When it comes to workplace drug screens, you really have to put a lot of faith in science. Very few people know the lowdown about how the chemistry behind drug tests works, so you have to know if what you are getting is going to work and work well. After all, there is so much at stake. Not only is workplace safety an issue, but there are also possible insurance issues, workplace liability, and of course the security of knowing that you are operating a drug-free work place.
Finding The Best Drug Screening Supplies
That is why, when our Board of Directors decided to start drug screening at the company I manage, we put so much effort into finding the best drug testing supplies. There are literally thousands upon thousands of drug screens, and not all of them are certified to be completely accurate. The interesting thing that many people don’t think about is that your average drug screen doesn’t test for everything. As a matter of fact, most drug screens test for only a few drugs. They test for marijuana, cocaine, heroine, and a few others. Certain serious drugs such as alcohol and LSD are commonly left off of many drug tests designed to detect
something as innocuous as mild pot usage. If you don’t do your research well, you could be canning occasional pot smokers while letting serious alcoholics come to work drunk with impunity.
Many Different Types of Drug Screens
There are also many different types of drug screens. Blood drug testing is obviously one of the most reliable, but it is also seen as pretty invasive. Hair testing can pick up a history of drug usage that goes back a long way. Urine testing is often preferred at work because it is easier to safely do than blood testing and still pretty accurate. Nowadays, there are even some saliva drug tests available as an easy alternative to urine testing.
Which Is Best?
The problem is that it is hard to get reliable statistics about the comparative quality of different drug screens. It is possible that they are all pretty much the same, but you can’t know for sure. That is why we made the decision to use the drug testing products used by our local police department. We figured that, if the cops could use them for screening drugs, so could we. After all, who would know about effective drug testing than the local police force? Although they are a bit more expensive than some other products, so far, we have been happy with the results we have gotten from the tests.
|
Samson v. California, 126 S. Ct. 2193
(2006)
Fourth Amendment challenge to law
enforcement officers conducting suspicionless search of parolee. In
a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the suspicionless search of a
California parolee does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Read more >> |
Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente
Uniao Do Vegetal, 126 S. Ct. 1211 (2006)
Challenge under the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act of 1993 to Federal Government’s refusal to allow the
possession of the hallucinogenic substance hoasca to adherents of a
particular religious group. In a 8-0 decision, the Court affirmed
the issuance of an injunction against the Government, holding that
the Government had failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in
barring the individuals’ sacramental use of the hallucinogen.
Read more >> |
Board of Educ. of Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 92
of Pottawatomie County v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002)
Challenge to constitutionality of
school’s suspicionless drug-testing policy, where the Project argued
that students have a right to be free from random, unannounced, and
suspicionless drug testing. In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld
suspicionless drug testing of students who participate in
extra-curricular activities.
Read more >> |
United States Dep’t of Housing & Urban
Develop. v. Rucker, 535 U.S. 125 (2002)
Constitutional and statutory
challenge to Federal government’s “one strike and you’re out” policy
for low-income housing project tenants, where the tenant’s family
member or friend—but not the tenant herself—was caught with a
controlled substance. The Court upheld the policy even as to those
tenants who were unaware of the drug possession or who had attempted
to intervene to stop the drug use.
Read more >> |
United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’
Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001)
Applicability of medical-necessity
exception to federal statute prohibiting the manufacture and
distribution of marijuana, where cooperative was distributing
medical marijuana to seriously ill patients in California. The Court
held that the exception does not apply.
Read more >> |
Ferguson v. City of Charleston, 532 U.S.
67 (2001)
Challenge to public hospital’s policy
of subjecting pregnant women to involuntary drug testing. Under the
policy, 29 of the 30 women who were tested were African American.
The Court held that the policy violates the Fourth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.
Read more >> |
United States v. Ricks (to be argued Fall
2006, 3d Cir.)
Defense of individual convicted of
possessing crack cocaine, agreeing with district court that courts
have discretion to depart from the notorious 100:1 crack versus
powder cocaine sentencing ratio.
