Michael Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 All right. Drug testing would reveal that I'm addicted to AK's conundrums. Question #1: When I learn that my duties include administering compulsory drug tests, I decline the opportunity because I am opposed to them on principle. But since you probably welcome abbreviated answers no more than you like extended ones (I lick my wounds), let us assume that in a moment of weakness I accepted the title of Official Snitch. Since my buddy has known me a long time, he also knows that I disapprove of recreational drugs, and he also knows that in an official capacity I would treat him the way I treat everyone else. I might take the opportunity to reinforce his awareness of both these facts, and I might also seek an oblique but definite way to inform the entire staff of my policy as well. Question #2: Apparently in another moment of weakness, I have now betrayed three cherished principles. Notwithstanding that AK has painted me as a scoundrel, I resist the temptation to renounce a fourth principle; addictive behavior has its limits. Instead, I tell Mr. Self-Defeater-Didn't-You-Hear-What-I-Told-Everyone-Or-Were-You-Too-Stoned that it's his problem, leaving your Option #2 available to him. I get ready to look for new friends, a move possibly well overdue. And I kick myself for volunteering to oppress my colleagues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emtkelley Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Perhaps I am more lenient than I should be but I choose B. We have all made mistakes that we wish we could go back and get a "do-over". I know I have. I have seen many people, including myself, wanting a better life for themselves and chucking drugs, booze, ect. in order to achieve that goal. Had a few people in my life thrown the book at me, I wouldn't be in school right now. Shoot him a chance, give him a choice: get clean or face the music and lose it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malignant-Hyperthermia Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I HATE these things... Part of the industrial standby that im involved with is running drugs and alcohol tests for the Port Botany in Sydney, whihc means putting them on the bag and getting them to pee in a cup, kind of a F%$K YOU from the headshed after the dockers went on strike a few years back........ so naturally my boss who i have taken to calling "Mr Fishbine" jumped on board to make a buck He really only has tree choices here. The chain of custody requires him to fess up to me and this is noted on the pathology report who confirms it with a tox screen of his urine and rehab action is taken from there, or he says nothing, gets a "potential" positive for THC and the lab confirms it and the headshed flips out, or he refuses the test, i note it and the head shead freaks out even more Induction and committment to D & A means they also have to offer rehab - if they fess up, but denial and a positive test results is an instant dissmissal Random selection by the donor of which test strip is used, coupled with third party confirmation of testing processes and a negative reading, means there is no room to botch the system either - if the chain of custody is followed correctly Best option for all concerned is he fesses up, and id tell him that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Random selection by the donor of which test strip is used Would you please explain what this means? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malignant-Hyperthermia Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Sure Each of the test strips we use is entered into a registry so that it can be tracked. We probably carry a dozen in the D&A kit at any one time. When we have a client who wishes for a D&A test to be carried out, the person to be tested (donor) makes a selection from the dozen or so test kits that we carry, in order to minimise the risk of being accused of reporting a negative as a positive or tampering with the test strips. I dont believe this is a rquirement of the chain of custody, i believe this is a actually a requirement by the clients and was agreed upon with the dockers union, in order to get it D&A policy through as there was some concern by the union that ringleaders in the dock strike a few years back might be targeted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vs-eh? Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I dislike how people are saying that someone who has a couple of puffs of weed at a camping trip made a "very bad decision" and for him to "get clean". A bad decision is smoking weed or having a few drinks during/before work. That is a bad decision. Not recreational activity, that is not interfereing with family, financial, work issues. People are making this out like this person is a borderline junky doing heroin or crack regularly on his days of and barely holding his life together. I agree that building a case based on observable activity at work and then approaching the person is the way to go. Random urinalysis is just a bad idea all around and potentially wrongly jams people for wrong/unreasonable reasons. I would even be open to scheduled urine testing given a sufficient time frame. A true addict or person with a truly life affecting problem would be have a very hard time to stay clean/sober for that period of time prior. If they piss positive then deal with them, but I think they would likely approach EAP first. And what is EAP going to do? The guy even said that he knew what he did was "wrong". Maybe just had one too many beers and had a lapse in judgement (and please don't bother equating some this same lapse with drunk driving or harder drug use or something). EAP person - So why are you here? Guy - I smoked some weed a few weeks back. EAP - Oh, do you find that drugs are interfering with your life? Guy - Nope. Just relaxing with some buddies on a camping trip. I smoke weed quite rarely (or even fairly regularly for an argument). I love my family, my finances are good, and I love my job. I have never had any issues relating to my "drug use". I only smoke weed when it is available and even then I don't use every time. Honestly, this is being blown way out of proportion, but you are more than welcome to review my finances, speak to why fiends/family, review my work history, etc...I have nothing to hide, because their isn't a problem. EAP - Oh, ok....So then why ARE you here? Guy - Random urinalysis... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I dislike how people are saying that someone who has a couple of puffs of weed at a camping trip made a "very bad decision" and for him to "get clean" It's a bad decision to do something that will get you fired, unless you want to be fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asysin2leads Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 I'm not sure why I would feel the need to give him a 'heads up'. If he's a clean guy, why would I even give it a second thought in telling him. Now, if he came to me and said 'Look, this is what happened', then honestly, yes, I'd probably try and help him out. If it was a once in a lifetime, stupid thing to do, I just can't see the bright side of ruining this guys life, and his kids life, because he smoked some whacky tobaccy while camping. I would like to know why exactly he was dumb enough to risk all the stuff he has by doing so, and he'd better give me a good answer, but other than that I'd help him. I have no use for most zero-tolerance policies. I think they are usually put in place by unintelligent politicians and bureaucrats when they feel the need to look 'tough on' something (Tip: When your local politician starts advertising legislature imposing stiffer penalities for either drunk drivers or pedophiles, he or she is officially out of ideas). America's justice system was based on evaluating a crime and meeting out punishment fairly using wisdom and reason, not slogans and catchphrases. One of my philosophies and the one that gets me in the most trouble is that one should be concerned with the principles and overall big picture behind rules and laws, rather than strictly adhering to the details. Marijuana is a Schedule I drug and therefore (according to the FDA, or is it the DEA? I always mix those kids up) has no medicinal use. I'm up in the air about that one . Legislators elected by the populace made laws saying smoking it is illegal. To break this law shows a contempt for democracy, if you believe in democracy, you follow all the laws, not just the ones you agree with. Executive branches put these laws into effect, as they are required to do, work places complied, as they are required to do, all of which is good and fine. However, I just do not believe, in my heart, that when all of these people did all of these things, they intended it so that if someone admits to smoking a joint, they lose their livihood, their source of income, and probably their source of pride. I do not think they would believe that is the workings of a just society. I believe they wanted to benefit people by limiting their access to what they felt was a dangerous substance, and also to keep impaired people away from people who depend on them. So, if my dear friend wises up and doesn't do it again, and comes to work and helps others and is good to his family, then I think the spirit of the law is upheld, and in this crazy world, that's good enough for me. Interestingly enough, Marijuana is a Schedule I narcotic. MDMA (Ecstasy) is Schedule II, which means it can be prescribed under certain circumstances, such as treatment of PTSD. You find the psychiatrist, I'll find the glow sticks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malignant-Hyperthermia Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 It's a bad decision to do something that will get you fired, unless you want to be fired. There needs to be qualifiers to identify who to test and who not to test, and an apropriately scaled set of punishments Testing is reserved for post incident, return to work and random screening. Post incident is strait forward, you damage a car, say back into a post or run over an object without extenuating or explainable cricumstances you cop a cup Random tests are reserved for person who have been taken out of the workplace for one high end reading of THC, OPI, BENZ, METH, or for 3 low end reading that were followed by a suspension after which they are assigned a number of randoms over a 12 month period in both cases Return to work is carried out when an employess returns after a serious incident where high ranges of drugs or alcohol were found to be present. This is more of a legal requirement rather than a meaningful test - they were clean when they came back, its not our fault kind of stuff There is also a sliding scale for punishment and is determined by the doses of drugs, alcohol present and number of offences. So the guy who had a couple of chuffs of weed gets a low reading, gets a "bad boy" letter, 3 of these he gets a suspension followed by 12 months of random trests, where there is a zero tolerance policy in position during this probationary period The system also allows for honest stupidity - i had a bloke a few eeks back admit he had been really crook with a head cold for a few days and ws taking double doses of "Pseudofed", this was noted on the PCR and chain of custody, he turned a potential positive and a urinalysis by the lab proved exactly what he sud - double doses of the OTC drug....he got a slap on the wrist "that was stupid" there are ways for this to be fair, though these programmes are usually a last resort after education fails Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akflightmedic Posted November 9, 2006 Author Share Posted November 9, 2006 While informative, your responses are off topic. If you wish to start a thread on the hows and why of a drug test please go do it. If you wish to gives us insight to your thought processes, by all means respond to the scenario. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts