Drug Testing News: 04/23/2006

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Drug screening can make the workplace safer

South Florida Business Journal - April 14, 2006

Drug screening programs may reduce workplace accidents and disruptions in employee productivity, but instituting these programs isn't one-size-fits-all.

Businesses have many options to choose from, both in testing and policy, while ensuring they meet state guidelines and discourage litigation. To work properly, the testing must be combined with employee education and clear corporate policies.

Drug use has been found to cause serious problems for employers. Regular drug users are two-and-a-half times more likely to be absent from work, are one-third less productive and are 50 percent more likely to steal from their company, said Barry Sample, director of science and technology for the employer solutions division of drug testing company Quest Diagnostics. He estimates that nearly half of all workers' compensation claims involve substance abuse.

While an employee can be denied workers' compensation benefits if the injury was caused by intoxication or substance abuse, it's not easy to prove that the drugs were directly responsible for the accident, said Peter Sampo, a labor and employment law attorney with Allen Norton & Blue in Miami. Employee drug use won't excuse a company from liability if that employee injures someone, he said.

Drug screening can save a company from these costs. Plus, if a company follows the steps to be designated a drug-free workplace, it's eligible for a 5 percent discount on its workers' compensation insurance and preference in government contract bids.

Traditionally, drug testing has been more common for big businesses, but smaller companies are realizing the benefits through using human resource outsourcers, said Marilyn Culp, president of the Miami Coalition for a Safe and Drug-Free Community. Her organization helps companies select drug-testing firms and has given out more than 100 Small Business Administration vouchers to help fund drug screening programs.

Drug screening can be more important to small companies because losing a key employee or a big lawsuit could cause greater harm, Culp said.

"The distractions that might otherwise be present, like absenteeism or being tardy or quality of work, are hopefully eliminated," said Perry DonFrancisco, owner of Boston's on the Beach, a Delray Beach restaurant that's a certified drug-free workplace. "I'd assume in the 15 years we've had this [drug screening], it has curtailed possible applicants. We've had people take the test who should have opted out."

The standard time to institute drug screening is prior to employment, as a condition of being hired. Drug tests can also be offered at random, after workplace incidents, on condition of suspicion or at mandated times for all employees.

Most general employers choose only pre-employment screening for their programs, Quest's Sample said. But for those who choose to offer random drug tests, as well, the positive rate for those is higher than the pre-employment rate.

"If an employer only has pre-employment screening, the employer runs the risk of them going back to drugs," Sample said. "Because there's a lower expectation of being subject to random tests in the private sector, we see a higher instance of positives."

Put the policy in writing

Whatever an employer's policy is on when to test, that policy needs to be placed into writing and the management needs to be trained in how to implement it, said Joseph Reilly, president of Florida Drug Screening, a Palm Bay-based company that helps about 3,200 companies set up drug testing.

Employers are allowed to deny applications or terminate employees if they refuse to take a drug test, but it must be clearly written in the company's policy and made available to employees, Reilly said. When setting up a new drug-screening program, current employees are generally given 60 days' notice before they are tested. During that time, they can voluntarily come forward and seek help without any repercussions.

In order to qualify as a drug-free workplace, employers need to provide addiction treatment options. This can be as simple as having a list of local treatment centers or having a sophisticated employee assistance program, Reilly said. The company doesn't need to pay for the rehabilitation, but some do.

If a current employee fails a test, there needs to be a policy that spells out the punishment for all employees, not just those in certain positions, said Elaine Taule, president and CEO of NMS Management Services, a Palm Springs-based company that manages drug testing for 1,900 businesses.

However, employees can be dealt with differently based on their history and performance. She recommends a policy stating that the punishment could range from probation with regular tests and treatment to termination.

If an employee is terminated, the employer should keep documents to show what other behavior was a contributing factor, Taule said.

"If you had an employee with you for 10 years, and he had a death in the family and was abusing drugs, certainly, once identified, you'd like to give a second chance to him," she said. "If it's an employee who's always late and disheveled, you might terminate this person."

Another requirement to be a drug-free workplace is to project the employees' privacy. Tests that have instant results aren't permissible under the state program because employees should have the right to have a positive result examined by a medical review officer before it's disclosed to an employer, she said.

Although they are usually done at a collection center, drug tests can be collected at work, but they must be shipped to a licensed clinic in order to qualify for the state program, she said. If the test is positive, the medical review officer will confer with the employee before notifying the company to try to determine if there's a valid reason, such as a prescription medication. Should there be a reason, the employer would only get back a negative result.

"The integrity of the specimen is very important, as is the confidentiality and privacy of the donor," Taule said.

Tests that show evidence of masking agents are also reviewed and can sometimes mean there's no clear result. In pre-employment testing, this often prevents a hiring, but existing employees could be subject to a surprise test, sometimes under direct supervision, Reilly said.

The three different types of drug tests offer different levels of supervision and a varying look at the timeline of drug use. Urine testing is the most sensitive for employees and carries a greater risk of cheating because it's the most common and it's usually not directly supervised, Quest's Sample said. Its lab work is cheaper than the other options.

Oral fluid testing has more expensive lab work, but can be collected in the workplace with a swab, then mailed to the testing center, which cuts out the collection cost, Sample said. Like the urine test, it can determine if the employee has used drugs within a few days, but sometimes longer, depending on the drug and frequency of use.

Hair tests, which can test for drug use during about the previous 90 days, are best for employers who want a greater look into an employee's lifestyle, Sample said. Combined with the collection cost, it's generally more expensive than the other tests. However, there aren't any verified substances to mask it, Sample said.

The standard urine test in South Florida costs from $35 to $40, Reilly said. That covers the five most common drugs: marijuana, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines and PCP. That can be expanded to 10 or 15 drugs, depending on what the employer wants.

"One thing we've noticed is if a good percentage of employers are drug-free workplaces in a particular industry, the companies that still don't offer drug testing will get more drug users," Reilly said. "They'll see the drug-free workplace sticker in the window and then go to work down the street because that guy doesn't do drug testing."

E-mail health care writer Brian Bandellat bbandell@bizjournals.com.

25 April 2006

One in five (20 per cent) of young motorists take to the road every day while high on illegal drugs, according to the RAC Foundation and Max Power Magazine - revealing the shocking results of a new survey.

The survey, carried out by Max Power magazine and published in the May edition, found that:-

20% of those surveyed say they "drug drive" every single day
44% regularly drug drive with passengers in their car
59% of those surveyed have driven after smoking marijuana
37% have driven after taking cocaine
67% believe drink driving is worse than drug driving
46% think they are unlikely to get caught drug driving

Drug-driving is a growing problem in the UK. 18% of drivers who died on the roads between 1996-2000 had been driving with illegal drugs in their system, compared with just 3% for the period 1985 â€“ 1988. A major road safety campaign in 2005 found that more than one in seven drivers stopped tested positive for drugs â€“ twice the number of those found to have been drinking. Young people are now twice as likely to be driven by someone high on drugs as someone who is over the drink-drive limit.

The RAC Foundation and Max Power are calling on young motorists to face up to the dangers of drug driving. At best, they are risking a heavy fine, a one-year driving ban or 6 months in prison. At worst â€“ a death sentence for the driver or their mates.

Edmund King, executive director of the RAC Foundation said: "Some drivers may think that drug driving gives them a buzz, but the startling increase in the number of young drivers killed on our roads shows that the buzz soon goes flat. Only dopes drug drive and only mugs allow themselves to be driven by dopes."

John Sootheran, editor of Max Power, added: "Driving under the influence of drugs makes driversâ€™ confidence rocket while their skill and accuracy plummet, making any drug driver a serious hazard to themselves and other road users.

"Catching drug drivers is also extremely difficult â€“ the reality is that police do struggle to enforce the law, and with no approved roadside testing equipment, they have to rely on simple and often unreliable physical assessments."

To understand the gritty reality of "drug driving", the May issue of Max Power includes a feature called "the need for weed" where five young drivers test the effects of different drugs, including alcohol, on a specially devised off-road course. The results were startling.

The driver who took the wheel under the influence of Alcohol gave a shocking description of his experience. He said: "The more I drank the less I cared. After six cans of lager I could barely walk straight, let alone drive straight â€“ I would have been lethal on the road."

In contrast, the Cocaine tester said: "After the first few lines I was on top of the world, I felt invincible, like no one could touch me. On the road I wouldnâ€™t care if I was reckless."

The Marijuana tester ended up driving dangerously slowly. He said: "After about three joints I felt OK to drive but was much more cautious. This feeling grew into full-on paranoia that I was going to hit something."

The driver who tested the effects of Speed said his driving was "faster and more erratic". At the same time he couldnâ€™t stop fidgeting and "just wanted to go faster". The Ecstasy tester said he would be "in a hedge in no time" if he drove on the road under the effects of the drug.

John Sootheran added: "Max Power does not glorify or condone the use of illegal drugs however it does feel it is important and in the public interest to tell its young readers what the likely effects will be should they take drugs and then drive."

Tribe begins random drug tests

By the Associated Press

10:22 a.m. -- BELCOURT â€” Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa officials are taking steps to try to address what they say is an epidemic drug problem on the northern North Dakota reservation.

The tribe has started random drug testing and has taken legal steps to banish drug traffickers from the reservation.

``The reason we had to do it is to try to protect our people,'' Tribal Chairman Ken Davis said. ``It's gotten to a point where we are having to take some very drastic measures.''

   About one-third of tribal employees have been through initial drug testing. Sean LaFountain, coordinator of the Tribal Drug Testing Program, said he expects the initial testing to be completed by late spring or early summer. It will be followed by quarterly random tests of up to 25 percent of employees.

   LaFountain is pushing to have other entities adopt the program to create a uniform drug-testing policy across the reservation. The tribe's public utility, the Turtle Mountain Housing Authority and Turtle Mountain Community College have already joined the effort. Turtle Mountain Community Schools is preparing a program that would affect staff, administration and the school board.

   ``As a board, we have to take a stand,'' said President Allan Malaterre. ``We are doing it to protect our community and especially our kids.''

