Category Archives:Drugs General

From time to time, all of us feel pressure to meet deadlines and demands in the workplace or uni, and those driven to succeed are constantly looking for ways to effectively manage time and enhance productivity.

Many of us kick-start our work day with a cup of coffee, but new reports suggest that an increasing number of  young workers are turning to performance-enhancing ‘smart’ drugs such as Ritalin (or ‘methylphenidate’) or Adderall (which contains amphetamines) to give them a cutting edge in the workplace.

Studies also indicate that competitive university students who often have to juggle work as well as a packed study schedule are also turning to ‘smart’ drugs to gain a leading advantage over their peers.

Some suggest that employers have a responsibility to regulate and control workplace drug use, while others believe that we should simply turn a blind eye to the practice as long as it does not affect the quality of work.

What’s Going On?

Various media outlets have reported on a trend towards prescription drug use in the workplace. That trend is particularly apparent in high-pressure jobs, where employees are expected to work long hours and sacrifice their weekends in order to meet budgets and deadlines.

Naturally, it’s impossible to remain focussed on work around the clock without feeling adversely affected. Prescription drugs offer an enticing opportunity to boost productivity without succumbing to stress or burnout.

These days, there is a drug to manage almost every type of workplace-related affliction.

Some of the most commonly used drugs in the workplace are Adderall and Ritalin – both of which are used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) – as well as Provigil, which is generally used to treat sleep disorders. These stimulants offer a quick-fix solution for workers and students hoping to stay energised and focussed for long periods of time.

Statistics support reports by doctors that more and more workers are turning to prescription drugs to get through the day. In the United States, prescriptions for ADHD medications have increased by 53% between 2008 and 2012, with the biggest increase recorded in the 26 to 34 year age group.

While it’s not against the law to use these drugs if you have a prescription, there are concerns that doctors are growing increasingly lax when prescribing the medications – and many workers ‘cheat the system’ by feigning symptoms. Others turn to drug suppliers to get access, with dealers charging $5 – $10 a pop.

But while some may reap the short term benefits of these ‘smart’ drugs, there are also downsides in the long run. Drug rehabilitation facilities are reporting substantial increases in people being admitted for prescription drug abuse, and US hospitals have recorded a tripling in the number of adults being admitted for ‘nonmedical use of prescription stimulants’ between 2005 and 2011.

What Does The Law Say?

Those who use prescribed drugs without a prescription run a risk of getting caught up in the law.

Ritalin and other ADHD drugs are classified as ‘drugs of addiction’ under the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Act, which means that they are subject to strict regulation and control.

Medical practitioners must only prescribe ‘drugs of addiction’ for the purpose of medical treatment, and they can only prescribe appropriate quantities. Doctors must also have authorisation from the NSW Ministry of Health to prescribe the drugs. Practitioners who break the law run the risk of being hit with a massive fine, or even face imprisonment in serious cases.

Those taking these drugs without a valid prescription could also cop a heavy penalty under the law. Drugs such as Ritalin and Adderall are classified as ‘prohibited drugs’ under the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985, which means that users could face the same penalties as those that apply for possession of illegal drugs such as ecstacy and cocaine.

And those considering obtaining a prescription by feigning symptoms should also exercise caution – section 17 of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 says that it is against the law to obtain a prohibited drug by making a false representation to a doctor.

The maximum penalties for these offences are a fine of $2,200 and/or 2 years imprisonment.

The offences also come with a criminal record.

Is There A Need For Regulation?

Doctors have warned that abusing addictive substances such as Ritalin may have adverse health effects such as hallucination, paranoia, vomiting, anxiety and restlessness. But others say that employers and lawmakers should become more tolerant of prescription drug use.

Respected scientific journal Nature published an article in 2008 suggesting that up to 25% of all university students in America used prescription drugs in the past year.

Rather than advocating a punitive approach, the journal suggests capitalising on these kinds of ‘technologies’ which enhance human innovation.

