Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs using Urine (UrMG) (Revised)
2022-04-19 2022-04-19 2022-06-07 2022-06-14 2022-06-14 2022-06-14 2022-04-19
SAMHSA-2022-0002-0003 SAMHSA-2022-0002-0004 SAMHSA-2022-0002-0008 SAMHSA-2022-0002-0016 SAMHSA-2022-0002-0015 SAMHSA-2022-0002-0014 SAMHSA-2022-0002-0005
04:00:00 04:00:00 04:00:00 04:00:00 04:00:00 04:00:00 04:00:00
https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/SAMHSA-2022-0002-0003 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/SAMHSA-2022-0002-0004 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/SAMHSA-2022-0002-0008 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/SAMHSA-2022-0002-0016 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/SAMHSA-2022-0002-0015 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/SAMHSA-2022-0002-0014 https://api.regulations.gov/v4/comments/SAMHSA-2022-0002-0005
Anonymous John Anonymous Brian Hilde Helen Timothy
Anonymous Wurm Anonymous Quass Mckee White Barrett
Federal workers should absolutely be allowed use medical marijuana with a doctors recommendation just as they can use any other controlled substance with a valid prescription. The a huge portion of federal employees are disabled veterans and should be allowed to use medical marijuana if their doctor deems it an appropriate treatment.The War on Marijuana is an ridiculous and its even more ridiculous that the federal government is proposing this language, as congress is moving towards completely removing cannabis from the controlled substance list. Stop discriminating against federal employees as the majority of states allow medical marijuana and it general direction is towards recreational legalization. Medical cannabis is legal in 37 states, there are many doctors and medical professionals that realize the benefits of cannabis. The federal government is completely out of touch with the American people on the benefits of medical cannabis, and it should be up to a doctor and their patient on its use. I find it disturbing that the Federal government wants to continue the use of urinalysis on their employees, current or prospective, to detect cannabis use when it does not detect intoxication. Continuing to test current or prospective federal employees for cannabis use limits the applicant pool, and will force current employees to retire early, or move to the private sector rather than continue this policy. Please find comments from the Substance Abuse Program Administrators Association on UrMG, File code 2022-0001. The only constitutional use of drug testing is to find impairment.  It should not be used as an extrajudicial fishing expedition to identify and punish workers who use godsend medicines of which politicians disapprove, many of which have inspired the creation of entire religions!!! To do so is an affront to religious freedom and a violation of the natural law upon which America was founded. Thats why Thomas Jefferson rolled in his grave when the DEA stomped onto Monticello and confiscated the garden-loving presidents poppy plants.  Stop betraying everything that America stands for: end indiscriminate drug testing. PS  Its also cruel and unusual punishment to remove an American from the workforce without so much as a trial.  Request for Public Comment - Docket ID SAMHSA-2022-0002Federal drug testing guidelines were established in the 80s, at the same time that the American War on Drugs hit fever pitch. Panic surrounding less expensive, easily available street drugs like crack cocaine lead to mass arrests of low-income Americans, while the wealthy were able to bring vials of more expensive powder cocaine with them to parties with far less consequences. As a result of the treatment of drug use since the 80s, thousands of Americans are incarcerated on drug charges and drug testing has become commonplace for pre-employment and routine employment screening. But in 2022, times have changed. Routine drug use includes prescription drugs and medical marijuana. In fact, recreational marijuana use is legal in several states and generally socially acceptable in most circles. We have lived through two and a half years of a pandemic in social isolation not without consequence to public health. Gun violence rates are climbing, domestic violence trends are up, and substance use is increasing. Is now the right time to introduce stricter drug testing?The proposed rule to update the federal mandatory drug testing guidelines appears, at first glance, only to clarify previously established procedures for oral fluid and urinary specimens. The executive summary only mentions annual publication of drug panels, revised definitions and processes for collection, and guidelines for report submissions. However, upon further review there are some unexpected non-administrative changes proposed. Most interestingly, the proposed rule hopes to publish the drug panel annually in the Federal Register with any revisions (additions or removals of illicit substances) without providing option for public notification and comment (per the Administrative Procedures Act). However, even though a drug has been removed from the published drug panel, the proposed rule provides any federal department the agency to continue to test for said drug whether due to reasonable suspicion or internal routine policy.  