MediNat Australia

Drug tests made mandatory for parents of at-risk kids, Opposition says policy ignores real issues By Matt Watson   Parents of at-risk children will face mandatory random drug testing under a new policy introduced by the Queensland Government, but the Opposition has said the policy misses the mark. Child Safety Minister Shannon Fentiman said the drug crystal meth, or ice, was putting too many children at risk. She said parents who entered into an intervention with parental agreement (IPA) would be forced to undergo mandatory drug testing. Under the IPAs, parents developed a safety plan with child safety officers, Ms Fentiman said. "This is a zero-tolerance measure that puts the safety of children first and foremost," she said. "If the information suggests there is ice use and the children are unsafe, we will remove the children. "It will be up to the discretion of the child safety officer and it will depend on whether or not there's a his

Toll awarded $18,000 from drug-test faking employee by Victoria Bruce HC Online Logistics giant Toll Holdings has scored a win from the Fair Work Commission as a former employee has been ordered to pay the company $18,000 after falsifying drug test results to support an unfair dismissal claim. The commissioner ordered the former Toll Holdings employee, who was fired in June 2015 after a positive drug test, to pay the company $18,000 in compensation, AFR reported. The employee had tested positive for amphetamine and methamphetamine in his system after a workplace drug test, yet before his dismissal the worker told Toll urine sample tested by a doctor had showed up negative to the drugs. But at subsequent proceedings to hear the worker's unfair dismissal claim, the doctor gave evidence that the test had been "manipulated", and the original test showed the former employee had tested positive.   Read the full article here. Comment: It

Acquittal of man caught drug-driving nine days after smoking cannabis throws NSW drug laws into doubt By the News National Reporting Team's Lorna Knowles and Alison Branley New South Wales's roadside drug testing laws have been thrown into doubt after a magistrate acquitted a man who tested positive for cannabis he had smoked nine days before he was pulled over. Key points: Man waited nine days after smoking cannabis before he got behind the wheel THC was detected in his saliva and he was charged He had earlier been told by police to wait at least a week before driving The Greens say the judgement leaves the drug testing laws in disarray Lismore magistrate David Heilpern yesterday found Joseph Ross Carrall not guilty of driving with an illicit drug in his blood because he mistakenly believed that he would no longer test positive to the drug. Mr Carrall was pulled over for random drug tests in May and June last year. When he was tested in May

The new fitness for work amendments under the Building Code 2013 will commence on Friday, 16 October. Master Builders Australia welcomes the phased approach to implementing the drug and alcohol fitness for work amendments for the building and construction industry under the Building Code 2013. The new fitness for work amendments under the Building Code 2013 will commence on Friday, 16 October. This will require contractors to have a comprehensive policy for managing drug and alcohol issues in the workplace which includes mandatory drug and alcohol testing on Commonwealth funded projects. Fair Work Building and Construction will be responsible for monitoring compliance and will have a three stage approach to auditing the drug and alcohol testing requirements. FWBC will initially help industry understand the implications of the policy through education. The second stage will consist of audits with a view to providing feedback on their compliance with the requirements

As many are aware accuracy of Saliva Drug Testing and the detection of THC is frequently questioned. There is substantial research in the last 15 years that indicates that Saliva Drug Testing for THC is quite unstable, even with monumental advances in technology in recent years it still remains so. I don't want to create a "how to buy good marijuana article" however some practical facts need to be covered as well as the technical information.   Below is a typical product insert for a saliva test device showing the types of THC molecules tested. This tests detects both the Parent THC and the metabolite THC-COOH   Δ-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) (Parent) 50 ng/mL (-)-11-nor-Δ 9 -THC-9-COOH 12 ng/mL 11-Hydroxy-Δ 9 -THC 300 ng/mL 11-nor-Δ 8 -THC-9-COOH 12 ng/mL The emphasis is on detection of the Parent Drug at 50ng as that is deposited in the mouth via when marijuana is smoked.

NATA have finally released information regarding Saliva Drug Testing device standards under AS/NZS4760-2006. We have known for a substantial amount of time that NATA had withdrawn the accreditation for onsite Oral Fluid/Saliva drug testing devices, because we were attempting to get our devices Certified for AS4760 compliance. They have just made an official announcement to that effect: Having conducted several assessments, it has become apparent that there are a number of significant issues with Section 3 of AS 4760:2006 which remain unable to be resolved. This is despite NATA seeking independent feedback to clarify these issues from key professional bodies including the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA), the Australasian Association of Clinical Biochemists (AACB) and from our counterpart organisation in New Zealand, International Accreditation New Zealand (IANZ). Accordingly, NATA has not granted accreditation to any facility for AS 4760, Section 3 and a decisi

Urine drug test direction was reasonable: Full Bench http://www.workplaceohs.com.au A worker repudiated his contract of employment when he refused to comply with a lawful and reasonable direction to submit to a urine drug test, the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission has confirmed. When RB refused to do so, he was advised in writing that his employment would be terminated unless he changed his position. However, RB persisted with his refusal to undergo the urine test and was dismissed. Subsequently, RB lodged an unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission. He argued that the A&DM Policy was concerned with testing employees for impairment at work only, and thus a direction for him to undergo a urine test, being a test that was incapable of detecting impairment, was not reasonable. RB relied on the fact that AS 4308, the Australian Standard for drug testing urine, states that ‘[t]his standard has no relevance to impairment’. In April 2013, Fair Work C