The publication also rejects arguments that using the substances constitutes cheating, or that it is unnatural and amounts to drug abuse. Whilst recognising that these drugs may present safety concerns, the authors call for an ‘evidence-based approach to the evaluation of the risks and benefits of cognitive enhancement.’

If such an approach is adopted, we might one day find ourselves popping a performance-enhancing pill instead of downing a cup of coffee in the morning. But as regulation of smart drugs is unlikely to occur anytime soon, it’s best to err on the side of caution and avoid the potentially adverse health and legal consequences of using these substances unless you’ve got a valid prescription.

There has been a great deal of media attention in recent times about the effects of Australia’s ‘ice epidemic’.

But while the abuse of illicit drugs can certainly have a devastating impact on users and the community, they do not lead to anywhere near as many preventable deaths as drugs that are legally available.

Tobacco

It is estimated that an incredible two out of every three lifetime tobacco smokers will die from a smoking-related illness.

Each year, smoking kills an estimated 15,000 people in Australia per year. Out of the 2.7 million smokers, approximately 1.8 million will lose their lives because of it.

Smoking is now the leading cause of preventable illness and death in Australia, accounting for 8% of all disease in 2003, and this is in the context of our nation having one of the lowest rates of smoking in the world.

Smoking is a leading worldwide killer, claiming the life of a person every six seconds.
It has an enormous detrimental impact on various organs in the body: leading to heart disease, stroke, peripheral vascular disease, cancers of the lung, and problems with the kidneys, pancreas, mouth, bladder, stomach, cervix and oesophagus.

Smoking is undisputedly the biggest killer – but what about when it comes to alcohol and illicit drugs?

Alcohol

Alcohol kills far fewer people than tobacco, but the numbers are still significant.

In 2010, excessive long-term alcohol consumption reportedly killed 5,544 people, while a further 157,132 were admitted to hospital. This does not include victims of alcohol fuelled violence. A total of 3.9 per cent of preventable deaths in that year were attributable to alcohol, peaking at 11.8 per cent in the Northern Territory. One-in-eight preventable deaths of men under the age of 25 were related to alcohol.

Alcohol is now seen as a contributing factor to over 200 diseases, including cancers and heart disease.

What about illicit drugs?

The precise number of deaths caused by illegal drugs is difficult to ascertain, although it is clear that both tobacco and alcohol are each responsible for more deaths than all illicit drugs combined.

In 2003, illicit drugs were found to be responsible for 2% of the total burden of preventable diseases.

In 2012, there were reportedly 1,427 drug-related deaths, although many of these were from overdoses of legal, prescription drugs.

Government crackdown on legal drugs

The government is ostensibly making an effort to reduce smoking by placing restrictions on where people can smoke, where they can buy cigarettes from and various marketing restrictions including in the areas of advertising and packaging.

Restrictions have also been placed on the sale of alcohol, with licensed venues in the city and Kings Cross being subjected to lockout laws service restrictions.

But despite these measures, the billions of dollars that Australian governments receive each year from tobacco and alcohol taxes ensures that they will remain legal, at least for a very long time to come.

Questions raised

Does our society have things the wrong way round?

Many who advocate the legalisation of so-called ‘lower-risk drugs’ like cannabis certainly think so; particularly given that cannabis use is much less likely to lead to death than many drugs that are currently legal. Indeed, the debate about the proposed legalisation of cannabis often highlights the relatively low-risk of health problems for light to moderate users.

But with governments that base decisions on dollars rather than sense, we can only speculate as to whether they will eventually get the balance right.

As technology advances at a rapid pace, drug testing is becoming increasingly commonplace – whether on the road or in the workplace.

But for those who have not previously undergone a drug test, it can be difficult to know what to expect.

This blog discusses some of the most common drug tests around and some of the laws that relate to drug testing.

What Does a Drug Test Involve?

Drug tests are usually performed using a sample of saliva, blood or urine; but hair, sweat and even your fingerprints can be analysed to determine long-term drug use. In Australia, the most common types of drug tests are saliva, blood and urine tests.

