No employment if you're on medicine?

[SciFiSam]

@Boyo_Jim

It’s extremely unlike that a drug screening would be able to identify a specific prescription drug. They are looking for broad classes like “opiates”, and there could be any number of drugs, legal or illegal, that would trigger a positive result. They might be asked, later, by an employer, to do additional testing to verify that it was the specific drug claimed by the subject – supposing the employer didn’t reject the person out of hand because of the first results.

My skepticism remains high. I worked for a company that did testing like this, and they administered very specific tests according to contract. It would be a very exceptional company that contracted to order a different set of tests based on a pre-screening questionnaire to the subjects. It would be much cheaper and easier to run them through the same regimen, and bring back the relatively few people who didn’t fit (or toss them aside for reasons like others have mentioned above).

Yes, but if they were testing for opiates and the person had a prescription for opiates, then they wouldn’t necessarily have to report it. It would test positive for opiates but it wouldn’t be something they’d have to report, if that makes sense. Just like when athletes test positive steroids but it’s the type used in asthma medications and they have a prescription; they’re not reported as testing positive for steroids.

[Boyo_Jim]

@SciFiSam

Yes, but if they were testing for opiates and the person had a prescription for opiates, then they wouldn’t necessarily have to report it. It would test positive for opiates but it wouldn’t be something they’d have to report, if that makes sense. Just like when athletes test positive steroids but it’s the type used in asthma medications and they have a prescription; they’re not reported as testing positive for steroids.

I’d like to see a cite for that. If they tested positive, they tested positive, even if there is a valid and legal reason for doing so. I think it far more likely the positive result is given to the team, and then it’s between the team and the player (and maybe some doctors and lawyers too) to work out whether it’s acceptable or not.

If a testing company doesn’t report the results at all, they either have to explain why (in which case they are reporting the positive result in some form other than a standard test result), or they are not going to be paid.

[picunurse]

@SciFiSam

Yes, but if they were testing for opiates and the person had a prescription for opiates, then they wouldn’t necessarily have to report it. It would test positive for opiates but it wouldn’t be something they’d have to report, if that makes sense. Just like when athletes test positive steroids but it’s the type used in asthma medications and they have a prescription; they’re not reported as testing positive for steroids.

The steroids in asthma medications are completely different from those used by athletes. The inhaled type don’t enter the blood. The asthma drugs are corticosteroids, whereas the others are androgenicsteroids. Different drugs, different tests.

Opiates impair judgment and dexterity whether they are prescribed or not.

[Boyo_Jim]

@picunurse

The steroids in asthma medications are completely different from those used by athletes. The inhaled type don’t enter the blood. The asthma drugs are corticosteroids, whereas the others are androgenicsteroids. Different drugs, different tests.

Opiates impair judgment and dexterity whether they are prescribed or not.

I understand what you’re saying, but our discussion is not really about whether some medications would have different results to a drug screening. My claim is that a drug screening company would not either falsify or refuse to report a positive result to a client company based on a prescription shown to test administrator at the time of the test. The testing company would more likely report the results, and verify (or not) whether the results might be compromised by the prescription.

[chorpler]

@Boyo_Jim

I understand what you’re saying, but our discussion is not really about whether some medications would have different results to a drug screening. My claim is that a drug screening company would not either falsify or refuse to report a positive result to a client company based on a prescription shown to test administrator at the time of the test. The testing company would more likely report the results, and verify (or not) whether the results might be compromised by the prescription.

They’re not falsifying the report – in the drug tests we’re talking about (that is, not for safety-related positions) they’re testing for illegal drug use, and that’s it. So if you have a valid prescription, the procedure is supposed to be:

1. You take the test, informing them that you have a prescription for drug X (or not; they’re going to call you back anyway, but often they appreciate it if you have documentation when you come in the first time).

2. They find the results positive for drug X.

3. The Medical Review Officer contacts you to find out if you have a valid prescription for X.

4. You provide the documentation.

5. The drug testing lab reports a negative result for illegal drug use to your potential employer.

Here is a quick and dirty cite; check under the definition of “Medical Review Officer.”

Edited to add: In fact, in cases like this, I’ve been told by a MRO that it was illegal for them to report a testee’s prescriptions to the potential employer. I don’t know if he was correct or not.

[chorpler]

@Boyo_Jim

I would like to see a cite for both of these claims.

I think the first has to be pure bullshit. There is no way a company is going to falsify your test results to protect your privacy. They might choose to include some kind of statement in a report like, “… the subject presented an apparently valid prescription for a medication which would in fact give a positive test result”. But falsify the results? They could open themselves up to major liability, and lose every customer they had if it was known they did that.

