Boat Pilot Guilty in Grounding - Alcohol Oral Fluid / Saliva Test

Boat pilot guilty in grounding

Source: CORDOVAN TIMES

August 15, 2008

Pruitt’s saliva sample, provided approximately fourteen hours after the grounding, still registered a presence of alcohol.  A urine sample from Pruitt also tested positive for the presence of marijuana.  Pruitt denied that he had been drinking.  Pruitt told investigators that he had been tired and simply fell asleep.  

 

• Last week, the Cordova District Court sentenced Dale R. Pruitt for his role in the grounding of the F/V Nordic Viking near Point Gravina. Pruitt pled guilty to criminal charges of operating a boat in a negligent or reckless manner and oil pollution, both Class A misdemeanors.
• The Nordic Viking ran aground near Point Gravina on July 21, 2007.  The grounding occurred at approximately 10:30 p.m.  It was still light at the time, the waters were calm and visibility was good.  Pruitt was at the helm.  
• The simple explanation for the accident is that the Nordic Viking ran onto a rock outcropping directly in front of a large island. The impact ruptured a front fuel tank, which released approximately 3500 gallons of diesel to the water.  Some of this diesel washed onto the shore of the island next to the accident site.  The diesel that remained in the water caused sheen that was visible for several days and disrupted salmon fishing for many boats.
• Fishing boats in the vicinity of the Nordic Viking responded to the scene to evacuate the Nordic Viking crew. It was apparent to these responders that Pruitt was intoxicated.  Pruitt refused to provide a saliva sample for alcohol testing until asked to do so by his employer the morning after the grounding.
• The Nordic Viking was a total loss. The sheen caused by the Nordic Viking diesel persisted for several days and disrupted the local salmon fishery.  Only a small fraction of the diesel was recovered.

Magistrate Kay Adams adopted the parties’ sentencing recommendations. On the operating a boat in a negligent or reckless manner charge, Adams imposed a one-year suspended imposition of sentence on the condition that Pruitt obey all laws and regulations and enroll in and successfully complete a state-approved alcohol treatment program. On the oil pollution charge, Adams imposed a conviction of record with 15 days of jail time, 75 additional days of suspended jail time, 40 hours of community work service and four years of probation on the condition that Pruitt obey all laws and regulations, including all environmental laws and regulations.

Nordic Viking LLC owns and operates the F/V Nordic Viking. During the summer of 2007, the Nordic Viking was used to tender salmon from fishing boats in Prince William Sound to the salmon processing facility in Cordova operated by Bear and Wolf LLC.  

Earlier this year, Nordic Viking LLC reached an agreement with the state to resolve its potential liability for the incident.  The company paid a $17,500 fine to the state’s oil spill response fund and implemented drug and alcohol testing for a period of a year on other fishing boats operated by its members.  The company also engaged in a supplemental environmental project that contributed $10,000 to the marine debris cleanup program operated by the Gulf of Alaska Keeper. That program collects washed up fishing gear from beaches in Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska.

Under Alaska law, it is to operate a boat in a negligent or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another. It is also illegal to discharge any petroleum product to waters of the state. Both of these regulations can be prosecuted as crimes that carry a maximum penalty of a $10,000 fine and a year in jail for individuals and a $200,000 fine for corporations, companies or partnerships.

The U. S. Coast Guard and the Environmental Crimes Unit of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation investigated the incident. The Alaska Department of Law prosecuted the charges.

New DOT Drug Testing Laws Effective August 25, 2008

On August 25, 2008 new U.S. Department of Transportation (“DOT”) drug and alcohol testing regulations become effective.

The new regulations amend or create new sections to 49 C.F.R. Part 40, and contain new or revised guidance on issues related to adulterated, substituted, diluted, and invalid urine specimens.

