Comments By Rick S.

Hello all, I apologize for hijacking this thread but I found this thread and wanted to ask a question that was in the same ballpark instead of making a new thread.

I'll get to the point, I'm planning on getting my CDL later this summer, but for now I only needed a DOT medical card to drive my company's truck. I went to get a DOT medical card and made the mistake of admitting past marijuana use in the last 2-3 years in the questionare form. Because of this the doctor could not give me the physical and told me I would have to complete a SAP before I could take the physical. I never took a drug test and very much could pass a urine/hair test as I've been clean for at least two years, I just made the idiotic mistake of admitting past use.

I've read up on Clearinghouse and FMCSA and am wondering if I take this SAP to then pass my DOT physical, will this show up on my record when I eventually apply for a CDL/and or try to become employed?

All I did was admit prior use (which was extremely dumb) but I never failed any test and I know for a fact I will pass in the future, I just want to know if this will be a permanent etch on my record that will make it diffulct to become gainfully employed.

Any help is greatly appreciated, thank you.

Depends on whether or not the Doc submits your exam and long form as a FAIL.

That being the case (and depending on HOW LONG AGO you admitted to use) - you would have to wait out that time period, until you can HONESTLY ANSWER NO.

SAP is used for a Return To Duty Protocol - AFTER A POSITIVE DRUG/ALCOHOL SCREEN. I see nothing in the regs that says it is required after admitting use within two years. In fact - it is NOT AN AUTOMATIC FAIL to admit use within 2 years - it is AT THE MEDICAL EXAMINERS DISCRETION. And I honestly think your ME got this one WRONG - unless he just has such a hardon for weed smokers. And FAILING A DRUG SCREEN doesn't affect your CDL OR MEDICAL CARD - just that a COMPANY CANNOT LET YOU DRIVE UNTIL YOU COMPLETE THE RETURN TO DUTY PROTOCOL.

The questions on the DOT Medical Exam Long Form:

31. Have you used an illegal substance within the past two years?

32. Have you ever failed a drug test or been dependent on an illegal substance?

And if you were clean for "at least two years" - I am NOT SURE WHY YOU ANSWERED YES TO #32. What did you give for an EXPLANATION TO #31? If you answered something like: "I quit smoking weed 23 months ago" - then you could go back in two months and honestly answer NO to #31 and you should be good to go.

Did the doctor GIVE YOU BACK THE FORM WITH THE "Does Not Meet Medical Standards" section filled out? What was the reason for denial?

Which leads to another grey area at the top of the form - "Has your USDOT/FMCSA medical certificate ever been denied or issued for less than 2 years?". Now - since you WERE NOT EXAMINED, you might be able to answer NO - but the safer answer would be NOT SURE.

DOT Medical Exam Long Form

ME's are required to report results to FMCSA - used to be you could "Doctor Shop" until you found one that would issue a card.

I'm not trying to sound accusatory here - but this just sounds a little WEIRD - like there's something missing to the story here. And you don't say WHERE you are from - a marijuana legal state (for example), or held a Med-Weed-Card - where you quit a few years ago? We've just heard some REALLY WEIRD STORIES here through the near 12 years I've been here.

Again - the FORM SAYS TWO YEARS. It's a FEDERAL FORM so marijuana IS ILLEGAL as far as the form says - though it may not be in the next year, then they'll have to CHANGE THE FORM AGAIN.

Kind of like ATF Form 4473 (application for firearm transfer) - where it asks the question about "illegal drugs" - and then reminds the applicant that weed is STILL FEDERALLY ILLEGAL, regardless of state laws. Stoners answer YES and are denied the firearms purchase - or answer NO (and the feds/locals see they have a Med-Weed-Card and lied on a firearms form - 10 years/$250K - NOT GOOD EITHER).

OK - back to YOUR situation. Much hinges on WHAT YOU ANSWERED on that question in the box below. Much depends on whether or not the ME ACTUALLY FAILED YOU. NOTHING IN THE REGS suggests a YES on #31 automatically triggers a RTD/SAP - since you NEVER FAILED A SCREEN.

I would find ANOTHER MEDICAL EXAMINER and ask him about this. And if you HONESTLY ANSWERED #31, and said you haven't used in OVER TWO YEARS - then you ANSWERED THE QUESTION INCORRECTLY.

But again - yes on 31 - is AT THE ME'S DISCRETION - AND NOT AN AUTOMATIC FAIL. Now - if you admitted to SHOOTING HEROIN, that would be another story.

The confusion and ambiguity around weed, is just getting plain old DUMB. And federal legalization/decriminalization, is only going to INCREASE THE AMBIGUITY in certain professions.

Rick

Hate to tell my friend I can't hang out any more sorry.gif

How about you ask your friend not to smoke in your presence?

