Physical Pre-Employment Screening and Occupational Testing

Archive for the ‘Youth and Drugs’ Category

Yet Another Death in 2009 in Edmonton due to Ecstasy

Wednesday, October 28th, 2009

Ecstasy is a synthetic Adrenergic agonist resembling both amphetamine (a stimulant) and mescaline (a hallucinogen). A “designer drug” once promoted as potentially psychotherapeutic, but now a controlled substance considered a drug of abuse.

Commonly referred to as Ecstasy, XTC, or E. MDMA was first synthesized in 1912 by a German company possibly to be used as an appetite suppressant. Chemically it is an analogue of MDA, a drug that was popular in the 1960’s. In the 1970’s, MDMA was used to facilitate psychotherapy  by a small group of therapists in the USA. Illicit use of the drug did not become popular until the late 80’s and early 90’s. MDMA is commonly used in combination with other drugs, however rarely consumed with alcohol. As alcohol is believe to diminish its effects. It is most often distributed at late night parties called “Raves”, night clubs and DJ shows. As the rave and club scene expands to metropolitan and suburban areas across the country, MDMA use and distribution are increasing as well.

This brings me to a story that has happened in Edmonton, Albert about 2 weeks ago on Thanksgiving Weekend 2009.

West division detectives are investigating after a 19 year old man (Zachary Lamb of Okotoks), suspected of taking ecstasy collapsed at a rave in West Edmonton Mall in the early morning and died later in hospital.

Officers were called to Edmonton’s Events Center around 3:47 am, responding to a man who collapsed while reveling at the ‘FROST’ 2009 rave party.

He was immediately taken to the hospital, where he died at about 6am. 3 of his friends (in their 20’s) also suspected of taking ecstasy, were treated in hospital and later released.

Police state that the man’s death is not considered suspicious, but police continue to look for the supplier of the drugs.

“I guess some people still aren’t getting the message.” said Guy Bueler, who’s 14 year old step-daughter (Cassie Williams) died on April 24th after taking a high dose of ecstasy at a Rock’n'Ride Dance party. “My message to people is still ‘Don’t Touch That Stuff”. Cassie’s friend also took the drug, but recovered after being treated in hospital. West Edmonton Mall later cancelled the long time event.

Adam Munro was at the Rave and told CTV News he was patted down by security staff prior to entering the concert. He said staff also asked him what was in his pockets, but didn’t inspect further. Munro believes drug sniffing dogs should be at the door. “The police already have a strong presence there so it really wouldn’t be that much effort to bring in a couple and just get them to sniff people.” He said.

Police say there is ample security at mall events, but the people who want to buy and sell drugs will find a way. Detective Niel Thompson with the Edmonton Police said the victim was a first time user. City counselor Karen Leibovici doesn’t think adding more security will prevent deaths. “The reality is, you might be able to prevent it in the location itself, and then you go into the parking lot, and it is a whole different story.” She said.

Police charged 2 men with drug posession , but they aren’t sure if the ecstasy they had was the same as the ecstasy  ingested by the victim.

Jake Bailey, 20 and Joshua Karkus, 19 were arrested in a west end hotel room on the Monday afternoon after the party.

Karl Giroux who was at the party said there was nearly 3000 people at the rave. “It was one big party. Everyone was dancing and partying.” While he doesn’t touch ecstasy “because I know what it can do to you,” the drug is typically part of the rave scene, Giroux said. “I know it keeps you up all night and makes you hyper.”

An overdose of ecstasy can kill in at least 3 ways. Because the amphetamine-type drugs stimulate the heart, they can increase blood pressure until a blood vessel bursts. This usually occurs in the brain, where bleeding can be fatal.

The drug can also cause hyperthermia or an increase in the body temperature, to the point of death.

Another danger is fluid retention, which cause the brain to swell and leads to brain damage.

Ecstasy pills are usually homemade and have multiple drugs in them, with some tablets containing no ecstasy at all. Some batches are stronger than others and each individual reacts differently. A dose that can be harmless to one user, can kill the next, experts say.

