SureHire Blog

An Ohio politician recently introduced a bill that would require random drug testing of Ohio Medicaid recipients.  House Bill 440 proposes that an adult Medicaid recipient would have their Medicaid services terminated for six months each time;

1)      The recipient fails to comply with random drug and alcohol testing;

2)      The recipient fails to complete a treatment program following a determination of a drug and/or alcohol problem or;

3)      The recipient had a second positive drug and or alcohol test.

Medicaid is a state and federally funded health program providing benefits to “low income” and “medically vulnerable” people.

This got me thinking about what would happen if such a bill was proposed in Alberta; every adult Albertan receiving Alberta Health Care would be subject to a random drug and alcohol test.

We could randomly drug test all adult Albertans; “weed out” those people who are taxing the health care system, punish them by taking away their and encourage them to go to rehab.   As a tax paying Albertan, why wouldn’t I be in favour of this? Reward those who are drug free, lighten the load on the already burdened health care system and feel good about offering rehab services to addicts.

Given this line of thinking, should we not then consider taking health care away from cigarette smokers, obese adults…heck… even adults who don’t exercise according to the Canadian Physical Activity guidelines?

While I believe it makes sense to provide rehabilitation services to those people who may have a substance abuse problem, it doesn’t make sense to take away basic health care services.  In essence, this would probably lead to further health problems for these individuals.  Desperate times call for desperate measures; these individuals may resort to stealing in order to have money to care for themselves.

Clearly this bill would not pass in Canada.  I’d like to think that Albertans are a little more liberal than that, or at least are educated enough to realize this isn’t the answer to the problem.  Then again, I wouldn’t put it past a number of people who would probably support the idea in the ever increasingly “me first” climate we live in today.

This past Sunday (December 20,2009), actress Britney Murphy died from what is being called cardiac arrest.  However according to multiple sources:

“various prescriptions were found in the home — written for Brittany Murphy, husband Simon Monjack, and Brittany’s mom. One source says, “There were a lot … a lot of prescriptions in the house. . . . . . .A check of the nightstands revealed large amounts of prescription medication in the decedent’s name. Also noted were numerous empty prescription medication bottles in the decedent’s husband’s name, the decedent’s mother’s name and unidentified third party names.

According to the notes, the medications included Topamax (anti-seizure meds also to prevent migraines), Methylprednisolone (anti-inflammatory), Fluoxetine (depression med), Klonopin (anxiety med), Carbamazepine (treats Diabetic symptoms and is also a bipolar med), Ativan (anxiety med), Vicoprofen (pain reliever), Propranolol (hypertension, used to prevent heart attacks), Biaxin (antibiotic), Hydrocodone (pain med) and miscellaneous vitamins.

The notes say, “No alcohol containers, paraphernalia or illegal drugs were discovered.”

Source: TMZ

Although the coroner’s report has not yet been released, the amount of prescription medications found in the residence is alarming.

There is still a perception that prescription drugs help people and do not harm them.  However, virtually every illegal “street drug” in existence today started out in the medical realm.  Examples of this include Cocaine, “Special K” and Amphetamines.  The reason that these drugs moved away from the medical realm is that there were substantial negative side-effects in utilizing them.  With that being said, just because something is prescribed by a doctor, it does not mean that it cannot hurt you.

Many prescription drugs are highly addictive and their use needs to be monitored by a qualified medical professional.  “Doctor Shopping” (going from doctor to doctor to get your prescriptions filled so that the doctors are  not aware of the volume of prescriptions you re taking) and using other people’s medications (even borrowing one Tylenol 3 because you have a headache) are growing in popularity, with detrimental side effects.  Britney Murphy may be the newest in the growing list of celebrity deaths, including DJ AM, Heath Ledger and Michael Jackson due to prescription drug use.

Whether celebrities set the trend, or simply reflect the trend, the reality is that people are dying from prescription pain killer addiction every day.   Just because a substance is prescribed by a doctor, that does not mean that it is not addictive, or that it cannot be abused.  Cocaine used to be widely prescribed for medical reasons and now it is relegated to the street, perhaps Oxycontin is the next medical drug to be deemed too risky for medical benefit and sold only as an illegal substance.  Any type of drug use and abuse, whether or prescription or not comes with consequences.

I wanted to wish everyone a Merry Christmas this holiday season.

Party season is in full swing and I know that everyone has been told before, but drinking and driving do not mix. There is always an alternative. As an employer, if you have alcohol at work related functions, be sure you practise due diligence. Employers can potentially face civil liability when hosting, organizing or sponsoring events that involve alcohol.

I have mentioned this topic earlier in a newsletter, but with the information as important as it is, I want to re-iterate it here.

Provider Liability

Provider liability occurs when those who provide, serve or make alcohol available to a person who they know or should know is already intoxicated.  Provider liability does not prevent individuals from being hosts and serving alcohol.  The case of Jacobsen vs. Nike Canada Ltd. is one example of legal precedent that has been established in court.  

