Amid ongoing discussions about how to ensure drivers aren\u2019t impaired by marijuana, a federal official recently pushed back on criticism that proposed implementation of saliva-based drug testing could incentivize more cannabis use by commercial truckers.<\/p>\n
In comments to the publication Transit Topics, an unidentified official from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) responded to assertions from the CEO of a drug-testing company that oral fluid testing \u201cmeans truckers who use cannabis will be able to do so with near impunity, as long as they avoid a drug test for a couple of days.\u201d<\/p>\n
The contention of the CEO\u2014Ken Fichtler, of Gaize\u2014was that the Department of Transportation\u2019s (DOT) \u201cshift to oral fluid testing will have serious consequences for the trucking industry\u201d because saliva testing has a shorter detection window than typical urine-based testing. He said the tests detect use within the past \u201c24 to 48 hours,\u201d which is far shorter than the period of weeks when marijuana metabolites can be detected in urine.<\/p>\n
DOT finalized the new testing policies in 2023 to allow oral saliva drug testing as an alternative to urine-based tests<\/a>.<\/p>\n The SAMHSA official, granted anonymity by Transit Topics<\/a>, disputed Fichtler\u2019s claims\u2014both on the test\u2019s detection window itself and the implications of DOT\u2019s revised testing policies for truckers\u2019 marijuana use.<\/p>\n \u201cIn referenced journal articles, cannabis use can be detected via oral fluid testing for up to 72 hours,\u201d the official said. \u201cWhen a donor receives a request for collection, the donor will not know if the test will be an oral fluid or urine collection until they arrive at the collection facility for a federal agency.\u201d<\/p>\n Not knowing whether to expect a saliva or urine test, in other words, would prevent the situation described by Fichtler of drivers simply stopping marijuana use a few days before a saliva-based test.<\/p>\n As Transit Topics reported:<\/p>\n \u201cFederal drug officials say that directly observed urine specimen collections have long been the most effective method for preventing individuals from cheating on their drug tests by substituting or adulterating their specimens, but directly observed urine collection may only be done in certain circumstances due to employee privacy concerns.\u201d<\/p>\n Oral fluid testing, by contrast, is more easily observable without the same privacy concerns. Some advocates of the use of oral fluid have noted that it would also better determine impairment because detects recent<\/em> marijuana use, thus reducing false positives in situations such as post-accident drug tests.<\/p>\n This past December, critics lamented that more than a year and a half after finalizing the rule, federal officials had yet to set up the infrastructure necessary to allow the new testing procedure to be used<\/a>.<\/p>\n The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), meanwhile, had been planning an event in April to convene government officials, forensics experts, academics, industry representatives, law enforcement and standards organizations for what it described as \u201can open and candid discussion\u201d about \u201cthe path forward to realize meaningful cannabis breathalyzer technology and implementation.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n Earlier this month, however, a NIST official told Marijuana Moment that the workshop had been \u201cpostponed until the summer, date TBD,\u201d providing no further details.<\/p>\n Topics to be discussed at the event are meant to include challenges facing marijuana breathalyzer design and development, obstacles to prosecutors handling drugged-driving cases and how NIST and other entities might partner to advance the technology.<\/p>\n Fichtler at Gaize, for his part, told Transit Topics that he believes the movement toward saliva testing will continue, but added that \u201cif keeping roadways safe is what we\u2019re trying to do, a total rethink of the drug-testing paradigm is required.\u201d<\/p>\n His company develops a real-time testing technology that employs what its website describes as \u201ca series of automated eye tests to instantly detect indicators of drug and alcohol impairment.\u201d<\/p>\n With more than three quarters of all U.S. states having legalized marijuana for either medical or adult use, and in light of the possibility of federal rescheduling of the drug, concerns about highway safety loom large before policymakers. Though there\u2019s no widely agreed-upon way to test impairment by drivers at a roadside stop, efforts to develop and deploy field tests that screen for recent use have become more urgent in recent years.<\/p>\n Impaired driving is of particular concern to the trucking industry, which has raised worries that rescheduling marijuana could complicate zero-tolerance drug policies.<\/p>\n Last month, the issue of marijuana-impaired driving arose congressional hearing, with a representative of the Governors Highway Safety Association emphasizing the importance of roadside drug testing as a tool to help combat deadly car crashes<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cI think the first and foremost thing that is going to assist us in preventing those tragedies from taking place is oral fluid roadside testing,\u201d said Michael Hanson, who\u2019s also director of traffic safety at the Minnesota Department of Public Safety.<\/p>\n Responding to a question from House Transportation & Infrastructure Subcommittee on Highways and Transit member Rep. Rob Bresnahan (R-PA), Hanson also pointed to saliva testing as an example of \u201cinstruments and technology\u201d that law enforcement officers could deploy in the field \u201cto detect recent use of a cannabis product that is a strong indicator that that person may be impaired.