(KY) Senate approves bill to tighten reporting of toxicology screenings

For Immediate Release

March 14, 2017 

Senate approves bill to tighten reporting of toxicology screenings

FRANKFORT — A bill to tighten the reporting of toxicology screenings by Kentucky hospitals passed the state Senate today, clearing its way to become law pending the signature of Gov. Matt Bevin. 

House Bill 314, which was approved by the House of Representatives late last month, requires certain hospitals to report positive drug screenings to the state’s Cabinet for Health and Family Services, including results from newborn babies who might have been exposed to controlled substances by their mothers prior to birth.  The measure is part of an ongoing effort to fight prescription drug abuse in Kentucky. 

The bill also permits federal prosecutors and medical professionals, including pharmacists, to use the state’s KASPER (Kentucky All Schedule Prescription Electronic Reporting) database containing reports of misuse of controlled substances. 

“For the KASPER system to be effective,  we need to stay on top of it,” said Sen. Danny Carroll, R-Paducah. “We need every tool available to us.”

The bill passed the Senate 33-3 and now goes to the Governor’s desk for his consideration.

–END–

HB 314 :

AN ACT relating to controlled substance monitoring.
     Amend KRS 218A.202 to require certain hospitals to report positive toxicology screens to the Cabinet for Health and Family Services; permit federal prosecutors and agents to use KASPER; permit practitioners or pharmacists to review KASPER reports of birth mothers of potentially drug-exposed infants; remove a pilot program relating to real-time electronic monitoring; make other technical corrections; amend KRS 218A.240 to conform.

We have to just say NO, to “drug testing”…

pee-cup

While sitting here thinking of my friends in pain who are trapped into slavery thru the Corporations they work for via “workplace drug testing”…who are condemned to use ONLY narcotics via the pharmaceutical industrial complex via so called “pain clinic’s” and doctors who are trapped in the prescribing business AND the drug screening business, which is equal to drug trafficking via legal means, 

I am wondering why,

just why not say NO!

*The Feds cannot force you to take a drug test for employmentThey can and do force drug testing upon “pain patients” and parolees which is another issue of it’s own.

This is done by the Corporations themselves.  Insurance Companies are involved  as well of course the Corporations who make the “testing kits” and at the same time they are making “pass your drug test kits” which people run out and buy in order to succumb to the Industrial and Insurance related Complex.

WE HAVE TO JUST SAY NO…

Our Father’s and Grandfather’s went to war and lost their lives for our freedom by the thousands, and I could start a whole new issue on that subject alone, but I will save that for another day.

 

GATEWOOD GALBRAITH SPEECH

 

The question here is are we willing to consume less to have more freedom?

We can effectively turn the prohibition around and “prohibit” them from invading our privacy, and entering our property without a search warrant, (symbolically), just by refusing or saying NO to their test.

I have never passed a drug test for Cannabis/Marijuana.

I also have never failed one for any other non-prescribed drug.

Do not worry about passing your next drug test.

DO start looking for other ways and means of making an income such as working for small privately owned companies which are few and far between but do still exist.  You can also sub-contract yourself, or work independently. 

If you are lucky enough that you have already obtained a job and passed your drug test then just hope like hell you don’t get picked on too soon.

If you have not found a job yet, then DO NOT work for a company which is telling you that you must succumb to “random drug testing” or “pre-employment drug testing”. 

This could effectively be a type of “civil disobedience” which is actually legal to do.  Again, “just say no” to drug testing.

If EVERYONE followed this one rule, it would not take long for  “drug testing” to disappear much like the “inspection stickers” for vehicles in the 1980’s did in Kentucky when everyone was so poor they could not afford to make their vehicles pass the test.  Eventually  they gave up and ended it.  (Just imagine what would happen if all these people could not pay their electric bill for one month.  It is true that you would not have electric for that period of time but it is also true that the electric company would not be getting near as much income for that period of time).  Most people CAN survive without electric for a month.  That has been proven by the people themselves who have suffered loss due to storms, etc.,

If you are unemployable you have a reason to file for disability.  Not that you will be approved, but just think of the paperwork put upon the SSA if everyone that failed a drug test filed for disability.  And then when they do not approve it, appeal the decision.  You can keep them “dancing” for a while – just depends upon how far you want to take it.

