Pubdate: Tue, 21 Nov 2006
Source: Newsday (NY)
Copyright: 2006 Newsday Inc.
Contact:  http://www.newsday.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/308
Author: Curtis L. Taylor
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Test)

TRACING DRUGS IN HAIR

Although Such Tests Are Gaining Acceptance, Many Argue They're 
Inconsistent And Inaccurate

Men pay to make it grow. Women spend lavishly to dye, cut and 
coordinate it with their wardrobe. But these days, hair isn't just a 
key accessory to looking good.

It also can give government agencies a way to determine who might be 
abusing drugs in the workplace.

Currently, the federal government is reviewing whether to expand its 
existing employee drug-testing guidelines to include analyzing hair 
for evidence of illicit drug use.

As screening methods for hair, saliva and sweat have improved in 
recent years, there has been a long-running and often contentious 
debate over whether these should be added to the current gold 
standard, the urine test.

Forensic experts agree there are benefits to both urine and hair 
analysis. Although urine testing can find traces of a drug for about 
five days after being ingested, trace amounts of a chemical substance 
entrapped in the cortex of a hair strand can be found up to three months later.

But in July, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration abruptly 
backed away from a proposal that would allow federal agencies the 
leeway to include saliva, sweat and hair testing along with urine 
tests, officials said.

Leah Young, a spokeswoman for the administration, said in July that 
the proposal, first introduced in 2004, was in its final version but 
was withdrawn because several government agencies had expressed 
concerns. She declined to comment on the status of the proposal last week.

The agency decided to extend the review process after gaining access 
to new research related to hair analysis that raises questions about 
environmental contamination and drug absorption, officials said.

Reliability In Doubt

Hair testing, in which strands of hair are plucked and sent to an 
independent laboratory for analysis, has been around for nearly two decades.

Researchers have disagreed about the accuracy of the test. Some 
medical experts and civil rights advocates argue the test is 
unreliable and racially biased because those with blonde, straight or 
light hair seem to be able to escape detection for illicit drug use 
at a higher rate than those with coarse, nappy, braided or dark-colored hair.

Others say hair testing is reliable and allows for a longer window 
for detection. They also say the technology has improved 
significantly since it was first introduced and can detect drugs in 
any color hair or texture.

"Differences in hair color ... are just some of the questions raised 
that we are reviewing," Young said.

Unlike urine screening - which has standardized testing guidelines 
that each laboratory must follow - there are no current rules for 
hair analysis.

"It is a reliable science, the detection of drugs in the hair, but it 
is important to note that the hair has to be tested by reliable 
methodology," said Dr. Bruce Goldberger, professor and director of 
toxicology at the University of Florida College of Medicine.

"Historically, this area of testing for drugs in the hair has not 
been regulated to any extent, so the methods and the techniques 
haven't been standardized," Goldberger said.

"The technique used in one lab may vary with what is done in another 
laboratory, and you might get slightly different results. If the 
tests are done properly, you should get the same results," he said.

False Positives

Goldberger said there are also concerns that a positive test result 
may not be an indication of drug abuse.

"Police officers ... feel that they are working in an environment 
where they can have potential contaminations," said Goldberger, 
co-editor of the "Handbook of Workplace Drug Testing" (AACC Press) 
and "On-Site Drug Testing" (Humana Press).

Still, hair testing has been used in the private sector, by some 
federal agencies and by some municipal agencies, including the New 
York City and Boston Police Departments.

Private citizens are also starting to rely on the test in custody and 
divorce battles. Earlier this year, hair testing made national 
headlines when Ohio University head football coach Frank Solich 
introduced his results to fight a drunk driving plea.

After pleading no contest following his Nov. 26, 2005, arrest, Solich 
unsuccessfully fought to overturn his conviction by claiming he was 
drugged, based on a hair test performed by Toxicology Associates, 
Inc., which showed the presence of GHB, also known as the date rape 
drug. The coach's hair sample was collected 40 days after the arrest, 
according to published reports.

Lawsuits Arise

But as hair testing has gained a wider audience, the number of 
lawsuits challenging positive tests from hair analysis, usually for 
cocaine, has increased dramatically with pending cases in New York, 
New Jersey, California, Florida and Illinois.

New York City Police Officer Roxann L. Hayes is one of those who is 
challenging her termination in October for a positive test for 
cocaine ingestion.

"They clipped three pieces of my hair, including two small locks in 
between my braids," said Hayes, 41, a decorated 17-year veteran who 
served on the prestigious security detail of former New York City 
Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

Four days later, Hayes said, three detectives showed up at her Orange 
County home and told her she had tested positive.

"I thought it was some sort of practical joke," Hayes said. "They 
wanted me to sign a waiver and asked me if I wanted to resign. I told 
them there was no way because I had done nothing wrong: 'You must 
have the wrong person.'"

Her attorney, Eric Sanders of Lake Success, said the positive hair 
sample was incorrectly handled and contaminated and did not belong to 
his client.

"It is only a science when the results can be duplicated," said 
Sanders. "No two toxicologists can produce the same results from this 
sample. Also, we found out that there was another person in the 
[exam] room, and the envelope it was stored in was left open in the 
storage locker, all violations of existing regulations."

Regulations posted on the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration's Web site in July say "in the proper context, drug 
testing can be used to deter drug abuse in general.

"To be a useful tool," the regulations state, "all testing must 
satisfy good forensic laboratory practices, and the testing 
procedures must be capable of detecting drugs or metabolites at 
established cutoff concentrations."

Georgia Pestana, chief of the Labor & Employment Law Division in the 
New York City Law Department, said in an e-mailed statement, "Agency 
drug testing policies and practices have been designed to comply with 
Constitutional and statutory requirements."

Bill Thistle, senior vice president of Psychemedics Corp., a 
pioneering company in hair drug testing technology, said that the 
biochemical technology does distinguish between whether the drugs 
come from ingestion or contamination.

"The hair is washed before the sample is taken," Thistle said. "Both 
the sample and the washed hair are then tested. The analysis of the 
results should be able to show whether, if any, the contamination 
came from drug ingestion or external contamination."

Still, others have different positions.

"We don't do any hair testing here at the medical center," said 
Daniel Fink, director of the Center for Advanced Laboratory Medicine 
at Columbia University Medical Center. "It is a pretty esoteric test. 
The issue is standardization. There have been a lot of studies that 
have shown a lot of variability from laboratory to laboratory when 
testing the same specimen."

Truth In Molecules

But experts interviewed agree that the molecular fingerprint does not lie.

"You can argue why it's present, but it is present," Thistle said. 
"There have been many scientific articles to demonstrate the accuracy 
of forensic hair analysis ... but everyone is in agreement that the 
test does detect drugs in the hair."

Lost in the debate, Thistle said, is the responsibility of the 
federal government and private employers to provide a safe, drug-free 
workplace environment.

"What drug addicts want to admit they have a problem?" Thistle said. 
"Sadly, most [drug users] will give up their family because their job 
is the source to buy their drugs."

But Sanders, while acknowledging that drug abusers should be weeded 
out, said, "What if they are wrong and the test is racially biased?

"There are no safeguards in place to deal with the possibility of 
sending out a second sample," Sanders said. "What happens if the 
employee doesn't have hair? What about the thickness of 
African-American hair, which the test doesn't adjust for? These are 
serious questions that need to be answered before you jeopardize 
someone's livelihood."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman