@Hillary Kearns . As a PCBU there is an obligation for duty of care and Drugs and alcohol are a risk at a workplace especially when majority of your staff are contractors coming to the site.

At induction if there is a non invasive method of testing that gives peace of mind that someone enetring your site is in a fit state. And you as a PCBU have taken reasonably practicable steps to manage that risk and put effective controls.

I will be happy to talk to you if required, 021848144.

Various questions have been raised by Peter's question:
1. How will legalisation affect testing regime?
2. What detects impairment?
3. How effective will the new AS/NZS 4760:2019 be in managing risks around impairment

Simply legalising cannabis does not mean one can turn up for work in an unfit condition. Just as Peter said that alcohol is a legal drug which can cause a lot more harm than cannabis. As per CDC, the third leading preventable cause of death is alcohol in America.

Urine does not detect the psychoactive element and hence has no correlation to impairment. Police detect alcohol use through a breathalyser to see if the drug is still in our blood which can cause impairment. So does urine screen has any place in workplace safety regime when it can only detect historical use. Due to its lipophilic nature (lipo=fat, phyllic-loving) THC gets stuck to fat cells and is notorious for having the longest elimination time. ((Sharma et al., 2012))
On the other hand, if you use a saliva tool with great sensitivity, specificity and accuracy there are greater chances to detect the recent use during which one can be affected by the psychoactive nature of the drug. Hence, saliva can correlate to impairment but does not detect impairment.

Moreover, in Ilinois where medical cannabis is already legal, there has been an increase in stakes for trying to fake a pre-employment drug test. As per their law attempting to fake or tamper with their sample during a pre-employment drug screen is a felony in the state of IL. About a decade and a half ago, this wasn’t the case.

We need to build a culture of respect in an organisation and having a saliva regime will prevent cheating and getting a false sense of safety from drug abuse. When workers know that they will not be penalised for their historical use, AOD policy implementation will be a lot more effective.

AS/NZS 4760:2019- Procedure for specimen collection and the detection and quantification of drugs in oral fluid is now available from:
https://infostore.saiglobal.com/en-au/Search/All/?searchTerm=AS/%20NZS%204760:2019

Changing the matrix from saliva to urine is not as ideal as they both detect different elements. NZ didn't have saliva confirmatory process, although ESR started this in 2013 but there was not a huge uptake on this. Urine advocates always used the pretext "we dont have a standard" but now we do.

Yes, there are steps been taking by CHL to get the confirmation process set up for saliva which shouldn't take long.

Products for saliva screen will also take some time to be verified against the cut off as per the new Standard but there are some good tools out there already with the verification to old standards and using your due diligence you can compare them to the current requirement.

Training in oral fluid is also required, the collection and screening of results and despatch to a laboratory which also should not take long.

Standard is a minimum bar and having a standard has at least shown what sort of tools should be used. There are organisations who do saliva testing with tools that will never detect THC. It is a wake- up call and one should invest in the right tools that actually work towards workplace safety. When urine standard came out in 2008, there weren't any tools or training available at the start but were soon created. To use saliva as a first line of defence can still be a valid matrix in drug detection for recent use even though all the processes are not completely there. When changing the matrix to urine confirmation there should be some time built in between the oral fluid and urine to allow the drugs to be metabolised. Thank you Sam Houliston to point to Hayllar vs Good time food case and recent Port Kembla coal mine case by Fair works commission has argued the pros and cons of saliva and urine very vividly.

Feel free to contact me in relation to the new Standards.

Hi Suzzane
Reasonable cause testing could be from a behaviour recently shown by an employee/ contractor which is not appropriate ( reasons are spelt out in the policy). If it is because of illicit drugs recently consumed, urine testing may not be able to detect that and classify that worker with negative drug test.
For a recnt use detection which closely links to fitness for work; oral fluid screening through a reliable tool helps with a non invasive testing and dosn't penalise anyone who may have breached company policy in their own time.
Regarding accrediation, it is important the lab assessing the screen results is accredited or conforms to certain specified lab standards and this change will be further supported in the relaese of the revised AS 4760 oral fluid drug standard which has taken away the need for accreditation for screening purposes.
Reasonable cause when supported by documented observations about a staff and is timely can assist in getting the consent of the worker. It would be good practice to assess the situation by two trained staff/mangers that a certain set of criteria calls for a drug test as per the policy. Then have an employee representation along with support from HR for getting the consent sorted for reasonable cause drug test.
Under Carter Holt Nelson court case cannabis plants were found growing in the grounds of a sawmill near Nelson. Each employee had claimed $2,500. This court case case shows the implications of getting reasonable grounds incorrect. Feel free to contact me if you require any further details.