   Last year, the school conducted random alcohol Breathalyzer tests among prom-goers and plans to do so again this year, Malaterre said. An after-prom party will provide a drug-free alternative for students.

   The Tribal Council on April 5 also adopted an ordinance that enables the tribe to banish American Indians and non-Indians for drug-related or other offenses.

   Davis said banishment is a traditional tribal practice that has been permitted under the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa's constitution since 1959. The council decided to activate its banishment power to remove drug traffickers, he said.

   ``They are coming here to our reservation; and even our own members are endangering our people through the selling of drugs,'' Davis said.

   The ordinance provides warning for a first offense, a three-year exclusion for a second offense and a lifetime banishment for a third.

   It also allows for emergency exclusions of non-tribal members without a hearing. Davis said that gives the tribe the ability to banish people for offenses over which the tribe lacks jurisdiction, regardless of whether a non-tribal authority decides to prosecute.

   The drug-testing program, developed with the aid of a California consultant, includes drug awareness and education efforts and also is designed to offer help to those who test positive, LaFountain said. People will be fired only on a second offense.

   ``(Drug use) is a major concern of the people in the community, to try to get people to turn away from this,'' LaFountain said.

Senate passes bill to require drug testing for coal miners

FRANKFORT, Ky. A bill that would force coal miners to undergo random drug testing made it through the Kentucky Senate.

The House will have a final say on the measure in a vote.The bill is aimed at improving safety in Kentucky mines by putting workers who abuse drugs off the job.Miners would have to undergo a mandatory test before being hired and then be subject to random tests once they begin work.The bill is the final step in a process that began a year ago when coal operators and miners told state regulators drug abuse had become widespread throughout the state and needed to be dealt with. Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

The agony of post-game drug testing

By MATT WINKELJOHN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 03/24/06

It's become an LSU basketball tradition, win or lose, to pull the trigger on whatever's happened and move on. The Tigers did it Thursday, after upsetting Duke.

"It's a piggy bank, but it's shaped like a little toilet, and it has a flusher," said LSU freshman Tasmin Mitchell. "[Athletics director] Skip Bertman gave it to us, and he said when he used to coach he'd tell his [baseball] team, 'If you make an error, flush it down the toilet.'

"[The toy toilet] goes everywhere with us. Right after the [Duke] game, [coach John Brady] said, 'Flush that game, and let's talk about the next one.' "

LSU and Texas players don't always find it so easy to use the bathroom. When pulled for random drug-testing, they have to play again before a spectator â€” it's mandatory that a NCAA drug-testing crew member of the same gender witness the act.

No LSU or Texas players interviewed Friday said they were drug-tested after Thursday's games, but after Texas beat Penn in the first round last week, "I had to do the drug test and it took me a couple of times to actually go," said Texas guard Daniel Gibson.

"They actually go into the stall, and I was like, 'Oh, you're going to [watch]?' He actually was right there next to me, and that didn't help very much."

NCAA student-athletes are randomly tested at practice or after games for stimulants, anabolic steroids, alchohol (and beta blockers for riflery), diuretics, street drugs like heroin, marijuana and THC, peptide hormones, urine manipulators and masking agents.

If the test is positive (information on the NCAA's Web site said between one and two percent are), first-time offenders meet with the AD and the coach, parents or guardians are usually notified, they're then subject to regular testing and counseling becomes mandatory. Suspension is possible.

A second positive test results in a one-year suspension, and revocation of athletic scholarship. A third results in the permanent loss of eligibility and scholarship.

Texas coach Rick Barnes doesn't have a problem with drug-testing. Yet he's not keen on the fact that some guys struggle to pull the trigger at the end of a long day. A school may request a delay of drug-testing until the next morning if a contest begins after 9 p.m., like some tournament games.

Once an athlete is tabbed for testing, though, he or she is not allowed to leave until a sufficient sample is drawn, even if it means that player and a school administrator must remain behind as the team returns to campus (schools can request reimbursement from the NCAA for related expenses).

"I think what is hard about that's just dehydration," Barnes said. "I think we all understand that . . . what they really should do probably is do it prior to the game. Everybody is a little jumpy. They'd get all the urine samples they need."

LSU guard Darrel Mitchell said, "My first drug test took me a while. I drank like three Powerades."

Texas forward Brad Buckman laughed. Nervously.

"They come right up to you and you're like, 'Oh, no,' so you're sitting down chugging Gatorade trying to go," he said. "It's a nerve-racking deal even though you're clean. You're obviously thinking about it and you might get that stage fright. It's a little weird."

Gibson finally let loose after the Penn game. "Actually, one of my teammates, Craig [Winder], had been in there maybe 20 or 30 minutes before I got in there," he said. "We ended up leaving at the same time so that means he was in there for about an hour."

Tasmin Mitchell, who said both his drug tests came on LSU practice days, can beat that.

"Oh yeah. My first drug test . . . took me like three hours," he said. "I drank a whole bunch, but I couldn't use the restroom because someone is watching. I couldn't do nothing about it. My teammates tease me."

It's not always a laughing matter.

Are your teens doing drugs? Test them

By RAQUEL RUTLEDGE

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Desperate parents dissatisfied with old-school ways of trying to tell whether their kids are doing drugs â€” rifling through their drawers, smelling their breath, searching their eyes â€” are now instead demanding proof.

Theyâ€™re dragging their teens to drug testing labs and buying home testing kits by the case over the Internet.

â€œI tell my daughter, â€˜If you want to go out tonight youâ€™re going to pee in a cup first,â€™ â€ said Suzanne Fugarino of Milwaukee, whose 17-year-old daughter was expelled from high school last fall after taking a crack pipe to school.

Schools, too, are getting on board, hanging banners and sending home brochures backing testmyteen.com, a Web-based company that promotes home drug tests for children.

Although random drug testing in schools â€” heavily promoted by the White House â€” has drawn some fire from the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Academy of Pediatrics, among others, parental testing of teens has gotten far less attention.

And the practice is quietly exploding.

Internet companies and drug testing labs report huge upswings in teen testing and sales of home drug screening kits.

â€œ(Business) has been awesome,â€ said Debra Auer, co-owner of Express Drug Screening in Milwaukee.

Sales of home testing kits and visits to the lab by teen-toting parents have tripled in the last four years, Auer said.

Drugteststrips.com says its sales have quadrupled in the last five years, and another Milwaukee testing lab, Noble Diagnostics, says sales of home kits have jumped 30 percent in the last nine months or so.

â€œFrom a parentâ€™s perspective, itâ€™s the most empowering thing in the world,â€ said Kim Hildreth, a Dallas mother who tests her own children and sells home testing kits online at drugtestyourteen.com.

â€œYouâ€™re lying awake at night, staring at the ceiling, worried to death all the time,â€ Hildreth said. â€œYou catch them in little fibs. You donâ€™t know if theyâ€™re where they say they are. You worry. Thereâ€™s no reason for that.â€

Hildreth and other proponents call drug testing a powerful deterrent and say it gives teens a socially acceptable reason to reject drug use.

â€œWe taught them to â€˜just say no,â€™ but we never told them what to say next,â€ said Mason Duchatschek, owner of testmyteen.com.

Teens who are tested can tell their friends that their parents test them and that they will lose cell phone, car or other privileges, and their peers understand that, Duchatschek said.

Duchatschek is working with schools across the country to get them to endorse his program of parental testing instead of adopting controversial random testing programs as many other schools have done.

Home drug tests typically cost $6 to $15 for one test that can detect between five and 10 drugs, such as marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamines, opiates and benzodiazepines. Parents dip the test into a cup of urine, and results appear within minutes.

Matt Muir, a 17-year-old high school senior from Michigan, objects to his motherâ€™s recent purchase of home drug tests. Muir says his occasional marijuana use causes no problems in his life and his mother shouldnâ€™t worry. His grades are fine, he said. Heâ€™s already been accepted into three good universities and heâ€™ll soon be living on his own. He doesnâ€™t smoke every day and never before school, and heâ€™s not turning to other â€œharderâ€ drugs, he said.

â€œI think her fears are overdrawn and exaggerated,â€ he said.

When his mother tried to force him to urinate in a cup while she stood in the bathroom facing the wall, he decided he would rather admit to his drug use than go through the embarrassment.

â€œIâ€™ve given a lot of thought to what sheâ€™s supposed to do,â€ Muir said. â€œItâ€™s really tough. I guess look the other way but not approve of it. It strikes me that parents that are OK with it are not good people.â€

Some groups say home drug testing can harm relationships with children.

The Drug Policy Alliance, a national nonprofit agency that promotes an overhaul of the nationâ€™s approach to drug problems, says parental testing tears at the bond between children and adults.

â€œIt can have consequences of breaking down communication, of creating rebellion, breaking down relationships of trust,â€ said Jennifer Kern, a research associate with the office of legal affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance.

Drug testing of teens should be done by medical professionals who can better interpret test results and refer parents to appropriate resources if necessary, Kern said.

Drug Testing: Violations jump

WADA

WADAThe World Anti-Doping Agency recorded 63 drug-testing violations among 3,114 athletes tested in 2005 - a 2-per-cent rate that was double the previous year. The agency said athletes were tested in 40 sports and 119 countries as part of its global out-of-competition doping control program last year. The testing covered world championships in track, swimming and weightlifting. In addition to the 61 positives, there were two other anti-doping violations. Of the positives, 32 were for elevated testosterone levels and 16 for steroids.

Prosecutor can test cops for drugs

uesday, April 25, 2006

By RICHARD COWEN
STAFF WRITER

An appeals court ruled Monday that Passaic County Prosecutor James F. Avigliano acted properly in 2004 when he ordered 10 police officers suspected of using steroids to undergo drug testing.

The Appellate Division panel let stand a lower court ruling that clarifies Avigliano's role as the top law enforcement official in the county.

In that role, he has the power to order any police officer employed by any police department in the county to take a drug test.

The decision is important because it broadens the power of the prosecutor to call for drug tests if there is a "reasonable suspicion" that a police officer is using illegal substances.

Unions representing the 10 police officers had argued that drug testing was a private personnel issue, and that only the department that employed the police officer could order one.

Superior Court Judge Robert J. Passero sided with Avigliano and on Monday, the appellate panel upheld the decision.

