Can We Really Catch Dopers?

Yes there are, and as P.T. Barnum is claimed to have proclaimed "There's a sucker born every minute." Do any of these things really work? In my opinion they will only work if the person is a very infrequent user and also drinks a LOT of water! As far as advertising is concerned, one can find that in magazines that cater to the party crowd. It's been a long time since I looked at such a magazine, but I do remember "Not F.D.A. Approved" at the bottom of every advertisement.

I would think that certain illegal substances leave a signature long after their use - even when used but once. There are the flushes, the powders, the "natural substances" and of course the bottled "clean" urine. Yuck!

During the past three (3) years I was in and out of the job market, and was required to take drug tests each time I accepted a job offer. These tests were very different employer-to-employer, and I am sure that was dependent on how serious they were about having a substance-free workplace.

For example; during one such test I was supervised while I emptied my pockets and opened my shirt, and the attendant stood behind me as I urinated, then quickly grabbed the cup and placed a digital thermometer in it before sealing it. In another, I simply brushed my gums with a swap and placed it in a tube. In yet another, I urinated in a short glass, into that four (4) sensors were placed. That one was over in less than a minute. During my most recent test at my current employer, a three-inch sample of my hair was cut from the back of my scalp.

Of course I passed each one. I think it is obvious that the last one cost much more money than any of the others, plus it gave my employer a six-month history of my habits.

I do think that people who buy such "magic flushes" only fool themselves - unless there is some success through a combination of urine dilution and a test that only seeks strong concentrations of certain substances.

We have all worked jobs (especially in our youth) where a newcomer to the workplace was eventually "outed" as being a real party animal. And we scratched our heads and wondered how he passed the drug screen.

Now, hmmm, I'm wondering about that stuff called "Horny Goat Weed". Would I be wasting my money?

Best Regards,

Ing. Robert Forbus

Milo, I agree 100%. When I was a chief engineer I managed technical and non-technical people for many years, and remember when drug testing became the norm during the late 1980's. Me? I'm a live and let live type of person, and never cared what people did on their personal time. As long as they were sober while on duty, and not involved in the transaction of substances during their work hours, I did not invade.

I agree about the disturbing facts and their impact on the workplace, i.e., does a manager really want to know? For when one has knowledge one must act or be seen as a paper tiger.

It brings back a memory of a tense staff meeting that involved the upcoming random testing of employees. We were entertaining a contract with a government agency that required stringent and annual post-employment background checks on our workforce.

As I sat in a room full of comments such as "Harrumph, harrumph, drugs are bad - no business in the workplace." "Harrumph, harrumph, those people need treatment, but not on our nickle." "We don't have those types of people here - everyone passes a pre-employment drug screen." I sat and listened to my fellow managers proposing to each other their self-delusional claim of being a candidate for sainthood and silently snickered to myself.

I finally had enough and said "Well, he who is without sin please cast the first stone, and that person is certainly not me." I took it further with "I think that we managers and our exempt direct reports should do this first and set the good example for our workforce." The silence was deafening until the big guy finally said "Well, any testing would be random in its entirety." I interpreted this as a last chance for a few of my management colleagues to "detox" on their own before the testing. Just as I thought - it's a good idea for everyone else and not us. In the end we never did it. We did not get the contract and the policy was a true paper tiger.

A few years later we transferred another operating function into our plant. This operation was comprised of many young people and had more of a "fun" culture than that of ours. I began to notice minor safety violations and when I brought them to the attention of the perpetrators I was met with a very hostile response by a couple of people. After a few such run-ins with this group I went to HR and stated that we had a serious drug problem in our workplace, and that people were under the influence while on the job. "What?" "Who?" "How could you know?"

I replied that in my multicultural life I had been around many types of people, and if someone was a continual user that I could not only spot this fact, but could usually tell what substance they were abusing. I had to be around them for a long time, and had to interact with them repeatedly to determine this.