If they DO NOT end the drug testing at that point it could cause even more black market businesses to appear just for the fact that they can’t fill the Industrial Complex with legal worker’s.

The Industrial Complex cannot afford to loose it’s slaves so therefore I do not think it would take too long to accomplish the goal of ending “drug testing” policies.

And just like everything else the poorest of the people will be the one’s affected the most in this decision and have to suffer the “worse” before it gets better.

BECAUSE, they do not drug test politicians nor doctors or lawyers….

I guess it comes down to the sad fact whether or not you want to have freedom and live on beans and soup, or be a slave and eat commercial hamburgers.

I do not want to suggest that everyone absent mindedly quit their jobs tomorrow with no plans on how to sustain themselves.  However, making alternative plans for an income is always a good idea regardless.

 

sheree

This has been “something to think about” ,

Smkrider

 

*According to Henriksson, the anti-drug appeals of the Reagan administration “created an environment in which many employers felt compelled to implement drug testing programs because failure to do so might be perceived as condoning drug use. This fear was easily exploited by aggressive marketing and sales forces, who often overstated the value of testing and painted a bleak picture of the consequences of failing to use the drug testing product or service being offered.”[36] On March 10, 1986, the Commission on Organized Crime asked all U.S. companies to test employees for drug use. By 1987, nearly 25% of the Fortune 500 companies used drug tests.[37]

**THC and its major (inactive) metabolite, THC-COOH, can be measured in blood, urine, hair, oral fluid or sweat using chromatographic techniques as part of a drug use testing program or a forensic investigation of a traffic or other criminal offense.[91] The concentrations obtained from such analyses can often be helpful in distinguishing active use from passive exposure, elapsed time since use, and extent or duration of use.

***Drug testing in order for potential recipients to receive welfare has become an increasingly controversial topic

Pissing our life away…

 

ohhhh-so-beautiful

 

 

As Gatewood Galbraith once said, “Our Father’s and Grandfather’s did not go to the beaches of Normandy so that their children could piss in a cup to get a job”…

Corporate “Drug Testing” aided by Pharmaceutical Companies who develop and produce these tests have taken our very right to be able to work away.  So long as they are allowed to do this our country will never be truly free and we will have not won ANY war.

The drug testing laws have forced us to be liar’s, cheater’s and last but most important – unemployed. 

There is virtually no “blue collar” job for which there is not drug testing.

Everyone already knows how unfair it is to the casual marijuana smoker as the cannabinoids remain in your body for an extended length of time – which in and of itself is a GOOD thing, but Corporate Fascist have condemed us to be “worthless”, for corporate use…

Some smaller businesses may be ignorant of the fact that the “1988 Drug Free Workplace Act (DFWA)” DOES NOT require the majority of these businesses conduct drug testing.  Other’s are part of the corporate majority who will adhere to drug testing to try to lower their insurance premiums and “slap the hands” of anyone who would like to use marijuana either for personal or medical reasons.  They do this in order to continue the “Elkhorn Manifesto” regime to keep cannabis out of the hands of those who would attempt to put an end to the oil based society which we now “enjoy”.

It’s all about where the profit is and how far they are willing to go to keep it.

The slaves were never set free.  Everyone just became “equal” in color and was run off of their farms and into the Industrial Revolution.
The slaves are us.  All of us.

Until we can get the drug testing laws eradicated we will continue on as slaves long after the “law” has been changed regarding the use of marijuana/cannabis.

It may not be in the government’s best interest to keep paying for incarceration for use, but it IS in corporate America’s best interest to keep the cannabis off the shelf.  

Thats life in America…let the “private sector” handle it…

 

Drug-Free Workplaces do NOT have to test for marijuana (Updated)  – November 21, 2012  by Russ Belville

 

Why Employers Drug Test

 

Obama Administration Pushes Drug Testing in Workplace, But Not For Everybody

 

WASHINGTON — The government wants businesses to drug test their workers to boost productivity and reduce health care costs, according to the 2012 National Drug Control Report released Tuesday.