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cPutting those tools in the hands of law enforcement to prevent that from happening\u2014or allow them to process somebody who may be impaired\u2014is going to be important,\u201d he told lawmakers.<\/p>\n The transportation industry also advised Congress in January, if marijuana is federally rescheduled, businesses want assurances that they won\u2019t have to forgo zero-tolerance drug policies for drivers<\/a>\u2014while stressing that a key problem for the sector is a lack of technology to detect impaired driving.<\/p>\n While saliva or blood tests can detect recent marijuana use better than urine or hair samples, there\u2019s another wrinkle: As recently acknowledged by a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) researcher, it\u2019s unclear whether a person\u2019s THC levels are even a reliable indicator of impairment<\/a>.<\/p>\n On a podcast last year, Frances Scott, a physical scientist at the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Office of Investigative and Forensic Sciences under DOJ, questioned the efficacy of setting \u201cper se\u201d THC limits for driving. Ultimately, she said, there may not be a way to assess impairment from THC levels, as law enforcement does for alcohol.<\/p>\n One complication is that \u201cif you have chronic users versus infrequent users, they have very different concentrations correlated to different effects,\u201d Scott said. \u201cSo the same effect level, if you will, will be correlated with a very different concentration of THC in the blood of a chronic user versus an infrequent user.\u201d<\/p>\n Last October, a study preprint posted on The Lancet by an eight-author team representing Canada\u2019s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Health Canada and Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia identified and assessed\u00a0a dozen peer-reviewed studies measuring \u201cthe strength of the linear relationship between driving outcomes and blood THC\u201d<\/a>\u00a0published through September 2023.<\/p>\n \u201cThe consensus is that there is no linear relationship of blood THC to driving,\u201d the paper concluded. \u201cThis is surprising given that blood THC is used to detect cannabis-impaired driving.\u201d<\/p>\n Most states where cannabis is legal measure THC intoxication by whether or not someone\u2019s blood THC levels are below a certain cutoff. The study\u2019s findings suggest that relying on blood levels alone may not accurately reflect whether someone\u2019s driving is impaired.<\/p>\n \u201cOf the 12 papers included in the present review,\u201d authors wrote, \u201cten found no correlation between blood THC and any measure of driving, including [standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP)], speed, car following, reaction time, or overall driving performance. The two papers that did find a significant association were from the same study and found significant relationship with blood THC and SDLP, speed and following distance.\u201d<\/p>\n The issue was also examined in a federally funded study last year that identified\u00a0two different methods of more accurately testing for recent THC use<\/a>\u00a0that accounts for the fact that metabolites of the cannabinoid can stay present in a person\u2019s system for weeks or months after consumption.<\/p>\n A 2023 congressional report for a Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies (THUD) bill said that the House Appropriations Committee \u201ccontinues to support the development of an objective standard to measure marijuana impairment and a related field sobriety test to ensure highway safety<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n A year earlier Sen. John Hickenlooper (D) of Colorado sent a letter to the Department of Transportation (DOT)\u00a0seeking an update on that status of a federal report<\/a>\u00a0into research barriers that are inhibiting the development of a standardized test for marijuana impairment on the roads. The department was required to complete the report\u00a0under a large-scale infrastructure bill<\/a> signed by President Joe Biden, but it missed its reporting deadline<\/a>.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) last year warned that marijuana rescheduling could create a \u201cblind spot\u201d with respect to drug testing of federally regulated workers in safety-sensitive positions\u2014despite assurances from then-U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg that the\u00a0cannabis rescheduling proposal \u201cwould not alter\u201d the federal drug testing requirements<\/a>.<\/p>\n At a House committee hearing, Buttigieg had referenced concerns from ATA \u201cabout the broad public\u00a0health and safety consequences of reclassification on the national highway system<\/a>\u00a0and its users,\u201d which the trucking association voiced in a letter to the secretary.<\/p>\n As more states legalize marijuana, a federal report published last year showed that the number of\u00a0positive drug tests among commercial drivers<\/a>\u00a0fell in 2023 compared to the year before, dropping from 57,597 in 2022 to 54,464 in the prior year. At the same time, however, the number of drivers who refused to be screened at all also increased by 39 percent.<\/p>\n Another question found that 65.4 percent of motor carriers believed current marijuana testing procedures should be replaced with methods that measure active impairment.