Saliva versus urine - an overview of drug testing technologies

rpm

Admin
Staff member
Joined
Jul 22, 2003
Messages
66,740
Drug abuse is a growing problem in South Africa, as the variety of drugs available continue to increase and the cost of purchasing these drugs decrease. In fact, certain drugs are now cheaper than alcohol, which has led to a significant uptake in the number of users. The dangers and liabilities of employees under the influence of intoxicating drugs can be far-reaching, and as such, mandatory drug testing is an option that more and more organisations across industry sectors are investigating. However, the decision of whether to implement saliva or urine testing can be a challenge. Each technology has its own pros and cons, which must be weighed against the industry an organisation operates in and its environment, in order to ensure the best solution is implemented.

Drug testing has traditionally been regarded as a challenge to implement from a legal perspective. It was also regarded as slow, expensive, an invasion of privacy, and a host of other perceived obstacles that have limited its use. However, given the growing problem of drug abuse in South Africa and the dire consequences on safety, performance and efficiency, drug testing has never been more important. Improvements in available technology have made drug testing easier and more affordable than ever, and this can assist organisations to save lives as well as improve productivity and their bottom line.

When it comes to selecting equipment, there are a number of different solutions available, divided into two main categories of urine testing and saliva testing. In addition to urine and saliva testing, test kits are also available that enable the testing of solid substances, such as powders or tablets, for the presence of drugs. Urine testing solutions are generally low cost per test and are highly portable, which makes them a cost-effective option for the majority of industries. They are also available in several different form factors depending on budget and requirements.

Dip tests, as the name suggests, are strips that are dipped into a urine sample and will display either one or two red lines indicating the presence of drugs, similar to a pregnancy test. They are available as single and multi-panel, which means that they can be used to test for a single specific drug or a range of commonly abused drugs. Another form factor is the cassette test, which is a multi-drug test that requires the operator to use a pipette to drop a urine sample into each window for testing. Integrated cup tests are also available, which incorporate the test panel into the sample cup. The cup tests are extremely popular as they have additions such as thermometer strips built in to check the urine is at body temperature. Small additions like this are very useful as they are discouraging to people who are trying to cheat the tests. Both of these tests will also use red lines to indicate the presence of commonly abused drugs in the sample.

However, urine testing is not suitable for all applications, as certain considerations must be taken into account. Due to the need for privacy, females must be tested by females, and males by males. There must also be a private bathroom available to obtain the urine sample. This is not always possible, however, particularly in industries such as construction where bathroom facilities are typically provided for by portable toilets. For applications where urine testing is not possible, saliva testing provides a convenient option.

Saliva testing uses a swab to produce results in a matter of minutes, and can be used to screen for a panel of five common illegal substances including heroine (Nyaope), cocaine, marijuana and methamphetamines, which include substances such as tik, ecstasy and khat. There are no privacy concerns with such testing, and a male or female tester can test both male and female subjects. In addition, the person may have emptied their bladder a short while before requiring to test for drugs, this will lead to delays that you will not have to deal with when using a saliva test. However, some saliva testing units can be very large and heavy and are not particularly portable, so organisations need to ensure they select a compact and easy to use system. Saliva testing can also be more expensive per test than urine testing, so is less viable in organisations and industries with small budgets where many tests need to be performed on a frequent basis.

While saliva testing solutions have gained popularity because of their perceived less intrusive nature, they can be expensive, and are not always the best possible solution. Urine testing remains a useful option. Organisations need to consider both the nature of the testing and the cost involved, as well as the specific circumstances of their business and industry. Partnering with an expert service provider who can assist with this decision will ensure that the most appropriate equipment is supplied to maximise return on investment and optimise safety.
 

deweyzeph

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
10,556
I don't mind if you drug test employees operating heavy machinery or the pilot flying my plane, but drug testing for any other reason is an invasion of privacy.
 

koeksGHT

Dealer
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
11,858
I don't mind if you drug test employees operating heavy machinery or the pilot flying my plane, but drug testing for any other reason is an invasion of privacy.

this, any job that can affect others such as construction etc, otherwise it's really just invasive.
 

syntax

Executive Member
Joined
May 16, 2008
Messages
8,662
I don't mind if you drug test employees operating heavy machinery or the pilot flying my plane, but drug testing for any other reason is an invasion of privacy.

