Marijuana.com

chopstick22

im not really sure what releases your talking about. i went to the training on thurs and during that training they saliva tested us. that def caught me off guard because i thought we were just getting tested on monday during the phsyical. At the end of the training we had to sign all of the pre employment and drug free work place papers. and they gave us the pre medical form in which u fill out previous health conditions and such to take with us to the hosp. on that form there is a part about urine testing which scares me greatly. but i really can't beleive that they would test us both ways but who knows. is there anyway i could be clean by monday just on my own?? i am a little worried about the aspirin part of the dillution i appreciate it thankyou

 

Sec

The part about urine testing in your paperwork, does it mention what the urine tests are for? Could be for kidney function, or some other medical reason.

Do you know someone who works at the company that you could ask?

Maybe scan the paper where it says what it does about the urine testing and drug and alcohol drug free workplace papers and let us see what they say.

You are thinking on the same lines as I am. I really don't think they would test for drugs twice.

I have a client where I go to the company, test all the new hires using an instant urine (instant cup with adulterant check) test. If the applicants pass, they are then instructed to go to a medical facility where an appointment was made for them. The physical is to check their cardiopulmonary health and it includes a stress test. It is quite detailed.

The instant drug test costs the employer about $50. The physical costs the employer over $200 at the medical facility. The employer is saving money by testing you for drugs first, before sending you to the physical and paying for the physical. If you can't pass the drug test, they save money on the physical.

__________________
Guidelines.
Search
http://www.marijuana.com/drug-test/index

chopstick22

We appreciate the op~ortunity to comment on the proposed revisions to the Mandatory Guidelines for Federal!
Workplace Drug Testmg Prograrns,and we applaud the efforts by HHS to expand the program. We understand,!that
HHS is making these proposed revisions to fulfill a mandate to utilize the "best available technology" for drug-free
programs. We wish to comment on three recommendations in the proposed regulations addressing oral fluid testing.
1. Proposal for the collection of oral fluid as a "neat" specimen
In section 2.5(b), the collection of oral fluid is specified as "2mL collected as a 'neat specimen' (divided as
r folIo\vs: at least 1.5mL for the primary specimen and at .least O.5mL for the split specimen)." We believe at
collection of oral fluid u~ing an ~A~cleared co!lectiondevi~e is also an accepta?le if not preferred collection
method. We have expenence wIth thIS method III the collection of over 200 specImens. I
Spitting into a tube does not necessarily represent the "best available technology," nor do we believe this collection
method would be practical. Our associates appreciate the dignity of an oral fluid collection, which we do not b~lieve
exists for donors required to spit into a container. The additional cost and time required for collecting "neat"
specimens could be significant. The collection environment would require control and possibly sanitizing, and the
allowance of 15 minutes to provide a specimen is five times longer than the collection process with the FDA-cleared
oral specimen collection device. Specimen collection of oral fluid by an absorbent pad may be shown to be'
relatively consistent, and the donor is not able to control any variances by attempting to dilute or adulterate the
I sample.
In addition, section 1.5 defines a split specimen for oral fluid as "one specimen collected that is subdivided or two
specimens collected almost simultaneously." Two FDA-cleared collection devices could be used. In section
7.1 (c), the collection device for oral fluid is specified as a "single-use plastic specimen container." We prO J e that the collection device must be an FDA-cleared absorbent pad, which is then placed into a fixed amount of
transfer buffer. The issue of an FDA-cleared collection device is also addressed in section 7.2(b). Finally, the
collection device is also addressed in the specific collection procedures in section 8.3(a)(5) through 8.3(a)(lO).1
2. Proposal for collecting a urine specimen with each oral fluid specimen.
In section 2.3(a) and section 8.3(a)(16) addressing the specific collection procedures for an oral fluid specimen~ it is
specified to also collect a urine specimen, for the purpose of addressing the possibility of a positive oral fluid tejst
result from passive exposure to cannabis smoke. We believe this additional specimen collection is unnecessar)1
Scientific data demonstrates that positive oral fluid test results from any realistic exposure situation would be
r extremely unlikely. I
The primary benefit of oral fluid testing is the ability to eliminate costly and inconvenient urine specimen
collections. Requiring collection of both specimens not only negates the convenience and timesaving aspect o~oral
fluid testing; it adds an unreasonable additional cost. i
We would like to alert HHS that since these proposed guidelines were drafted, authoritative scientific data on tije
effect of environmental exposure to cannabis smoke on oral fluid tests has been developed and accepted by the
Journal of Analytical Toxicology for publication (Dr. Edward Cone et al.). Specifically, this research demons*tes
that environmental contamination is limited to only extreme exposure conditions (several joints smoked in a sl$l1,
sealed room), and then for only short periods after exposure (up to 30 minutes).
The likelihood of environmentally caused positive test results is extremely low if not negligible. We believe this
new data should allow HHS to draw the same conclusion about oral fluid testing that it did with urine testing: "The
Department does not believe that passive inhalation is a reasonable defense or that significant exposnre ~
occur through passive inhalation to cause a urine specimen to be reported positive." HHS, Mandatory
Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs, 59 FR 29908, (1994). II
3. Applicability of oral fluids testing to return-to-duty, follow-up testing.
In section 2.2, oral fluid is specified for "pre-employment, random, reasonable suspicion/cause and post-accident
testing." In Draft 4 of the guidelines, oral fluid was recognized as suitable specimen for all authorizecll
testing scenarios. However in the published Proposed Guidelines, the application of oral fluid testing to return-to-duty
and follow-up testing was removed. Although the basis for this change was stated as due to the claimed sh~rt
detection time for drugs in oral fluids, a review of published epidemiological data demonstrates that oral fluid has
sensitivities comparable to urine for detection of drug use.
Oral fluid testing is appropriate for all testing scenarios. It is clearly suited for Return-to-Duty and Follow-Up:
testing. Oral fluid is suited for Return-to-Duty and Follow-Up testing because it detects recent drug use. A wo~ker
successfully completing a substance abuse recovery program and staying clean from drugs will appropriately te~t
clean soonest with oral fluid testing. :1
Oral fluid testing is also uniquely able to detect illicit drug use. A worker trying to cheat on an SAP's program ls
very likely to attempt to tamper with urine specimens by diluting or adulterating them, or by substituting clean ~ne.
Oral fluid testing provides a directly observed collection that virtually eliminates the opportunity to tamper with
specimens. .I
We again thank the Department for this opportunity to provide information to assist it in drafting and finalizing ~g
testing guidelines and for their careful consideration of these points. Weare eager to offer whatever further
information and comments that will allow lllIS to fulfill its statutory obligations to "establish comprehensive
standards for all aspects of laboratory drug testing and laboratory procedures to be applied in carrying out Exec,tive
order Numbered 12564, ...including standards which require the use of the best available technology for ensuri~g
the full reliability and accuracy of the drug tests.. ."