Saliva (Lick) Tests

If you’ve spent some time on the road, you may have been the subject of a random roadside drug test. Roadside drug testing analyses saliva through a ‘lick’ test. It requires drivers to provide a sample of saliva by licking a ‘test pad’ on a portable drug testing device.

Lick tests are able to detect the presence of cannabis and methylamphetamines, such as speed, ice, crystal meth and ecstacy. However, they cannot yet detect cocaine or heroin.

If you test positive to a roadside lick test, you’ll be required to accompany a police officer to a drug van or police station to undergo a secondary test using an ‘oral fluid screening device.’

If this confirms a positive result, you’ll be prohibited from driving for 24 hours, however you won’t be charged by police at that time.

Instead, you’ll be allowed to go on your way while your oral fluid is sent away for analysis. If an analysis reveals the presence of cannabis, methylamphetamine or MDMA in your saliva, you’ll receive a court attendance notice in the mail for drug driving.

You will then be required to attend court at a future date to enter a plea of ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’ to the charges.

Blood and Urine Tests

Other less common forms of drug testing involve the analysis of a urine or blood sample.

For instance, you may be required to provide a blood or urine sample if police suspect that you are under the influence of a drug which is unable to be detected using a lick test (such as heroin or cocaine), or if you are involved in a fatal road accident. Blood and urine tests can generally test all forms of illicit, synthetic and prescription drugs.

Blood tests are usually undertaken in a hospital, under the supervision of a doctor. One part of the sample is analysed at a government laboratory, and the remaining part is given to the person tested so that they may have it independently analysed if they wish.

Some workplaces and sporting organisations also require employees to provide urine samples on a regular basis. This generally requires the employee to provide a urine sample, which is then tested using a dipstick. If the test discloses a positive result, the sample is sent away for analysis in a lab.

It is not illegal to simply have drugs in your system, provided that you aren’t engaging in certain acts such as driving. But if you register a positive reading during a drug test performed by an employer or sporting association, you may risk losing your job or being suspended or banned.

How Long Can Drugs Show Up in My System?

The length of time that drugs can stay in your system depends on a multitude of factors – including the type of drug consumed, how much was used, when it was taken and the type of test performed, as well as personal factors such as your weight, gender, age and rate of metabolism.

According to the Australian Drug Foundation, the following is a rough guide as to how long different drugs can be detected by common testing methods.

It should, however, be emphasised that this is just a guide and that there have been reports of drugs showing up long after the periods listed.

Can I Be Charged if I Refuse a Drug Test?

If police require you to submit to a drug test and you refuse, you could face serious penalties – which can be even greater than those that apply if drugs are found in your system.

For instance, refusing to provide a saliva or blood sample carries a maximum fine of $3,300. You’ll also face an automatic disqualification period of 3 years, which may be reduced down to a minimum of 6 months if there are good reasons to do so.

These same penalties apply if you alter the amount of the drug before a drug test. Heavier penalties apply if it’s your second or subsequent offence in the past five years.

If you’re involved in a fatal accident and fail to provide a blood or urine sample, you could face a maximum prison sentence of 18 months.

What Happens if I Test Positive on the Road?

In contrast, if you submit to a random drug test on the road and return a positive result, the maximum fine is $1,100. You’ll also be automatically disqualified from driving for 6 months, but you may be able to have this reduced to the minimum of 3 months. In such cases, a good lawyer may even be able to argue for a ‘section 10 dismissal or conditional release order’ – which means no conviction, licence disqualification or fine.

It is therefore in your best interests to submit to a roadside drug test if required to do so by police.

Am I Guilty if the Drugs Didn’t Affect My Driving?

Some road users may be surprised to learn that you are still guilty of an offence even if the drugs had no impact on your driving at the time – the presence of any amount of drugs in your system is enough.