Symptoms of Ecstasy intoxication

Raised pulse- raised temperature- general feeling of wellness- felling of a “rush”- nausea- affection for others- raised blood pressure- overconfidence-relaxed feeling- teeth grinding- jaw clenching- anxiety- loss of appetite- sweating- blurred vision

Symptoms of Excessive doses may include

Convulsions- vomiting- sensation of floating- irrational behavior- bizarre behavior- hallucinations

Symptoms on the way “down” after may include

Irritability- depressive symptoms- exhaustion- fatigue- insomnia- paranoid symptoms- concentration difficulty

Symptoms of Ecstasy overdose may include

High temperature- high blood pressure- rapid pulse- hallucinations

Complications pertaining to Ecstasy abuse

Heart attack- dehydration- brain hemorrhage- hypothermia- hyponatremia (from drinking too much water to cause a “dilutional” hyponatremia

Long term complications of Ecstasy use

Psychological dependence on ecstasy- physical dependence on ecstasy- social or family problems- fetal complications in pregnant women (Miscarriage)

Duration of Ecstasy Abuse:

Intoxication may last up to 6 hours, while some intoxication symptoms may last for more than 24 hours. “Coming Down” symptoms can last for days.

Another Teenage Girl Dies From Ecstasy in Edmonton

Tuesday, April 28th, 2009

It has been only one month, since two girls died from ‘bad’ ecstasy on the Paul Band First Nation.  Now, the tragedy has seemed to repeat itself.  14 year old Cassie Williams, died after taking 6 tablets of what is suspected to be triple strength ecstasy, while at an underage party in West Edmonton Mall.

After hearing about the deaths of the Paul Band girls I had hoped that their deaths would act as a wake-up call to teens.  Ecstasy’s use is so wide spread; I get the feeling that teens, and adults for that matter, do not perceive it to be dangerous.  It is lumped in the same category as marijuana, under the token that everyone is doing it, so it can’t be bad.  Now, in just the Edmonton area, 3 girls have died, and at least 5 others (publically) have been admitted to hospital for Ecstasy related problems.  This is not a harmless drug!  I know that and I’m sure that most people reading this blog know that.  The question is, ‘how do we communicate that Ecstasy is dangerous to the young teens who are trying it out because everyone else is doing it?’

The same can be said, of cocaine, or even drinking and driving.  Publically everyone will admit that drugs are a bad thing to do or that no one should ever drink and drive.  When it comes down to it though, many people perceive that there are safe and unsafe drugs and hundreds of people still drink and drive.  The perception is that only people with a serious drug problem use heroin, where as everyone now days uses cocaine, or marijuana.  Just because something is prevalent (a very relative term in drug use) does not mean that it is safe.

How many teens have to die, before people take notice?  A tragedy should not end within a month, having everyone forget the lesson that was supposed to be learned.

My hope is that a change will begin to happen.  For one, West Edmonton Mall needs to step up their security at their underage party ‘Rock and Ride.’  Drug use at this event is extensive and as highlighted in an April 27, Edmonton Journal article, “Security just doesn’t realize that pretty much everyone is on ecstasy.  Most teens stuff the drug down their shirt or their pants so it isn’t found when they enter. Many girls walk around sucking on soothers, a telltale sign of ecstasy use.  (A 14 year old)  girl said everyone her age who goes to the mall knows if they want to get ecstasy, the dealers hang out in front of Circuit Circus. And if they don’t know, they can learn in five minutes.”

As I said with the last Ecstasy deaths, I hope that this tragedy is a wakeup call to youth.  If nothing changes, Cassie Williams death will be entirely in vain.

Roadside Drug Testing in Canada

Monday, April 20th, 2009

The Canadian Society of Forensic Science estimate that there are currently fewer than 200 cases per year of drug-impaired driving compared to 81000 cases of alcohol-impaired driving.  However, there are currently very few studies available that have measured actual numbers.    In July of 2008, a new Canadian law came into effect authorizing police to perform road-side drug testing.  Drivers who refuse to submit to the test can be fined up to $1000 or a month in jail for a second refusal to test.  The consequences are similar to refusing a road-side breathalyzer.

