Pass Your Hair Follicle Drug Test

PassYourDrugTest.com claims that they can help you pass your hair follicle drug test. The following is an excerpt from their site:

"Want to know how to pass a hair drug test? While no method is full proof, the ability to pass a hair drug test is possible."

American Toxicology Inc. gladly welcomes any challenge on any product that claims to be able to mask your Hair Follicle drug testing kit.

If you really think your methods will work, send us a sample of your product!

595 East Brooks Ste #313
N. Las Vegas NV 89030

or email us any time!

Mouse Party | The Effects of Drugs on the Brain

The University of Utah built this fun game to briefly show the effects that different drugs have on our brain.

Click here to play the mouse game!

They use a cartoon aquarium full of laboratory mice who are "high" on different drugs. You are the lab worker, and you get to pick up the mice and plop them into a testing mechanism. The mechanism then gives us an insight into the chemical reactions inside the "high" mouses brain. When you are through learning about the drugs effects, the mouse is dropped back into it's cage and you can grab another mouse.

Kind of childish, but it gives us a pretty good idea of what effects different drugs have on our neurological system.

Thanks University of Utah!

Drug Testing Policies

American Toxicology offers services in assisting clients in writing their drug testing policies. It is not uncommon to review a policy and find it deficient in a number of areas. Some are so deficient that it is recommended that the whole policy be rewritten. Unfortunately, some clients have paid a considerable amount of money for their policies which were written by someone else and marketed to be tailored to their needs. An employer, not knowing where to go, can be easily convinced with legal jargon and marketing hype that it is their best interest to buy a policy from someone “who knows what they are doing”.

Well, this is the American way and I can’t be too critical toward someone seeing an opportunity. However, selling drug testing policies is a relatively new enterprise. Some laboratories have been assisting employers with drug testing since the days of the Nixon Administration when it all began. I cannot specifically speak for other laboratories, but American Toxicology is willing to assist clients in this area at no charge. It is in our best interest to have clients with good drug testing policies.

Basically, a good policy must have two competent components – the company and the laboratory. No matter how competent one of them may be, if the other one is not, the policy will fail to give protection from liability. Drug testing is a team effort between the company and the laboratory. Unfortunately, some employers are very loose on this philosophy, until they get themselves into litigation. Then things change rather rapidly.

I have seen policies, especially in the gaming industry, where the competency of one or both of these components are lacking to the point that the drug testing conducted only works if it does not go to court. The main motivation for an employer to knowingly have such a program is to reduce costs. These companies literally operate on the edge. To them, drug testing is viewed primarily as a public relations expense. There is little fear of legal reprisal.

American Toxicology’s motto is that we only do that which we will win in court. We have had to make some tough decisions concerning this position. However, we feel it is a worthy standard to hold.

Why a Medical Review Officer (MRO) may not be beneficial to the employer.

By: Dan R. Berkabile

Nevada law requires any laboratory that tests human biological specimens to be regulated by the State as a medical laboratory. As such, the laboratory is required to report the results of its testing in a prescribed manner. For drug testing, the report must list the drugs screened for and their cutoff levels. Drugs reported positive or negative must refer to this list on the report. If the prescribed medication accounts for a drug reported positive, it can be noted on the report as, “the drug identified is consistent with prescribed medication, or language similar to this. Additional information may be given.

MRO’s are mandatory in federal drug testing. They are optional in private drug testing. I suppose private employers pay the additional const for a MRO thinking it will reduce their liability, not believing that following state guidelines is as sage. However, it must be remembered that the State is regulating their testing anyway.

In using the MRO, if an applicant was taking prescribed medication equal to a positive finding, the MRO would report the results to the employer as negative. The applicant would be hired without any knowledge to the employer about the prescription. The employer would have to depend entirely upon the applicant to reveal any possible interference the prescription medication may have on job performance and safety.

However, without the MRO, the laboratory report goes directly to the employer and none of this would be a concern. The notation on the report already shows that the laboratory conducted a medical review under its laboratory director a pathologist. The report would also be received sooner by the employer.

It is true that prescription medications are confidential. The American Disabilities Act (ADA) stresses this. However, I believe the intent of ADA is not directed so much toward abused drugs typical in pre-employment drug screening. If a person has a prescription for one of the abused drugs, I believe the employer should know about it. The possibilities are codeine, amphetamine, methamphetamine (speed), morphine (metabolite of heroin), and more recently, marijuana. (A good question would be: would a MRO exclude a positive finding for marijuana if the person showed that a doctor prescribed it?)

In the latest Nevada legislative session, a representative of a large labor union testified before a senate subcommittee concerning the passage of a proposed drug testing bill. I was presenting during this meeting. The following is a word by word transcription from public records of the portion of this individual’s testimony concerning medical review officers:

“We believe that in using a lab such as (the lab was named), thy have qualified people on staff including medical officer (I believe the meaning here is medical doctor or pathologist), and when we get the test results back from the lab, they have done their primary test, they have done their confirming test, they have looked at that, and any test that we have ever had challenged by an employee, and they have that option to challenge a test, not to retest, but to challenge it, have always come back in the positive. My concern would be if we were to interpret that MRO must be used one hundred percent of the time, we’re going to add an expense for that MRO testing. As an example, in one case lab charges an addition al $6.00 to have every test result review by an MRO. Additionally, if it’s post testing, now we’re adding time on that we’re going to have somebody out of a job until we get the test results back. Whatever that time may be, hours or days, it’s additional exposure to injury.” (The last sentence refers to a person remaining on the job.) The individual further mentioned the delay that MRO review brings about in hiring new workers.

In Nevada, a laboratory that performs drug testing must be licensed as a clinical laboratory. As such, the laboratory is directed by a licensed pathologist who is responsible for all results reported by the laboratory. Under these regulations another doctor in the system going over results is not necessary, and is only a waste of time and money, as the labor representative above explained.

Dan R. Berkabile

Forensic Chemist