Rick

Okay, sorta hijacking this thread, but still related. I don't and won't ever partake, but a couple of times in the past 3-4 months I was in a friend's house that does quite a bit. Can second-hand smoke give a false positive?

In a urinalysis, not likely. Hair follicles, it's possible.

Actually - that's kind of a myth. You'd have to be locked in a closet with Bob Marley and never wash your dreads to pickup a contact hair positive from external exposure. Likewise for (supposed) "contact highs" or positives from being in the same room as people smoking - unless they're using vapes and fogging the entire room.

The test of for metabolites in the BLOOD - that get excreted INTO THE HAIR VIA THE FOLLICLES. There's also a threshold that the machine is set for, to ignore anything UNDER that, as a false.

There are also foodstuffs and meds that can throw a false. These usually show up in urine, but can show up in hair also.

Not saying YOU DO - but typically, people that fail - just don't want to admit they used.

We did have a guy in here - that (claimed) he was "dosed unaware" with an edible by a friend (SOME FRIEND) at his "going away party". He obviously FAILED.

If you're sitting around while your friends burn - and they burn a lot - there's a slight chance of getting a contact exposure - like REALLY SLIGHT.

Nothing is impossible in todays world - and it's not fun trying to "explain away" a failed test. But if you are legitimately NOT USING, and you're not hanging out in a grow house, or a rastafarian temple - you should fall under the threshold for a positive.

This is obviously going to get even more problematic for folks, as more states legalize it - and more people who don't even partake are going to come in "casual contact" with people that do.

Rick

So what I posted was accurate.

In researching for another post - I came across THIS: 49 U.S. Code § 31306.Alcohol and controlled substances testing

(B)The regulations prescribed under subparagraph (A) shall permit motor carriers—

(i)to conduct preemployment testing of commercial motor vehicle operators for the use of alcohol; and

(ii)to use hair testing as an acceptable alternative to urine testing—

(I)in conducting preemployment testing for the use of a controlled substance; and

(II)in conducting random testing for the use of a controlled substance if the operator was subject to hair testing for preemployment testing.

--------------------------------------

So - I may in fact - be INCORRECT about hair being reportable to the FMCSA Clearinghouse. It happens once in awhile (Rickipedia being wrong).

I was under the impression it was NOT an acceptable method.

Rick

Transport Topics News: ATA Meets With OMB to Discuss Hair Sample Testing Rule

Probably one of the more FREQUENT QUESTIONS we get here on TT - is "Which Companies Do Hair Testing?"

Well - pretty soon, we won't have to answer that question any more - IT WILL BE ALL OF THEM.

This was mandated in the FAST Act [Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act of 2015] - which shows you how the wheels of government grind EVER SO SLOWLY. 5+ years, and they still haven't figured out how to implement it.

Debates between industry groups. Debates on hair color (and probably texture - in todays "race sensitive world").

At any rate - it appears from articles I've perused, that OMB is getting ready to publish in The Federal Register soon - and after the "mandatory comment period", it will become LAW.

So NO MORE URINE TESTING - ALL HAIR TESTING.

And regardless of the rumblings of "federal legalization of marijuana" (more like the decriminalization, but I digress), and the removal of weed as a Schedule I Narcotic, it will STILL NOT BE LEGAL for people in "safety sensitive positions".

Without getting too far off topic: Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act. One of the KEY FEATURES of the act - is A TAX ON WEED SALES (bet you NEVER SAW THAT COMING). Another feature is assistance in getting "minority businesses" INTO THE WEED BUSINESS. As well as creating a mechanism to EXPUNGE previous weed-related convictions (not necessarily a BAD THING). And it also dedicates TAX DOLLARS for a number of other "pet projects" related to the weed industry (supposedly from $$ derived from the weed tax - but we know congress spends more than they tax on a GOOD DAY).

I've read the ENTIRE BILL:“Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act of 2020”. It contains the usual amount of "woke racial reparations" language. It's a hoot actually.

OK- back ON TOPIC.

I'm making this post, as this came up in another discussion here - where the poster passed 2 urines and failed a hair test. The poster (a newbie) was terminated, and can't get a hire because of the failed hair test. They claim to have quit using in Sept - but, as experience here has shown, you might need up to 6 months to be clean enough to pass a hair test (especially with today's extra strong weed) - THEY WERE NOT. There is some debate, whether or not a SAP will get them behind the wheel. But as a new entrant/trainee - we all know the likelihood of getting a hire after failing and orientation screen - is NOT GOOD (OK - next to IMPOSSIBLE)

AS OF NOW - URINE TESTING IS THE ONLY DOT APPROVED METHOD OF DRUG SCREENING - and therefore - THE ONLY TEST THAT CAN BE REPORTED TO THE FMCSA CLEARINGHOUSE (the MANDATORY FMCSA DATABASE for drug/alcohol screens).