 

@ShereeKrider 7.1.13

HR3722 `Putting Drug Free Families First Act of 2011′

HR 3722 IH

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3722

To amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to require States to implement a drug testing program for applicants for and recipients of assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

December 16, 2011

Mr. PEARCE (for himself, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina, Mr. DESJARLAIS, Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan, Mr. POSEY, Mr. KING of Iowa, and Mr. MULVANEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means


A BILL

To amend part A of title IV of the Social Security Act to require States to implement a drug testing program for applicants for and recipients of assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the `Putting Drug Free Families First Act of 2011′.
SEC. 2. DRUG TESTING PROGRAM FOR APPLICANTS FOR AND RECIPIENTS OF ASSISTANCE UNDER STATE TANF PROGRAMS.
    (a) Requirement That Applicants and Individuals Receiving Assistance Be Tested for Illegal Drug Use- Section 408(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 608(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
      `(12) REQUIREMENT FOR DRUG TESTING; DENIAL OF ASSISTANCE FOR INDIVIDUALS FOUND TO HAVE USED AN ILLEGAL DRUG-
        `(A) IN GENERAL- A State to which a grant is made under section 403 may not use any part of the grant to provide assistance under the State program funded under this part to an individual unless the individual is tested for the use of the drugs listed in subparagraph (B)(i)–
          `(i) if the individual has applied for such assistance and the application has not been approved, before the receipt of such assistance; and
          `(ii) in any other case, before the end of the 3-month period that begins on the date of the enactment of this paragraph.
        `(B) DRUGS TO BE INCLUDED IN TESTING-
          `(i) IN GENERAL- In conducting drug testing pursuant to subparagraph (A), the State shall test for each of the following:
            `(I) Marijuana.
            `(II) Cocaine.
            `(III) Opiates.
            `(IV) Amphetamines.
            `(V) Methamphetamine.
            `(VI) Phencyclidine.
            `(VII) Heroin.
            `(VIII) Lysergic acid diethylamide.
            `(IX) 3,4-methylenedioxy amphetamine.
          `(ii) EXCEPTION FOR PRESCRIPTION USE OF DRUGS- A positive test for a drug listed in clause (i) shall be disregarded for purposes of this paragraph if such drug was used pursuant to a valid prescription or as otherwise authorized by law.
        `(C) DENIAL OF ASSISTANCE FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO TEST POSITIVE FOR AN ILLEGAL DRUG-
          `(i) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subparagraph (D), if an individual tests positive pursuant to subparagraph (A) for the use of any drug listed in subparagraph (B)(i), the State may not provide assistance under the State program funded under this part to such individual unless–
            `(I) a 1-year (or, if the individual has so tested positive for the 2nd time, 3-year) period has elapsed since the results of the test were determined; and
            `(II) the individual tests negative for the use of each drug listed in subparagraph (B)(i) at the end of such period.
          `(ii) PERMANENT INELIGIBILITY AFTER THIRD POSITIVE TEST RESULT- If an individual tests positive pursuant to subparagraph (A) for the third time for the use of any drug listed in subparagraph (B)(i), the State shall treat such individual as permanently ineligible for assistance under the State program funded under this part.
        `(D) REHABILITATION EXCEPTION AFTER FIRST POSITIVE TEST RESULT- In the case of an individual who tests positive pursuant to subparagraph (A) for the first time for the use of any drug listed in subparagraph (B)(i), the period for which assistance may not be provided to an individual by reason of subparagraph (C)(i) shall be 180 days if the State determines that the individual–
          `(i) has successfully completed a drug rehabilitation or treatment program for the drug for which the individual tested positive; and
          `(ii) tests negative for the use of such drug at the end of such 180-day period.
        `(E) PAYMENT OF COSTS- The State shall require each individual who applies for assistance under the State program funded under this part to pay the portion of the cost of the drug testing pursuant to subparagraph (A) that pertains to such individual. If such individual tests negative for the use of each drug listed in subparagraph (B)(i) and the State provides assistance under the State program funded under this part to the individual, the State shall increase the first payment of such assistance in an amount equal to the amount paid by the individual under this subparagraph for the drug testing.
        `(F) DESIGNEE FOR CHILD BENEFICIARY- In the case of a parent of a minor child, if such parent tests positive pursuant to subparagraph (A) for the use of any drug listed in subparagraph (B)(i), the State shall designate an individual other than such parent to receive payments for assistance under the State program funded under this part on behalf of the minor child. The State may not so designate an individual unless the individual has been tested for the use of each drug listed in subparagraph (B)(i) and did not test positive.
        `(G) DEFINITION OF DRUG REHABILITATION OR TREATMENT PROGRAM- In this paragraph, the term `drug rehabilitation or treatment program’ means a program that–
          `(i) has been determined by the State to provide rehabilitation or treatment for the use of an illegal drug; and
          `(ii) complies with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations.’.
    (b) Penalty for Failure To Implement Illegal Drug Use Testing Program- Section 409(a) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 609(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
      `(16) PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT ILLEGAL DRUG USE TESTING PROGRAM- If the Secretary determines that a State to which a grant is made under section 403 in a fiscal year has violated section 408(a)(12) during the fiscal year, the Secretary shall reduce the grant payable to the State under section 403(a)(1) for the immediately succeeding fiscal year by an amount equal to 10 percent of the State family assistance grant.’.
    (c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the 1st day of the 1st calendar quarter that begins on or after the date that is 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

