Drug testing: Top lab says hair test is more reliable
November 25, 2009 by Jim GiulianoPosted in: Behavior, Hiring, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views
Using blood or urine samples has been the standard for workplace drug testing for years. One of the country’s biggest laboratories says we may be looking at a better, more convenient testing method for some types of drug use.
Quest Diagnostics has released the details of a testing study that shows for the first half of 2009:
- Three of every 1,000 urine tests performed on job applicants and employees showed up positive for cocaine, while hair testing showed cocaine use in 32 of 1,000 samples.
- For every methamphetamine, 1,000 urine sample resulted in one positive test, while the same number of hair samples resulted in nine positives.
Quest’s reason for the higher number of hair-tests positives: Hair samples tend to show drug use going back further than urine samples — typically 90 days vs. one to three days.
The study also calls into question the size of the reported drop in drug use the last several years. For instance, urine tests show cocaine use is down 57% since 2005, but hair tests show only a 36% drop. For methamphetamines, urine tests show a decline of 64% for that same period, but hair tests show only a 55% drop.
Hair tests cost about twice as much as typical urine tests, Quest, notes.
Tags: applicants, drug testing, Quest
November 30th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Interesting, though I am concerned about who decides what part of the hair (history) is tested and what new policies would have to be drafted to ensure we would be testing everyone the same (someone with 3 inches of hair vs. someone with longer hair).
Did that make any sense?
November 30th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
When hair is tested the sample used is 1 1/2 inches form the scalp. This is an industry standard. The average persons hair grow 1/2 inches per month. This is where the 90 day figure is derived form. What comes more into to question is when a person has no hair on their head. I know most of the major labs sites will not collect hair from below the neck.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
OH, so that’s why half of the men I have seen come through have “that” nearly bald hair cut./??/.
Now don’t go off on me people, I don’t do drugs but I don’t believe in drug testing or lie detectors for terms of employment hire.
Sounds like the testing for these items is
1) biased (not everyone has 1 1/2 ” ’s of hair, do they?)
2) if someone has been “clean” for over 90 days and wants to put that part of their past behind them shouldn’t the employer be testing for competency ‘Now’?
3) a waste of company money
Personally, I don’t give a rat’s petute what someone did before my interview with them nor do I care what someone chooses to do on their own time. I am more interested in if they qualified, competent, reliable and will they be the best fit for this position.
I understand that no one wants injury or lawsuit…that’s why the tests are in place. However, if someone wants to pass any of these tests they ARE going to find a way to it.
As long as they perform the job I hire them to do, keep up my company’s image and can pass a on-spot pi** test (if required to do so), along with the other “normal performance” items…
In my opinion, it is none of my business…nor anyone else.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
OH, so that’s why half of the men I have seen come through have “that” nearly bald hair cut./??/.
Now don’t go off on me people, I don’t do drugs but I don’t believe in drug testing or lie detectors for terms of employment hire.
Sounds like the testing for these items is
1) biased (not everyone has 1 1/2 ” ’s of hair, do they?)
2) if someone has been “clean” for over 90 days and wants to put that part of their past behind them shouldn’t the employer be testing for competency ‘Now’?
3) a waste of company money
Personally, I don’t give a rat’s petute what someone did before my interview with them nor do I care what someone chooses to do on their own time. I am more interested in if they are qualified, competent, reliable and will they be the best fit for this position.
I understand that no one wants injury or lawsuit…that’s why the tests are in place. However, if someone wants to pass any of these tests they ARE going to find a way to it.
As long as they perform the job I hire them to do, keep up my company’s image and can pass a on-spot pi** test (if required to do so), along with the other “normal performance” items…
In my opinion, it is a waste of my company funds, none of my business…nor anyone else.
November 30th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
OH, so that’s why half of the men I have seen come through have “that” nearly bald hair cut./??/.
Now don’t go off on me people, I don’t do drugs but I don’t believe in drug testing or lie detectors for terms of employment hire. I would like to use the “Poppy seeds” incidents as my example!
Sounds like the testing for these items is:
1) biased (not everyone has 1 1/2 ” ’s of hair, do they?)
2) intrusive – if someone has been “clean” for over 90 (30, 10, 2) days and/ doesn’t want to disclose that part of their past, is it any of my concern? (& shouldn’t the employer be testing for competency ‘Now’, not for stupidity however many months or YEARS ago?)
3) a waste of company money
Personally, I don’t give a rat’s petute what someone did before my interview with them nor do I care what someone chooses to do on their own time. I am more interested in if they are qualified, competent, reliable and will they be the best fit for this position.
I understand that no one wants injury or lawsuit…that’s why the tests are in place. However, if someone wants to pass any of these tests, they ARE going to find a way to it.
As long as they perform the job I hire them to do, keep up my company’s image and can pass a on-spot pi** test (if required to do so), along with the other “normal performance” items…
In my opinion, it is a waste of my company funds, none of my business…nor anyone else.
December 1st, 2009 at 3:13 pm
We do drug test our employees as a pre-employment screening and if they get in an accident or cause an accident. The post accident testing was requested by our insurance companies and was great at first. Except now, it doesn’t matter if they are “off the charts” positive with a drug at the time of injury – now you have to prove that the drugs in their system actually had a hand in the incident/injury and you have to prove that if they didn’t test positive, the accident would never have happened. Aren’t lawyers great!
December 1st, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Oops. Sorry. Didn’t realize this site would not allow a comment edit, I apologize for that.
Jenn Q. … yep they are!
IMO: This all goes back to police yourselves people! If someone comes in messed up – we give them the option to “Test” right then or to go home. Three times of “going home” in 90 days gives them a three day unpaid vacation. 3 “unpaid vacations” gets them the option of drug rehab or termination. If they spot test positive – for anything not Doctor Prescribed- they’re sent walking. There is more to our policy, but that is the jist of it. Simple. Direct. Everybody knows where they stand.