I firmly believe whatever you want to do after work hours is up to you. However, the effects of said activities must not impact on work responsibilities. Having positive traces which indicate that you are still under the influence at work is unacceptable.

I think this kind of testing is fine for all environments, not just construction / heavy machinery.

I will however have an issue if the test cannot be accurate enough to tell if the substances are still influencing me to the point where it is work affecting.
 

deweyzeph

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
10,556
I firmly believe whatever you want to do after work hours is up to you. However, the effects of said activities must not impact on work responsibilities. Having positive traces which indicate that you are still under the influence at work is unacceptable.

I think this kind of testing is fine for all environments, not just construction / heavy machinery.

I will however have an issue if the test cannot be accurate enough to tell if the substances are still influencing me to the point where it is work affecting.

Just because you have a trace of something in your system does not mean that you are still under the influence of it. Marijuana for instance can take up to 30 days to flush out of your system, but the effects only last a few hours after you have consumed it.
 

syntax

Executive Member
Joined
May 16, 2008
Messages
8,662
Just because you have a trace of something in your system does not mean that you are still under the influence of it. Marijuana for instance can take up to 30 days to flush out of your system, but the effects only last a few hours after you have consumed it.

accurate saliva tests will not pick up traces after 6 hours of marijuana use from what i have read (i didnt do a hell of a lot of research).

Also, if you read my post properly, you will see that I clearly state the test must be accurate enough to tell if the substance is still influencing me to the point where it would be work affecting. So, are the traces in high enough amounts that i am still under the influence.
 

Pho3nix

The Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
30,594
accurate saliva tests will not pick up traces after 6 hours of marijuana use from what i have read (i didnt do a hell of a lot of research).

Also, if you read my post properly, you will see that I clearly state the test must be accurate enough to tell if the substance is still influencing me to the point where it would be work affecting. So, are the traces in high enough amounts that i am still under the influence.

Important part that most HR area's will miss.
Seen bully tactics where employee was told regardless of whether he was not still under the influence, he consumed illegal substances.

Not really a big fan of tests like this unless HR has followed some sort of process.
 

Venomous

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
54,768
uhm uhm.....


hair roots/folicals can be tested with far better success. It preserves the drug traces for months as opposed to the other tests where it is out the system(blood and urine) within a relatively short time(often 2 weeks or even days)


I went through a wild learning curve not to long ago. LoL even shaving your hair short does not remove the traces. All it does is make the now very skinny person look even more haunted :sick:
 

scudsucker

Executive Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2006
Messages
9,024
Drug testing is also fraught with false positives - eg, when I was doing medical trials, we were warned not to eat poppy seeds because we could test positive for opiates. I have my doubts about this - unless I was eating several tablespoons of poppy seeds - but plenty of the tests can't tell the difference between pseudo-ephedrine (in cold medicines) and amphetamines, for example.

I'd be arguing with HR to provide some pretty certain empirical evidence that the test was accurate if I was asked to do one in my line... a bug in a PHP website is not going to kill anyone.*

(* aside from maybe, a code reviewer)
 

Electric

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
14,228
Drug testing is also fraught with false positives - eg, when I was doing medical trials, we were warned not to eat poppy seeds because we could test positive for opiates. I have my doubts about this - unless I was eating several tablespoons of poppy seeds - but plenty of the tests can't tell the difference between pseudo-ephedrine (in cold medicines) and amphetamines, for example.

I'd be arguing with HR to provide some pretty certain empirical evidence that the test was accurate if I was asked to do one in my line... a bug in a PHP website is not going to kill anyone.*

(* aside from maybe, a code reviewer)

Mythbusters proved this one as fact.
Eat a few poppy seed bagels or muffins and you'll test positive for opiates.
 

syntax

Executive Member
Joined
May 16, 2008
Messages
8,662
uhm uhm.....


hair roots/folicals can be tested with far better success. It preserves the drug traces for months as opposed to the other tests where it is out the system(blood and urine) within a relatively short time(often 2 weeks or even days)


I went through a wild learning curve not to long ago. LoL even shaving your hair short does not remove the traces. All it does is make the now very skinny person look even more haunted :sick:

Why test like this though? especially for general work environments?
It might say that yes you have taken narcotics, but so what? It doesnt say if you are under the influence at work.

