. “I wouldn’t.”

The loss of the job offer had what Chandler described as a “significant” impact on her family’s financial status.

“Our family, all of a sudden, doesn’t have my income,” she said. “I decided that I wanted to make sure that other people could learn [about THC content in CBD] and not have to go through what our family has.”

Broad Spectrum CBD vs. Full Spectrum CBD

To explain how THC can be found in CBD products, KPTV spoke with Renee Barnes, co-owner of CBD-lish, which makes and sells CBD products in Portland. She told the news outlet that customers need to be aware of whether the item they’re buying contains either full spectrum or broad spectrum CBD.

Full spectrum CBD contains all compounds that naturally occur in cannabis, including essential oils and cannabinoids, including THC. Federal law only allows 0.3% THC in CBD products; any product containing a higher percentage is considered marijuana and a Schedule I drug, which is illegal under federal law.

Broad spectrum CBD also contains compounds found within the plant, but THC is completely absent from products with that designation. Medium.com describes it as a combination of full spectrum CBD and CBD isolate, which is often extracted from hemp and contains no compounds.

If You Are Being Drug Tested, Play it Safe

Barnes told KPTV that using a full spectrum CBD product doesn’t guarantee that one would fail a drug test, but she advises being safe in regard to such products if drug testing is a regular element of a job.

“We’ve had firemen, we’ve had policemen, we’ve had people doing jobs that are very, you know, essential that they don’t [test positive for THC], and you know, we’ll talk to them about it,” she said.

Chandler bears no ill will towards the company that turned her down.

“We get drug screened for a reason, and those are good reasons,” she explained to KPTV. And she said that she still stands by the merits of CBD for health, but doesn’t plan to use any products in the foreseeable future.

View the original article at thefix.com

23 September 2019
Should Employers Still Test for Marijuana?

Critics are pushing back against the testing because of the amount of time THC can stay in the system after being ingested.

A recent feature on CNBC posits a question that has grown in relevance over the past few years, and is likely to continue to grow in the months to come: as more states and districts legalize marijuana for medical and recreational use, should businesses continue to use drug testing for THC to determine whether a prospective employee should be hired?

CNBC noted the disparity between employees – both current and future – that drink alcohol after work or the day before a job interview and those who use cannabis for medical or recreational purposes.

The former, if tested, shows no sign of impairment when tested the following day, but the cannabis user will present positive signs for THC up to 30 days. For some employers, the positive test would bar them from hiring that individual or keeping them on the payroll. But as rates of marijuana positivity in test results on the rise, should testing remain a deciding factor in hiring or employment?

The CNBC feature quotes data culled by Quest Diagnostics, which found that positives for drugs in all areas of the workforce, including federally mandated, “safety-sensitive” jobs reached a 14-year high of 4.4%, which is 25% higher than the 30-year low of 3.5% noted between 2010 and 2012.

When factored into other recent statistics – the increase in the number of states that have legalized cannabis (currently, 11 states and Washington DC) and the lowest US unemployment rate in 49 years (3.7% in July 2019) – CNBC queried whether it was not only fair but also financially responsible to weed out potential employees due to cannabis use.

Marijuana Advocates Chime In

Marijuana advocates certainly don’t agree. “An employer can basically refuse to hire you or discipline you for a positive THC in your blood, even if you’re a lawful medical marijuana patient using lawfully under state law,” said Tama Todd, vice-chair of the California Cannabis Advisory Committee, and a lecturer on marijuana law and policy at Berkeley Law.

“The test of whether you have THC in your system is unrelated to whether you’re impaired at the time. It shows positive even if you used marijuana a week, two weeks ago. It’s basically like a morality test,” said Todd.

CNBC also noted that Nevada, Maine and New York City have all passed laws that prevent employers from refusing to hire a person due to a positive test for THC, and a number of companies have either removed marijuana from their drug test panels or are in the process of changing their policies in regard to drug testing. “The labor pool is so tight that they feel like drug testing is going to prevent them from being able to staff adequately, so they don’t drug test at all,” said Judi Braswell, vice president of business development at Behavioral Health Systems.