Supervisors purchased and consumed dinner, soft drinks and 36 beers with Nike employees towards the end of a 16 hour workday.  The plaintiff, a 19 year old, consumed at least eight beers during this time in which he would have been displaying obvious signs of intoxication.

After leaving work, he went to a bar where he consumed at least three more drinks before falling asleep while driving home.  His accident left him a quadriplegic.  While the plaintiff acknowledged his own negligence, the court found Nike Canada liable for 75% of damages for two reasons:

1.  Nike, as an alcohol provider, had a duty to monitor its employees’ consumption and take steps to prevent them from driving when they knew, or should have known that their employees were likely impaired.  This is the same standard applied to a licensed commercial establishment.

2.  Nike had a duty to maintain a safe workplace.  Nike required workers to bring their cars to work and knew they would be driving home.  In effect, drinking and driving was made part of the working conditions that day.

Be safe and enjoy this holiday season. If you would like more information about employer liability feel free to call SureHire at 1-866-944-HIRE (4473). If you would like to read the entire Christmas newsletter for SureHire, that discusses employer liability: SureNews: Alcohol Liability Issue

If I don’t get another blog out before January, Happy New Years and all the best in 2010 to all the readers!

Yet another pilot has been charged with being impaired by alcohol, before taking off on a transatlantic flight.

Bottle to Throttle: Was Pilot Flying Drunk?

As suggested in the video, perhaps having a breathalyzer in the cock-pick is the way to go.  It appears as if the honour system is no longer working.

The United States Department of Transportation, enforces a breath alcohol limit of 0.02 for all commercial transportation, including airline pilots.  Although this limit is significantly lower than the legal limit for non-commercial vehicles, alcohol effects are still present.

As a passenger, I would hope that my pilot and all airline personnel are at 0.00.  Commercial drivers and pilots, that transport passengers have the lives of everyone aboard in their hands every time they drive/fly.  Should they not be held to a greater standard?

I came across this story a couple of weeks ago, and have found myself considering the possibilities more and more.  Since the story broke, the debate over this topic can been overwhelming.  Below is the original story found on CBC news.  You can view the original link here.  I would love to hear everyone’s thoughts on such a controversial matter.  I for one think that implementing random alcohol testing is a good idea.  I am for any positive legislation that creates safer roads.  To even consider such legislation is a step in the right direction.

The federal justice minister is considering a new law that would allow police to conduct random breathalyzer tests on drivers, regardless of whether they suspect motorists have been drinking.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving says the federal government is considering adopting random breathalyzer testing, following the June 2009 recommendation of a House of Commons justice committee. (CBC)

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson raised the prospect recently at a meeting of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, according to MADD chief executive Andrew Murie.

If random testing were to be adopted, it would be a major change to Canada’s 40-year-old breathalyzer legislation, which stipulates that police may only administer a test if they suspect a driver has been drinking.

In June, a House of Commons parliamentary committee recommended changing the legislation to allow for random testing, arguing it is an effective deterrent.

The change would also bring Canada in line with a number of other countries in Europe and countries like Australia, which have adopted similar measures.

Murie said its biggest selling point is that it improves road safety, with drunk driving fatalities dropping 36 per cent in Australia after legislation was introduced, and 23 per cent in Ireland when it made the change.

Tests could infringe on civil liberties

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson introduced legislation in 2008 that compelled drivers stopped by police to take a roadside test, such as walking a straight line. (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

“In the European Union, they demand that their countries, as part of membership for road safety, have sophisticated random breath testing because of the difference it’s made in lives saved,” he told CBC News.

Murie said the change would allow police at roadblocks to conduct about three times as many breathalyzer tests because they would not need to spend time determining whether there is “reasonable” suspicion a driver has been drinking.

The issue for civil libertarians, however, is that changing the law to allow random testing would be a violation of a person’s right to protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

“It has no real place in a democratic society,” said Richard Rosenberg of the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association.

“Giving police power to act on a whim is not something we want in an open democratic society.”

Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh, the former attorney general of British Columbia and a member of the House justice committee, said the question of whether any legislation would be allowable under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would come down to implementation.

Constraints on police power needed: MP

“It remains to be seen what the actual legislation is when the minister brings it forward because we want to make sure that it’s appropriately constrained and it’s not too much of an infringement on civil liberties,” Dosanjh told CBC News.

Dosanjh said the charter does allow for constraints on rights when they are deemed reasonable, but said he would need to see how those constraints are implemented before judging any future legislation.

“For instance… I wouldn’t want the east side of Vancouver monitored more than the west side of Vancouver because there is a clear economic division in the city,” he said.

“We want to make sure that areas are not unnecessarily excessively focused on and that’s why I think that we need to make sure that the legislation is properly drafted with appropriate constraints and guidelines for the police,” he said.

But Dosanjh pointed out that driving is not a right itself, but rather a privilege subject to licences given by government authorities.

Nicholson could not be reached for comment.