Using Hair for a drug test

[xiggi]

Personally I do not really care about drug tests one way or the other. I certainly have never felt embarrassed or humiliated by taking one.

 

[bobwg]

While waiting for probable cause a truck driver crashes into a car killing family of 4, a mother , father, and 2 babies. tests using hair and urine indicate the truck driver was using drugs and had used drugs in the past. what if that was you or someone in your family ??

 

[Turtle]

While waiting for probable cause a truck driver crashes into a car killing family of 4, a mother , father, and 2 babies. tests using hair and urine indicate the truck driver was using drugs and had used drugs in the past. what if that was you or someone in your family ??

Crashing into a car and killing a family of 4 would fall under the category of probable cause, I'd think, for a urine test to see if he was under the influence at the time of the accident. If he tests positive, then there is enough probable cause to warrant a hair test, IMHO, but if he's not under the influence at the time of the accident, there's no probable cause for a hair test to find out what he might have done in the past while off-duty, OOS and on his own time. Because, if he was not under the influence at the time of the accident, then what he may have done 1, 2 or 3 months ago doesn't have any impact or bearing at all on what he did today.

Now, if someone is just signing on with a carrier and the carrier wants to have a hair test done to satisfy their own risk management, I don't have a problem with that, since one can chose to comply or not. But once that's done, a hair test should only be done if there is enough probable cause to justify it.

 

[bobwg]

Crashing into a car and killing a family of 4 would fall under the category of probable cause, I'd think, for a urine test to see if he was under the influence at the time of the accident. If he tests positive, then there is enough probable cause to warrant a hair test, IMHO, but if he's not under the influence at the time of the accident, there's no probable cause for a hair test to find out what he might have done in the past while off-duty, OOS and on his own time. Because, if he was not under the influence at the time of the accident, then what he may have done 1, 2 or 3 months ago doesn't have any impact or bearing at all on what he did today.

Now, if someone is just signing on with a carrier and the carrier wants to have a hair test done to satisfy their own risk management, I don't have a problem with that, since one can chose to comply or not. But once that's done, a hair test should only be done if there is enough probable cause to justify it.

Any of you legal know it alls can correct me if i am wrong but I believe when you hire on to a company/lease they tell you or and the Dot law says you are subject to random drug tests as part your job requirements therefore if you do not want to be subject to random drug tests you have the choice to get out of the trucking industry

 

[cheri1122]

While waiting for probable cause a truck driver crashes into a car killing family of 4, a mother , father, and 2 babies. tests using hair and urine indicate the truck driver was using drugs and had used drugs in the past. what if that was you or someone in your family ??

This scenario happens EVERY DAY with drunk drivers - how much 'inconvenience' does any [average] driver have to go through because of it?
How many prevention programs exist to address the issue?

 

[Turtle]

Any of you legal know it alls can correct me if i am wrong but I believe when you hire on to a company/lease they tell you or and the Dot law says you are subject to random drug tests as part your job requirements therefore if you do not want to be subject to random drug tests you have the choice to get out of the trucking industry

Absolutely true, and it's a point I've made elsewhere in this thread. But the DOT defines how the random drug tests are to be performed (49 CFR Part 40), and the testing of hair ain't a part of it. For pre-employment screening, that's up to the carrier, but for anything else after you're hired or leased on, unless you have probable cause, nunya.

 

[Dakota]

Dear Patron,

Prior to your next check arriving, the provider class has demanded that, (you), the recipent class, submit to a hair analysis for your use of illegal drugs.

Thank you kindly,

Your Welfare Department.

I agree totally!!!

 

[jerry-jones]

wish all carriers would do the hair testing. no downfall to testing with hair the way i see it.
so more people get laid off for failing.
safer roads,means the guy that was driving high is not on the road as often as he was before.
means my family and your family is safer.
means more freight for you and i..
i talk to so many people at truck stops with rotted teeth, and you can tell they are on meth or something thats why their teeth are rotted like that. me personally i wish they would test with hair i dont see no down fall to it.
but makes to much sense for the carriers or dot to make it mandatory

 

[Dynamite 1]

jj, pretty presumptuous of you to assume that all people you talk to in truckstops with rotted teeth are drug users. my mother had rotted teeth like that when she was 40 and it was calcium deficiency from child birth. there are many reasons for bad teeth and yes drug use can be one. deciding that just because teeth are rotten a person must be on drugs is very discriminatory and not acceptable.

 

[scottm4211]

jj be thankful it's not an IQ test

 

[LDB]

That's kind of my point, though. If someone gets high at a party, but is not under the influence at all when they next report for work, then what they did on their own time is nunya. What if someone is OOS and on vacation for three or four weeks and gets high once or twice that first week? A hair test will cost them their job.

So as long as they break the law on their own time we don't care that they are criminals and we just trust their "honest" nature to not do it where/when it will affect their driving I guess.

 

[OntarioVanMan]

I as well don't like that it intrudes into personal space where the person is not driving...and has no bearing on his or hers ability....

 

[chefdennis]

Leo wrote:

So as long as they break the law on their own time we don't care that they are criminals and we just trust their "honest" nature to not do it where/when it will affect their driving I guess

Fact is thats what we are legally bound to...if they get caught while doing it or while they are impaired, then there is a price to pay....3 months later, not impaired, no probable cause to check..no legal right to test or take action...

 

[BillChaffey]

I don't care one way or the other. It's part of the contract like it or not. That being said when at Panther Orientation in 2007, when the Urine testing was announced. At least 6 persons got up, left the room and never returned.

 

[bobwg]

Leo wrote:



Fact is thats what we are legally bound to...if they get caught while doing it or while they are impaired, then there is a price to pay....3 months later, not impaired, no probable cause to check..no legal right to test or take action...

Just wondering can you guarantee that the every one that claims to only use drugs when they are off duty at home away from the job will not be the same ones using while working and driving down the highways with me and my family ????? Sorry Illegal is Illegal if some people dont like that their favorite drug is illegal then work to change the law otherwise shut up and take your punishment. All druggies to jail

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Maybe should test for prior alcohol use because the driver MIGHT drink going down the road....

 

[chefdennis]

Hmmm one can pretty much guarantee that if a person is not legally impaired, they aren't using....

 

[OntarioVanMan]

Hmmm one can pretty much guarantee that if a person is not legally impaired, they aren't using....

well if someone on their time off last month took a toke of Mary Jane....they to won't be impaired....

anyone hooked on meth or crack would be hard pressed to go 3-4 days without the fix... it is all water under the bridge really...it is the requirement of the job....it is what it is...as you would say...

 

[bobwg]

Hmmm one can pretty much guarantee that if a person is not legally impaired, they aren't using....

Not good enough keep testing with hair and if caught too bad again illegal is illegal the law doesnt say anything about only being guiltly if you are currently high it says use of drugs whether now or in the past there is no time limit that i know of

 

[chefdennis]

lol in this particular case, yes it is part of the job application...but in the real world everyday...hmmm they need probable cause to check...other then a ramdom and that is "pee" test per the DOT regs (other then CR England making it part of their company policy) so without probable cause,, it ain't happening....and as to no limit....ever heard of the "statute of limitation" laws.....