As Todd told CNBC, more companies will follow suit. “Once the idea of legalization and people lawfully using marijuana becomes more normalized in people’s minds, it’ll lead to, ‘Oh, it’s sort of like alcohol. And why would we discipline or not hire a qualified candidate because they engaged in lawful activity off duty?’”

View the original article at thefix.com

2 August 2019
Screening Job Applicants For Marijuana Use Is Now Against The Law In NYC

NYC is the first jurisdiction in the U.S. to explicitly prohibit this practice.

Most New York City employers can no longer require a marijuana test from job applicants as a condition of employment. The new law, which the City Council “overwhelmingly” passed in April with a 40-4 vote, will take effect in May 2020.

“If we want to be a progressive city, we have to really put these things into action,” bill sponsor and NYC public advocate Jumaane D. Williams said at the time.

NYC is the first jurisdiction in the U.S. to explicitly prohibit this practice.

While Mayor Bill de Blasio had said that he would sign the legislation—calling it a “healthy step” and “part of how we change our culture to be less punitive and exclusionary”—he ultimately did not sign.

Marijuana Moment reports that it is “unclear what changed” between then and now. Regardless, the law will take effect in one year.

The bill’s text reads: “[E]xcept as otherwise provided by law, it shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer, labor organization, employment agency, or agent thereof to require a prospective employee to submit to testing for the presence of tetrahydrocannabinols or marijuana in such prospective employee’s system as a condition of employment.”

Certain occupations—“safety and security sensitive jobs”—are exempt from the rule including construction, law enforcement, child care, medical care, truck driving and aviation.

Federal or state employees and government contractors are also exempt as they do not fall under the city’s jurisdiction. Employers may also test workers if they appear to be under the influence of marijuana at work.

Williams, who authored the legislation, says the city will not wait for the state government to legalize marijuana for it to start reforming marijuana policies. “NYC must lead the way on this issue,” he stated.

New York’s efforts to legalize marijuana for recreational use have lost momentum ahead of the time remaining in New York’s legislative session.

The New York Times notes that while it is still possible for the state to “legalize it” by late June, it’s unclear whether NY lawmakers have finally come to agree on the details of the marijuana legalization initiative.

“It’s clear that we cannot wait until legalization on the state level before moving to reduce the impact that marijuana prohibition has had on individuals and communities,” said Williams. “Testing isn’t a deterrent to using marijuana, it’s an impediment to opportunity that dates back to the Reagan era—a war on drugs measure that’s now a war on workers. We need to be creating more access points for employment, not less—and if prospective employers aren’t testing for past alcohol usage, marijuana should be no different.”

If legalization does not happen this year, the state is planning to expand its medical marijuana program, NYT reported.

View the original article at thefix.com

15 May 2019
NYC Bill Aims To End Marijuana Testing Of Job Applicants

The bill is one of several efforts being made to reform marijuana policy while progress has stalled on legalizing it statewide.

New York City may become the first jurisdiction in the country to pass a law that would explicitly bar employers from screening job applicants for marijuana use.

The city council “overwhelmingly” passed a bill (with a 40-4 vote) that would prevent most employers from this practice, the New York Times reports.

“If we want to be a progressive city, we have to really put these things into action,” said the city’s public advocate Jumaane D. Williams, who authored the bill.

Mayor Bill de Blasio has signaled his support of the legislation, which according to the NYT would be the first in the U.S. to prohibit employers from marijuana testing job applicants.

If enacted, the law will affect both public and private employers in New York City, including companies that have headquarters elsewhere, Williams said.

The bill would not excuse every worker from being tested, however. A handful of occupations—including construction, law enforcement, child care, medical care, truck driving and aviation—would be exempt from the rule. Employers may also test workers if they appear to be under the influence of marijuana at work. Federal or state employees and government contractors are also exempt as they do not fall under the city’s jurisdiction.

The mayor is expected to sign the bill into law. It is one of several efforts being made to reform marijuana policy while progress has stalled on legalizing it statewide.