Read more >> |
Jones v. City of Los Angeles, 444 F.3d
1118 (9th Cir. 2006)
Challenge to ordinance that permits
arrest and conviction of homeless individuals for sitting or lying
on sidewalks. The court of appeals held that the ordinance violated
the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Read more >> |
Thompson v. Sandoval, unpublished order
(9th Cir. 2006)
Lawsuit brought on behalf of two
California prisoners claiming that the state has a policy of denying
parole to inmates who were addicted to alcohol or drugs prior to
their incarceration. The court of appeals held that prisoners were
entitled to discovery to prove their claim that the state’s policy
violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. |
Turner v. Dist. of Columbia Bd. of
Elections & Ethics, 354 F.3d 890 (D.C. Cir. 2004)
Constitutional and statutory
challenge to the District of Columbia’s refusal to certify and
release results of initiative vote to approve the use of medical
marijuana. The court ruled for plaintiffs and issued an injunction
requiring the certification and release of the vote count.
Read more >> |
Conant v. Walters, 309 F.3d 629 (9th Cir.
2002)
First Amendment challenge to Federal
Government’s policy of threatening to punish physicians for
communicating with their patients about the potential medical
benefits of using marijuana. The court of appeals held that the
Government’s policy was unconstitutional and upheld a permanent
injunction barring enforcement of the policy.
Read more >> |
Marchwinski v. Howard, 309 F.3d 330 (6th
Cir. 2002), 60 Fed. App. 601 (6th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (affirming by
equally divided court)
Challenge to Michigan’s policy of
randomly testing welfare recipients for drug use. An equally divided
en banc court affirmed the district court’s ruling that Michigan’s
policy violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
Read more >> |
Doe v. Bridgeport Police Dep’t, 434 F.
Supp. 2d 107 (D. Conn. 2006)
Class-action lawsuit on behalf of
injection drug users who use a syringe exchange program to avoid
contracting HIV and Hepatitis C. The Court has issued two permanent
injunctions prohibiting law enforcement officers from arresting or
otherwise punishing class members for possessing drug-injection
equipment.
Read more >> |
United States v. Patel, plea bargain prior
to trial (N.D. Ga. 2006)
Challenge to racial discrimination,
in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, in the investigation
and prosecution of dozens of South Asian convenience store clerks
who were accused of selling ingredients that can be used to
manufacture methamphetamine. The defendants received a plea
agreement prior to trial.
Read more >> |
Alexander v. Goose Creek Police Dep’t,
settled (D. S.C. 2006)
Challenge to constitutionality of
actions of law enforcement officers, who, in a public school,
handcuffed and pointed guns at the heads of 150 students based on an
erroneous allegation that one student was selling marijuana. A
court-approved settlement provides the school’s students with full
Fourth Amendment rights—the only high school students in the country
who enjoy such broad protections against search and seizure.
Read more >> |
Kelly v. Paschall, settled prior to trial
(W.D. Tex. 2005)
Lawsuit alleging racial
discrimination and prosecutorial misconduct, in violation of the
Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, when a substantial percentage of the adult male
African-American population of Hearne, Texas was arrested on drug
charges due solely to the testimony of one undercover
law-enforcement officer. The plaintiffs received a favorable
settlement, the details of which are confidential, prior to trial.
Read more >> |
American Civil Liberties Union v. Mineta,
319 F. Supp. 2d 69 (D. D.C. 2004)
Challenge to federal statute that
prohibited mass transit grantees from receiving federal funding if
they displayed advertisements criticizing the Government’s drug
policy. The district court declared that the statute violated the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution and issued a
permanent injunction against enforcing the statute.
Read more >> |
Banks v. Wagner, settled (D. S.D. 2004)
Class-action lawsuit on behalf of
Native American students in public school who were subjected to
suspicionless drug sweeps, in violation of the United States and
South Dakota constitutions. The lawsuit resulted in a permanent
injunction prohibiting the school district from conducting any
further suspicionless drug searches.