<\/p>\n At the time, the report from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI) noted a 65,000-driver deficit in the country and said the fear of positives over marijuana metabolites\u2014which can remain in a person\u2019s blood far long after active impairment\u2014may be keeping would-be drivers out of the industry.<\/p>\n The record-high number of refusals came as the transportation industry faces a nationwide shortage of drivers, which some trade groups have said has only been made worse by drug testing policies that risk flagging drivers even when they\u2019re not impaired on the job.<\/p>\n Current federal law mandates that commercial drivers abstain from cannabis, subjecting them to various forms of drug screening, from pre-employment to randomized testing.<\/p>\n In June 2022, meanwhile, an ATRI survey of licensed U.S. truck drivers found that\u00a072.4 percent supported \u201cloosening\u201d cannabis laws and testing policies<\/a>. Another 66.5 percent said that marijuana should be federally legalized.<\/p>\n Cannabis reform advocates, meanwhile, have also\u00a0called on federal officials to change what they call \u201cdiscriminatory\u201d drug testing practices<\/a>\u00a0around the trucking industry.<\/p>\n A top Wells Fargo analyst said in 2022 that there\u2019s one main reason for rising costs and worker shortages in the transportation sector: federal marijuana criminalization and\u00a0resulting drug testing mandates<\/a>\u00a0that persist even as more states enact legalization.<\/p>\n Then-Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) sent a letter to the head of DOT in 2022, emphasizing that the agency\u2019s policies on drug testing truckers and other commercial drivers for marijuana are\u00a0unnecessarily costing people their jobs<\/a>\u00a0and contributing to supply chain issues.<\/p>\n The 2022 ATRI report noted that research into the impact of cannabis use on driving and highway safety is currently mixed, complicating rulemaking to address the issue. A separate\u00a02019 report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS)<\/a>\u00a0similarly found that evidence about cannabis\u2019s ability to impair driving is inconclusive.<\/p>\n A study published in 2019 concluded that those who drive at the legal THC limit\u2014which is typically between two to five nanograms of THC per milliliter of blood\u2014were not statistically more likely to be involved in an accident<\/a>\u00a0compared to people who haven\u2019t used marijuana.<\/p>\n Separately, the\u00a0Congressional Research Service in 2019 determined<\/a>\u00a0that while \u201cmarijuana consumption can affect a person\u2019s response times and motor performance \u2026 studies of the impact of marijuana consumption on a driver\u2019s risk of being involved in a crash have produced conflicting results, with some studies finding little or no increased risk of a crash from marijuana usage.\u201d<\/p>\n Another study from 2022 found that smoking CBD-rich marijuana had\u00a0\u201cno significant impact\u201d on driving ability<\/a>, despite the fact that all study participants exceeded the per se limit for THC in their blood.<\/p>\n Evan as far back as 2015, a U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) concluded that it\u2019s \u201cdifficult to establish a relationship between a person\u2019s THC blood or plasma concentration and performance impairing effects,\u201d\u00a0adding that\u00a0\u201cit is inadvisable to try and predict effects based on blood THC concentrations alone.\u201d<\/p>\n In a separate report last year, NHTSA said there\u2019s\u00a0\u201crelatively little research\u201d backing the idea that THC concentration in the blood can be used to determine impairment<\/a>, again calling into question laws in several states that set \u201cper se\u201d limits for cannabinoid metabolites.<\/p>\n \u201cSeveral states have determined legal per se definitions of cannabis impairment, but relatively little research supports their relationship to crash risk,\u201d that report said. \u201cUnlike the research consensus that establishes a clear correlation between [blood alcohol content] and crash risk, drug concentration in blood does not correlate to driving impairment.\u201d<\/p>\n Marijuana Industry PAC Attacks Biden And Canada In New Ads Designed To Appeal To Trump<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer.<\/em><\/p>\n The post Federal Official Downplays Criticism That Saliva-Based Marijuana Testing As Urine Alternative Would Spur Use By Truckers<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n
Amid ongoing discussions about how to ensure drivers aren\u2019t impaired by marijuana, a federal official recently pushed back on criticism that proposed implementation of saliva-based drug testing could incentivize more cannabis use by commercial truckers. In comments to the publication Transit Topics, an unidentified official from the Substance Abuse andContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":24,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[18,81],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80700"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/24"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=80700"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80700\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":80701,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/80700\/revisions\/80701"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=80700"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=80700"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=80700"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\nRead More: Federal Official Downplays Criticism That Saliva-Based Marijuana Testing As Urine Alternative Would Spur Use By Truckers<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"