textfiles/drugs/testlec.txt

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?
--