Another bill passed by the city council would stop the city from requiring marijuana testing for people on probation, according to the NYT.

NY lawmakers have made little progress on marijuana legalization, but Governor Andrew Cuomo’s office told CBS News that he was “still negotiating to legalize marijuana by the end of the legislative session in June.” Issues like equity programs—to ensure that people of color are guaranteed a stake in the growing industry to make up for years of being disproportionately affected by anti-marijuana laws—have gotten in the way of reaching a deal thus far.

“I’m proud that the city has taken action where the federal and the state government have stalled,” said Williams.

In 1986, former President Ronald Reagan issued an executive order calling for “drug-free workplaces,” mandating drug testing at federal agencies. According to a survey by the Society for Human Resource Management, in 2011 more than half of U.S. employers conducted drug screenings on job applicants.

However, some disagree that drug testing is a reliable method of predicting job performance.

View the original article at thefix.com

17 April 2019
Alabama Lawmaker Wants To Drug Test Food Stamp Recipients

The state rep’s new bill targets SNAP beneficiaries who have a “reasonable suspicion” of drug use.

An Alabama lawmaker has introduced legislation that would require people to undergo a drug test before they receive SNAP benefits, formerly known as food stamps.

Republican state Representative Tommy Hanes drafted the bill, which targets SNAP beneficiaries who have a “reasonable suspicion” of drug use. The bill defines “reasonable suspicion” as having a drug conviction within the past five years—thus, the legislation would heavily affect people with a history of substance use disorders.

According to Think Progress, SNAP recipients are already required to disclose any drug-related convictions.

Under the bill, if a SNAP recipient tests positive for drugs, they would receive a warning. If they test positive a second time, their food assistance would be cancelled for a year, and if they test positive a third time they would be ineligible for life. However, recipients who have children could appoint someone else to get the children’s food assistance.

People against this practice say that in addition to stigmatizing people on assistance, the bill would create financial stress, since drug tests after the first must be paid for by the SNAP recipient. However, people who pass their tests would be reimbursed. Anyone who refuses to be tested would not receive food assistance.

Emily Moon of the Pacific Standard wrote that the bill would put the state’s SNAP program in jeopardy.

“Drug tests for public benefits does not reduce drug use,” she wrote. “Instead, it makes federal assistance programs more expensive and less effective; research shows the requirements discourage people from applying and fail to help those with illegal drug dependences get jobs—the long-term goal of most public-assistance programs.”

Political science professor Matthew Gritter, of Angelo State University, said that drug testing can be a hassle that prevents people who need benefits from applying for them. Therefore, it reduces the efficiency of the SNAP program, he told the Pacific Standard last year.

“One of the things that we found in states that have drug tested welfare recipients is that very few welfare recipients test positive, but it becomes very expensive to test them,” he said. “So you’re raising the overhead costs to the program—and SNAP traditionally has had a very low overhead and a pretty positive impact. So a lot of these reforms, coming from people that advocate small government, are actually making the program clunkier and more bureaucratic.”

However, writing for the Alabama Political Reporter, Josh Moon said that facts like these do not matter to Rep. Hanes and others who support drug testing SNAP recipients.

“The liberal news media is playing a role in spreading false information about conservatives who attempt to implement common sense reform,” Hanes said in a press release. “Our goal should be helping folks become independent, so they are able to obtain a much higher standard of living.”

View the original article at thefix.com

13 March 2019
Proposed Unemployment Drug-Testing Rule Set To Be Finalized

The ACLU released a statement condemning the rule for potentially violating the Fourth Amendment.

The US Department of Labor proposed a new rule in November 2018 that would allow states to subject people applying for unemployment benefits to drug testing. The department opened up for comments on this proposal shortly after, and that comment period closed on January 4.

If the Department of Labor does not extend or re-open for comments, they will finalize the rule based on what they have collected.

The proposed rule would change the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. The Republican Congress had already removed restrictions specifically preventing states from drug-testing unemployment applicants in 2017. This caught the attention of labor rights and civil liberties groups who have been fighting against similar policies for years.

The ACLU released a statement on January 10 condemning the rule for potentially violating the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure.

“Courts have said drug testing is a search and subject to Fourth Amendment protections,” wrote Kanya Bennett and Charlotte Resing. “So unless there are probable cause and individualized suspicion, there should be no search. Exceptions to this rule have been made when the government can show it has a ‘special need’ and that need outweighs individual privacy rights, but that is not the case here either.”

The ACLU successfully argued this point in court to end mandatory drug testing for individuals seeking Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in Florida in 2011. They and other rights groups have also made the case that the cost of drug testing far outweighs any money saved by denying benefits to the few who test positive.

According to data collected by Think Progress, only 369 unemployment applicants tested positive for illicit drugs out of around 250,000 across 13 states. The drug tests cost those states $1.3 million collectively.

Unlike welfare programs like TANF, unemployment insurance is not paid for by states or by the federal government. It’s a program paid for by employers via payroll taxes that provides recently unemployed individuals with a portion of their former wage or salary for a limited period of time. With unemployment rates currently at historic lows, funding the program should not be a concern.

Elizabeth Lower-Basch, director of income and work supports for the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), spoke with The Fix on the legality and potential consequences of the proposed rule by the Department of Labor.

“I imagine that the administration will attempt to finalize the rule, and I imagine that there would be litigation afterward,” she said. “There’s a fairly technical argument related to the Congressional Review Act. The Obama administration had issued regulations to this law which were overturned by [the 2017] Congress via the Congressional Review Act because they’re not supposed to issue substantially similar regulations.”

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) gives Congress the power to review new federal regulations and overrule them by passing a joint resolution. However, the CRA also prohibits issuing a new rule that is substantially the same “unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule.”

“It’s just bad policy,” Lower-Basch concluded. “It’s really designed to stigmatize.”

View the original article at thefix.com

19 January 2019
Fentanyl Test Strips: Important Tool Or False Security?

A recent study suggests that the testing strips should be widely distributed though some experts say the strips are not an adequate prevention measure.

Last year, fentanyl became the most deadly drug in the country, responsible for more overdose deaths than any other substance. In addition to being found in — or even replacing — opioids like heroin and prescription pills, fentanyl has increasingly been detected in drugs like cocaine, whose users are at increased risk for overdose because they have not built up a tolerance to opioids.

That’s why some people say fentanyl test strips are an important tool to help cut back on opioid overdose deaths. Some users say they often have no idea whether the drugs they’re buying contain fentanyl, which is many times more powerful than other opioids and can cause an overdose in even a small amount.

The test strips are able to detect the presence of the synthetic opioid, empowering users to make an informed decision about whether to take the drugs and about how much to use.

“Evidence to date suggests that people who use drugs often do not know whether fentanyl is present in what they are about to consume,” authors of a report prepared by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health wrote last year.

The school conducted a study that found fentanyl test strips to be effective at detecting the drug. The researchers then interviewed people who use drugs about whether or not they would use the test strips: 84% said they were concerned about fentanyl, and 85% of people who thought they had taken fentanyl in the past said they wished they had known beforehand. Despite the drug’s powerful high, only 26% of users surveyed said that they sought drugs with fentanyl.

“Drug checking was viewed as an important means of overdose prevention, with 89% agreeing that it would make them feel better about protecting themselves from overdose. Interest in drug checking was associated with having witnessed an overdose and recently using a drug thought to contain fentanyl,” study authors wrote.

The study’s authors suggested that more agencies distribute fentanyl test strips.

“Drug checking strategies are reliable, practical and very much desired by those at greatest risk of overdose,” they wrote. “Drug checking services have the potential to facilitate access to treatment for substance use disorders and other essential services, as well as provide real-time data about local drug supplies for public health surveillance.”

However, Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use Elinore F. McCance-Katz wrote in an editorial on the SAMHSA website that fentanyl test strips are not a prevention measure that people should be focused on.

“Can’t the nation do better?” she wrote.