The given reason for this overreach is to improve effectiveness of drug testing programs, but it reads to me like a cheap way to enforce a power dynamic by choosing what to test for on the whim of whoever is managing testing that go-around.There are other proposed updates including use of biomarkers to verify human specimens and MRO judgment calls on illegal opiate use, but most notably there were strange proposals regarding what constitutes a drug test refusal. Section 1.7 of the established guidelines details every potential action that could result in a refusal, and the current proposal includes arriving late, leaving before the end of the waiting period after collection, and not washing your hands before giving your sample. In general, it feels like over policing federal employees. The individual is already providing a sample for testing based on an ambiguous drug panel, subject to biomarker testing to determine if its a human specimen, and still have the potential to fail the drug test for stepping out early to take a phone call? Most of the proposals cite overall cost savings either in terms of actual cash or time spent performing the tasks related to the regulations. But what, if any, are the benefits to the federal employees? During a time of uncertainty as we recover from COVID and transition to an endemic response, is it the best use of our energy to increase regulatory compliance with federal drug testing? The federal government is a stable employer that Americans have trusted for decades. Perhaps its time for the federal government to trust their employees.  The drug campaigns of the 80s through the early 2000s portrayed marijuana as a highly addictive drug, like crack cocaine, amphetamines, and opioids. Millions of Americans use marijuana recreationally today, even police officers and teachers. Its not an appropriate use of federal funds to spend time writing further restrictive regulations for mandatory testing, holding federal employees to a pristine standard, nor is it an appropriate use of their time when there are more important things to regulate, such as highly addictive prescription opioids.  I am very concerned about the following section;Therefore, the Department proposes to publish the drug testing panel in the Federal Register on an annual basis, including any revisions to the panel, without the need (perceived or otherwise) to undergo notification and comment. Should the Department remove a drug from the drug testing panel, a Federal agency may test specimens for that drug in accordance with Section 3.2 (i.e., on a case-by-case basis for reasonable suspicion or post accident testing, or routinely with a waiver from the Secretary). This process is expected to improve the effectiveness of Federal agency drug testing programs in support of the Federal Drug-Free Workplace Program. The drug testing panel in Section 3.4 of the final OFMG will remain in effect until the effective date of a newly published drug testing panel.These proposed changes would be a nightmare for collectors and employers.  While the intent may be practical scientifically, I do not feel this would be viable in real world situations.  If a drug is removed, DOT will have to follow suit.  What will happen with the paper CCFs when they are incorrect.  There was a total fiasco at the last update which required adding the oral fluid.  Laboratories, collection sites, and employers were not able to get the new CCFs resulting in a plethora of MFRs and cancelled tests.  Then a reversal of the requirement to use the new CCF was issued to try to minimize the damage.  While I know the eCCF would be immediately updated to reflect changes, rural collection sites and onsite collections are generally always performed using a paper CCF for practical reasons.If drugs are added or removed, policies will have to be changed, employers and employees notified and collectors educated.  While it is noble to think this can happen by publishing a yearly Federal Register, again this is not at all feasible in real time drug and alcohol testing programs. As a third party administrator and collection site supervisor, I am very aware how challenging and detrimental to drug and alcohol testing programs this proposed change would be.  Despite blanket coverage and communications from many sources, there are still  Under the Authorized Biomarker Testing Panel section. If the assumption is that approved endogenous biomarkers are used; as the determinative readout of a positive, false, false positive, false negative, and invalid test for cannabinoid use. Then the test and result alone would highlight a clear defining indicator that only show if an individual has a medical condition, preexisting and not, and would expose knowledge of the possibility of a medical condition an individual may have, regardless of if symptoms are exhibited, including treatments for and of any conditions that could also be associated with cannabinoids use. A test, if ever required. Should be conducted by the individuals personal doctor of choice specifically if any request is made by an employer. To protect and enshrine an individuals right of private medical information so that the possibility of discrimination against an individual for any conditions, preexisting conditions included, does not occur. The indicator of a test using endogenous biomarkers for cannabinoids would easily show as the perimeter, an indication of a medical condition if a positive, false, false positive, false negative, and invalid test are given and read. 