 While most of the new regulations address responsibilities of medical review officers, collectors and laboratories, employers in all DOT-regulated industries should be aware of the following requirements:

1. All return-to-duty and follow-up drug tests must be collected under direct observation.

2. The definition of “refusal to test” has been expanded to include the following:

• admitting to the collector or MRO that the specimen was adulterated or substituted;
• possessing or wearing a prosthetic or other device that could be used to interfere with the collection process; and
• in the case of a directly observed or monitored collection in a drug test, failing to permit the observation or monitoring of the provision of a urine specimen, which now includes: failing to follow the observer’s instructions to raise clothing above the waist, lower clothing and underpants, and to turn around to permit the observer to determine whether there is any prosthetic or other device that could be used to interfere with the collection process.

3. Certain definitions have been revised, including definitions of “adulterated specimen,” “dilute specimen,” and “substituted specimen” (among others) and new definitions have been added for the terms “aliquot,” “limit of detection,” “non-negative specimen,” “oxidizing adulterant,” and “screening test.”

AFL-CIO - AGAIN VOICE’s OBJECTION TO A SAFE WORK ENVIRONMENT, & FAILS TO RECOMMEND PROVEN ALTERNATIVES (ORAL FLUID TESTING-WHICH ALLOWS FOR NON-INVASIVE, ADULTERATION-FREE DRUG TESTING)

The AFL-CIO’s Transportation Trades Department has asked DOT to reconsider and stay implementation of the requirement that employees who previously received a positive test result for a banned drug provide urine specimens under direct observation as defined in the new regulation.  The TTD claims that DOT failed to afford the public proper notice and opportunity for comment prior to adopting the new rule, which it regards as exceedingly invasive.  A DOT spokesperson reportedly has said the agency will review the labor group’s request and take it under consideration.

Breast Cancer Research Using Oral Fluid / Saliva

Project studies saliva test to assess breast cancer risk

Source: CBC News

Thousands of women in Ontario who want to know if they are at risk for breast cancer have been giving saliva samples recently as part of a research project.

About 70 per cent of women who carry a mutated version of the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes will develop breast cancer by age 70, according to Dr. Steven Narod, who heads the breast cancer research unit at Women’s College Hospital in Toronto.

The mutation often runs in Jewish families, but the provinces currently have restrictions on funding for genetic testing.

Since an accurate saliva test would be cheaper and painless compared with blood tests, Narod hopes provincial health plans might be expanded to screen more women if the project succeeds.

“The ability to do a test from a spit rather than from a blood test really opens up this field to women who traditionally had not been eligible or had not had access to the services,” Narod said.

Women who lined up to give saliva at the Toronto hospital this week said they dreaded the possibility of finding out they had the mutation, but also wanted to do everything they could to prevent breast cancer.

Brenda Lazare, one of the women getting the saliva test, said her grandmother died of breast cancer. Lazare admitted she hasn’t been having regular mammograms, but vowed to take better care of herself if she tests positive for the mutated gene.

“When you have a child, you want all the knowledge possible so that you can take whatever care you have to,” Lazare said.

The lab is screening nearly 2,000 women, and researchers expect about 20 will test positive.

Those who do test positive will be offered counselling, screening tests such as mammograms, drug treatments that are thought to lower the chances of developing the disease, or even preventive surgeries like mastectomies.

The results should be ready in one month. If enough positive cases are found, Narod hopes to open up testing to Jewish women across the country, who could send their saliva samples by mail.

In 2008, an estimated 22,400 women will be diagnosed with breast cancer and 5,300 will die of it, according to the Canadian Cancer Society.

Superintendents Don’t Support Random Drug Testing of Teachers - Ignorance or Politics?

The below again highlights the need for more drug education… in this case among superintendents.

 

Research finds school superintendents reluctant to drug-test teachers

Source: The following is a press release issued by The University of New Hampshire on July 9, 2008.

DURHAM — School superintendents are reluctant to drug-test teachers, even though most believe student safety outweighs a teacher’s right to privacy when it comes to drug testing, according to new research from the University of New Hampshire.

Researchers queried 500 superintendents nationally; of those, 144 responded. The researchers sought information on the following issues:

* Have school districts adopted a mandatory drug testing policy, either preemployment or random, for teachers?

* Do superintendents support a mandatory drug testing, either preemployment or random, for teachers?

* Do superintendents have different support for preemployment and random drug testing policies for teachers?

According to DeMitchell, the researchers found that superintendents believe they have the authority, without offending the Constitution, to implement teacher preemployment and random drug-testing policies. However, in large part, they are not implementing such policies.