She continues, “The entire approach is based on the premise that a drug user poised to use a drug is making rational choices, is weighing pros and cons, and is thinking completely logically about his or her drug use. Based on my clinical experience, I know this could not be further from the truth.”

Like needle exchanges, fentanyl test strips are likely to remain a controversial —but potentially lifesaving — tool.

View the original article at thefix.com

14 January 2019
Are Courts Now Ruling In Favor Of Legal Weed-Using Employees?

A recent case may change the legal precedent for employees who use marijuana.

Courts around the country are beginning to rule against employers who terminate people for using cannabis in states where medical or recreational use is legal, reversing years of courts siding with employers on the issue.

Last month a federal judge ruled in favor of Katelin Noffsinger, who sued a Connecticut nursing home that rescinded her job offer when she tested positive for THC. Noffsinger had told the nursing home that she used medical cannabis pills at night to control her PTSD.

Still, when she tested positive for cannabis the nursing home said that she could not work for them, saying it could jeopardize federal funding that the home received.

This is the first time that a federal judge has ruled in favor of someone using medical marijuana, according to TIME. In previous cases judges have ruled that employers can terminate or not hire a person who uses cannabis because the drug remains illegal under federal law.

“This decision reflects the rapidly changing cultural and legal status of cannabis, and affirms that employers should not be able to discriminate against those who use marijuana responsibly while off the job, in compliance with the laws of their state,” Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML, a pro-marijuana group, told TIME.

Previously, case law indicated that judges were likely to side with employers, but the Noffsinger case could change the precedent.

“This is a very significant case that throws the issue in doubt for many of these federal contractors,” said Fiona Ong, an employment attorney with the Baltimore firm of Shawe Rosenthal. “It’s certainly interesting and may be indicative of where the courts are going with this.”

Thirty-one states have medical marijuana programs. However, only nine states—including Connecticut—have made it illegal to discriminate against someone based on their use of medical marijuana.

Still, cannabis use is a grey area in employment. Some states prohibit employers from discriminating against someone for using outside work hours, but this gets complicated in states where cannabis use is legal, while it remains prohibited on the federal level.

“What is cannabis if it’s lawful on the state but not the federal level?” William Bogot, co-chair of the cannabis law practice at Fox Rothschild, told CityLab in 2016.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Meyer, who ruled in the Noffsinger case, pointed out that the federal Drug Free Workplace Act, which dictates drug-testing policies, does not require drug testing and does not prohibit federal contractors from employing people who use legal medical marijuana outside of work. Some employers have stopped testing for THC.

Recently, state judges in Rhode Island and Massachusetts also ruled in favor of people who were denied employment because of their cannabis use, prompting the American Bar Association to call the cases “an emerging trend in employment litigation.”

View the original article at thefix.com

9 October 2018
Are $1 Test Strips The Key To Curbing Fentanyl Deaths?

Harm reduction advocates are applauding a new study that examines whether the test strips proved beneficial to injection drug users.

Fentanyl, the powerful opioid said to be responsible for exacerbating the opioid crisis, could be meeting its match: a $1 test strip that indicates the presence of fentanyl in street drugs.

A group of researchers wondered, if drug users had free access to these test strips, would they adjust their drug use to avoid dying from fentanyl?

They put together a research study, published in the International Journal of Drug Policy, that distributed test strips to 125 heroin users at a needle exchange program in Greensboro, North Carolina. They then distributed an online survey that revealed 81% of the heroin users had used the strips, with 63% reporting that their drugs tested positive.

Those who saw that their drugs contained fentanyl were five times more likely to adjust the way they used the drug so they would not overdose.

For example, they may have opted to snort it instead of injecting it, slowing down the rate at which it enters the bloodstream. Others opted to simply use a smaller dose.

The results are in line with a study by Johns Hopkins University researchers that found that users who preferred to inject their drugs did want to know if fentanyl was present, and would take its presence into account when using.

Proponents of harm reduction see the study as a positive step forward.