What's interesting though is that USC 49 31306US Code Title 49 - 31306 b(1)B(ii) says: (ii)to use hair testing as an acceptable alternative to urine testing.

So I may be INCORRECT in my assumption that Hair Testing is NOT a "DOT Acceptable Method" for testing. Even Rickipedia can be wrong once in awhile.

This will be changing soon - and then the answer for the all-too-frequent-question, and the list we (try to) maintain of which companies do hair or urine WILL BE MOOT.

THEY ALL WILL.

And any legalization of weed on a federal level, is NOT GOING TO CHANGE FOR THE TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY - though we are likely to see some lawsuits trying to - IT WILL ALWAYS COME DOWN ON THE ASIDE OF PUBLIC SAFETY - and NO ONE WANTS TO RISK STONED TRUCKERS/PILOTS/TRAIN ENGINEERS.

Rick

So what I posted was accurate.

Well - we could split hairs here:

There is a national database that tracks individuals that failed drug tests. Thus keeps applicants from going to a different company and not disclosing the failed previous tests.

The "national database that tracks individuals that failed drug tests" - is the FMCSA Clearinghouse. HireRight DAC is an employment background checking site - that trucking companies report employees TO, and check for potential employees previous work history.

There IS A DIFFERENCE (again, splitting hairs, pardon the pun). Since hair tests are NOT DOT drug screens (YET) - they would not be reported to the FMCSA Clearinghouse. If they were, they could be disputed - since it is NOT A LEGAL DOT SCREEN - and companies know this - even if they might erroneously report it there ANYWAYS.

"Technically" (under federal employment and privacy laws) - a previous employer is ONLY supposed to relate dates of employment, and whether or not the employee is eligible for re-hire. If a company says that you were NOT ELIGIBLE for re-hire (and under FMCSA regs, potential employers are supposed to actually check references/previous employers). So if a company told another you failed a drug screen - they would be in violation for disclosing this.

I have only seen MY DAC - which has nothing on it - so I cannot relate FOR CERTAINTY, that "termination for failed drug screen", IS (or is NOT) REPORTED ON A DAC.

But the OP's PASSED URINE - should be reported on the "national database" (Clearinghouse) as a PASS - because both of them WERE. And the hair should NOT - because it is not a DOT accepted testing method.

Wasn't trying to slap you down there Pack - just trying to give accurate information as it relates to FMCSA Regs.

This will all change as soon as they get off their fat government butts and make the rule. When they DO - HAIR TESTING WILL BECOME MANDATORY - that's right - MANDATORY.

Which means we won't have to answer the question: which companies do hair testing - THEY ALL WILL - BY LAW.

Transport Topics Article: ATA Meets With OMB to Discuss Hair Sample Testing Rule

Keep in mind - the mandatory hair testing, was mandated in the "Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act of 2015", and we all know how long the various agencies and concerned parties can kick the can down the road.

Rick

You cannot tell the difference between a sari a and indica as both have the in them. The test is for the at large. I believe you are thinking of cbd which is non psychoactive. I have used that as well, stopped just in case it would trigger a positive. Hair follicle tests ARE NOT the most reliable testing. In fact it is proven that they have the most false positives of any other drug screening. Just to put out correct information.

Oh - believe me - I know what I'm talking about. The bill I read, specified sativa - which is weird, because many of the strains out there are indica. My curiosity was, whether or not indica would be included in the removal from Sched I.

The test is for the metabolites left over in the body, after is processes the THC - it doesn't detect THC itself, just what remains after metabolization.

So the data base does track failed results, and a SAP will be required Rick S.?

As I mentioned previously - the FMCSA Clearinghouse tracks failed DOT screens - since hair is not a DOT approved method, it would NOT be on the clearinghouse, though her passed urines may well be.

I was referring to DAC Reports.

As far as the SAP goes - it would be the only way (even if the test wasn't a DOT) for the person to even be remotely considered. But as we all know - failing a pre-employment orientation screen is usually the kiss of death.

Even if the use was "medicinal" (or even prescribed) - because it is still on the Sched I list, as far as the Feds are concerned it is still illegal, and still NO FLY/NO EXCUSES on a DOT Screen (and obviously, on a pre-employment screen).

Regardless of medicinal or recreational use - it's too high a liability risk, for a company to have anything to do with someone who has a history of use. And it will likely NEVER BE OK'd by DOT.

Then again - there are now 56 genders (and counting), so WHO KNOWS WHAT THE FUTURE HOLDS.

I can picture climbing into an automated truck, sparking up a blunt and watching a movie while the truck drives...