A snitch was hired to work in the plant, and within a couple of weeks she had a list of our most prolific users. Bingo! I was absolutely correct about all of them. A couple did agree to the drug test, and were fired when they failed. The remainder refused to take the drug test, and were fired. Was there disruption? Oh yes there was, as a complete department was nearly obliterated. Fortunately the jobs required minimal training, so the restaffing was not so hard. And this employer offered a one-time professional rehabilitation for substance abuse provided the employee took the first step.

I transferred to another operation a couple of years later, and there was another drug sweep through my former plant. And this time, a high-ranking member of the management staff was nailed as well as a few hourly employees. Now, that was embarrassing to say the least. A man lost a 30-year professional position because of his habit. Was he a danger to anyone? No. Was he a threat to company security or quality? I don't think so. Was he difficult to replace? Yes, as he had a key financial position and much industry knowledge. But, he was aware of the rules, and chose to not heed them.

I still think that post-employment drug testing is a Big Brother thing, yet for certain occupations I can see where it is needed. As an engineer with a desk job I am not much of a threat to anyone's safety. If I drove a lift truck or operated a complex machine then it would be different. But, the policy must be all-encompassing in order to be fair.

I have a lecture that I often give to the younger people who hang around some of us older bikeriders. "Don't do drugs - don't go to prison." "This is your b***hole (makes small circle). This is your b***hole in prison (makes large circle)." "Get the message?" I usually get a chuckle from someone when I do this skit, but the point is well taken.

Best Regards,

Ing. Robert Forbus

An acquaintance of mine several years ago had a really hot shot engineer which he wanted to hire... but the guys drug screen came back bad. The guy INSISTED that he did NOT do drugs. Looking further into the problem, they discovered that the guy had undergone surgery about 3 months earlier, and what the drug screen was picking up was residue from medications given him in the hospital. Luckily he did get the job.

This goes to show that a bad drug screen does NOT mean that the guy is a druggie.

Bill

Absolutely! Procedures are in place to correct anomalies and review processes are the vehicle.

Lots of people claim that these drinks can 'flush' the drugs out of their system. They may or may not work but there are certainly cases where due to the act of 'flushing' people overdose and actually do damage to their liver etc. Not worth the risk or hassle.

I work in a large company and was involved in the introduction of a drug and alcohol test. I think we have a very fair system, we do the swab testing which only picks up drugs that are in your system at that time. Not what you took on Friday night with your mates. We are only interested if some one turns up under the influence, no one is exempt from the testing boht alcohol or drug testing including management or visiting CEO's.

That's all very sweet but the chemical compounds of many recreational drugs effect an altered state upon the mind which doesn't clear as fast as evidence of the drug in the body. Several recreational drugs do influence the minds capabilities up to 13 days after one use.

Do we need to categorize in a gradient occupation levels of which mindlessness is not a prohibitive characteristic?

"Do we need to categorize in a gradient occupation levels of which mindlessness is not a prohibitive characteristic? "

I guess that is what we do as employers to try to manage our risk, If we can find a better word than mindlessness to mean "not measurably impaired to perform required duties in a safe and adequate manner."

You show up stoned, You get confirming test and fired.

You get hurt, you get confirming test and we deal with the consequences.

Frankly, the drinks by salesmen at lunch are probably more of an issue, both to the business being transacted and the folks on the highways.

And the impairment while they are on their blackberries while driving is another real and growing danger. I won't bother with my opinion of the gals driving the SUVS while on their cell phones, phone in one hand, cigarette in the other, and maybe a sip of coffee too. I ve seen dozens of times. (to be fair, Sometimes with guys too).

There are many ways of being impaired. Some are ingested chemically. Some are designed by engineers and marketed to consumers under the guise of "portable electronics."

milo

Supposedly, there are drinks that block detection of illicit drugs. Sellers claim that someone who has taken an illicit drug can "flush their system" by drinking the liquid, and thus provide a urine sample that doesn't show the presence of the original drug.

A person of average+ metabolism, physical condition and an occasional user; referred to as 'social use' may be able to pass a urinalysis if the prompts are not too critical.

