Drug Testing: A Personal Experience

Hi folks,

Illegal drug use is a major issue facing Pocahontas County. During the course of the Democratic "Meet the Candidate" events that took place over the past couple of months, voters directed many questions about the drug problem to the candidates for Magistrate, Prosecuting Attorney, and Sheriff. Perhaps strangely though, neither James Carpenter nor myself were asked much about the county's drug problem. I walked away with the perception that citizens might not feel that the county commission has much of a role to play with respect to illegal drug use. So that is a question to you.

Yet there is one role that the county commission has talked about some: the issue of testing county employees for illegal drug use.

Not too long ago, Commissioner Martin Saffer brought the issue of drug testing before the county commission. Mr. Saffer subsequently volunteered to take a test, did so, and passed. His leading by example was good and well received. But it is also noteworthy; not because he passed, but because he didn't fail.

My wife Monica wasn't so fortunate.

Upon preparing to return to work for this past ski season, Snowshoe called Monica and set up an appointment for a routine drug test (standard policy). When Monica's appointment arrived a couple of weeks after the call, she went in to take her test. A few hours later, she came home in tears. She tested positive for THC.

Fortunately, part of Snowshoe's testing procedure allows for the same sample to be sent off to a second, independent lab. To do so requires a deposit of $150. If the second test comes back negative, the first test is ruled a "false positive" and you get your deposit back. If positive, well, that's that. So with her reputation and job on the line, Monica of course put down $150 and said "do it."

A few agonizing days later, Monica's second evaluation of her sample came back. It was negative. She was cleared, and went on to work for the season.

The scenario Monica went through is not uncommon. Doing some research on the Internet shows that a plethora of medications and conditions can cause false positives in a basic urine test, and that variances in procedure and quality from lab to lab can play a factor.

As both a county commission candidate and a person seeing first-hand how hard a false positive can be to endure, I wanted to share this experience with you. I want you to know that there is much to talk about before we adopt any county-wide drug testing program.

In Mr. Saffer's recent act of taking a drug test himself, what if he had been falsely accused of using, for example, THC? What would he have done? How would he have felt? Embarrassed? Angry? You bet. Would it have cost him his job? Possibly. So let's not take this lightly, nor casually nor dismissively. False positives can and do happen.

As the county commission begins to look at implementing a county employee drug testing program, it is imperative that we examine and follow drug testing programs in use at other organizations so we can benefit from their experiences, good and bad. For example, Snowshoe's policy of offering a second, independent evaluation of a person's sample is exemplary, and we should ensure that any program we adopt offers the like as well.

DF

I have been for drug testing of all county and state employees whether hired on or elected in, for many years. I have never been able to understand why everyone from teachers to road workers to law enforcement and judges aren't required to test.
Mr Flemming has a good valid point, and I see no reason why a second test such as Snow Shoe has couldn't be adopted into the program. In fact I believe that it should be just for the saftey of the testee. Also any test showing positive for use should remain confidential until the results of the second test come in, there by disallowing any embarrasment to anyone.
Drug use is a problem state wide and tends to be getting worse in small communities. Everything that can be done should be done to turn this around. Users aren't just the poorly dressed guy on the corner, but they extend into all walks of life. People you would never suspect of having a problem often times do, they are just good at hiding it. It is hard to spot a user who holds a regular job or public office because mood swings and other tale tale signs are often attributed to dealing with the public or other job related stress. Often times the spouse of an addict doesn't know of the problem. This is why I support testing.
I would like to see state or federal regulations on that public that mirrows that of a truck driver, where there is random testing for anyone holding a valid drivers license, and in the case of an accident all drivers involved would have to be tested with in an hour of the accident. This ofcorse will probably not happen for many years, but I think that it would make our highways safer.

I don't see why the county couldn't cover the cost of the second test and if it comes back positve just withhold it from the employee's last pay check. Just an idea.