Drug Testing News, Drug Test News, Pass a Urine Drug Test,
Pass a drug test. Call 1-888-420-6556. We sell all Total Body and Same Day Body Cleansers and offer
reliable overnight shipping @ PassYourDrugTest.com
purchase products or request more information, call us at:
This is a Toll Free Call.
Drug Testing News
ACLU COMPLAINTS MORE THAN JUST SPLITTING HAIRS
June 15, 1998
By Eric Zorn
For the American Civil Liberties Union of Illinois to be
working on behalf of Chicago police officers is not unusual.
Over the years the ACLU has represented an extremely broad
range of clients with civil-rights claims, so it should not
surprise Mayor Richard Daley, Chicago aldermen and city police
officials to find on their desks Monday a two-page broadside
mailed Friday by the organization supporting rank-and-file
officers and attacking a controversial random drug-testing
procedure that the department plans to begin using on them.
The procedure—an analysis of hair clippings—can detect illegal
drug use from about 7 to about 90 days prior to the taking of
the test. Hair analysis, pioneered in the late 1970s, has
almost no overlap with urinalysis, now used on all officers,
which detects only recent drug ingestion.
And it has already resulted in a threefold increase in the
number of drug-related dismissals of police recruits, upon
whom it has been performed since last fall.
What is unusual is that the ACLU is agitating unilaterally,
having not received any requests for help from officers.
Indeed, the leadership of the Fraternal Order of Police has
already OKd the city’s idea to make all officers subject to
hair testing under the terms of next year’s new union
But both national and local ACLU leaders say the FOP should
reconsider, that the police union and the city are putting too
much faith in technology that the ACLU charges is unregulated
and prone to giving false positive results and results that
discriminate against minorities.
The National Institute on Drug Abuse, one of the National
Institutes of Health, shares some of these doubts. NIDA’s
leading researcher on hair analysis, chemist Edward Cone, said
Friday "the consensus of scientific opinion is that there are
still too many unanswered questions for (hair analysis) to be
used in employment-testing situations."
A Food and Drug Administration spokeswoman said the agency
stands by a 1990 policy statement calling hair analysis an
"unproven . . . unreliable" procedure. A 1992 consensus
opinion of the Arizona-based Society of Forensic Toxicologists
concludes that "results of hair analysis alone do not
constitute sufficient evidence of drug use for application in
the workplace," and the hair analysis expert at the U.S. naval
labs reiterated Friday he has "significant worries" about the
Yet at the same time, a leading analytical chemist at the
National Institute of Standards and Technology, also a
government agency, said hair analysis labs "did a very good,
very consistent job" detecting drugs in recent blind checks
when they were sent identical sets of contaminated and
One concern of skeptics is that drug residue in the air or on
certain surfaces may misleadingly show up in a non-user’s hair
sample. Another is that, per the naval lab research, darker,
coarser hair is more susceptible to yielding both actual and
false positive results than light, fine or bleached hair.
And since ethnic and racial minorities in the U.S. tend to
have dark hair, the argument goes, the test will yield
But another widely published expert on hair testing,
criminologist Tom Mieczkowski of the University of South
Florida at St. Petersburg, said such concerns are wildly
exaggerated. Mieczkowski said current research shows that the
hair preparation and analysis techniques now used by the most
experienced labs—including industry leader Psychmedics Corp.
of Cambridge, Mass., the lab Chicago uses—have nullified
concerns about environmental contaminants and pigment bias,
and have demonstrated hair analysis is even more reliable than
Psychmedics vice president Bill Thistle added that the 1990
FDA statement does not apply to contemporary methods and that
courts now routinely accept hair analysis into evidence. He
charged that naysayers and contrarians are motivated by a
dislike of workplace drug testing.
In the case of the ACLU, Thistle is not off the mark.
The organization’s volunteer lobbying on behalf of Chicago
cops is rooted in its position that to perform random drug
tests on employees who have shown no signs of using drugs is
an invasion of privacy. The ACLU prefers specialized
skill-performance testing when there is evidence of on-the-job
But even ostensibly neutral, apolitical scientists seem to
have sincere disagreements about hair analysis. This, too, is
not unusual, particularly in an emerging technical field.
These disagreements deserve a full hearing before the city
decides to make locks the key to the future of our police