Thank you for voting Crowdsignal Logo

Should hair-sample testing be allowed to satisfy federal driver drug testing requirements? (Poll Closed)

  •  
     
  •  
     
  •  
     
Total Votes: 820
6 Comments

  • Bob Walker - 7 years ago

    I though this hole thing was about keeping our highways safe. Or are we trying to change all society through truck drivers?? If this is the case if you live in a state that smoking drugs is ok a job in trucking is out. I don't use drugs and I think it is bad judgment to do that. But I don't think one part of the government should say it's OK an another part is trying to stop it. It should never be used anywhere near a truck. The piss test petty much takes care of that so why do we need the hair test ?? Unless the numbers were too low and what we were paying the testers was too high ?? I just don't think this is about highway safety anymore!!!

  • George R Kern - 7 years ago

    A person, who previously used drugs but has quit and been clean for a considerable length of time, were to be hair tested, their results would come back negative so why would anyone object. The only reason I can think of is they have still been doing something they shouldn't have. If they have been clean 6 months or more, the test will come back negative.

  • Pam - 7 years ago

    The biggest non-starter is that the science isn't really "there" yet. There is still a pending court case in . . . New York, maybe?

    Two big strengths of this program have been that the science was solid, and that results have the same meaning no matter where they were collected geographically or for what employer. I realize the audience here is mostly owner-operators, but once you add the (very real) issue of unions for some employers, it gets very messy to have multiple options with varying windows of detection. If it's mandated, we do that. If it's optional, we have to bargain it. If that process results in us choosing to stay with urine testing, and we do pre-employment background checks . . . or what if a hair-testing-only employer does a background check with us on our former employee . . . what do those reports mean? I know FMCSA will have the database soon, and if that goes well we all assume other operating administrations will join it. Regardless, introducing inconsistency is a bad idea.

    This is all clearly a result of the relentless lobbying and back room deals by the major hair testing lab. I'd love to find out what incentives were offered to the big carriers to act as petrie dishes for this experiment.

  • Brad - 7 years ago

    I agree with Jonathan's comment. If a driver who was using drugs a long time ago cleans up their act why should they be labeled as a druggy when an alcoholic can get hammered the weekend earlier but that is OK? There should be a way they can test an alcoholic for more than a mere 8 hours later.. When a person gets hammered on whiskey or whatever they are less able to function much less than a person who smoked a joint a week ago. When an individual takes a week off work or longer gets a buzz it would be a shame to lose a job over a joint with a buddy on their holidays. It is just marijuana. Way over restricted. why don't they drug test doctors who perform delicate surgeries. They shouldn't compare marijuana with all the bad drugs on the streets these days. Now those are drugs!

  • Jonathan D Beverly - 7 years ago

    No because if someone who stop using a year ago could loose out on an opportunity to work

  • Roscoe l Hoose Jr - 7 years ago

    If u have nothing to hide go for it

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment

Create your own.

Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.