Physical Pre-Employment Screening and Occupational Testing

Archive for April, 2009

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.

Strip-Searched 13-Year Old’s Case Goes to the Supreme Court

Thursday, April 23rd, 2009

This week, the case of Safford United School District No. 1 v. Redding (08-479) is heading to the U.S. Supreme Court for a final ruling.  In 2003, 13-year old Savanna Redding was strip-searched by two Arizona school representatives after one of her classmates accused her of providing prescription-strength Ibuprofen.  The Arizona school has a zero tolerance policy for drugs including over-the-counter and prescription medication without prior written consent.  School officials were unsuccessful in finding any drugs in Redding’s backpack or on her person after performing the strip search.  Previous courts and panels found the search reasonable because of the school’s zero tolerance policy.  However, last year the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Redding, citing that the strip search was illegal and “traumatizing” for Redding.  For more background information about the case itself, visit the link above.

The obvious issue in this case is whether the school board went too far by having the youth strip to her underwear to search for Ibuprofen!  Did school representatives have strong enough evidence to search her based on reasonable suspicion?  The CNN report states that Redding was searched because she was accused by a classmate.  Redding had no prior disciplinary history, was an honors student, told school officials when questioned that she did not have any Ibuprofen, and no pills were found when her backpack was searched.  The reasons not to strip search her seem to outweigh the justification of the search.  It would be different if the classmate had provided evidence of the pills, or if other students interviewed had also reported seeing Redding with the pills.

Many schools have instituted a zero-tolerance policy for drugs in an effort to make their school safer for teachers and students in light of the number of school shootings in the past 10 years beginning with the Columbine massacre. However, at some point common sense has to be used.  I don’t know if trafficking ibuprofen has ever been linked to school violence, but I would highly doubt it.  Ibuprofen has a very low physical addiction property.  There are some serious health effects of abuse of ibuprofen; however, there are serious risks with abuse of any type of drug.  It would be different if Redding was being accused of possessing cocaine, marijuana or even oxycodone.

At the same time, school administrators and officials are under the microscope from parents and the general public to make schools safe.  Policies are developed to provide rules to be adhered to.  They are implemented to provide a framework to a cut and dry method of responding to situations.  School representatives are expected to follow the policies and procedures and may be reprimanded if not followed appropriately.  School teachers do not want to be disciplined for not following school rules, even if common sense suggests that the situation arises where the policy may be appropriate.  However, there are always exceptions to the rules.  Redding’s case is one of these situations.

We will keep you updated as to the outcome of this case.  The Supreme Court is in a precarious situation with this ruling, as a ruling in the favour of Redding may deter schools from acting in the same manner where there is more evidence for reasonable suspicion.  However, I believe in this case, the school acted in a manner that was overzealous, inappropriate and intrusive given the situation and information available.  Whether or not it was illegal is up to the courts.

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.

SureHire is Highlighted in Profit Magazine

Tuesday, April 7th, 2009

I am happy to announce that in the May 2009 issue of Profit Magazine, SureHire and in particular CEO, Kyle Powell, are highlighted in an article about modern business.

Tech For Tough Times: Speedy Customer Service

This article is a worthwhile read and gives a glimpse into the inner-workings of SureHire.