Drummer et al. (2004) report that drivers who have recently used drugs have a significantly higher chance of being involved in an accident when compared to a drug-free driver.  The authors calculated the odds ratio for different drug categories when compared to controls.  An odds ratio provides an index of whether a specific drug is associated with an increased risk of a driver causing a road crash.  For example, an odds ratio of 1 means there is no increased relative risk when compared to a drug free group, while an odds ratio of 1.5 means there is a 50% increase relative to the control group.  Drummer et al. (2004) study found that those with THC (a byproduct of cannabis) had an odds ratio of 2.7 (95% confidence interval, 1.02 - 7.0) and those with amphetamines present had an odds ratio of 2.3 (95% confidence interval, 0.9 - 5.6).  Interestingly, heavy vehicle drivers with amphetamines present had an odds ratio of 8.8! That means this group of people were 880% more likely to be involved in an accident than drug-free drivers.  In addition, Davey et al., 2002 report that there is a belief among drivers that there is a reduced likelihood to being detected after consuming drugs versus after consuming alcohol.  This suggests there is a need for a deterrence strategy targeting drivers using drugs.

Since its inception in Canada, there have been no official statistics released to help evaluate the law’s effectiveness at removing drug-impaired drivers and acting generally as a deterrent.  However, road side drug testing has been implemented elsewhere in the world.  In Victoria, Australia, new legislation was implemented in 2004 prohibiting anyone driving a motor vehicle while methamphetamines, THC, or ecstasy is present at any level in the driver’s specimen.  Under the Road Safety Act (2003), police have the legislative authority to randomly drug test drivers using oral fluid techniques.

Statistical results from the Australian program were recently reported by Boorman and Owens (2009).  From December 2004 - December 2006, police tested 25 317 drivers; only two drivers stopped refused to provide samples.  Of those tested, 573 had a positive oral fluid sample and were asked to submit a second sample.  17 of the 573 refused to provide a second sample, and 489 of the 573 were convicted after testing positive in their second sample.  In summary, 508 of the 25 319 tests administered were positive or refusal to test; approximately a 2% positive test rate.  While 2% sounds a bit underwhelming, I think the power of these statistics lies in the absolute number of positive tests.  The Australian police helped to prevent 508 motor vehicle accidents from occurring including the potential fatalities that may have resulted!

Interestingly, the authors reported that approximately 1/50 drivers tested were positive for drugs, while the rate for alcohol was 1/103 during the same time period.  This implies that fewer drivers understand and/or care about the dangerous risks of drug-impaired driving when compared to alcohol-impaired driving.  Alternatively, it may be that these same drivers believe the risk of being caught impaired due to alcohol is higher than while using THC, methamphetamines or ecstasy.

There obviously continues to be an issue with driving while impaired on drugs.  However, the results of the Australian road-side random drug tests imply that the program can be successful in preventing drug-related motor vehicle accidents and fatalities.  In addition, more information needs to be directed towards the general public to educate about the risks of drug-impaired driving.  It will be interesting to see the results of the Canadian program, its effects on drug-related motor vehicle accidents and fatalities, and the long-term impact on road-side drug testing as a deterrent.

Public Reaction to Random Drug and Alcohol Testing in Manitoba Schools

Monday, April 13th, 2009

Last week, a school board in Flin Flon, Manitoba publicly discussed the idea of implementing random drug and alcohol testing in its high schools.  While still in the early stages of development, the school board is looking for public opinion while drafting the drug testing policy.  The board is also looking at the legal implications of such a policy as no Canadian precedent has been set.  Click here to read the full story.

The public has reacted with many comments to this story, both negative and positive.  Most of the negative comments involve privacy concerns and the role of schools as disciplinarians.  Some of the comments made were:

  • It’s an invasion of privacy taking blood, urine or saliva for the purposes of testing
  • Random drug testing will increase drop-out rates from school
  • You can try and control kids, but kids are going to do whatever they want
  • If you’re drug testing kids, you should drug test the staff while you’re at it
  • Schools are for learning. Discipline should be left for parents.