Avigliano was pleased. He said the use of any illegal substance by police officers would not be tolerated, but steroids pose a particular danger.

"We know that steroids can cause mood swings and aggressive behavior among the people who use them," Avigliano said. "That's a pretty dangerous combination for an officer in law enforcement."

Avigliano ordered 10 police officers to submit urine samples as part of an investigation into steroid and cocaine use by police in Passaic County.

Of the 10 officers, three were members of the Wayne Police Department, and four were employed by the Passaic County Sheriff's Department.

Avigliano has refused to name the employers of the other three officers. He maintained Monday that the public has no right to know when police departments are conducting drug tests.

"The only reason people know that Wayne police and the Passaic County Sheriff's Department was involved in this case is because they sued me," he said.

Three police unions -- Passaic County PBA Local 197, 286, and Wayne PBA Local 136 -- sued Avigliano, saying he had no power to order the tests. The 10 police officers all submitted to drug tests, and none tested positive for illegal substances.

Avigliano said the investigation into steroid and cocaine use among police officers was nearly foiled by a leak, just as the prosecutor's task force was about to make a series of arrests.

The leak forced the prosecutor's task force to begin making arrests a day earlier than anticipated.

The leak also gave steroid users time to ingest so-called "masking agents" that could hide the illegal growth hormones in their blood systems.

The investigation eventually led to the arrest of five police officers.

Merick Limsky, lawyer for the Passaic County police unions, was disappointed with Monday's decision.

He said it "blurs the lines between what is a criminal investigation and an administrative function." The unions have not decided whether to appeal the ruling to the state Supreme Court.

Wondering why cops get off easy on drug testing

Monday, April 17, 2006

H e's one of those ground-level guys who can interpret street-top hieroglyphics, the spray-painted lines used to map the underworld for construction workers.

"Blue's water. Green's for sewer. Orange is communication -- Qwest, cable, all that. Yellow, that's us -- gas."

His name is Jim Walker, but friends and co-workers at Northwest Natural Gas know him as J.W. On this day, like most workdays for the past 17 years, he's working outdoors, the cold spring rain misting his glasses as he and a partner measure the depth of gas lines along Gloucester Street in Gladstone.

Walker, 58, starts his workday at 7 a.m. in a NW Natural locker room. Some mornings, before the crews head out, a mobile van pulls up outside and a supervisor announces which workers have been selected for random drug testing.

Walker was one of dozens of people who called or e-mailed me after last week's column about the lack of random drug testing at the Clackamas County Sheriff's Office.

Most of the callers were guys like Walker, men who'd spent their careers driving big trucks, operating heavy equipment or laying utility lines. All of them were upset that all police officers aren't being held to the same drug-testing standards.

"I understand why I'm tested," said Walker. "I work with gas, I'm operating equipment. I drive 30,000-pound trucks. But how is it possible that policemen are not tested?"

The courts have supported random testing of workers when public safety outweighs the worker's Fourth Amendment privacy rights.

But when it comes to law enforcement, the rulings have been mixed depending on the specific nature of the police work. The courts have held that police work varies too much for all cops to meet the required public safety standard. And even when cops do meet the standard, any random drug-testing policy must be established as part of the police union's collective bargaining agreement.

But it can be done. In cop shops from New York to Oregon, police unions have signed off on random drug-testing for all their members.

Mom-and-pop drug testing

By Raquel Rutledge

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

MILWAUKEE â€” Desperate parents dissatisfied with old-school ways of trying to tell whether their kids are doing drugs â€” rifling through their drawers, smelling their breath, searching their eyes â€” are now instead demanding proof.

They're dragging their teens to drug-testing labs and buying home testing kits by the case over the Internet.

"I tell my daughter, 'If you want to go out tonight, you're going to pee in a cup first,' " said Suzanne Fugarino, whose 17-year-old daughter was expelled from high school last fall after bringing a crack pipe to school.

In some areas, schools, too, are getting on board, hanging banners and sending home brochures backing testmyteen.com, a Web-based company that promotes home drug tests for children.

And the practice is quietly exploding.

Internet companies and drug-testing labs report huge upswings in teen testing and sales of home drug-screening kits.

"[Business] has been awesome," said Debra Auer, co-owner of Express Drug Screening in Milwaukee.

Sales of home testing kits and visits to the lab by teen-toting parents have tripled in the last four years, Auer said.

Drugteststrips.com says its sales have quadrupled in the past five years, and another testing lab, Noble Diagnostics, says sales of home kits have jumped 30 percent in the past nine months or so.

Deterrent â€” and excuse

"From a parent's perspective, it's the most empowering thing in the world," said Kim Hildreth, a Dallas mother who tests her children and sells home testing kits online at drugtestyourteen.com.

"You're lying awake at night, staring at the ceiling, worried to death all the time," Hildreth said. "You catch them in little fibs. You don't know if they're where they say they are. You worry. There's no reason for that."

Hildreth and other proponents call drug testing a powerful deterrent and say it gives teens a socially acceptable reason to reject drug use.

She estimates that she sells dozens of the tests kits to Washington state residents each month, many going to Puyallup.

"We taught them to 'Just Say No,' but we never told them what to say next," said Mason Duchatschek, owner of testmyteen.com.

Teens who are tested can tell their friends that their parents test them and that they will lose cellphone, car or other privileges, and their peers understand that, Duchatschek said.

One test that failed

Home drug tests typically cost $6 to $15 for one test that can detect between five and 10 different drugs, such as marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamines, opiates and benzodiazepines. Parents dip the test into a cup of urine, and results appear within minutes.

Matt Muir, a 17-year-old high-school senior from Michigan, objects to his mother's recent purchase of home drug tests. Muir says his occasional marijuana use causes no problems in his life and that his mother shouldn't worry. His grades are fine, he said. He's already been accepted into three good universities, and he'll soon be living on his own. He doesn't smoke every day and never before school, and he's not turning to "harder" drugs, he said.

"I think her fears are overdrawn and exaggerated," he said.

When his mother tried to force him to urinate in a cup while she stood in the bathroom facing the wall, he decided he would rather admit to his drug use than go through the embarrassment.

"I've given a lot of thought to what she's supposed to do," Muir said. "It's really tough. I guess look the other way, but not approve of it. It strikes me that parents that are OK with it are not good people."

Break or build trust?

Some groups say home drug testing can harm relationships with children.

The Drug Policy Alliance, a national nonprofit agency that promotes an overhaul of the nation's approach to drug problems, says parental testing tears at the bond between children and adults.

"It can have consequences of breaking down communication, of creating rebellion, breaking down relationships of trust," said Jennifer Kern, a research associate with the office of legal affairs for the Drug Policy Alliance.

Drug testing of teens should be done by medical professionals who can better interpret test results and refer parents to appropriate resources if necessary, Kern said.

Rachael Fugarino, the teen busted for bringing a crack pipe to school, said she was angry when her mom started screening her for drugs but that eventually it was helpful.

"At first I tried to get other people's pee to try to pass the test," she said. "Then I realized if I opened up and communicated, it helped. It helped to have her know what I was doing."

Fugarino said drugs, especially crack cocaine, nearly destroyed her. She said she tried any and every drug and would do anything to get money for drugs. She stole and forged checks, sold her mom's jewelry and borrowed money from anybody who would give it to her.

She's been clean for about six months and is working toward her GED.

The home drug tests now serve as a way for Fugarino to prove she's clean and earn back her mom's trust, she said.

And when her mom and stepfather apologize â€” as they often do â€” for the things they've done and still do to prevent her drug use, "I tell them, 'You don't need to apologize. I know you're just doing it to help me,' " Fugarino said. "And I'm glad that they did."

For Suzanne Fugarino, the tests offer an end to secretly digging in her daughter's purse when her daughter is in the shower as she used to do. An end to the accusations and guesswork and, she desperately hopes, an end to all the lies.

"They will tell you anything. 'I'm sorry. I will never do this again,' " she said of teens on drugs. "They know what you want to hear, and you want to believe them. But the moment they're free and out, they're right back at it.

"At least now she can't lie to me no longer."

Drug testing, â€œthe New McCarthyismâ€

By Ben Donovan

â€œAre you now, or have you ever been, a marijuana user?â€

Sound familiar? It should; during the 1950s, the United States lived in fear of the witch-hunt for communists led by Senator Joseph McCarthy. Today, he is dead, communism is no longer a terror, and the country has moved on. Weâ€™ve found a new monster: drugs.

As part of his 2007 budget proposal, President Bush proposed setting aside $15 million for random drug testing in schools as a condition of participating in any after-school activities.

Yes, that President Bush, the former alcoholic and coke-head with three DUIâ€™s under his belt. Apparently cowboys donâ€™t get irony. Drug testing would be mandatory and unannounced, and schools that did not require the tests would not be eligible for federal funds.

Problems with required testing

One main problem is what to do with students who test positive. Do they simply punish everyone who tests positive for THC, regardless of whether or not they ever possessed marijuana on school grounds?

This is the flaw in drug testing: since THC stays in the body for about one month, anyone who has smoked marijuana at any time in the month before their drug test will test positive. Students who test positive may have never been high at school or any school-sponsored activities, yet presumably they will still be punished.

Another problem is this federally-mandated drug testing will only be required for clubs and after-school activities. Yeah, weâ€™ve all heard about the sketchy stuff that goes down at those Key Club meetings.

Seriously, doesnâ€™t this just seem pointless? Most of the stoners at McLean are out engaging in their own â€œextra-curriculars,â€ as one alumnus recently put it, not at club meetings.

Culture of fear

Drug testing is just the latest manifestation of the culture of fear that we have built up. Where McCarthy once told us that Hollywood was rife with communists, President Bush now tells us that our after-school clubs are full of pot-heads.

We have laws that put people who smoke pot behind bars for the same amount of time as people who commit rape or armed robbery.

Commercials on TV tell us that marijuana is a menace and that your pot money supports terrorism. In a country where the alcohol and tobacco industries are not only condoned, but subsidized by the government, the war against drugs has somehow become a moral crusade.