This was a paper i found on the internet. it is a little outdated 2004 but it address's the companys drug testing policy. Read that please and tell me what u think

Sec

It is a justification for using oral drug testing instead of using urine drug testing. The company has established guidlines and justified them by listing both the benefits and pitfalls of both types of tests.

The conclusion is that saliva testing can test for the same drugs as urine testing, saliva is cheaper, more considerate to the donor, and is better when detection of recent use is desired as in the case of return-to-duty or follow-up testing. It further states that saliva testing is appropriate and preferred for pre-employment, random, post-accident and reasonable suspicion. (It goes on to say that the return-to-duty and follow-up testing was removed from the oral preferred list due to the relatively short detection period). It also takes into consideration the cost benefit of oral testing over urine testing.

I believe from this, that the company has adopted oral testing over any other type of drug testing (although you say it is 2 years old). I still stick with my opinion that the tests you are scheduled to take on Monday is strictly a company physical. You have allready taken the drug test (and passed).

If you PM the link to me, I can read it through completely and have a better idea if they actually adopted the recommended method outlined above.

It seems that it was taken either in part or in whole from the Federal Register pages highlighted below (especially pages 4 and 7).

Sec

Well, I was close.
The link you PM'ed to me was to a letter your company wrote as a comment to be included in the consideration of implementing new guidelines for federally regulated testing. It was a comment to the exact volume and number of the Federal Register that was quoted in my last post. (thanks to MSN search page).
It is not your company policy, but it is how the top management of your company would like to see implemented in the Federal Register for regulating DOT mandated drug tests.

Back to square one. I still think your company will not test you again for drugs during your physical. In fact, they do state that they have used oral testing over 200 times and are very happy with the cost effectiveness of oral testing. I would say you are done with the drug testing.

 

chopstick22

well on that note do you feel i should still do some dillution just in case? or maybe even jsut drink that over priced freaken drinked i purchased ? I also started the creatine yesterday and bought the b complex. im thinking if i do dillute i am going to actualyl take b2 instead of the complex because i am a little worried of the excess niacin located in the b complex. i really value ur opinion and once again thankyou for all of your help

Sec

It won't hurt to be prepared by diluting. The only problem is if you have to pee every twenty minutes, it could make a prostrate or hernia exam extremely uncomfortable

As I said, I don't think you will have another drug test. They may take a urine specimen, but only to check for kidney function, urinary tract problems or other medical anomalies. I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, but all indications are that your company prefers saliva testing.

chopstick22

Hey question i got b12 today instead of the complex becuase i didn't want the niacin. B12 will work for coloring urine right?