In addition, most people who disagreed with implementation of this policy suggested that drug experimentation is part of growing up and for most kids it never becomes a further problem.  I think the key word in that statement is “most”.   Most people who experiment with drugs do not have substance abuse problems.  However, there are those who become drug and/or alcohol abusers.  It would be like saying that those people who drive without seatbelts likely never get into an accident and get hurt.  However, the effects for those not wearing seatbelts AND getting into an accident can be catastrophic.  Would you rather spend money to fix the problem or try and prevent it from happening in the first place?

It seems that most of those who disagree with this policy are opposed to labeling and punishing kids who may test positive because the test cannot distinguish between those kids that are experimenting versus those kids with a substance abuse problem.  I think this point is valid as suspending or expelling a youth who uses marijuana on one occasion at a party sends the wrong message.  That youth would become labeled by his/her peers which may lead to more negative psychological and social effects.

However, I believe random drug and alcohol testing programs can be effective if positive tests are dealt with in a proactive manner.  These programs primary purpose should be to identify those at risk individuals and educate those individuals about their behavior.  A first-time offender could be required to attend one mandatory counseling session with their parents to discuss the inherent risks of substance use with a substance abuse professional.   Subsequent positive tests may warrant more aggressive intervention including additional counseling and mandatory community service in social programs working with substance abuse.  The community service would expose these youth first hand to the path that drugs and/or alcohol abuse may take them.

It is vitally important that parents are involved in the process.  Substance abuse programs are generally more successful when parents are involved.  In addition, parents have the right to discipline their kids as they see fit.  Schools and teachers are not jails and disciplinarians; they are educators.  The random drug and alcohol testing program may serve as a means to inform parents of the activities their kids are involved in.

I believe that if the school board makes the decision to implement this program with the fact that it will be used for prevention, instead of discipline, other parties including parents, student groups and lawmakers will jump on board.

Changes Coming to the Protection of Children Abusing Drugs Act

Monday, April 6th, 2009

As of July 1, 2006, the Alberta government instituted the Protection of Children Abusing Drugs Act (PChAD).  This program gives parents/guardians the ability to apply for a court appointed apprehension and confinement order if their child’s use of alcohol and/or drugs is likely to cause significant psychological or physical harm to themselves or others.   Children are taken to one of five protective safe houses for up to five days to allow counselors to assess, educate and offer treatment recommendations once the child has been discharged from the program.  Administered by the Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission (AADAC), the safe houses are located across the province in Grande Prairie, Edmonton, Red Deer, Calgary and Picture Butte.  Since 2006, approximately 1500 court orders have been issued; approximately ten per week.

Recently, the Alberta government proposed changes to the current program:

  • Increase the length of confinement to ten days with an optional five extra days where needed. This is increased from the current timeframe of five days which is not long enough.
  • Parents will be required to meet with an AADAC counselor before going to court to get the order. Currently, parents can go directly to the courts. The goal of this meeting is to give parents advice and tools in treating their children
  • Counselors will be given the right to appeal a confinement order if they feel the teen does not need it and would be better counseled in a different setting. Currently, the teen can only appeal the confinement order.
  • Create an expiry date of fifty days for the court order. Currently, there is no expiry limit for the court order and it can be used by parents as a threat or a discipline tool.

While this law gives parents another option when trying to help stop drug use by their children, it’s power should be used with caution.  Frequently, parents use this order as the primary method of helping their children because they don’t know what else to do.  The Act was designed to be used as a last resort intervention.  There is often anger and resentment on the part of the teen towards their parents from being forced by their parents into a safe house.  It is reported that one of the best protections of again risky teen behavior is a strong relationship between teen and parent.   There is currently no limit as to how often the confinement order can be used.  At some point, if a parent is frequently playing the confinement card, you have to wonder if confinement to the safe house is the best choice of treatment.

SureHire promotes early intervention and prevention of at risk youth.  Often, recreational versus abusive drug and/or alcohol use are confused.  Parents need to be educated to look for the signs of abuse.   Parents should be involved in the treatment of their children.  SureHire can refer directly to SAPAA certified substance abuse professionals who can educate, intervene and counsel  both parents and teens to overcome drug and/or alcohol addiction or use.

For more information, please contact our offices at 1-866-944-HIRE.
For more information about the PChAD, click here.