The war on drugs has become a witch-hunt, in the tradition of Puritan New England and the anti-communist hysteria of the â€˜50s. When it comes to our policy on drugs, America, as social critic Eric Schlosser put it in his book Reefer Madness, â€œis caught in the grip of a deep psychosis.â€

Prevalence of drug use

Letâ€™s be honest. There are marijuana users among us. More than suburban America would like to admit. A Highlander poll last year showed that 60 percent of McLean students had tried marijuana at least once by their junior year.

But the parents of middle-class America would rather stick their heads in the sand and pretend that all these pot-smokers who have infiltrated our after-school clubs are somebody elseâ€™s kids.

And so they forgo the moral outrage whenever someone gets put in jail with murderers and rapists for getting high. Hey, itâ€™s not your kid, right? Well, judging by the numbers, it is your kid. Perhaps the baby-boomer generation should try talking to their children once in a while instead of incarcerating them.

Privacy of students

Do some students who participate in extra-curricular activities smoke pot? Yes. More than the parents and teachers at McLean will ever know. As a student at McLean who knows a pretty good amount of people, I could sit here and rattle off a list of dozens of seemingly â€œgoodâ€ kids who get high on occasion.

Students in the chorus or the band or the French honor society, or even the student government. I wonâ€™t, because unlike the Fascists behind this anti-drug hysteria, I respect othersâ€™ privacy.

But rest assured, among the students who contribute a lot to this school, there are some who might fail these drug tests, who might be forced to give up their after-school activities for fear of being caught. Students who use marijuana recreationally, perhaps only once a month or less, will be further marginalized and lumped in with stoners who toke up every day.

Standards for drug testing

There is some legal precedent for such action. In Vernonia School District 47Jv. Action, 1996, the Supreme Court ruled that schools could perform â€œsuspicionless drug tests as a condition of athletic participation.â€ This is a little more understandable; athletes need to keep their bodies healthy and free of all illegal substances. But drug tests for after-school clubs?

Drug doesnâ€™t mean evil

No one is arguing that smoking pot is a good thing. Obviously, itâ€™s unhealthy; you are essentially burning a plant made out of poison and inhaling it.

But it doesnâ€™t make a person evil, and what a person does outside of school, so long as it does not cause trouble which directly affects the school, should not be grounds for denying them the right to enrich their high-school experience by participating in extra-curricular activities.

On second thought, maybe we should test the Environmental Club. You never know what kind of â€œorganic cropsâ€ those hippies might be growing...

Drug use can damage the brain and lead to addiction

By Tina Hesman Saey

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

04/01/2006

Teenagers who drink, smoke and use drugs can derail their brain development and set themselves up for lifelong addiction.

And parents who strictly monitor their teens' behavior are one of the most influential forces preventing kids from using drugs and alcohol.

Now that might not sound like news to you.

But truth is, until recently most of what science has known about addiction in teenagers has been extrapolated from research in adults. Now, new brain-imaging studies have shown that the teenage brain is a rapidly-changing organ and doesn't work the way an adult brain does. Researchers now believe that drugs and alcohol can disrupt that massive renovation of the brain during adolescence, making it more vulnerable to drugs and easier for teens to get addicted.

And scientists say that an addiction that starts early in life is harder to kick than one that starts later. Nearly half of kids who are regular drinkers before age 14 will become alcoholics, said Dr. Danielle Dick, a clinical psychologist and geneticist at Washington University. That puts early drinkers at three times greater risk of alcohol addiction than people who wait until age 21 to start drinking, she said.

Percy Menzies, director of the Assisted Recovery Centers of America, an addiction treatment center in St. Louis, says that "When people come to us and say they started drinking as teenagers, we know we have our work cut out."

Epidemiological studies have shown that most addictions start in adolescence, said Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. And when a teenager's pleasure-chemical systems aren't fully developed and then get wired to depend on substances for feeling good, the normal flow of brain chemicals that aid in learning, decision making and other key processes are often blocked, Volkow said.

Parents are the key

In adults, genetics are more than 50 percent responsible for addiction to alcohol. So people have long assumed that genes are the biggest reason kids drink, too.

But new studies of twins in Finland and Missouri showed no evidence that genetics contributed to alcohol-dependence in 14-year-olds, Dick said.

Instead, Dick said, parental monitoring is one of the most consistent predictors of whether teens start using alcohol and other drugs.

And that means more than just having a good relationship with your kids. A good, warm relationship doesn't mean kids are going to tell parents what they are doing, or with whom.

"Parents might say, 'Oh, if they were doing that, they'd tell me,' but the reality is, they probably won't," Dick said. What works is knowing where children are, who they are with and what they are doing. Children with the highest level of parental monitoring were less likely to start drinking or using drugs, Dick said.

For an addiction to take hold, kids must be exposed to addictive substances. So young adolescents who never have a chance to smoke or drink avoid stirring up a genetic predisposition to addiction. In a more permissive environment, genes may rear their heads.

Once teens start to drink or use drugs, the consequences turn severe. Recent studies show that teens who start using marijuana before they turn 17 are at higher risk of developing schizophrenia than people who didn't use or started smoking marijuana later in adolescence or young adulthood.

Marijuana has often been called a gateway drug, a substance that can lead to use of more harmful drugs. Most researchers agree that marijuana doesn't necessarily set up the brain for further addictions, but does give kids practice in obtaining illicit substances and access to a subculture where harder drugs are available.

The real gateway drug may be nicotine, experts say. Most kids try cigarettes before other drugs.

Researchers compared sets of identical twins in which one twin started smoking before age 17 and the other twin smoked later. Twins who started smoking before age 17 became addicted to other substances, such as alcohol or other drugs, more readily than their twins who waited, Volkow said. Because identical twins have the same genetic make-up, the addiction of early-smoking twins can't be chalked up to genetic susceptibility alone, she said.

Cigarette smoking also can disrupt memory and attention, said Dr. Leslie Jacobsen, a psychiatrist at Yale University. But withdrawal from cigarettes is also bad, she said.

"Once you're dependent, you're always confronted with a certain amount of nicotine withdrawal," she said.

"Children get addicted to smoking more quickly than they expect, and many aren't even aware that they are dependent," she said.

Brain is at risk

Even teens who just binge drink on weekends can hurt their brains, said Susan F. Tapert, an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of California San Diego. Her measurements of a seahorse-shaped part of the brain, called the hippocampus, revealed that drinkers had shrunken hippocampuses compared with teens who don't drink. That is important because the hippocampus is one of the regions of the brain most responsible for learning and memory.

Tapert doesn't see the same dramatic change in the hippocampus of marijuana smokers.

But that may not matter, Jacobsen said.

"It's not just how the brain looks, but how it works that's important," she said.

Teens who smoke marijuana - even those who have stopped using for a month - need to expend much more mental energy to do simple tasks, Tapert said.

For instance, marijuana smokers retain 5 percent to 10 percent less information when listening to a story. That difference may not seem big, but could make the difference between passing or failing a test in school.

A University of Missouri study of college-age students showed that chronic binge drinkers make bad decisions in other parts of life. Researchers at the Midwest Alcoholism Research Center in Columbia tested 19 and 20-year-olds on a decision-making task involving gambling risks. People who were chronic binge drinkers more often made decisions that would put them at high risk for losing money, said Kenneth J. Sher, director of the center.

The binge drinkers weren't more impulsive or thrill-seeking than their non-drinking counterparts and they scored similarly on the ACT college entrance exam. But bad decision making on the gambling test was also associated with making unwise decisions about drinking in life. The heaviest drinkers had their first full drink at age 13, and were bingeing on almost 18 drinks per week by the fall of the their freshman year in college.

The researchers don't know whether the students are heavy binge drinkers because they are bad at decision-making or if the alcohol impairs their ability to make good decisions, Sher said.

Either way, students get set in their ways earlier than many parents realize, he said.

"Most drinking patterns are set before they get to college," Sher said.

Parents unwittingly give young teens access to alcohol. Few parents think to lock up their liquor cabinets, Sher said.

"I think parents are clueless," he said. And many have a strong case of denial. "They don't think their kids would ever drink."

The concern that some parents have about being hypocritical when telling their kids not to smoke, drink or use marijuana is misplaced in light of the data on how drugs affect young brains, Volkow said.

Parents often don't realize that the weed their children are smoking is far more powerful than the herb kids smoked a decade ago, Volkow said. The concentration of THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) the main active chemical in marijuana, has risen from 2 percent of the active ingredients to 14 percent, she said.

As grim as the picture is for teens who use drugs, tobacco or alcohol, there is some good news. Because the teen brain is still developing, it may be able to recover from the harm of substance use if teens clean up their acts.

My Mother the Narc

Do home drug-testing kits help or hurt teens?

By Sarah Childress

Newsweek

April 10, 2006 issue - It took Mike Peterson three years to find out that his 15-year-old son had a drug problem. He'd noticed that the once-charming A and B student with a love of Superman paraphernalia had become angry and withdrawn, and was in danger of flunking out of school. But his son repeatedly denied using drugs. Finally, at home in St. Clair, Mo., Peterson turned to the Internet, where he found a site that sold home drug-testing kits for parents. He told his son he wasn't leaving the house until he turned over a urine sample. Peterson was stunned and hurt when his son tested positive for cocaine, marijuana and amphetamines. "He had a problemâ€”a genuine problem," Peterson says. "Thank God we caught it before he hit rock bottom."

Parents used to rifle through their kid's coat pockets to figure out if he was using drugs. Now they can just hand him a little cup and point to the bathroom door. Home drug-testing has boomed as a cheap, private and, advocates say, foolproof way to monitor teenage behavior. Online sales of the kits, which range from $15 to $25, have exploded in the last decade, with some 200 Web sites aimed at parents. Particularly popular are simple urine tests that show results in minutes. Now the industry's getting even more of a boost. Over the past two years, the Office of National Drug Control Policy has championed the controversial practice of random drug testing in middle and high schools. But for some school officials, the high cost of tests and the threat of legal challenges and protests from outraged parents have led them to pass the cup. In states like Missouri, Wisconsin and Texas, schools are hanging banners, passing out pamphlets and holding information sessions to encourage parents to visit a Web site, buy a kit and drug-test their own teenagers at home.

St. James R-1 School District in meth-ravaged Missouri was the first to try it out this fall. It called on Mason Duchatschek, owner of testmyteen.com to help promote the program to parents. It held an information session at the high school, hoping to attract 100 parents. About 700 showed up. Parents responded so well, officials say, that the district is applying for a $100,000 federal grant to expand the program to eighth graders.

There's already a heated debate over testing in schools, which hasn't been proved conclusively to deter drug use. Not everybody thinks home testing is a good idea, either. Online stores don't always educate parents about how to perform the tests or interpret results accurately, according to a 2004 study from the Center for Adolescent Substance Abuse Research at Children's Hospital in Boston. Other critics say it erodes the trust between parents and children and may create a mind-set of secrecy that discourages parents from seeking professional help.

But kit sellers argue that home tests are just the first step in dealing with drug use. They're most effective in deterring teens who haven't tried drugs, which is why they say no home with a teenager should be without them. "Parents tell me, 'My kid's in the choir!' Well, you know what? Whitney Houston was in the choir," says Duchatschek. So was Peterson's son. Now 16, he's been clean for nine months, but Peterson still doesn't hesitate to wake him at 3 a.m. for a urine test. "It kinda makes me feel like he doesn't trust me sometimes, but I can kinda see where he's coming from," says the younger Peterson. It was, he says, the only way he could come clean.

With Ellen F. Harris

Drug drivers passing roadside tests

10 April 2006

Almost one third of drivers who tested positive for illegal drugs were able to pass roadside 'sobriety' tests, new research has revealed.
Research conducted by Glasgow University found that a significant number of drivers stopped by the police on suspicion of driving under the influence of drink or drugs were able to successfully complete the Field Impairment Tests, despite some having drugs such as heroin in their system.
Field Impairment Tests test a person's ability to carry out tasks, involving balance, judgement and ability to follow complex instructions. However, they do not test for the presence of specific substances in the body.
The tests are based on techniques used by police to detect drink drivers before the introduction of breath tests thirty years ago.
The RAC Foundation said that there was an "urgent need" to roll out roadside drug-testing equipment to detect drug drivers, because drug driving was increasing across the UK, particularly among drivers aged between 17-24.
The RAC said that more than a quarter of young people in London know someone who has driven after taking illegal drugs and one in ten say that their friends do it regularly.
A recent Manchester survey found that 45% of drivers questioned had driven while under the influence of drugs, while 68% had been a passenger in a car driven by someone high on drugs.
Sue Nicholson, Head of Campaigns for the RAC Foundation, said: "There has been a sharp increase in the number of young drivers killed on our roads, and we suspect drug-driving may play a large part in this.
"The latest research shows that some drug-drivers can escape detection by the Field Impairment Tests. While these are the best tests we currently have available to us, we believe there is an urgent need to improve detection techniques and equipment available to our police."
(KMcA)

Monday, April 24, 2006

Drug Test Developed for Saliva, Sweat

ONESBORO, Ark. â€” Drug detection as easy as taking a swipe of someone's sweat could someday be in the hands of law enforcement, thanks to research conducted at the Arkansas Biosciences Institute at Arkansas State University.

"The hardest problems in science are often solved with just one question," said Robyn Hannigan, associate professor of chemistry and physics at ASU.

During testing of tobacco smoke, fellow researcher Roger Buchanan asked Hannigan to develop a test that would allow him to measure the amount of nicotine absorbed by lab rats.

He wanted a test that was a lot faster than traditional tests, which require a blood sample to be analyzed.

Hannigan and her students developed a swipe test to allow a drop of saliva or sweat to be measured.

"Then we thought, 'Hey, if you can do this for a drug like nicotine, why not cannabis or methamphetamine?' It turns out you can," Hannigan said.

Hannigan patented the process and is now working to develop it into a working model for human testing. She and her company, Hyphenated Solutions Inc., have begun pursuing Federal Drug Administration approval for the technique and grants from the National Institutes of Health.

Drug tests don't FIT the Bill

As Andrew Legion reports, experimental roadside drug tests have proved unreliable.

Almost one-third of drivers who tested positive for illegal drugs were able to pass roadside sobriety tests, according to new research conducted by the University of Glasgow. The tests, conducted by specially trained police officers using so-called Field Impairment Tests (FIT), failed to detect a number of drivers who later were proved to have drugs in their bloodstream. In fact, the police achieved only a 66 per cent success rate in detecting drug-impaired drivers. Those escaping detection included a number with significant levels of heroin present in their system. Most of the motorists subjected to the FIT procedure were also asked for a saliva swab, which was later analysed by the university. The swabs were anonymous and could not be identified with any particular driver, but they did enable the police to check the veracity of the FIT results. Field Impairment Tests do not expose the presence of specific substances in the body. Instead they test a person's ability to carry out tasks involving balance, judgement, and ability to follow complex instructions, much as the American roadside sobriety test. Almost entirely subjective, FIT relies on the judgement and experience of the police officer conducting the test. In consequence, road-safety organizations, such as the RAC Foundation, have questioned whether the Field Impairment Tests are indeed 'FIT for purpose'. Researchers at Edinburgh University are testing a hand-held, electronic system, which could make the test more objective. In addition, equipment to detect the presence of drugs in the body is being developed by other UK scientists, although the Home Office has not yet formally approved any device for roadside use. Even so, the RAC Foundation believes that there is an urgent need to roll out objective roadside testing equipment to detect drug-drivers, and points out that drink-driving plummeted when the breathalyser was introduced. The fight against drug-driving is made more difficult by the need to prove not just that the driver has taken drugs, but also that their driving is impaired as a result. Whilst it is an offence under the Road Traffic Act 1998 for a person to drive while their 'â€¦.ability to drive properly is for the time being impaired' by drink or drugs, there is no objective test for impairment, nor a legal definition of impairment in the Road Traffic Act; and there is no offence of driving in breach of a prescribed limit, as is the case for drink-driving. Unfortunately, the waters are further muddied by the fact that some proprietary medicines â€“ which, of course, are also 'drugs' â€“ could in certain conditions have the same effect upon a driver as illicit drugs, and may reveal traces of banned substances in much the same manner as proprietary medicines taken by athletes. In these circumstances, drivers who have taken nothing more illicit than, say, cough mixture, could find themselves on the wrong side of the law and potentially facing a driving ban. But whatever the shortcomings of roadside drug-testing, something must be done, urges the RAC Foundation, which points to some worrying statistics that give credence to its concerns. For example, in a recent Manchester survey, 45 per cent of drivers questioned had driven after taking drugs, and 68 per cent had been a passenger in a car driven by someone high on drugs. During the 2005 Christmas drink-drive crack-down in England and Wales, one in three drivers tested on suspicion of being drug-impaired was found to be so severely impaired that an arrest resulted. The police rightly argue that it is not simply a matter of enforcing drug-related laws. Even when sober, young people are already more likely to be involved in a road-traffic fatality than older drivers, and a cocktail of inexperience, alcohol and drugs vastly increases this risk. Sue Nicholson, Head of Campaigns for the RAC Foundation, said: "There has been a sharp increase in the number of young drivers killed on our roads, and we suspect drug-driving may play a large part in this. The latest research shows that some drug-drivers can escape detection by the Field Impairment Tests. While these are the best tests we currently have available to us, we believe there is an urgent need to improve detection techniques and equipment available to our police."

Drug testing expands to all county workers

By Jim Tiffin
Cibola County Bureau

GRANTS â€” Cibola County is changing its drug testing policy to include all employees and there will be zero tolerance if any employee tests positive, beginning probably in May, said County Manager David Ulibarri.

"We felt we were not treating all employees equally, and it will help our employees be drug-free," he said.

Currently the county only tests those who have high-risk positions with the county, such as Road Department, Sheriff's Department and the Cibola County Detention Center employees, he said.

All employees have an employee number and are entered into a computer. The computer will then randomly draw the employee's number for testing.

"The employee's supervisor or department head will then find the employee and escort them to Dr. Gutierrez's clinic or Cibola General Hospital," Ulibarri said.

Testing will be for illegal drugs from a urine sample, he said.

Ulibarri placed himself on the test list with the other high risk employees years ago and has been tested negatively twice, he said.

Commissioner Frank Emerson asked during the commission meeting Monday if the members of the commission were to be tested, Ulibarri said.

"The commissioners are not tested because they are elected," Ulibarri said.

"There is an amnesty," he said. "If an employee has a problem and they go to their department head and ask for help, we will help them.

"We will give them days off if needed and work with them any way we can to get them clean, but if the computer spits out their number and they are tapped on the shoulder and then say, 'I have a problem,' it's too late; they're gone," he said.

"We figure it is also a deterrent," he said. "If the employee decides to go out and party, or they are taking their spouse's pills for something they do not have a prescription for, that's too bad, it's illegal and they're gone," he said.

Those employees who have a legal and legitimate prescription from a doctor for medication they are taking, and test positive for that medicine, have no problem, Ulibarri said.

"But, those employees should tell their department head what medicine they are taking," he said.

The change in policy is expected to be approved by the commission at its May 8 meeting.

To contact reporter Jim Tiffin call (505) 287-2197 or e-mail: tiffin.independent@yahoo.com

Bonds, scandal have turned steroids into baseball's slimy little secret

COMMENTARY: KIRK BOHLS

AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Friday, April 21, 2006

When Mark McGwire launched his 62nd home run of the 1998 season on a glorious September evening in St. Louis to rewrite one of the most cherished records in all of sports, Commissioner Bud Selig turned to Cardinals icon Stan Musial in their box seats at Busch Stadium and said, "This is the beginning of a renaissance."

It was.

Cue the violins.

That same year, Barry Bonds latched onto muscle-bound gym rat Greg Anderson and soon hired him as his personal trainer. Within two years, Anderson would connect with Victor Conte, the owner of a Bay Area laboratory.

And some seven years after McGwire's record-smashing season to save the sport, Conte was sentenced to four months in jail after pleading guilty to a steroid conspiracy charge that has implicated the game's greatest player.

This time, Selig turned his eyes.

