How is Oral Testing different than other methods and what are its benefits?
We received a lot of questions around oral (saliva) testing. Right now the most widely used testing method is laboratory-based urine drug testing and often leads employers to believe this method is the safest bet for their company. This may not always be true.
Like urine, oral fluid testing detects recent drug use and may also identify very recent usage that may not be captured by urine testing: detection window of 8-48 hours vs 2-7 days for urine testing.
Saliva tests actually measure the parent compound: the psychoactive element of the drug. Detection of the parent compound in saliva indicates that the drug has entered the blood stream. Higher levels of the parent compound indicate higher levels of the drug contained within the body. This means that saliva levels can be used to measure impairment. In contrast, urine tests do not measure the parent compound, they measure the by-product compounds known as “metabolites”, which do not correspond with impairment levels.
Interestingly, based on recent Quest Diagnostics Drug Testing Index data, the overall positivity rate is higher for almost all drugs and more than twice the positivity for marijuana.
Today, oral fluid is also being considered for federally-regulated drug testing, such as for the trucking industry (some expect a ruling by October of this year). Last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published proposed Oral Fluid Mandatory Guidelines in the Federal Register, a first step towards permitting the use of oral fluid specimens for Federal drug testing.
Are police or companies able to instant test for impairment of Marijuana yet?
This question came up a lot and the short answer is No. However, NPR's article on a Potalyzer being used in California is being tested, could be the first practical roadside test for marijuana intoxication.
Hound Labs says its device can accurately detect whether a person has smoked pot in the last two hours, a window many consider the peak impairment time frame. "When you find THC in breath, you can be pretty darn sure that somebody smoked pot in the last couple of hours," Lynn says. "And we don't want to have people driving during that time period or, frankly, at a work site in a construction zone." The device also doubles as an alcohol breathalyzer, giving police an easy-to-use roadside for both intoxicants.
The issue is, the machine detects THC's mere presence in the breath, but it cannot calculate the amount of THC consumed. Police are trying to figure out who is potentially impaired, Lynn says, compared to "somebody who smoked maybe yesterday or a few days ago and is not impaired. They're not in the business of arresting people that are not impaired when it comes to marijuana. That makes no sense at all."
There's still no agreement on what amount or level of THC in breath, blood or saliva constitutes functional impairment. So far only seven states, including Washington and Montana, have set legal guidelines as to how much THC in the system makes you dangerous behind the wheel. Yet some scientists are skeptical, saying those limits aren't really backed by hard science. In the rest of the country, courts, police and scientists haven't been able to agree on which THC level constitutes functional impairment.
Can we still test for Marijuana in states where it is legal?
The Short answer is Yes. As the legal landscape surrounding marijuana continues to change, employers need to establish or update their drug-free workplace policy.
Understanding and following the local, state and Federal laws surrounding marijuana, and drug testing in general, is very important. For example, some states do not allow termination of employment for the first offense when tested positive for any drug.
Marijuana and its negative effects on the body and workplace risks should not be tolerated if health and safety is the main concern for a business, especially in safety-sensitive work roles, as should be the case with alcohol, opioids, and other drugs.
How should companies approach the updated OSHA rule on post-accident testing?
If OSHA believes an employer’s drug testing policy deters injury reporting, the penalties can be quite steep. The new rule increases an employer’s obligation to ensure that employees report work-related injuries and illnesses. Specifically, employers must establish “a reasonable procedure” for employees to report work-related injuries and illnesses promptly and accurately.
To avoid the penalties employers should focus on overbroad post-accident policy language and consider testing that is more narrowly tailored to at least show recent illegal drug use (for example, oral fluids testing).
- • As an example, policies could be tightened to tie post-accident testing to situations in which an employee caused or contributed to the accident and property damage is a level estimated by the employer (for example, $1,000).
- • A company could also detail situations where the person who caused the accident and injury of another employee (who is usually tested) could be drug tested if it meets various standards in the policy.