END

Stay Connected with the Library All ways to connect »
Find us on

FacebookTwitterYouTubeFlickr

Subscribe & Comment
Download & Play

About | Press | Site Map | Contact | Accessibility | Legal | External Link Disclaimer | USA.govSpeech Enabled Download BrowseAloud Plugin

Trading Sex for a "F–cking Happy Meal?

Mom Can’t Get Food Stamps After Drug Offense, Resorts to Prostitution to Feed her Kids

If she’d committed murder, Carla could have gotten assistance to feed her children. But because the crime she committed was related to drugs, she can’t.

December 21, 2012  |  

images2

Carla walked into my office with despair in her eyes. I was surprised. Carla has been doing well in her four months out of prison; she got off drugs, regained custody of her kids, and even enrolled in a local community college. 

Without much prodding she admitted to me that she had retuned to prostitution: “I am putting myself at risk for HIV to get my kids a f—ing happy meal.”

Despite looking high and low for a job, Carla explained, she was still unemployed. Most entry-level jobs felt out of reach with her drug record, but what’s worse, even the state wasn’t willing to throw her a temporary life preserver.

You see, Carla is from one of the 32 states in the country that ban anyone convicted of a drug felony from collecting food stamps. With the release of the Global Burden of Disease Study last week, it bears looking at how we are perpetuating burdens among the most vulnerable Americans with our outdated laws.

If she’d committed rape or murder, Carla could have gotten assistance to feed herself and her children, but because the crime she committed was a drug felony, Carla joined the hundreds of thousands of drug felons who are not eligible.

The 1996 passage of the Welfare Reform Act was supposedly implemented to prevent drug addicts from selling their food stamps for drugs. But that concern is virtually unwarranted today. Unlike old food-stamp coupons, today’s food stamps are distributed electronically, which makes selling or trading them quite difficult.

Nonetheless, the law persists.  According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, nine states have a lifetime ban for food-stamp eligibly for people convicted of drug felonies.  Twenty-three states have a partial ban, such as permitting eligibility for persons convicted of drug possession but not sale, or for persons enrolled in drug treatment programs.

Denying food stamp benefits to people convicted of drug offenses is an excessive and ineffective crime control strategy. The policy increases an individual’s risk of returning to prison by making it more difficult for people to survive after they get out, slowing or possibly even preventing their reintegration into society. People without the financial cushion necessary to get through the initial period of job searching and re-establishing a life have little choice but to turn to illegal means to make ends meet.

What’s more, the food-stamp ban is a law that works against good public health policy. As a doctor who cares predominantly for people who are released from prison, I see the damaging consequences of this ban on food stamps. I have seen patients of mine with diabetes go without food and end up hospitalized with low blood sugar, and still others with HIV skip their antiretrovirals because they don’t have food to take with their pills.  Not having access to food is associated with bad health outcomes including worsening diabetes, HIV, depression. Young children face anemia, diabetes, and depression.