An habitual users chances are slim to none especially if the authority requires any type physical exertion prior to urinalysis. The exertion will cause fat to be eliminated and habitual users retain drug residues in fat tissue.

If you want to catch doper's don't settle for urinalysis opt for Ultraviolet Spectrophotometry or CDEX

I do not know why Some folk use the excuse that "Office" and "Supervisor" drug abusers are not just as much of a danger as equipment operators.The decisions they make can kill out on the job.Even a typo error can kill someone who carries it out.

I have spent 40 + years repairing machinery from nuclear submarines to chemical plants.Drug abuse at all levels injures and kills.It can also lead to loss of business and business failure.Drug abusing employees were a maintenance and production nightmare for me.

Legal drugs are abused just as bad as illegal and are illegal when abused.

Druggies will always find and make excuses.It is very clear who they are.

Folks.I have stayed straight,watched and suffered from Drug abusers.Drug abusers abuse not only their selves but also abuse you and the community.They expect YOU to put up with and suffer the consequences of their selfish behavior.This is experience talking.I may love them,but I do not like the selfish abuse they inflicted on me,my job and the security of my family,even though some have been my close family.I have personally found drug abusers to be the most selfish people in the world,as they do not care what they cost others.In spite of what they say,we ALL pay for their abuse,however slight.Just being caught always causes loved ones to suffer from their irresponsibility.

Many folks loved ones now reside in some graveyard because of drug abusers.Many more are crippled,maimed and are now a burden on their loved ones.

The bottom line.They could care less what they do to others!

YES!!! We really can catch DOPERS.All it takes is for every decent person to report them.Innocent people deserve better than what drug abusers do to them. Alfred

Drug test for Job employment? i never heard of that before, since i work here in Japan they have like yearly health check ups, they take blood and urine, so they could detect any drug use, but the main purpose is to find any problematic health troubles.

A sick employee costs the company money

Whether a worker can perform and use drugs recreationally depends on the individual. Most are not functional and will fail. I have known a few that are functional over 20 years. How I have no idea how but they did and did well. Last time I checked (two years ago) they were still functioning at technical jobs. I partied with them back in high school and college.

Although loads of fun, in retrospect it was a major waste of time. Back then the money was less than alcohol (a recreational drug). Another good friend is dieing as I write in a hospital. He burned the candle at both ends and at 60 he is done. He lived more than three people in one life. His Choice.

The problem is very few can be functioning drug users.

As an officer once told me that he had never seen someone drive while drunk and know their limit. He had followed me for several miles observing my driving. I passed all of his sobriety tests (Breathalyzer were rare at that time). I couldn't dive faster than 5 mph. No one was endangered but I would not have attempted anything my condition could not do. Why? I was very drunk.

With ability comes responsibility. Not something you are taught in school.

One thing I did not know was I have a non addictive personality/physiology. I did not understand why others became addicted. The problem is there is no test to see who will crave even nicotine more than social embarrassment. That can not be a responsible intoxicant.

Now I don't care for recreational drugs, why the cost and time involved are not worth it. Been there, done that, wore out the teeshirt. Wasted time my only regret.

Yes if you want to.

Say, do any of you drug hazed pot heads really want Nuclear Plant operators or engineers stoned out of their mind? How about airline pilots next time you climb aboard or just look up and see one flying over your home? Truck drivers? Wake up and smell the roses, this is not just an innocent recreation, this is a real and present danger that can and should be eliminated.

Yes Nancy just say No!

Do you smoke and or drink alcoholic beverages then you are a recreational drug user and should be terminated. The difference is your pusher is giving a cut to the government up front.

By the way civilization of man was facilitated by recreational drug use. Look into the history of beer. You can deny human nature all you wish but elimination has never worked while there are profits involved. Now see if you can get congress to give regular UAs. they make decisions that are more consequential than any other group in America. As the government so the people.

Can we really catch dopers? Only the stupid ones or the ones with no impulse control.