“The superintendents have a greater comfort level with preemployment testing than random drug testing of teachers. Most superintendents believed that the drug problem among teachers was not large enough to warrant action, but many reserved the right to revisit the implementation of such policies if the circumstances in their school district changed,” DeMitchell said.

The key research findings include:

* 85 percent of superintendents do not believe drugs are a problem with their educators.  (odd, at 6-7% of educators self-report drug abuse, and self-reporting underestimates by a factor of 2-3x)

* 22 percent believe drug testing teachers is an effective means for combating drugs in schools.  (okay..it’s effective… but there’s no problem…and we know there is no problem because?)

* 70 percent agree that student safety outweighs a teacher’s right to privacy in drug testing. (but safety is not important enough to test teachers… how many of these supers want to drug test kids?, maintenance staff? others?)

* 48 percent believe teachers have a diminished expectation of privacy because they work with students. (this is acutally astounding…. teachers, like other “Public servants- police, firemen, etc. - certainly should be random drug tested)

* 71 percent believe that teachers hold “safety-sensitive” positions a momentary lapse in judgment can have disastrous consequences. (but unfortunately it gets worse… supers agree that random drug testing works, they agree it’s a safety requirement, but they don’t agree to do it… go figure, I can’t)

* 48 percent support mandatory preemployment drug testing for teachers; 73 percent believing that such policies do not violate the constitutional rights of teachers.  (now here is another indication of the need for education - almost all substance abuse professionals realize that pre-employment testing is little more than an IQ test for drug abusers, and that random testing is a requirement for both deterrence and detection)

* 35 percent support random drug testing of currently employed teachers; 59 percent believe random drug testing does not violate the constitutional rights of teachers.  (random drug testing is not a violation of constitutional rights…already legal in 50 states for safety reasons - if only supers were more educated on the subject… only 35% knew this?)

DeMitchell said there are several reasons why superintendents prefer preemployment drug testing to random testing of current teachers.

Superintendents perceive that random drug testing is more invasive of potential rights. In addition, they believe that the ongoing monitoring of a random drug testing program may be more cumbersome and costly than preemployment testing. Finally, the superintendents, who largely came from small school districts where they know the employees, may find it difficult to subject their colleagues to the indignity of urinating into a cup. (Great.. now the supers aren’t even aware of more accurate and less invasive technologies that have been around for a decade…like oral fluid testing…and cost about $15 each.)

“It is easier to subject the unknown person to drug testing than to subject that same person to drug testing once he or she has become one of us.’ Because most superintendents did not believe that there was a drug problem with their current professional employees, there was no sense in disturbing the status quo,” DeMitchell said.

 

The research is presented in the June 2008 issue of Teachers College Record in the article “To Test or Not To Test? Drug Testing Teachers: The View of the Superintendent.” The lead author is Todd DeMitchell, professor of education at UNH. Co-authors are Stephen Kossakoski, assistant superintendent with Supervisory Administrative Unit #16, Exeter, N.H.; and Tony Baldasaro, doctoral student of education at UNH and a school district improvement administrator with Supervisory Administrative Unit #16, Exeter.

Union Member Voices Support For Drug Testing - Construction

Source: 2008 - August - Casino City - Las Vegas Gaming Wire

(Note: Drug Testing, including Random Drug testing is legal in all 50 States, despite political attempts to distort this fact.  Furthermore, oral fluid-based on-site drug screening is the only feasible, cost-effective, and accurate method to conduct random testing at construction site.  Oral fluid sceening can be directly observed, preventing the prevalent practice of drug abuser adulterating or substituting urine-based testing, and corporate security staff can administer the tests vs. relying upon $8-$10/hr third party collection personnel and  sites with transient workers.  Furthermore, leading on-site oral fluid tests screen for drugs commony found today on construction sites  such as oxcodone and hydrocodone - tranditional NIDA-5 and/or SAMHSA-5 tests do not. )

Union rep in favor of drug test

11 August 2008

LAS VEGAS, Nevada — Building contractors should be given authority to conduct random drug and alcohol tests of construction workers, either through legislation or through negotiations with unions, a spokesman for a construction trades group said a day after three union members were fired for entering the CityCenter job site after drinking at nearby bars.