Fortunately, others did not.

Thanks to a federal grand jury in San Francisco, Ken Caminiti's near-deathbed revelations, heat from a Congressional inquiry and one of the most explosive sports books ever, this could mark the beginning of what many hope is a reclamation.

Hopefully, baseball fans will eventually reclaim their sport and reconnect to a time when a home run was the product of nothing more than hard work and a keen batting eye, and when a record was something to be treasured, not something in need of a punctuation mark.

Asks Howard Bryant, a Washington Post sports reporter and author of a book on the infestation of drugs in major league baseball, "Is it possible to have a renaissance and a scandal at the same time?"

Apparently.

But the collision at home plate, Pete Rose-Ray Fosse style, may still be coming. Reality can do that.

Baseball's attendance numbers are up although that's due in part to the wild influx of new stadiums with spiked fan support early on. So is the game's rising popularity, but some of that may be traced to the full-blown cottage industry of fantasy baseball leagues and video games.

With the sport's biggest slugger under investigation for possible perjury before a federal grand jury, baseball remains mired in one of its most impure scandals that has impugned the integrity of the game and those who play and run it. Even Major League Baseball has pulled its head from the sand and belatedly chosen to investigate the biggest morass since the Black Sox scandal of 1919.

Left unchecked for far too long, the steroid era has done incalculable damage to the sport.

Those involved in the problem include a do-nothing commissioner who looked the other way; greedy, bottom-line owners; a players association more interested in salary than safety and in hits instead of health; a neglectful media uninterested in unearthing the fallacy of so many shattered records; a doting public that worshipped at the feet of Bonds, McGwire and Sammy Sosa; and chicks who dug the long ball.

Everyone else, of course, is clean.

Baseball should have started by testing minor leaguers far earlier. Bonds, who hasn't been tested any more than any other player even though his trainer pleaded guilty to steroid conspiracy, should be tested every day. More stringent, Olympic-style drug-testing is needed. Research on a urine test for human growth hormone is being done.

Any backlash in the bleachers has been incremental.

Lance Williams, one of the San Francisco Chronicle co-authors of the exhaustively researched book about Bonds and steroids called "Game of Shadows," said fans process such complex dirty laundry in a far different way than they viscerally appreciate a Bonds home run.

"You're building discomfort among the fans," Williams said Thursday at an enlightening UT journalism symposium concerning athletes and performance-enhancing drugs. "They don't like it, and they're going to turn away. They've done terrible damage."

Echoed co-author Mark Fainaru-Wada, "I think baseball thinks it has weathered the storm. There's this notion that they've eradicated the problem. But they're far from done dealing with this."

Especially since the focus of all this mistrust flirts with eclipsing Babe Ruth and eventually Hank Aaron for the most home runs in history. So how does the nation properly celebrate those moments? Williams predicts "a grotesque scene."

The game has undoubtedly suffered. And continues to do so as it stumbles along under the dark clouds of suspicion.

"There will absolutely be cheating as long as they play the game," said T.J. Quinn, New York Daily News investigative reporter. "Yes, baseball knew there was cheating. And, yes, they turned a blind eye. There was a willful ignorance. If it wasn't an economic matter, it wasn't important."

The Giants have fallen into that same financial trap. Bonds' gate attraction helped build their privately financed ballpark. In turn, the team allowed Bonds' personal trainer, stretching coach and strength coach total access to the team clubhouse in the face of baseball's edict against such personnel.

"The honest answer is," Williams said, "Barry Bonds is bigger than the Giants, and they've got to do whatever he wants."

In the meantime, baseball tries to clean its own house and rid itself of all that has disgraced the game. While baseball's investigation clearly focuses on Bonds, it would be totally remiss if it did not include every other slugger as well as all the pitchers who use the drugs to hasten recovery time.

That remains baseball's slimy little secret.

"If they do it right," Williams said, "steroids will be an interruption sort of like the early '30s when the ball was juiced. I can't imagine they will do anything with the records because they never have."

Barring the use of a barrelful of asterisks, baseball may just sigh and compartmentalize this decade-long era of misguided excess and treat it like the doddering aunt in the room. Don't mind her, she's not really there.

This is how baseball will try to reconnect to the game of Clemente and Mays and Musial. This is how America can spiritually restore the records of Maris and Ruth and Aaron. The real records.

Hopefully, second basemen won't be swinging for the fences quite so often. Those blockbuster home run seasons will be reserved for legitimate power hitters. And maybe, just maybe, chicks will dig natural baseball, and we'll enjoy a real renaissance.

kbohls@statesman.com

More parents testing teens at home for drug use

RAQUEL RUTLEDGE

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Desperate parents dissatisfied with old-school ways of trying to tell whether their kids are doing drugs - rifling through their drawers, smelling their breath, searching their eyes - are now instead demanding proof.

They're dragging their teens to drug testing labs and buying home testing kits by the case over the Internet and individually at places like Walgreens.

"I tell my daughter if you want to go out tonight you're going to pee in a cup first," said Suzanne Fugarino, whose 17-year-old daughter was expelled from high school last fall after bringing a crack pipe to school.

Schools, too, are getting on board, hanging banners and sending home brochures backing testmyteen.com, a Web-based company that promotes home drug tests for children.

Although random drug testing in schools - heavily promoted by the White House - has drawn some fire from the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Academy of Pediatrics, among others, parental testing of teens has gotten far less attention.

And the practice is quietly exploding.

Internet companies and drug-testing labs report huge upswings in teen testing and sales of home drug screening kits.

"(Business) has been awesome," said Debra Auer, co-owner of Express Drug Screening in Milwaukee

Sales of home testing kits and visits to the lab by teen-toting parents have tripled in the last four years, Auer said.

Drugteststrips.com says its sales have quadrupled in the last five years, and another testing lab, Noble Diagnostics, says sales of home kits have jumped 30 percent in the last nine months or so.

"From a parent's perspective, it's the most empowering thing in the world," said Kim Hildreth, a Dallas mother who tests her own children and sells home-testing kits online at drugtestyourteen.com.

Hildreth and other proponents call drug testing a powerful deterrent and say it gives teens a socially acceptable reason to reject drug use.

"We taught them to 'Just Say No,' but we never told them what to say next," said Mason Duchatschek, owner of testmyteen.com.

Teens who are tested can tell their friends that their parents test them and that they will lose cell phone, car or other privileges, and their peers understand that, Duchatschek said.

Matt Muir, a 17-year-old high school senior from Michigan, objects to his mother's recent purchase of home drug tests. Muir says his occasional marijuana use causes no problems in his life and that his mother shouldn't worry. His grades are fine, he said. He's already been accepted into three good universities and he'll soon be living on his own. He doesn't smoke every day and never before school, and he's not turning to other "harder" drugs, he said.

"I think her fears are overdrawn and exaggerated," he said.

When his mother tried to force him to urinate in a cup while she stood in the bathroom facing the wall, he decided he would rather admit to his drug use than go through the embarrassment.

Some groups say home drug testing can harm relationships with children.

The Drug Policy Alliance, a national non-profit agency that promotes an overhaul of the nation's approach to drug problems, says parental testing tears at the bond between children and adults.

Drug testing of teens should be done by medical professionals who can better interpret test results and refer parents to appropriate resources if necessary, Kern said.

Rachael Fugarino, the teen busted for bringing a crack pipe to school, said she was angry when her mom started screening her for drugs but that eventually it was helpful.

"At first I tried to get other people's pee to try to pass the test," she said. "Then I realized if I opened up and communicated it helped. It helped to have her know what I was doing."

Rachael Fugarino said drugs, especially crack cocaine, nearly destroyed her. She said she tried any and every drug and would do anything to get money for drugs. She stole and forged checks, sold her mom's jewelry and borrowed money from anybody who would give it to her.

She's been clean for about six months and is working toward her GED.

The home drug tests now serve as a way for Fugarino to prove she's clean and earn back her mom's trust, she said.

And when her mom and stepfather apologize - as they often do - for the things they've done and still do to prevent her drug use, "I tell them, 'You don't need to apologize. I know you're just doing it to help me,' " Fugarino said. "And I'm glad that they did."

"They will tell you anything. 'I'm sorry. I will never do this again,' " she said of teens on drugs. "They know what you want to hear and you want to believe them. But the moment they're free and out, they're right back at it.

"At least now she can't lie to me no longer."

Steroid punishment not enough

High school-age use of steroids is at an all-time high at an estimated 6 percent to 11 percent of males.

By Corey Jordin

total of 4,256 hits and a career batting average of .303, who do these numbers belong to? None other than the great but controversial Pete Rose.

Rose was one of the all-time great hitters in baseball, but made a mistake by gambling on the sport. What was his punishment? A lifetime suspension and ban from the Baseball Hall of Fame. Last season, another baseball great, Rafael Palmeiro, made a bad mistake. But he didnâ€™t bet on baseball; he legitimately cheated and was caught when he tested positive for a performance-enhancing drug. What was his punishment? A suspension of only 10 days. Even worse than this lack of punishment is that within the next 10 years, there is a chance that Palmeiro, a cheater and someone less worthy of the hall of fame will enter it, while Rose never will have the chance. Baseball commissioner Bud Selig tried to apply more pressure to the playersâ€™ association to increase punishment for steroid use.

The other three major sports associations also have problems with their steroid policies. The NFL is by far the highest-praised of the four major sports with suspensions of four games, six games and one year for the first, second and third positive tests, respectively. But the NFL does not use blood testing. This can allow designer steroids â€” like those created by Victor Conte of Balco, the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative Sports Nutrition Center, who has been in the news lately with connections to athletes like Barry Bonds, Marion Jones and Jason Giambi â€” to beat the steroid test. The two other major sports associations are also in a bad, if not worse, situation as Major League Baseball. The NBA, for example, only suspends first-time offenders for five games and the NHL does not even test for performance-enhancing drugs!

Steroid punishment needs to be stepped up to show other professional athletes that using them is unacceptable. Given the possible side effects of steroid use â€” high blood pressure, liver tumors, â€œroid rage,â€ depression and shrinking of testicles, just to name a few â€” steroid use must be put to a stop now, not only for the safety of these professional athletes and the legitimacy of the sports we love, but also for the future safety of children and adolescents who look up to these individuals.

