Excerpted from a Transport Topics article by Eric Miller
The addition later this year of oral-fluid drug testing for marijuana, which typically detects use only for up to 72 hours after use, could allow truck drivers to use the drug and avoid detection, according to the CEO of a real-time impairment detection testing technology company.
“The Department of Transportation’s shift to oral fluid testing for cannabis will have serious consequences for the trucking industry,” Gaize CEO Ken Fichtler said. “Why? Because oral fluid tests have a short detection window — typically around 24 to 48 hours. This means truckers who use cannabis will be able to do so with near impunity, as long as they avoid a drug test for a couple of days.”
On one hand, a driver attempting to hide pot use could stay away from work for two or three days before being tested using oral fluid. But a driver hit with a surprise drug test using oral fluid could be in big trouble.
“Unlike urine tests, which detect use for weeks since the last use, saliva testing opens the door for more drivers to use cannabis,” said Fichtler, whose company has conducted research on the detection question. “If allowing the use of cannabis by truckers was the goal, the move to oral fluid testing will certainly accomplish that. However, if keeping roadways safe is what we’re trying to do, a total rethink of the drug-testing paradigm is required.”
Fichtler believes that the vast majority of drug testing will switch to oral fluid when it goes into use later this year.
An official with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, a subagency of the Department of Health and Human Services, disputed the detection window mentioned by Fichtler.
“In referenced journal articles, cannabis use can be detected via oral fluid testing for up to 72 hours,” said the federal official, who asked not to be identified. “When a donor receives a request for collection, the donor will not know if the test will be an oral fluid or urine collection until they arrive at the collection facility for a federal agency.”
Federal drug officials say that directly observed urine specimen collections have long been the most effective method for preventing individuals from cheating on their drug tests by substituting or adulterating their specimens, but directly observed urine collection may only be done in certain circumstances due to employee privacy concerns.
However, all oral fluid collections are directly observed because they are always collected in front of the testing official. Unlike a directly observed urine collection, an oral fluid collection is much less intrusive on the tested employee’s privacy. Therefore, adding oral fluid testing as an option is consistent with the careful balancing of an individual’s right to privacy with the department’s interest in preserving transportation safety by deterring illicit drug use, federal drug officials have said.
Drug experts say that allowing employers to use oral fluid may improve the effectiveness of drug testing, especially for testing of drivers involved in accidents. Oral fluid testing also can reduce anxiety, discomfort and other burdens for individuals undergoing testing because it is less intrusive and time-consuming than urine testing.
For example, while most Department of Transportation-regulated urine tests are unobserved, a small number require direct observation. In observed tests, a testing official of the same gender as the employee watches the employee urinate into the collection container. Allowing the alternative of oral fluid testing would reduce discomfort and other issues for individuals, including potential civil rights issues. Reducing the burdens associated with testing also may reduce barriers to transportation employment for individuals deterred by current testing requirements.
“Drug testing policy and programs were designed to provide a deterrence and monitoring mechanism and not for impairment detection,” Suhash Harwani, senior director of Science for Workforce Health Solutions at Quest Diagnostics. “Our data illustrates this — the federally mandated, safety-sensitive employee population historically has a lower rate of drug positivity, likely due to the fact that there is decreased drug use when there is an expectation of being drug tested.”
For the full story, please click here.