Steve Holloway, executive vice president of the Las Vegas chapter of the Associated General Contractors, said Friday that the number of construction workers who are drinking on the job represents a small fraction of the total work force on the site.

However, “it’s a large enough minority that it needs to be dealt with, probably by legislation that would allow a construction contractor to perform random drug and alcohol testing,” he said.

Holloway is a member of an eight-person task force that was set up in the wake of a series of 12 construction worker deaths at Strip sites in the past 18 months. The committee is looking at possible legislation to be considered by the 2009 Legislature.

Holloway said none of the union contracts now in effect locally allow for random testing of construction workers.   (NOTE: UNIONS, OWNERS, INSURERS & CONTRACTORS NEED TO ACT NOW TO ALLOW AND IMPLEMENT RANDOM TESTING VIA ALL SPECIMEN TYPES)

“That needs to be changed by statute, or by negotiations with the union,” he said. “It should probably be by statute because we have just as many nonunion workers as we do union.”

Steve Redlinger, spokesman for the Nevada Building and Construction Trades Council, an affiliate for 17 labor unions, said lawmakers can’t legislate personal responsibility without coming dangerously close to treading on civil liberties. (NOTE: THIS STATEMENT IS COMPLETELY FALSE - U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT RANDOM DRUG TESTING IS LEGAL AND THAT COMPANIES CAN (AND DO) IMPLEMENT RANDOM TESTING FOR SAFETY PURPOSES - IT IS FIRST AND FORMOST A FEDERAL LEGAL OBLIGATION FOR COMPANIES TO ENSURE A SAFE WORKPLACE FOR ALL EMPLOYEES… THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE AT CONTRUCTION SITES WITHOUT RANDOM DRUG TESTING (VIA OBSERVED SPECIMEN COLLECTION)  IN CONCERT WITH EDUATIONAL PROGRAMS AND SUPPORT.)

Another member of the committee, state Assemblyman John Oceguera, D-Las Vegas, said he would not support giving employers “unfettered abilities” to randomly drug test employees because that would infringe on the individuals’ rights.  (NOTE- A PERSONAL OPINION VS. FACT)

A company should need to show there is “some indication” a worker is impaired by drugs or alcohol before it could demand a test, the state Assembly’s majority leader said.  (NOTE-THIS IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LACK OF EDUCATION ON THE TOPIC OF SUBSTANCE MISUSE-VISUAL OBSERVATION FAILS OVER 90% OF THE TIME TO DETECT SUBSTANCE MISUSE-ONLY RANDOM DRUG TESTING PROVIDES THE REQUISITE LEVEL OF DETERENCE AND DECTECTION).

Committee member and state Sen. Maggie Carlton, D-Las Vegas, sided with Oceguera in expressing concern over individual rights.

Existing union contracts already say companies can request a drug or alcohol test if an employee displays erratic behavior or is slurring speech, a union official said. Most of the current agreements also let employers demand tests before someone is hired or if they are involved in an accident.

Other committee members, Clark County commissioners Chris Giunchigliani and Rory Reid, Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman and state Senate Minority Leader Steven Horsford, D-Las Vegas, did not return calls for comment. Trades Council President Rick Johnson also is on the committee.

The committee will probably reconvene in late August or early September and begin drafting a bill for next year, Holloway said.

The committee members’ comments come two days after the Review-Journal reported that it had photographed 10 construction workers drinking at Strip bars before they went on to the CityCenter work site, a violation of rules set by the general contract, its subcontractors and the unions.

Dozens of additional workers were seen drinking alcohol outside convenience stores and inside bars, but they were identified as being off for the day.

On Thursday, three ironworkers members who were photographed returning to the job site were identified and fired by general contractor Perini Corp.

Perini officials said they have not identified any other workers yet, but the company will continue its investigation next week, said Doug Mure, Perini’s vice president of human resources and risk management.

Chuck Lenhart, business agent for Ironworkers Local 433, said he met Friday with one of the disciplined workers, who admitted his behavior was inappropriate.