If someone were to try implement these kinds of tests I would be very strongly against it
 

noxibox

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
23,348
Those who carry out tests for illegal drugs are not looking for impairment. They're assisting the state in the persecution of those who choose to use those drugs. This is because the tests do not test for levels required for intoxication, but minute traces that can be from use days, or even weeks, before. It's all about destroying anyone who dares to choose to use those drugs.

I firmly believe whatever you want to do after work hours is up to you. However, the effects of said activities must not impact on work responsibilities.
This is the bullsh*t argument often used by businesses who are of the opinion that employees are their property and they should therefore get to dictate their private lives. If you believe your statement then you must also believe the employer is entitled to control what you eat, your leisure activities (including sport/gym, which can result in pain or injury that can impact your work performance), and your sleeping habits.
 

Venomous

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
54,768
Why test like this though? especially for general work environments?
It might say that yes you have taken narcotics, but so what? It doesnt say if you are under the influence at work.

If someone were to try implement these kinds of tests I would be very strongly against it

in that instance it was used to have children removed from a harmful environment.
The children are now with their dad and no longer in the tik-factory-home.

Worse for her.... She may only see her kids twice a week for an hour supervised visit. The daughter (10) has chosen not to see her mother, so she only gets to see the young son.
 

Venomous

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
54,768
And those tests were court ordered. The woman skipped bail in an attempt to avoid that test. Had her head shaved quite short when they finally caught her.
There was enough to test.....
 

syntax

Executive Member
Joined
May 16, 2008
Messages
8,662
This is the bullsh*t argument often used by businesses who are of the opinion that employees are their property and they should therefore get to dictate their private lives. If you believe your statement then you must also believe the employer is entitled to control what you eat, your leisure activities (including sport/gym, which can result in pain or injury that can impact your work performance), and your sleeping habits.

I dont think it is unreasonable for your employer to not want you to be under the influence of drugs at work
Almost every contract i have signed for work has some clause that you cannot be intoxicated or under the influence at work. My statement simply enforces that, do what you want in your private time, dont be under the influence at work
 

syntax

Executive Member
Joined
May 16, 2008
Messages
8,662
in that instance it was used to have children removed from a harmful environment.
The children are now with their dad and no longer in the tik-factory-home.

Worse for her.... She may only see her kids twice a week for an hour supervised visit. The daughter (10) has chosen not to see her mother, so she only gets to see the young son.

ok, we are discussing two different reasons for testing. Mine is the testing at work and the legitimacy of it as to whether it proves you are under the influence or not.
 

Venomous

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 6, 2010
Messages
54,768
ok, we are discussing two different reasons for testing. Mine is the testing at work and the legitimacy of it as to whether it proves you are under the influence or not.

lol,


nany cough mixtures contain small quantities of high % alchol. Drink some within a few hours of testing and it will read positive...
 

syntax

Executive Member
Joined
May 16, 2008
Messages
8,662
lol,


nany cough mixtures contain small quantities of high % alchol. Drink some within a few hours of testing and it will read positive...

geez, i dont see why this is so hard. Yes, it will test positive (although i doubt within hours after having). No, it wont test above the threshold for intoxication.

I said earlier that the tests would need to be accurate enough to distinguish the difference between traces of substances in the system and whether or not they are at a level that will be sufficient to be classified as intoxicated or performance affecting.
 

noxibox

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 6, 2005
Messages
23,348
It is heartening to hear that supply is widening and prices are dropping. It is always good news to hear the loathsome drug warriors are losing their filthy war.

geez, i dont see why this is so hard. Yes, it will test positive (although i doubt within hours after having). No, it wont test above the threshold for intoxication.

I said earlier that the tests would need to be accurate enough to distinguish the difference between traces of substances in the system and whether or not they are at a level that will be sufficient to be classified as intoxicated or performance affecting.
No test of that sort exists. It's redundant anyway. If someone wants to know if an individual is not capable of doing something they'd be better off performing an impairment test. The amount of some chemical is not going to tell them that definitively - it'll vary by individual and by drug, as well as a number of other factors. Workplaces for example typically rely on behavioural evidence of intoxication for alcohol, but use tests that detect nanograms, and then only of metabolites, for other drugs. The purpose of the testing is more than obvious - to maliciously hurt users of those drugs as well as by extension punishing their families.
 
Top