In these cases, you can be charged with the offence of ‘drug driving,’ which carries a maximum penalty of $1,100 and an automatic disqualification period of 6 months for your first offence, which can be reduced to a minimum of 3 months.

Heavier penalties apply if it’s your second or subsequent offence in 5 years.

Drug Driving vs DUI

Drug driving is different to the offence of ‘driving under the influence’ (DUI), which requires police to prove that your driving was actually affected by the drug.

DUI carries a maximum penalty of $2,200 and/or 9 months imprisonment.

Those who are guilty of DUI also face an automatic disqualification period of 12 months, which can be reduced to a minimum of 6 months. Again, heavier penalties apply if it’s your second or subsequent major traffic offence in the past five years.

Navigating the court system can be difficult, and it often pays to have an experienced drug defence lawyer on your side, as it may be possible to avoid a conviction on your criminal record and a licence disqualification.

Technology and the law are becoming increasingly more entwined.

Since the first drug testing measures were adopted in the United States in the 1960s, scientists have sought to develop quicker and more reliable means of identifying drug use.

And now scientists have revealed what they say is a revolutionary new method of testing for cocaine use simply using a person’s fingerprint. The new test is said to be ‘less invasive, more accurate and more hygienic’ than existing tests.

Meanwhile, NSW Police have indicated that they are training sniffer dogs to become more accurate when detecting concealed cocaine.

The ‘Line Detector’ Test

Scientists from the University of Surrey say that the new test is based on chemical indicators which are present in fingerprint residue.

What’s more, they say that the test can differentiate between users who have simply touched the drug and those who have actually consumed it. This is because a person who uses cocaine will ‘excrete traces of benzoylecgonine and methylecgonine as they metabolise the drug’ which will be present in fingerprint samples.

The fingerprint sample is then treated with a mix of methanol and water, before an instrument called a mass spectrometer is used to detect traces of the chemicals in the sample.

Scientists have lauded the benefits of the new test saying that it ‘can’t be faked’ and can be undertaken in mere seconds.

Better than Urine and Blood Testing

There have been many stories over the years about people who have switched urine samples in a bid to escape detection. Blood samples also have downsides at present; as it takes several minutes to take a sample, which can only be drawn by skilled staff – not roadside police officers.

Scientists have also flagged the biological hazards posed by blood, saliva and urine tests are another reason for reform. These tests also require specific storage and disposal methods.

US law enforcement agencies have already signalled that they may begin using the test within the next decade.

Issues With the Test

But despite the supposed benefits of the fingerprint test, there are a number of obvious concerns.

In the wake of the controversial metadata retention bill, it seems that the government and law enforcement agencies are being granted greater powers upon powers to incur keep a watch on our every move and obtain our personal information.

Fingerprint testing offers yet another convenient way for law enforcement agencies to obtain a person’s personal details before they have been charged with a crime, let alone convicted.

What’s more, a person’s fingerprint records can in certain circumstances remain on file – even if they are found not guilty of any offence.

In NSW, a person can apply for their fingerprint records to be destroyed, but this certainly does not always occur – and is ultimately a decision that is made by the Criminal Records Unit.

There are also reliability issues with fingerprints – with new technology making it possible for them to be altered or even cloned.

Drug Dogs Trained to Sniff Out Black Cocaine

In yet another development in the crackdown on cocaine, NSW Police have indicated that they are training sniffer dogs to detect ‘black cocaine.’

Police say that ‘black cocaine’ is a new method being used by drug traffickers to conceal the drug. It involves pure cocaine being mixed with substances such as charcoal, asphalt, ink toner and fingerprint powder in order to mask the scent and the appearance of the drug.

Following importation, drug traffickers are able to separate the pure cocaine from the charcoal before distributing it.

NSW Police are insisting that dogs are able to detect drugs regardless of the method of concealment; although there are reports that dogs have been receiving additional training to better detect black cocaine.

Only time will tell if the fingerprint technology and drug detection methods will have any impact on curbing cocaine use and distribution.