“When I spoke to one of them this morning, he got it,” said Lenhart, who declined to give the workers’ names or to describe their jobs. “He understood and I believe he is going to get some help.”

Lenhart said the fired workers will need to go through counseling, at the union’s expense, before they can be cleared to work on other jobs — in two or three months, at the earliest. The workers won’t be reassigned to another job site until they are cleared by a counselor, he added.  (NOTE: AN EXCELLENT APPROACH BY THE UNION - SUPPORT, YET MONITOR)

However, each case is different and, if the workers have any prior disciplinary action on their records, they could be removed from the union.

But that is not a step the union wants to take, he said.

“When there is somebody that may have a problem they’re not out the door,” said Lenhart, who noted the Ironworkers local also screens workers before they join the union.

“We try to get help for them. Some people accept it and some people don’t.”

However, the responsibility ultimately lies with the individual worker to do the right thing for themselves and the workers around them. (NOTE: TRUE-HOWEVER, IN VIRTUALLY ALL CASES ABUSERS WILL NOT SEEK ASSISTANCE ON THERE OWN UNLESS DETECTED, OR AN INCIDENT OCCURS)

“They have free will and they can make their choices,” Lenhart said. “Sometimes, they make bad choices. That’s what I’m concerned about in this industry: When you have people who make these types of choices to (drink alcohol before work), there’s a possibility of them hurting someone else on the job site.”

Perini plans to look at what the company can do to control alcohol problems on its job site, although Mure said: “Our focus right now is the immediate identification (of the workers in the photos).”

The Perini executive did dismiss one rumor that went around the job site Thursday suggesting the company planned to “close” the job site so workers could not leave during lunch.

Mure said trying to close the 77-acre construction site, which employs 7,700 workers, would be impractical.

“That’s not even really feasible on a project like CityCenter or any of the major construction projects in Las Vegas,” he said. “Rumors are rumors. You’ve seen the site, it isn’t something that could even be considered.”

New Oral Fluid Technology for Cancer Detection

Source: 2008-ZD Net

Sensors to detect oral cancer in saliva

According to the American Cancer Society (ACS), there will be about 35,000 new cases of oral cancer in the U.S. this year. The ACS also estimates that ‘when oral cancer is identified in its early stages, patient survival rate is almost 90 percent, compared with 50 percent when the disease is advanced.’ This is why a team of University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) researchers supported by the National Institute of Health (NIH) has developed a very sensitive optical salivary sensor. Clinical tests should start soon. A simple and fast saliva test in your dentist office might one day replace blood tests and even biopsies. But read more…

You can see on the left “Leyla Sabet, a member of the UCLA research team that built the new optical protein sensor, sits in front of the device. Based on a confocal microscope, the ultrasensitive system is being used by the researchers to detect biomarkers in saliva samples that are linked to oral cancer.” (Credit: UCLA, via MIT’s Technology Review)

This sensor has been developed by Chih-Ming Ho, a professor of engineering at UCLA and several colleagues of the UCLA Micro Systems Laboratories, including researchers Leyla Sabet and Winny Tan. David Wong, professor of oral biology, and several members of his lab were also involved in this project.

According to the NIH news release, “the sensor can be integrated into a specially designed lab-on-a-chip, or microchip assay, and preprogrammed to bind a specific protein of interest, generating a sustained fluorescent signal as the molecules attach. A microscope then reads the intensity of the fluorescent light — a measure of the protein’s cumulative concentration in the saliva sample — and scientists gauge whether it corresponds with levels linked to developing disease.”

And is this optical sensor successful? “In their initial experiments, the scientists primed the optical protein sensor to detect the IL-8 protein, which at higher than normal concentration in saliva is linked to oral cancer. Using saliva samples from 20 people — half healthy, the others diagnosed with oral cancer — the sensor correctly distinguished in all cases between health and disease. Importantly, the sensor achieved a limit of detection for IL-8 that is roughly 100 times more sensitive than today’s blood-based Enzyme-Linked ImmunoSorbent Assay (ELISA) tests, the standard technique to measure protein in bodily fluid.”

