|
Cannabis Campaigners' Guide News Database result:
|
|
A Whole New Meaning To "My Boss Is Taking The P..s"
Don Barnard Press Release
Monday 22 Apr 2002 I refer you to the high percentage of people [ Drugs uncovered,Observer Sunday 21 April 2002] who would like to see routine testing for illicit drug use: Police 67% Doctors and nurses 61% , Teachers 46%, Drivers 66% Pilots 67%. I believes had these people been aware of how drug testing is becoming a creeping invasion into their own private lives and the failure of these tests to inform the tester whether a person had taken illicit substances or was impaired at the time of the test - they may have answered differently. What is wrong with drug testing? THE case for drug screening testing, although well intentioned, is fundamentally flawed, their greatest shortcoming is their inability to determine use or intoxication or impairment at the time the test was taken. However, this has not stop government led propaganda panicking employers into embracing the costly US style coercive abstinence drug-testing of their employee's. THE question of impairment through taking cannabis (or indeed any drug) is far from clear-cut because the presence of a drug or metabolites of a drug in the biological body fluids says nothing about the competence of an individual. Drug concentrations in biological fluids are affected by the size of the dose, how the drug was taken, the longer-term pattern of drug use and the individuals' metabolism, and rate of excretion. However, due to the wide individual variations in the rate at which the drugs appear in an individual's plasma, drug concentration for the estimation of impairment has not even been established for most drugs. There are numerous problems with testing body fluids or hair for indication of an individual's impairment through drug use. Some of the these problems relate to the test itself and its limitations, and others relate to the involvement of imperfect human beings at all levels of the testing process. Don Barnard (Legalise Cannabis Alliance Press Officer) said: "This raises interesting questions... "If there is no accepted level of blood concentration for most drugs - including cannabis - how do we define impairment? How could you prove impairment? Since positive tests for drugs are not indicative of impairment, do we need drug testing? "No single analysis technique or method has immunity from errors or omissions. All have yielded incorrect or unacceptable results. "There are several causes of inaccuracies, including problems of interfering substances, cross-reactions between illicit substances and other legal substances, human error and, inadequate testing procedures. "Clearly, it raises both social and legal issues if an individual can test positive for cannabis without consuming it - especially where person's integrity, freedom or future prospects are at stake. "Employers should be wary of taking disciplinary action on one of these chemical test, because if it was shown that they were in possession of evidence the tests they were carrying out were not effective in measuring current impairment - they are now - and yet took disciplinary action against an employee on the strength of such a test, it would be strongly arguable that such disciplinary action was unfair - A costly litigation nightmare. "Random drug testing in the workplace gives a whole new meaning to the old saying; "My boss is taking the p..s Kind regards Don Barnard Press Officer http://lca-uk.org 07940 485115 Posted 23 April 2002
After you have finished reading this article you can click here to go back.
|
This page was created by the Cannabis Campaigners' Guide.
Feel free to link to this page!