Funny that you should focus on "pot heads". Seems to me that a clear headed thinker would know that all of the other mind altering substances are far more detrimental to the ability of a user to perform certain tasks. And the term "stoned out of their mind" is just an expression, not a reality. The real danger is the misrepresentation of the facts.

Stop the propaganda! The connection between pot and dangerous people is about as real as violent video games or movies and mass murderers. There are always extenuating circumstances which are ignored for the sake of an easy target to blame. If the truth were always available, you would understand. But then, some people really prefer a nice lie to the truth anyway.

Extremist are the real problem. Some of them are Arab, some are Christian, one may be your boss or co-worker. But the extremists are the real problem. They are addicted to bad behavior and they get away with it all the time. Deal with the extremists and you will most likely find fewer dopers.

I agree i think history shows that ideology kills more people than Drugs

Science and technology will do what they will do to help managers catch closet drug users. But the problem of drug use belongs in the fields of the humanities and religion. I see no use in engineers tearing their hair out about such matters. It's obvious to most people that drugs are bad for you. But some people take them. What to do about that is a social question, not really an engineering question. If a person wants to get off drugs they can do it. That's for sure. So someone who is detected in a "sweep" (if he/she admits the detection was not an error) should be given the chance to get cleaned up. That's my only real concern in this type of action. It's dumb for a group to just throw someone out who has years of experience and know-how within that group. With new people that might not be such an important consideration.

l e cox Very thoughtful comment.

I am sympathetic to your reasoning, except for the

"But the problem of drug use belongs in the fields of the humanities and religion. I see no use in engineers tearing their hair out about such matters. "

Drugs in employees IS an engineering problem, when engineers and managers are held responsible for the safe function and interface of the process and the employees.

Also, many of us here wear the Management hat as well as the engineering hat.

As for religion and the humanities, I'm afraid I haven't seen any progress from either front for eliminating this plague (or any other plague) from our societies. The medical data from Meth abusers is 4% are able to kick the habit with Medical intervention. How exactly have the churches and arts helped us in this area?

As engineers, our job is to do our best to improve mankinds material welfare and make our world safer; As managers we are entrusted with the lives of our employees as well as our customers and the wealth of our shareholders.

"In the first place do no harm" is actually sound engineering advice; how does ignoring the problem of drugs in our shops because the religionists and artists are working on it help us in this regard?

"It's dumb for a group to just throw someone out who has years of experience and know-how within that group." Agreed, but at the risk of employee injury or fatality if impaired, Businesses that "intelligently manage risk" choose to eliminate that risk.

It cost me some good employees because of the "zero tolerance" and "fairness to all" thinking of our senior management And the "we need to know" attitude.

Drugs are an engineering and management problem. We look forward to the day when the churches and the artists have eliminated this problem. Until then, we'll keep doing our best to not let people get hurt. And struggle with the implications and consequences of our policies and technologies.

milo

You've got a good point. By the "humanities" I do include subjects like business management, however. And actually engineers are just as capable as management-trained people, or more so, of understanding and dealing with a problem like this, because handling it can be reduced to a technology. It's just not what most people think of as an engineering technology.

What can I say? I'm a Scientologist. Just because most people don't know that a workable technology exists for this and other human problems doesn't mean one doesn't exist. It just means that someone doesn't want us to know it exists. I would prefer engineers deal with it, really. But my point was that they can't depend on the traditional physical science technologies for a total handling. It's going to take more than that.

Very thoughtful for a first post l e cox,

Welcome to CR4.

Brad

Thank you. Sorry I forgot to log in for my last reply.

This was an interesting topic because it definitely crosses over into "non-engineering" areas and yet I can see it's a very important topic to those contributing to this blog. I guess we all have training and experience that goes beyond what we might apply at work on any given day, and that definitely shows up in these posts. I hope my occaisional contibutions may be helpful in some way.

"I hope my occaisional contibutions may be helpful in some way."

They already have.

Thoughtful is especially appreciated. As you pointed out with your comment about 'nonengineering areas,' it is always 'on the borders' where the active challenges lie.

Its always the edges, the interstices.

Thanks for pointing that out on this thread.

milo