I provided a cite for the first part in my last post, but I think you’re misunderstanding that they’re not testing for drug use in and of itself in these cases, but for illegal drug use. So they’re not falsifying the report, they’re sending in an accurate report.

In jobs where public safety could be at risk, like truck driving, airplane piloting, heavy equipment operating, etc., your prescription drugs can and do disqualify you, of course.

@Boyo_Jim

As to the second, some law firm “analyzed” this? So what? Has any court ever ruled that way? Having your pain relieved by a pain killer is certainly being “under the influence” of the drug whether or not your driving is objectively impaired. I have serious doubts whether any law is written so narrowly as to distinguish between two possible states of being under the influence of an opiate.

Sorry, I remembered it wrong. What I was thinking of was a memo distributed as part of a brief presentation during a conference I attended on methadone maintenance programs several years ago. Fortunately the California Opioid Maintenance Providers have it on their website, so I was able to find it and refresh my memory without having to dig into my paper files at home (which I would not have wanted to do, believe you me).

The memo was written by Alex Coolman, a San Francisco Lawyer, in July 2005, to Dan Abrahamson, another lawyer, regarding a question about whether or not a driver who was involved in an accident could be charged with DUI if he or she was in a methadone maintenance program.

The memo can be found here, but unfortunately this is a Word DOC file, so be warned before you click on it.

Anyway, part of it says:

[

California Vehicle Code § 23152(a) makes it illegal for a person “under the influence of any . . . drug” to drive a vehicle. In People v. Canty, the California Supreme Court noted that being “under the influence” of drugs for purposes of the vehicle code requires that the drugs

must have so far affected the nervous system, the brain, or muscles [of the individual] as to impair to an appreciable degree the ability to operate a vehicle in a manner like that of an ordinarily prudent and cautious person in full possession of his faculties.

This definition, the court noted, is different from the idea of being “under the influence” of drugs in violation of the California Health and Safety code. Someone who is “in any detectable manner” influenced by a drug may violate the health code, but the vehicle code requires that the operation of a vehicle be impaired to an appreciable degree by the driver’s ingestion of the drug.

](http://www.comproviders.com/files/Methadone-and-Driving.doc)

Again, I haven’t looked up the cites (particularly People v. Canty) to see if Mr. Coolman has accurately summarized things, so I can’t say for sure whether or not a court has ruled that way. Perhaps one of our board lawyers could check into it and see if the description is accurate.

… okay, while trying to figure out how to get the quote above to be a hyperlink to the DOC file, I also found the People v. Canty case on Google Scholar. As far as I can tell, it does say what Coolman said it said, but I am not a lawyer so hopefully one of you who is actually a lawyer can look it over and see if I’m wrong.

[whiterabbit]

Every employment drug test I’ve ever been involved with included a “if it’s legit you’re fine” clause, and as I don’t drive or use heavy machinery or anything, there’s nothing to worry about – without getting into the legal/ethical side of requiring testing at all, of course.

Chronic pain can be damned disabling but legit opiate use doesn’t bar one from working on its own.

[md2000]

Even funnier - about 2 decades ago in Canada (where drug tests are very rare) a co-worker was first offered her job. One condition was she had to pass the company medical - but when they wanted to do a back Xray, she told them she was a month or two pregnant. The medical people told her “we can tell the company you did not pass the medical without telling them why”, their idea of medical privacy. (When we heard, all of us were incredulous that a group of medical professionals could be so stupid) Apparently she had to forcefully explain to them human rights laws - it is very illegal to discriminate about pregnancy in Canada. Finally, their compromise was to conditionally pass her, and she take the back Xray when she was able and that would then allow her to “pass” the medical.

Of course, she had no history of back issues, so that probably helped.

[Broomstick]

@Capitaine_Zombie

I can understand specific public services requesting them (especially law enforcement jobs), somehow this seems to have extended to possible risks job (that I can understand but it does sound a lot like a foot in the door thing), now any company can ask for one? Good luck on your interview if you refuse to take the test (and this is the reason why it shouldnt be something employers have the right to ask, you’re just in no position to refuse).

It’s linked to class in the US, which is intimately connected with money. Outside of jobs where it is an actual safety issue (in which case testing and monitoring is arguably a reasonable thing to do) the jobs where this is required is invariably those jobs taken by the poor/lower middle class: retail stores, warehouse stocking, etc. It’s part of how the poor are regarded as inherently untrustworthy in this country and part of the on-going criminalization of being less than middle class.

Accountants, managers, directors. and executives, and the like in their nice, corporate offices are never drug tested.