Now, let’s turn to a Technology Review article, “Spit Sensor Spots Oral Cancer” (Brittany Sauser, August 6, 200 to learn why it has been difficult to detect oral cancer biomarkers in saliva.”Protein markers are harder to spot in saliva than in blood. To create the ultrasensitive sensor, researchers started with a glass substrate coated with a protein called streptavidin that enables other biomolecules to bind to the substrate and to one another. The researchers then added a molecule that would catch and bind the cancer biomarker — a protein in saliva called IL-8 that previous research has proved to be related to oral cancer. They also added molecules designed to keep the glass surface free of other proteins that might muddy detection of the biomarker. To visualize the target molecules, Ho’s team then added a set of fluorescently tagged proteins designed to attach to the captured IL-8 markers.”

And what was Ho’s team next step? “Because saliva has a lower concentration of proteins than blood does, the team needed a highly sensitive method to detect the tagged proteins among the background noise, stray molecules in saliva that also fluoresce. So the researchers used a confocal microscope — an imaging system that employs a laser to collect the light generated from a sample — to analyze the saliva. Ho and his team found that focusing the laser light on a specific part of the sample resulted in a lower signal-to-noise ratio, allowing them to detect lower concentrations of the cancer biomarker. Indeed, Ho says, the device is 100 times more sensitive than the standard protein-detection technique, ELISA.”

This research work has been published in Biosensors and Bioelectronics under the title “Optical protein sensor for detecting cancer markers in saliva” (Volume 24, Issue 2, 15 October 2008, Pages 266-271). Here is a quote from the abstract. “The ultra sensitive optical protein sensor presented in this paper has a wide number of applications in disease diagnoses. Measurements for detecting biomarkers in clinical sample are much more challenging than the measurements in buffer, due to high background noise contributed by large collections of non-target molecules. We used clinical saliva samples to validate the functionality of the optical protein sensor. Clinical detection of disease-specific biomarkers in saliva offers a non-invasive, alternative approach to using blood or urine.”

If you’re interested by this subject, you also should read a very good article coming from an unusual source, “On the tip of your tongue” by Anne-Marie McQueen (The National, United Arab Emirates, July 26, 2008). This article is more focused on David Wong’s research. “He and his team have already developed a saliva test for oral cancer and Sjogren’s Syndrome, a systemic disease in which the body’s immune system attacks the glands that produce saliva and tears. Dr Wong says they have promising early evidence that it will be possible – perhaps even within five years – to use saliva to detect biomarkers for more systemic diseases, like breast, lung and pancreatic cancers, as well as diabetes.”

And even if you like needles — which I don’t — “the benefits of saliva testing versus blood sampling or more invasive diagnostic tests are many, says Dr Wong. Saliva testing is easier, safer and less intrusive. Since its testing does not require specially trained personnel, there is no risk of exposing anyone to blood-born diseases. Also, oral fluids do not clot like blood, so they not require the same level of manipulation.”

New Drug & Alcohol Testing Laws - Colorado Boaters

Any boat operator in Colorado is deemed to consent to a blood, saliva, urine or breath test to determine alcohol or drug content.

Changes to Colorado’s law on boating under the influence went into effect Tuesday, Aug. 5, expanding the reach of the law to operators of any waterborne vessel.

 

 

Penalties for a BUI conviction have not changed; a vessel operator found to be under the influence of alcohol, drugs or controlled substances faces a misdemeanor charge, between five days and a year in prison, fines between $200 and $1,000, loss of privilege to operate a vessel for three months and up to 96 hours of community service.

The new BUI law applies to any water vessel powered by motor, paddle and oar, such as jet skis, kayaks, canoes, sailboats and rafts.

 

 

Another Problem with DOT Drug Testing

Problems with urine-base DOT drug testing continue…. 2008

GAO: Truck drivers taking illegal drugs get hired

WASHINGTON (AP) — Tractor-trailer and bus drivers who tested positive for illegal drugs have flouted federal regulations by returning to work without the required treatment, in some cases transporting hazardous materials for many months, congressional investigators say.

The study by the Government Accountability Office, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, is the latest to detail problems involving unfit commercial drivers who can operate vehicles weighing 40 tons or more.