“Harm reduction at its core is a scrappy self-made movement,” said Daniel Ciccarone, a UCSF professor and study co-author. “Syringe exchange and naloxone peer distribution came out of this movement and have gone mainstream. But the [test strips] need an evidence base in order to become the next intervention in this legacy.”

Slowly but surely, test strips are making their way to being distributed alongside clean needles at needle exchanges. However, unlike clean needles, test strips are still considered paraphernalia and thus face some legal restrictions in their distribution.

The District of Columbia and Maryland have already adjusted their laws to allow the distribution of test strips, and advocates are confident other cities will soon follow.

But even if the legal jam were to be overcome, there’s another problem. That $1 price tag on each strip adds up. Critics say it’s more cost-efficient for users to simply act like all their drugs contain fentanyl instead of testing each and every dose, but that’s not good enough, said Jon Zibbell, RTI International public health analyst and study author.

“That’s like saying, ‘Assume everyone you have sex with has chlamydia,’” Zibbell said, suggesting that most people don’t act on a risk unless they have concrete evidence it’s real.

He hopes that the strips will lead to more cost-effective bulk testing methods, such as spectrometers that scan for fentanyl at every needle exchange site.

View the original article at thefix.com

8 October 2018
Controversial Lawmaker Wants Congress Members Tested for Drugs

The bill was dismissed by the state’s Democratic Party, whose executive director dismissed Higgins’ proposition as “gimmicks and bravado.”

A Louisiana representative has introduced a resolution that would lawmakers in Congress to submit to drug screenings once every term.

U.S. Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA), who is also a Reserve Deputy Marshal and former St. Landry’s Parish public information officer who has drawn criticism for combative social media posts, said that House Concurrent Resolution 135 is intended to hold elected officials to the same standards as their constituents, who have to submit to drug testing for their jobs.

The bill, which currently has no co-sponsors, was dismissed by the state’s Democratic Party, whose executive director dismissed Higgins’ proposition as “gimmicks and bravado.”

Higgins’ resolution would require lawmakers to not only subject to the random testing, but also reimburse taxpayers for costs.

Those who test positive would be reported to the House or Senate Committee on Ethics, which would also publicize the names of any Congress members that did not submit to the tests.

In an interview with USA Today, Higgins initially joked that his resolution was based on his observation of “behavior that would cause one to wonder” about his colleagues in the U.S. House and Senate. But in a statement issued on September 13—the same day he introduced the resolution—Higgins took a more serious tone about his intentions.

“Elected officials in Washington, D.C. should be subject to the same kind of random drug screenings that blue-collar, working-class Americans have to endure,” he wrote. “Congress shouldn’t live by a different set of rules. This effort is about maintaining accountability and ensuring sober service to We, the People.”

Higgins previously proposed a similar resolution in a June 2018 Facebook video, in which he stated, “Based on some of the behavior I’ve seen, I’d be very interested to know what kind of illegal drugs are flowing through the veins of our elected officials in Washington, D.C.”

CBS affiliate KLFY-TV noted that Higgins had not specified whether he had actually seen any elected officials using or under the influence of drugs.

Louisiana Democratic Party executive director Stephen Handwerk responded to Higgins’ resolution on Twitter. “When you haven’t delivered at all for your district I guess all you have is gimmicks and bravado,” wrote Handwerk, who also promoted Higgins’ opponent for the 3rd District seat, Mimi Methvin.

Higgins initially made a name for himself on both the state and national front while with the St. Landry Parish Sheriff’s Office, where his weekly “Crime Stoppers” segments earned a following for his draconian approach to suspected criminals. A 2016 video in which he referred to predominately black gang members as “heathens” and “animals” earned a reprimand from Parish Sheriff Bobby Guidroz, after which Higgins resigned from the parish.

In 2017, Higgins posted a video in which he stated that “radicalized Islamic suspect[s]” should be “[hunted] down and [killed].” That same year, he posted a video taken at the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial site, where he stated that such concentration camps are the reason why the United States needs stronger homeland security and military measures.

View the original article at thefix.com

19 September 2018