Rick

Interestingly - the bill I read will remove Cannabis SATIVA as a Sched I Narcotic (failed to mention good old skunky indica - my personal favorite).

But there will be new regs written for DOT to preclude its use in "safety sensitive positions".

Rick

As someone who has had to completely change their medications due to quitting cannabis I would appreciate the “lighting up a joint” jokes to not be made. I am now on meds that do not work near as well for what I need them for, all to get “clean” to change my career. As someone who has found cannabis as the ONLY medicine that has been successful, I am rather sensitive on the subject. I do not joke about my cannabis use and would appreciate information without the jabs at my medicinal choices. And as we are in a country where nearly half our states have legal medical cannabis use, I would assume people would start to treat it as it is and not as it has been made out to be.

No one here has any issues with cannabis - and we are aware of the medicinal properties and the fact that it helps many people.

Rumor has it - the incoming administration is going to legalize it - but it WILL NEVER BE LEGAL for pilots, truck drivers, train engineers - PERIOD.

You can get all the sensitive you want - and I'm sorry whatever meds you're on don't work as well and create personal hardship for you.

Sparking a joint - eating an edible - doesn't matter to the industry WHY YOU USED - but - THAT YOU USED.

And if , in fact - the weed worked for your health issues - then maybe this was a blessing in disguise. No matter how bad you want to drive - do you want to be MISERABLE doing it - because your health is suffering?

There are lots of other meds that help people live productive lives - and many of those too - are NOT ACCEPTABLE IN A SAFETY SENSITIVE INDUSTRY.

Stuff like this is why a lot of people COME HERE FIRST and enquire as to what type of testing they can expect with certain companies. Had you done so in FORESIGHT (rather than hindsight) - we would have suggested AT LEAST 6 MONTHS SINCE LAST USE.

Sorry for your bad luck - and sorry if some seem "less than sympathetic" for your plight. In my 11+ years here, I've heard pretty much every story and excuse for a failed test - including LEGITIMATE MEDICINAL USE.

I've shared the facts with you - there's nothing really more I have to say on the topic.

Best of luck to you...

Rick

First off, thank your very much for the detailed reply. I am all for blunt but correct information. I am confused on part of the response. You said hair follicle tests are not reportable. Then said all tests are now reportable. I am not sure how to understand that. If only urinalysis are reportable, then I did not fail a reportable drug test as both came out clean. I was tested with urinalysis and hair follicle on the same day, passed the urinalysis, given my CLP test, passed that. Then passed the secondary urinalysis. I received my CLP last week and got the word today about my hair follicle. They thought about keeping me so I figured it was a company test and not DOT. Then I found out the second company rescinded. Seems counterintuitive of the trucking industry to have such a high demand for drivers and yet rely on a test that isn’t even technically in their regulations.

What I said was - hair tests are NOT DOT TESTS. They aren't reportable to DOT.

But they are reportable to a company that all the companies use called HireRight - that does background checks for companies and produces a report called the DAC. Terminations for drug screens of any type are likely to show up there. You have a right to get a copy of your report.

How Do I Get A Copy Of My DAC Report?

And because they are regulated under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) you can also dispute entries on your DAC - but the company will likely verify the termination.

As far as "relying on tests that isn't in their FEDERAL REGULATIONS". Anyone can beat a urine - 95% of substances (except weed - ESPECIALLY TODAYS WEED) - 72 hours and you can pee clean from most substances. But you CANNOT BEAT HAIR.

The only reason it's not in the regs - is because, well, governments are slow at doing anything (except TAKING/SPENDING OUR TAX $$'s). The surface transportation act a few years ago - created the law where DOT was supposed to implement hair testing as an official method - they just haven't gotten around to it.

COMPANIES use it for pre-employment testing, because it reveals long term/historical use (even though the amount they test, is only supposed to be a 90 day detection window) - and it is perfectly legal for them to terminate you as AN EMPLOYEE (having zero to do with your CDL - but your EMPLOYMENT) - therein lies the difference between that and a DOT Test. ANYONE CAN QUIT FOR A WEEK TO PASS A URINE - your hair is like the internet - it's (almost) FOREVER.

The devil is in the details, but the results are the same.

If I wanted to go get a driving job now - I WOULDN'T - because I've only been off my (legally prescribed) pain meds for a month - and I don't feel like having to explain myself to some stranger - or create additional scrutiny on my medical history.

Where you are getting hung up is the DAC - and you DO have to report that you were at company #1. And if the app asked if you have EVER FAILED A DRUG TEST - you better be honest, as LYING is as BAD AS FAILING if you are caught. Now - if the question asked: Have you ever failed a DOT DRUG SCREEN - you could honestly answer NO - because LEGALLY YOU HAVE NOT.

And I'm not here to judge or argue - just to give the facts.

What you do with them is up to you...

Rick