The GAO found that 19 out of 37 commercial drivers who had a positive drug test in the last two years were hired elsewhere less than a month later — keeping quiet about their previous test result.

These tractor-trailer or bus drivers, who had tested positive for cocaine, amphetamines or marijuana, passed a new pre-employment drug test either by quickly going clean or using products such as synthetic urine to mask drug use. They subsequently operated commercial vehicles for periods ranging from one month to over a year, GAO said.

Transportation Department regulations require that prospective employers request drug-testing records — with the commercial driver’s consent — from previous employers. But because some drivers testing positive do not go through treatment and do not disclose test results, the new company might not be aware of drug use if it does not vigorously investigate.

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, led by Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., is currently looking at ways to help get unfit commercial drivers off the nation’s highways. One proposal would create a clearinghouse for drug test results for commercial truck drivers to make it easier for employers to conduct checks.

Some cases cited by GAO:

_A Tennessee truck driver tested positive for cocaine in May 2007. He moved to a different employer and was rehired after passing a new test eight days later. Prior to his tests, the driver was charged with possession of a controlled substance. He worked for several months afterward, driving trucks containing cargo and hazardous material.

_An Oklahoma truck driver tested positive for marijuana in October 2007 and passed a subsequent test with another company nine days later. The driver told investigators he “took appropriate measures to clean his system before applying at the second employer.” The new employer said it was unaware of the prior drug test during the hiring and let him drive for a couple of months, but that he was now no longer working for the company.

The latest review comes after a GAO safety study disclosed by the AP earlier this month found hundreds of thousands of drivers carry commercial licenses even though they also qualify for full federal disability payments

. According to that report, 563,000 commercial drivers were determined by the Veterans Affairs Department, Labor Department or Social Security Administration to be eligible for benefits over health issues, with alarming examples that raised doubts about the safety of the nation’s highways.

Last week, lawmakers in the House scolded federal regulators for failing to implement recommendations made in 2001 that are aimed at keeping medically unfit commercial truck and bus drivers off the roads.

In the latest GAO study, investigators looked at data from a third-party administrator for commercial drivers who had tested positive for illegal drugs with one employer and then negative for another employer. The GAO then identified cases from the past two years where drivers had tested negative less than a month after a positive result.

On the Net:
Government Accountability Office: http://www.gao.gov
House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee: http://transportation.house.gov/

Death From Prescription Drug Abuse Up Dramatically

Home deaths from drug errors soar

Soucre: CNN 2008

• Deaths from medication errors at home are up dramatically in last 20 years
• Increase steepest in death rates from mixing meds, alcohol, street drugs at home
• Researchers cite dramatic rise in home use of prescription painkillers

CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) – Deaths from medication mistakes at home, such as actor Heath Ledger’s accidental overdose, rose dramatically during the past two decades, an analysis of U.S. death certificates finds.

Prescription drug abuse plays a role in the rise in fatalities, but it’s unclear how much, researchers said.

The authors blame soaring home use of prescription painkillers and other potent drugs, which 25 years ago were given mainly inside hospitals.

“The amount of medical supervision is going down and the amount of responsibility put on the patient’s shoulders is going up,” said lead author David P. Phillips of the University of California, San Diego.

The findings, based on nearly 50 million U.S. death certificates, are published in Monday’s Archives of Internal Medicine. Of those, more than 224,000 involved fatal medication errors, including overdoses and mixing prescription drugs with alcohol or street drugs.

Deaths from medication mistakes at home increased from 1,132 deaths in 1983 to 12,426 in 2004. Adjusted for population growth, that amounts to an increase of more than 700 percent during that time.

In contrast, there was only a 5 percent increase in fatal medication errors away from home, including hospitals, and not involving alcohol or street drugs.

Abuse of prescription drugs plays a role, but it’s unclear how much. Valid prescriptions taken in error, especially narcotics such as methadone and oxycodone, account for a growing number of deaths, said experts who reviewed the study.

The increases coincided with changing attitudes about painkillers among doctors who now regard pain management as a key to healing. Multiple prescription drugs taken at once — like the sleeping pills, painkillers and anxiety drugs that killed “Dark Knight” star Ledger — also play a part, experts said.