Women with children are especially affected. It’s estimated that 70,000 women and their children are banned from obtaining food stamps. This means mothers who are simply trying to feed themselves and their children, and who are trying to get back on their feet after serving their time, are banned from receiving the money to pay for the basics necessary to survive.  Meanwhile, 46 million others, including college graduates and PhDs with far more resources, can receive food aid.

No other criminal conviction results in such a ban—not arson, not rape, not even murder.

Carla was arrested at 20 for selling marijuana.  At the time, she had also been making money working for her “boyfriend” as a sex worker.  Her boyfriend was also arrested for robbery.  He could qualify for food stamps upon release. But not Carla. She continues to pay for selling marijuana— a drug which two states have now voted to legalize outright—and the price is health risks for herself and for her children. 

CONTINUE READING….PAGE 2…

Why Do Clinics Deny Painkillers To Medical Marijuana Patients?

By Steve Elliott ~alapoet~

pills0409_image.jpeg

Should health care facilities have the power to make lifestyle decisions for you — and punish you when your choices don’t measure up to their ideals? More and more hospitals are making exactly those kinds of decisions when it comes to people who choose to use marijuana — even legal patients in medical marijuana states. Apparently, these places don’t mind looking exactly as if they have more loyalty to their Big Pharma benefactors than they do to their own patients.

A new policy at one Alaska clinic — requiring patients taking painkilling medications to be marijuana free — serves to highlight the hypocrisy and cruelty of such rules, which are used at more and more health care facilities, particularly the big corporate chains (the clinic in question is a member of the Banner Health chain).

Tanana Valley Clinic, in Fairbanks, started handing out prepared statements to all chronic pain patients on Monday, said Corinne Leistikow, assistant medical director for family practice at TVC, reports Dorothy Chomicz at the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.


“We will no longer prescribe controlled substances, such as opiates and benzodiazepines, to patients who are using marijuana (THC),” the statement reads in part. “These drugs are psychoactive substances and it is not safe for you to take them together.” (This statement is patently false; marijuana has no known dangerous reactions with any other drugs, and in fact, since marijuana relieves chronic pain, it often makes it possible for pain patients to take smaller, safer doses of opiates and other drugs.)

LIAR, LIAR: Corinne Leistikow, M.D. says “patients who use opiates and marijuana together are at much higher risk of death.” We’d love to see the study you’re talking about, Corinne.

“Your urine will be tested for marijuana,” patients are sternly warned. “If you test positive you will have two months to get it out of your system. You will be retested in two months. If you still have THC in your urine, we will no longer prescribe controlled substances for you.”

TVC patient Scott Ide, who takes methadone to control chronic back pain, also uses medical marijuana to ease the nausea and vomiting caused by gastroparesis. He believes TVC decided to change its policy after an Anchorage-based medical marijuana authorization clinic spend three days in Fairbanks in June, helping patients get the necessary documentation to get a state medical marijuana card.

“I’m a victim of circumstance because of what occurred,” Ide said. “I was already a patient with her — I was already on this regimen. We already knew what we were doing to get me better and work things out for me. I think it’s wrong.”

Ide, a former Alaska State Trooper, said he was addicted to painkillers, but medical marijuana helped him wean himself off all medications except methadone.

Leistikow admitted that the new policy may force some patients to drive all the way to Anchorage, because there are only a few chronic pain specialists in Fairbanks. Still, she claimed the strict new policy was “necessary.”

The assistant medical director is so eager to defend the clinic’s new policy that she took a significant departure from the facts in so doing.

“What we have decided as a clinic — we’re setting policy for which patients we can take care of and which ones we can’t — patients who use opiates and marijuana together are at much higher risk of death, abuse and misuse of medications, of having side effects from their medications, and recommendations are generally that patients on those should be followed by a pain specialist,” Leistikow lied.

Patients who use opiates and marijuana together are NOT in fact at higher risk of death, abuse, misuse and side effects; I invite Ms. Leistikow to produce any studies which indicate they are. As mentioned earlier, pain patients who also use marijuana are usually able to use smaller, safer doses of painkillers than would be the case without cannabis supplementation.

CONTINUE READING HERE…