|
FTA
Drug and Alcohol Regulation Updates |
FOR YOUR INFORMATION |
|
Where to Find? .....
DHHS Labs To verify the certification status of laboratory, DHHS has established a telephone HELPLINE (800) 843-4971.
The information presented on this page should be used to update Chapters 7 and 8 of the Implementation Guidelines. |
S.C. Supreme Court Prohibits Sale of Urine In 1999, Act 65 was signed into law in South Carolina outlawing efforts to obstruct or interfere with alcohol and/or drug tests. Violations of the Act include selling or possessing adulterants, substituting a specimen, and spiking a specimen. The law makes it illegal to give away or sell urine to be used to defraud a drug or alcohol screening test. First time offenders can be sentenced to up to three years in prison. The South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the Act by ruling (Curtis v. South Carolina, 01-875) that a person cannot sell his fluids (i.e., urine) as part of a business that caters to people who are trying to beat a drug test.  Kenneth Curtis, the individual that initiated the case, sells drug-free urine, along with a small pouch, tubing and a warming packet for $69. He claims that use of his product can not be detected even if directly observed. The Court determined that the statute, which makes it unlawful to defraud a drug test, furthers the public purpose of ensuring a drug-free workplace and therefore, was upheld. HEMP Product Controversy Continues The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) issued an interpretive rule in October 2001 that bans hemp seed and oil food products that contain any amount of tetrahydrocan-nabionols (THC). The rule states that any product containing any THC should be considered a Schedule I controlled substance even if the portion of the plant used is excluded from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) definition of marijuana. Products are considered illegal if use of the product results in THC entering into the body. As a result, these products may not be made, sold or consumed in the U.S. Hemp product makers are subsequently challenging the rule in the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. As a result of the court action, the DEA has postponed the deadline for requiring the disposal of all products defined as illegal in the rule until the motions are resolved. Regardless of the final outcome of the hemp product ban, the Department of Transportation made it very clear in Part 40 that MRO’s must not accept an explanation that use of a hemp product or other non-prescription marijuana product was the cause of a positive test result for marijuana. The regulation (40.151(f)) states that “consuming or using such a product is not a legitimate medical explanation” and thus if its use results in a THC concentration above the minimum thresholds, the test must be considered positive for marijuana. Given the availability of hemp products in the U.S. marketplace, employees subject to DOT drug testing should be aware of the potential risks and consequences of their use. For more information on the hemp controversy consult the DEA’s website at www.dea.gov. Alcohol Found in Unsuspecting Places Alcohol is defined as the
intoxicating agent in beverage alcohol, ethyl alcohol or other low molecular
weight alcohol including methyl or isopropyl alcohol. Any or greater
concentration of alcohol that results in a breath alcohol concentration of
0.04 is considered positive under the FTA regulation (§655.31). A
concentration of 0.02 or greater, but less than 0.04 will result in the
employee’s removal from safety-sensitive duties for at least eight hours
unless a retest results in a concentration of less than 0.02. |