“When we see overdoses, we’re seeing many more mixed drug overdoses,” said Dr. Jeffrey Jentzen, president of the National Association of Medical Examiners and director of autopsies at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Jentzen said autopsies are much more likely to include toxicology tests today than 25 years ago, which would contribute to finding more fatal medication errors as cause of death.

But Phillips said there were no significant increases in other poisonings, such as suicidal overdoses or homicides, so more testing doesn’t explain the huge increase. The analysis excluded suicides, homicides and deaths related to side effects.

The increase was steepest in death rates from mixing medicine with alcohol or street drugs at home; that death rate climbed from 0.04 per 100,000 people in 1983 to 1.29 per 100,000 people in 2004.

Many patients ignore the risk of mixing alcohol with prescriptions, said Cynthia Kuhn of Duke University Medical Center, who was not involved in the study.

“They think, ‘Oh, one drink won’t hurt.’ Then they have three or four,” Kuhn said.

The increase in deaths was highest among baby boomers, people in their 40s and 50s.

“We’re sort of drug happy,” said boomer Dr. J. Lyle Bootman, the University of Arizona’s pharmacy dean, who was not involved in the research. “We have this general attitude that drugs can fix everything.”

People share prescriptions at an alarming rate, Bootman said. One recent study found 23 percent of people say they have loaned their prescription medicine to someone else and 27 percent say they have borrowed someone else’s prescription drugs.

Kenneth Kolosh, a statistics expert at the National Safety Council, praised the study but said improved attention to coding location on death certificates may account, in part, for the huge increases the researchers found.

Phillips countered that home deaths from any cause increased relatively little during the time period, so better coding doesn’t explain the change.

Michael R. Cohen, president of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, said more states should require pharmacists to teach patients about dangerous drugs and insurers should pay pharmacists to do so.

Unions on the Wrong Side of Safety - Again.

Some Unions just don’t get it, preferring to spread misinformation and rely upon scare tactics vs. acting responsibly and in the best interests of safety.

1.  Random drug testing is NOT unconstitutional, nor illegal in the United States

2.  Teachers should be subject to random drug testing, just as should firefighters,  police, and other individuals in occupations where drug abuse would create serious safety issues.

3.  Random drug testing via observed speciment collection, has proven to be effective at both detection and deterrence.

(Source: ABC News, KITV.com)

Random Drug Test For Teachers Meets Opposition

Teachers Union Says Drug Test Unconstitutional

HONOLULU — There are more problems with a plan to randomly drug test school teachers. The union that represents public school teachers now said it can’t knowingly agree to a plan it believes is unconstitutional.

 

The Hawaii State Teachers Association sent a letter to the school board that revealed where the two sides were far apart. The two sides had agreed to have a drug testing plan in place at the end of June, but missed the deadline.

 

 Those eager to begin the new school year said the start is being clouded by drug testing controversy.”I hope there is some reasonable resolution to this. It just going to take away from education and that’s a shame,” principal Mike Haramo said.

 

“We are starting the school year and they are still talking about it. You just wonder how long it’s going to go on for,” parent Rikki Wells said.

 

Wells said he worries it’s all about red tape and politics and not enough focus on the children.Dragging it on, going into the courts, the political fees, the arguing back and forth and the truth,” Wells said.

 

The first day of class for most public schools is the end of July, and at some campuses, teachers are to report to work next week.

 

Others who get random drug tests frequently said the same should apply to teachers.

 

“I think everyone in the HSTA should be drug tested just for the safety of the children,” a construction worker said.  Gloria Chi thinks random testing a good idea, but she thinks taking classroom money to pay for it is bad.  “BOE should be doing something for the kids for education but the government should really pay for it,” Chi said.

 

And when pressed about what appears to be an about face for the teachers union…

 

“Random is what teachers agreed to. We agreed to random and reasonable suspicion, but when we got into procedures we found complications of constitutional issues,” HSTA Executive Director Mike McCartney said.

 

McCartney said the latest proposal is unworkable. Both sides have appealed to the labor board to help resolve the conflict.