I have appended two text files to this post that provide netters with information about the drug testing talk I have put together. I'm planning on taking this talk "on the road" around Indiana under the aegis of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union (ICLU). Regular readers of t.p.d and a.d will find much in the outline that is familiar -- however, I thought it would be useful to let folks know what we're up to in Hoosierland. The talk is an expanded version of the presentation I give as part of the cannabis re-legalization "Truth Squad". I will be delivering the new, expanded version for the first time this coming Wednesday, 3 April, in the SPEA building on the IU campus at 8:15. It will be the second of two presentations that are to be given as part of a class (what class it is, I don't know). Also, I should mention that I will be a participant in the forthcoming "Hash Wednesday" activities at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (or is it Champaign-Urbana?) on Wednesday, 17 April. There is a scheduled debate on drug testing that will pit the Illini Forensic Debate team against myself and some other folks. On to the info ... ----------------------------cut here------------------------------ Drug Testing -- What is it and do we need it? by Paul Hager, Vice-president for Drug Policy Issues, BCLU Who wants to travel on a plane being flown by a pilot who is drunk or stoned? No one, right? This is the justification most often given in favor of drug testing. But is this justification valid? What is drug testing and does it really make our skies, our roads, and our workplaces safer? Paul Hager explores these and other questions about drug testing in a half-hour talk that focuses on the economic and scientific underpinnings of current drug testing technology. He concludes by answering the ultimate question about drug testing: do we need it? Following the talk, Mr. Hager will take questions >from the audience. Paul Hager is an independent software consultant and former civilian contractor for the U.S. Navy. He is also the Vice- president for Drug Policy Issues of the Bloomington Civil Liberties Union, an affiliate of the Indiana Civil Liberties Union. Mr. Hager's involvement in the issue of drug testing began when the application of the Drug Free Workplace Act to his job required that he submit to random drug tests. If you are interested in hearing Mr. Hager's presentation on drug testing, contact him at the following address: Paul Hager 4475 N. Benton Ct. Bloomington, IN 47408 (812) 333-1384 Drug Testing -- What is it and do we need it? Outline of Talk by Paul Hager, Vice-president for Drug Policy Issues, BCLU Following is a short outline of a talk I give on drug testing and its alternatives. As a civil libertarian, I object to drug testing as it is currently practiced on philosophical grounds but in my talk the focus is on pragmatic economic and scientific arguments. This is a timely topic given that an increasing number of companies drug test and drug testing legislation has been introduced in the Indiana General Assembly during the current session. I. Introduction I get the audience involved by asking for a show of hands on four questions: 1) who supports allowing the company that employs them the right to drug test any employee for any reason (i.e., random); 2) who supports allowing a company to randomly test only people in safety critical jobs (e.g. pilots); 3) who supports allowing the company that employs them to drug test employees upon probable cause; and, finally, 4) who supports allowing a company to test people in safety critical jobs upon probable cause. II. Drug Testing Defined a. I define the "metabolite" or urinalysis test. Using the example of cannabis/marijuana, I explain how the test screens for the presence of inactive byproducts of the "intoxicant", not the intoxicant itself. I provide a graph that shows the level of the intoxicant in the blood versus time and the level of the metabolite in the urine over time. b. I indicate that upwards of 80% to 90% of positives are for cannabis. III Information about impairment a. I present a study that demonstrates that pilots tested on aircraft simulators exhibit degraded performance (i.e., impairment) only for 4 hours after marijuana use. b. I present information from a study using the same methodology as that in the marijuana test, that shows alcohol users are impaired more than a day after use. c. I present information that lack of sleep has been identified as an impairment hazard that is as great as alcohol. d. I reveal that one of the ways that scientists calculate the "intoxicating" dose of various drugs is by using instruments like the aircraft simulators I mentioned earlier. IV. The failure of metabolite testing a. While the metabolite test is fairly useful in detecting PAST USE of cannabis, it is USELESS in detecting impairment, not only from cannabis use but also from a multitude of other sources including alcohol, lack of sleep and illness. b. Metabolite testing is relatively expensive, with the accuracy of the screen correlating directly with the cost. Also, techniques exist for beating the test, which mean that false negatives occur frequently. c. I mention that a recent study of Federal workers shows that in order to obtain a 0.5% positive rate, the cost to the Government averages $385 per worker or $77,000 per positive. V. Impairment testing a. If functional, on-the-job impairment is the concern, then why not test for it? I indicate that the devices that have been used for years to measure impairment in the laboratory are now available for public use. b. I provide information about the 30+ year experience with one kind of tester -- the one use to measure impairment by testing tracking of a moving stimulus. I give information about its use to test Air Force pilots and NASA astronauts. c. I describe the more recent use of the tracking test as an alternative sentencing tool for people convicted of DUI -- their option is to lose their license or have the device hooked up to their car's ignition. I also note that the device is now used by municipal bus companies in California to test whether or not drivers are fit for work. d. I note that the cost one company charges for the impairment testing device and ancillary services is $300 per employee -- $85 less than the Federal government's costs -- and that the impairment tester tests for ACTUAL degradation of performance with a high degree of accuracy. An impairment tester can be used every day, twice a day and that doesn't add to the cost, whereas, each metabolite test administered further adds to the overall cost. VI. Conclusion I indicate that metabolite drug testing, because it doesn't come anywhere close to living up to its billing as a way to make the workplace safer, is really an attempt to make private companies an auxiliary enforcement arm of the DEA. The metabolite test is also an indirect tax on all of us in that companies that test must pass the costs onto the consumer. Although impairment testing is ALMOST as expensive, it actually delivers on the promise to make the workplace safer. I then conclude by asking the audience one question: a company has a choice between giving a metabolite test or an impairment test to its pilots to check their performance -- which do they prefer? --