Read more >> |
Whipple v. Lordsburg Municipal Sch. Bd. of
Educ., settled (D. N.M. 2001)
Challenge to public school’s policy
of conducting drug-dog sniffs during lockdowns of students in grades
5-12. The lawsuit resulted in the school district agreeing
permanently to stop all drug-dog sniffs.
Read more >> |
Tannahill v. Lockney Indep. Sch. Dist.,
133 F. Supp. 2d 919 (N.D. Tex. 2001)
Sixth-grade student’s constitutional
challenge to his public school’s policy requiring drug testing of
all students. The court declared that the school’s policy violated
the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and issued an
injunction prohibiting the enforcement of this policy.
Read more >> |
United States v. Brunet, settled (D. La.
2001)
Defense of two businessmen who
operated electronic music venues and who were indicted for allegedly
violating the Federal “crack house” law. After the Project assisted
in drafting constitutional arguments against the prosecution, the
Government offered a plea agreement that did not include any period
of incarceration.
Read more >> |
County of Santa Cruz v. Gonzales (N.D.
Cal.)
Lawsuit raising claims under the
Fourth, Fifth, and Tenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution, as well as under a federal statute, to protect
California medical marijuana patients and their caregivers from
arrest, prosecution, and forfeiture for allegedly violating federal
law that prohibits the possession and cultivation of marijuana. The
court is currently reviewing dispositive motions.
Read more >> |
ACLU of Alaska v. State of Alaska, -- P.3d
-- (Ak. Super. Ct. 2006)
Lawsuit claiming that an Alaskan
criminal statute that prohibits the possession of small amounts of
marijuana in the home for non-commercial purposes violates the
privacy clause in the state’s constitution. The superior court has
declared the law unconstitutional, and the state has appealed this
ruling to the Alaska Supreme Court.
Read more >> |
Commonwealth v. Landry, 779 N.E.2d 638
(Mass. 2002)
Challenge to practice of law
enforcement officers arresting participants of syringe-exchange
program for possession of drug paraphernalia. The state’s highest
court held that clients of a syringe exchange may lawfully possess
injection equipment obtained from the exchange, and therefore law
enforcement officers did not have probable cause to arrest any such
client.
Read more >> |
People v. Mower, 49 P.3d 1067 (Cal. 2002)
Defense of seriously ill medical
marijuana patient who was convicted of cultivating and possessing
marijuana. The California Supreme Court reversed the conviction,
holding, inter alia, that medical marijuana patients can be entitled
to immunity from prosecution based on California’s medical marijuana
laws. |
Robinson v. City of Seattle, 10 P.3d 452
(Wash. Ct. of App. 2000)
Challenge to city’s policy requiring
urine testing of applicants for employment. The Washington Court of
Appeals unanimously held that the program violated the privacy
protections under the state constitution.
Read more >> |
In the Matter of Professor Lyle Craker
(Administrative Law Judge, Drug Enforcement Administration)
Administrative challenge to federal
agency’s refusal to grant license to botany professor who wanted to
conduct research into potential medical benefits of marijuana for
terminally ill individuals. The Project conducted a three-week
trial, and the administrative law judge is expected to issue a
ruling imminently.
Read more >> |
County of San Diego v. California (Cal.
Super. Ct.)
Defense of doctors, as well as
medical-marijuana patients and their caregivers, in county’s
challenge to state’s medical-marijuana statutes. The plaintiffs
claim that the medical-marijuana statutes violate an international
treaty, the federal constitution, and the California constitution.
Cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings are pending before the
court.
Read more >> |
Students for Sensible Drug Policy v.
Spellings (D. S.D.)
Class-action lawsuit challenging
federal law that denies student aid to individuals who have been
convicted of a drug offense. The plaintiffs seek an injunction to
prevent the enforcement of this law on the grounds that it violates
the Double Jeopardy Clause and Equal Protection Component of the Due
Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
Read more >> |