Already, high school-age use of steroids is at an all-time high at an estimated 6 to 11 percent of high school-aged boys reported as having used steroids. Not only are the side effects mentioned above possible in adolescents, but even more problems can arise. Possible growth stunting may occur because the steroids can stunt growth plates. Also, an increase in severe injuries in high school athletes may be attributed to steroid use. This tainting of todayâ€™s youths and sports in general needs to be put to a stop before it gets out of control.

A possible solution supported by many is a policy similar to the one in place in Olympic competition â€” a policy that would extend to all major athletic associations. The World Anti-Doping Agency, which is in charge of drug testing in the Olympics, is widely praised for its tough stance on steroids and even tougher punishments. For example, testing includes blood and urine samples. Testing is also completely random and unannounced and the penalty for one offense is a two-year ban from competition. The commissioners of these leagues need to get together and accept a policy like this. Without tougher punishments in sports, there always will be a cloud of mysteries over these professional leagues and the legitimacy of the sports and athletes we know and love will be questioned forever.

Corey Jordin is a University student. Please send comments to letters@mndaily.com.

Consider drug test at home

It could benefit your teenager

By TERRY L. STAWAR
newsroom@news-tribune.net

Last year over 26 percent of Indiana high school seniors reported that they had rode in a car driven by a drunk driver that year. Over 41 percent indicated that they used alcohol monthly, and over 17 percent reported monthly use of marijuana. This is a sure and certain recipe for tragedy, as recent local events have sadly borne out.

My wife, Diane, who counsels youth and families at Brandonâ€™s House in New Albany, suggested this column after reading in Newsweek how at home drug testing for teen-agers is widely being used to identify teens in need of help.

Non-medical drug testing has grown into a major industry in America. Random drug testing is de rigueur for most sensitive businesses, and in 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court, supported a school districtÃs policy requiring middle and high school students to submit to random drug tests to participate in extra-curricular activities.

In 1997, the Food and Drug Administration approved the first home drug test kit available without prescription. This test was devised by J. Theodore Brown Jr., Ph.D., a psychologist-entrepreneur. Dr. Brown designed his kit to be used by relatives of substance abusers, hoping to prevent relapse in their loved ones. In his system a urine sample was mailed to a certified laboratory in a tamperproof container.

Today hundreds of new products have flooded this market. These tests range from $2.35 cannabis dip-strip tests, to sophisticated professional devices costing hundreds of dollars, that can even detect drug traces on objects. Most home test kits fall in the 25$-35$ range. Some still require sending a sample to a laboratory, but many now can be read at home like home pregnancy tests.

Hair, saliva, breath and most often urine tests are available. Depending on the cost, these tests can screen for a wide variety of substances including: cannabis, cocaine, opiates, amphetamines, methamphetamines, PCP, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, MDMA, oxycodone, methadone, alcohol, tobacco, and even anabolic steroids. Most of these test kits are available on-line, although Walgreens, Target, and other major retailers also carry some of these products on their inventories.

At home drug testing is not without its critics. Concerns relating to privacy and informed consent have been raised, as well as technical issues. Test directions may be complicated, parents may not know which test to select, and false results are always possible. For example, heavy intake of caffeinated coffee or taking pseudoephedrine for a cold may taint results. Other problems include the fact that negative results are difficult to interpret, teenagers may try to defeat the testing by adulterating samples, and some critics are concerned that such testing destroys trust between parents and teens.

When Dr. Brownâ€™s kit was first considered by FDA, columnist Ellen Goodman wrote in The Boston Globe, if thereâ€™s any hedge against trouble, itâ€™s in building a relationship of trust Ask teenagers what they want. They want parents, not parole officers.Ã®

In another article published in the journal Pediatrics in 2002, Dr. Sharon Levy, from Harvard Medical School, citing many issues mentioned above concludes writing â€œWe believe that parents would be better served by a professional assessment for any young person who is suspected of using drugs.â€

But many parents have been frustrated after going to professionals who refuse to test adolescents and who may have little to offer in terms of real help for the complex problem of adolescent substance abuse. Personally, I found Dr. Levyâ€™s article condescending to parents and while I often agree with Ellen Goodman, I think she missed the point this time. Respect and trust for children does not mean burying your head in the sand. It is already much too tempting to deny or minimize such problems.

At the time of the approval of Dr. Brownâ€™s kit, Clinton administration Health and Human Services Secretary, Donna Shalala said â€œThe approval of this test gives parents another option to consider to help ensure that their children remain drug-free.â€

Mason Duchatschek, executive director of a popular at home drug testing company (www.TestMyTeen.com) says that after selling tens of thousands of kits, â€weâ€™ve experienced better than a 99 percent correlation between the results of our testing kits and lab results on the same samples. He believes that such tests offer two main advantages: privacy and the ability to deter teens from drug use in a way that wonÃt embarrass them in front of their friends. He says, â€œNow kids have a â€˜socially acceptable excuseâ€™ when they say I canâ€™t because my parents test me.â€

Positive test results should not be used to blame or criticize, but should serve as a â€ticket to treatment.â€ Help is available locally, but everyone should also realize that substance abuse treatment is often a long difficult path, with relapses and setbacks the norm. However, the sooner it begins, the sooner it can be successful.

While at home drug tests are no panacea, they do give parents a useful tool and a possible deterrent they wouldnâ€™t have otherwise.

Terry L. Stawar, Ed.D. lives in Georgetown and is the CEO of LifeSpring in Jeffersonville, Indiana

AP poll: Most fans have doubts about MLB steroid policy

By Will Lester

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON â€“ Most baseball fans think Major League Baseball could do more to curb the use of steroids, and they have doubts about slugger Barry Bonds as he chases the sport's career home run record.

Baseball has fallen short on keeping the sport drug-free, according to 53 percent in an AP-AOL Sports poll. Those most likely to feel that way are fans 30 and older and those with more education.

Almost two-thirds of fans have unfavorable or mixed feelings about Bonds, the San Francisco Giants star who is chasing the home run record while fending off accusations that he used steroids.

Hank Aaron holds the home run record of 755, followed by Babe Ruth with 714. The 41-year-old Bonds is closing in on Ruth's record.

For many baseball fans, suspicion about steroids is stealing the joy from watching Bonds' bid for history.

"It's upset me," said William Dobney, a retired school superintendent and baseball fan from Grandy, N.C. "You see guys go out there on the field and you don't know if they're using God-given strength or drug-enhanced strength."

Bonds has denied in sworn testimony ever using steroids, although he acknowledged using two substances that he says he didn't know were steroids. Prosecutors say they believe the substances were steroids.

Major League Baseball is investigating Bonds' possible involvement with performance-enhancing drugs. Almost two-thirds of fans say they think baseball is treating Bonds fairly.

Many fans say Bonds should not be allowed into baseball's Hall of Fame if he's found to have used steroids or other such drugs. But the timing of any steroids use could be crucial in public support for Bonds getting into the Hall.

Half the fans in the poll were asked if Bonds should be allowed into the Hall of Fame if he is found to have used steroids or other performance enhancing drugs, and 61 percent of them said no.

However, the other half of the sample was asked if he should be allowed in the Hall if he was found to have used such drugs only before baseball enacted rules against them in 2002, and 57 percent said yes. Casual fans were most likely to shift their opinion about allowing Bonds in the Hall, depending on the timing of steroids use.

Nonwhites were twice as likely as whites to say the black outfielder should be allowed into the Hall of Fame if he's found to have used steroids.

One longtime opponent of Bonds on the playing field says the Giants' outfielder definitely belongs in the Hall of Fame.

"He was the best player in our league, the National League, for a long time," said Mike Scioscia, a former Los Angeles Dodger who now manages the Angels in the American League. "What he might or might not have done doesn't lessen his Hall of Fame stature."

The first rules against steroids agreed to by management and the union went into effect in September 2002. Testing began in spring training 2003, but penalties for failed tests weren't in place until 2004.

Last fall, major league players and owners agreed to toughen penalties for steroid use to a 50-game suspension for a first failed test, 100 games for a second and a lifetime ban for a third. Under the policy, players are given urine tests at least twice during the season and could face more random testing.

One critic of baseball's drug policy is Dr. Gary Wadler, a steroids expert based at New York University Medical School. Baseball should do blood testing, expand the list of prohibited substances and have a more ambitious schedule of random testing, he said.

Wadler said it appears that baseball is more committed to getting rid of steroids, but he had reservations about the current policy.

"It's better than no testing at all, but it's significantly short of the gold standard," he said.

Major League Baseball spokesman Richard Levin responded: "We have the toughest drug testing program in professional sports right now."

Almost two-thirds of baseball fans, 63 percent, say they care "a lot" if players use steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs. Those most likely to care a lot were fans who closely follow baseball, were more educated and older.

"The new baseball rules are sufficient, but they had to be dragged kicking and screaming to this," said 60-year-old fan Samuel Spear of Mount Vernon, N.Y. Spear said his view of Bonds is "basically unfavorable."

"If he took steroids, he's a cheater," Spear said. "It's as simple as that."

The AP-AOL Sports poll of 793 baseball fans was conducted by Ipsos, an international polling firm April 10-12 and April 18-20 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

If you gotta but canâ€™t, sometimes itâ€™s costly

By JOE LAMBE

The Kansas City Star

Inmate Jeff Corsiglia was placed in a small Missouri prison room with two guards, a small cup and a deadline: two hours to urinate.

If he tested clean, he would almost certainly walk free in a month. If not, he faced years in prison.

But in a time of routine urine tests for inmates, those on probation and job applicants, anxiety and bladders betray some people. Few of them have any recourse.

In Corsigliaâ€™s case, the cup stayed dry. The Kansas City man begged to pay for another kind of drug test â€” saliva, hair, blood â€” or to be put into a room to urinate alone. Prison officials refused.

Corsiglia, 27, now realizes he is among an estimated 17 million nationwide who suffer from shy bladder syndrome, a mental condition marked by difficulty or inability to urinate in front of others.

In April 2005, corrections officials cited him for disobeying the urine order, which meant he failed a voluntary prison-based treatment program. Instead of being released after four months, as he expected, Corsiglia suddenly faced more than four years behind bars before becoming eligible for parole.

Corrections officials said they simply were following the rules â€” rules courts nationwide had upheld.

Occasionally, shy bladder sufferers file lawsuits. Once in a great while, one wins. Mostly, prisoners are forced to serve more time while workers get disciplined, fired or lose out on new jobs.

Missouri corrections officials said they could not comment specifically on Corsigliaâ€™s case.

Generally, alternative tests can be provided only if an inmate has been diagnosed with shy bladder or another medical problem, they said. Corsiglia has not been officially diagnosed.

People with shy bladder seldom get a diagnosis, experts said, and they often are greeted by snickers, disbelief and disinterest.

Few people know of the condition, called paruresis, and it gets little respect from courts, administrators or employers, said professor Steven Soifer, founder of the International Paruresis Association in Baltimore.

The association has received hundreds of letters from prisoners.

â€œThis is the worst case Iâ€™ve ever heard,â€ Soifer said of Corsiglia.

â€œPeople arenâ€™t going to believe prisoners when they say they have this problem. People donâ€™t even believe employees.â€

The Missouri Department of Corrections tests about 20,000 inmates or probationers a month, mostly through urine, according to John W. Bowen, the departmentâ€™s toxicology laboratory superintendent.

Alternative tests cost more than the roughly $6 spent for urine tests and sometimes reveal less.

A troubling case

Corsiglia had been drinking Aug. 28, 2002, when he found his car broken into and his stereo equipment gone.

He drove to the home of those he blamed, poured fuel on a brick wall, ignited it and watched flames flare high and burn out, he said. The fire only blistered paint, according to court records.

But people were home and could have died. His crime was first-degree arson.

â€œI really wasnâ€™t trying to hurt anybody, even though it does sound bad,â€ Corsiglia said. â€œIt was a stupid thing to do.â€

While awaiting trial, he quit college, became despondent and used marijuana and cocaine.

His lawyer made a plea deal in late 2004. Corsiglia would spend four months in prison and receive a five-year suspended sentence. He had no prior felonies and wanted to move past this one, Corsiglia said.

Jackson County Judge Ann Mesle asked him if he wanted a straight four months of shock time or four months that included treatment, Corsiglia said.

Given his drug problem, Corsiglia chose treatment.

â€œI thought it would be better for me,â€ he said. â€œI havenâ€™t used any drugs since, and Iâ€™m not planning to.â€

He had been reclusive about urinating since he was a boy but didnâ€™t worry about it, he said. After he could not urinate in the prison test, he said, he got punished with more than two weeks in what inmates call the hole â€” a cell with one other inmate and no access to television or use of a fan. He lost the right to sit down with his mom or other visitors without glass separating them. He was not allowed to participate in recreational activities in the yard and could only use the phone with special permission.

Sanctions are normal for those who do not provide urine, Bowen said.

Corrections officials recommended that the judge not release Corsiglia after 120 days because he refused to take the test and, therefore, failed the drug program. It was his first documented rule violation, court records said.

His lawyer sent a letter asking corrections officials to reconsider. They did not. The matter never went to Mesle for a hearing. She declined to comment for this story.

Last fall Corsiglia was called for a random urine test and, once again, could not give a sample. He got sent to the hole again, lost his contact visits and was put on limited recreation for six months, he said. If it happens again, he faces even longer discipline.

Corsiglia said he tried to get a lawyer to file a lawsuit but could not find one to take his case.

A nationwide problem

Shy bladder lawsuits are fairly recent developments in U.S. courts. Almost all lose.

Ask Joseph Kinneary, a former boat captain for New York City who lost his license and his job after not being able to provide urine for a routine test about three years ago. Alternative tests he paid for showed he was clean, but bosses fired him over the urine test.

He sued the Coast Guard and New York City. Though he lost the Coast Guard lawsuit this year, he got his license back. His lawsuit against New York City is pending.

He now works as a biology professor at New York University.

â€œYouâ€™re fighting a brick wall,â€ he said of the urine test industry.

Kinnearyâ€™s lawyer, Ambrose Wotorson, said he was handling several private industry shy bladder cases in federal courts that had not reached juries.

At least one major national company, Georgia Pacific Corp., has switched to saliva testing for employees.

Missouri corrections officials have rejected saliva testing; Jackson County Family Court officials are considering it.

Soifer said urine testing would fade if for no other reason than it was invasive and distasteful.

â€œQuite frankly,â€ he said, â€œpeople donâ€™t like handling all that urine.â€

First glance

â– The difficulty or inability to urinate in front of others is known as shy bladder syndrome.

â– It affects 17 million nationwide.

Maysville adopts drug testing policy in â€˜illegalâ€™ meeting

The Maysville City Council voted to adopt a new policy concerning drug testing and city employees after a brief closed meeting on Thursday evening.
Maysville held a called meeting April 13 at which the council immediately went into a closed meeting to discuss a â€œpersonnel matter.â€
However, the subject of a drug test policy being discussed in a closed session apparently violated the Georgia open meetings law. Only issues related to the hiring or firing of a specific employee can be discussed in private.

The policy adopted will allow for immediate termination of city employees if positively tested for drugs.
â€œI make a motion we adopt a policy that if any person working for Maysville tests positive for illegal drugs once results come back from the state may be terminated by the mayor without consent of the council,â€ said council member Trent Strickland. â€œThat would be for new employee and random drug testing.â€

The motion passed unanimously. Council member Rebecca McNeely, ward 3, was absent.

The policy took effect immediately.

Turtle Mountain tribe begins drug-testing

BELCOURT, N.D. - Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa officials are taking steps to try to address what they say is an epidemic drug problem on the northern North Dakota reservation.

The tribe has started random drug testing and has taken legal steps to banish drug traffickers from the reservation.

"The reason we had to do it is to try to protect our people," Tribal Chairman Ken Davis said. "It's gotten to a point where we are having to take some very drastic measures."

LaFountain is pushing to have other entities adopt the program to create a uniform drug-testing policy across the reservation. The tribe's public utility, the Turtle Mountain Housing Authority and Turtle Mountain Community College have already joined the effort. Turtle Mountain Community Schools is preparing a program that would affect staff, administration and the school board.

"As a board, we have to take a stand," said President Allan Malaterre. "We are doing it to protect our community and especially our kids."

Last year, the school conducted random alcohol Breathalyzer tests among prom-goers and plans to do so again this year, Malaterre said. An after-prom party will provide a drug-free alternative for students.

The Tribal Council on April 5 also adopted an ordinance that enables the tribe to banish American Indians and non-Indians for drug-related or other offenses.

Davis said banishment is a traditional tribal practice that has been permitted under the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa's constitution since 1959. The council decided to activate its banishment power to remove drug traffickers, he said.

"They are coming here to our reservation; and even our own members are endangering our people through the selling of drugs," Davis said.

The ordinance provides warning for a first offense, a three-year exclusion for a second offense and a lifetime banishment for a third.

It also allows for emergency exclusions of non-tribal members without a hearing. Davis said that gives the tribe the ability to banish people for offenses over which the tribe lacks jurisdiction, regardless of whether a non-tribal authority decides to prosecute.

The drug-testing program, developed with the aid of a California consultant, includes drug awareness and education efforts and also is designed to offer help to those who test positive, LaFountain said. People will be fired only on a second offense.

"(Drug use) is a major concern of the people in the community, to try to get people to turn away from this," LaFountain said.

Drug Testing News

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Drug screening can make the workplace safer

South Florida Business Journal - April 14, 2006

Put the policy in writing

Tribe begins random drug tests

Senate passes bill to require drug testing for coal miners

The agony of post-game drug testing

Are your teens doing drugs? Test them

By RAQUEL RUTLEDGE

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Drug Testing: Violations jump

Prosecutor can test cops for drugs

Wondering why cops get off easy on drug testing

Mom-and-pop drug testing

Drug testing, â€œthe New McCarthyismâ€

Drug use can damage the brain and lead to addiction

My Mother the Narc

Do home drug-testing kits help or hurt teens?

Drug drivers passing roadside tests

Monday, April 24, 2006

Drug Test Developed for Saliva, Sweat

Drug tests don't FIT the Bill

Drug testing expands to all county workers

Bonds, scandal have turned steroids into baseball's slimy little secret

More parents testing teens at home for drug use

RAQUEL RUTLEDGE

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Steroid punishment not enough

Consider drug test at home

AP poll: Most fans have doubts about MLB steroid policy

If you gotta but canâ€™t, sometimes itâ€™s costly

By JOE LAMBE

Maysville adopts drug testing policy in â€˜illegalâ€™ meeting

Turtle Mountain tribe begins drug-testing

Previous Posts

Archives

Drug Testing News

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Drug screening can make the workplace safer

South Florida Business Journal - April 14, 2006

Put the policy in writing

Tribe begins random drug tests

Senate passes bill to require drug testing for coal miners

The agony of post-game drug testing

Are your teens doing drugs? Test them

By RAQUEL RUTLEDGE

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Drug Testing: Violations jump

Prosecutor can test cops for drugs

Wondering why cops get off easy on drug testing

Mom-and-pop drug testing

Drug testing, â€œthe New McCarthyismâ€

Drug use can damage the brain and lead to addiction

My Mother the Narc

Do home drug-testing kits help or hurt teens?

Drug drivers passing roadside tests

Monday, April 24, 2006

Drug Test Developed for Saliva, Sweat

Drug tests don't FIT the Bill

Drug testing expands to all county workers

Bonds, scandal have turned steroids into baseball's slimy little secret

More parents testing teens at home for drug use

RAQUEL RUTLEDGE

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Steroid punishment not enough

Consider drug test at home

AP poll: Most fans have doubts about MLB steroid policy

If you gotta but canâ€™t, sometimes itâ€™s costly

By JOE LAMBE

Maysville adopts drug testing policy in â€˜illegalâ€™ meeting

Turtle Mountain tribe begins drug-testing

Previous Posts

Archives

Drug testing, â€œthe New McCarthyismâ€