Pass Drug Testing and THC Detox Info

Methadone Bill Requires Tests For Marijuana

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 05:41:16 GMT

INDIANAPOLIS - Methadone clinics would be more strictly regulated and patients would undergo marijuana testing under legislation the Indiana House passed and sent to Gov. Mitch Daniels yesterday.

Rep. Steve Stemler, the bill's sponsor, said the drug-testing provisions could reduce the number of patients at the Southern Indiana Treatment Center in Clark County and at other methadone clinics located along the state's borders.

He said many patients leave their home states - where marijuana testing is required - to come to Indiana's clinics. "This will make a huge impact," said Stemler, D-Jeffersonville. "I feel confident that will happen."

The Clark County clinic is the state's second largest, serving nearly 2,000 patients in 2005. About two-thirds of those patients came from Kentucky. In all, Indiana's methadone clinics serve more than 10,000 patients annually, with more than half coming from other states.

The final version of Senate Bill 157, which passed the House 89-0, does not include an earlier amendment that would have required the clinic's patients to have a designated driver after their appointments. The Senate earlier approved the legislation.

Stemler had sought the requirement, saying that the federal FDA puts methadone - which is used to treat addictions to heroin, OxyContin and other drugs - in the same classification as those medicines used for outpatient surgeries or procedures.

In those cases, hospitals or medical centers require designated drivers. But Stemler said yesterday that the proposal proved too controversial and was deleted from the bill. At the time that amendment was considered, Tim Bohman, regional manager for CRC Health, which owns the Clark County center, told lawmakers that patients have a high tolerance for opiates and therefore can function normally after a treatment.

SB 157 also requires the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration to pass new rules to regulate methadone clinics and requires state approval for all patients who would receive more than 14 take-home doses of the drug.

Patients who test positive for marijuana would lose the right to have the popular take-home doses. That means they would have to go to the clinic daily to receive their methadone.

The bill also gives Family and Social Services new authority to fine clinics that do not follow state rules.

Source: Methadone bill requires tests for marijuana

Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:08:10 GMT

��: methadone bill requires tests for marijuana

Methadone clinics are becoming more popular day by day,that too indian clinics.Methadone clinics would be more strictly regulated and patients would undergo marijuana testing under legislation the Indiana House passed and sent to Gov. Mitch Daniels yesterday.n all, Indiana's methadone clinics serve more than 10,000 patients annually, with more than half coming from other states.
************************************************** *************
john

johngeorge =email=

��

The treatment of cancer pain, Sativex, and Cannabinoids

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 18:27:09 GMT

Dr. Geoffrey Guy, Chairman of GW Pharmaceuticals plc, will make the following comments at Annual General Meeting:

“In 2008, we have started to build on the achievements of 2007, a year of important progress for GW. The licence agreement signed in 2007 with Otsuka secured the future of our lead product, Sativex®, in the United States, the world’s largest pharmaceutical market, by providing funding for the US development plan aimed at securing regulatory approval from the FDA. Separately, the global cannabinoid research collaboration signed with Otsuka later in 2007, enabled us to accelerate the development of our pipeline of new cannabinoid medicines. During 2007, we also secured a further approval for Sativex in Canada for the treatment of cancer pain and achieved clarity from the European regulators as to their requirements to gain approval.

“2008 is a pivotal year in GW’s development with the results expected from three separate late stage trials for Sativex in Europe and the US. The first of these is the MS neuropathic pain Phase III trial in Europe which includes a total of 339 patients. This study is complete and on track for database lock shortly with headline results due in the coming weeks. Separately, the Phase III MS spasticity trial requested last year by the UK regulatory authority commenced on time and is recruiting on schedule. These two trials provide us with separate regulatory filing opportunities for Sativex in Europe over the coming year.

“Progress is also being made under both elements of the Otsuka collaboration. The Sativex US Phase IIb/III cancer pain study commenced towards the end of 2007 as planned. Other aspects of the Sativex US development plan agreed with the FDA are also progressing well. Under the cannabinoid research agreement, promising pre-clinical data is already starting to emerge on a range of novel cannabinoids within the CNS and oncology fields.

“Separately, our in-house research programme in the field of type 2 diabetes and related metabolic disorders is also making progress. We recently announced highly promising results in both pre-clinical pharmacology studies and a Phase I trial of a new potential cannabinoid treatment, delta-9-tetrahydrocannabivarin (THCV). Following on from this first study, GW is now preparing to start a Phase IIa multiple dose study in type 2 diabetic patients in 2008.

“With Sativex now in the regulatory endgame in Europe and in late stage development in the US, and the wider field of cannabinoid medicines continuing to grow, we look forward to reporting news of our progress during 2008.

“As announced in the preliminary results, Dr Brian Whittle, Scientific Director and co-founder, at the age of 75, has chosen not to seek re-election at the AGM and therefore retires today. Although Brian has gradually decreased his working time over the last few years, he played an instrumental role in the development of GW and will be greatly missed. I would like to express on behalf of the Board my sincere gratitude for his contribution to the company.”

Source: GW Pharmaceutical

��

Hospital Medic Struck Of After Cannabis Use

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:50:33 GMT

A medic at the Royal Devon amp; Exeter Hospital who tested positive for cannabis after failing to turn up for work has been struck off. Jennie Andrews, a biomedical hospital scientist, also tried to persuade a colleague to provide a urine test sample for her, a disciplinary hearing in London heard.

John Williams, chairman of a Health Professions Council panel, ordered the striking off of Andrews, who worked in microbiology. In findings just published, he said: "The behaviour was deliberate abuse of alcohol and the use of cannabis, a lack of honesty and integrity and a lack of insight into the effect of her behaviour."

The hearing had been told that Andrews was employed by the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Foundation Trust from December, 2004, until her dismissal on February 28, last year. During that time, she didn't turn up for work on several occasions due to drug and alcohol-related issues. She was said to have failed to attend work on May 26, 2006, without contacting her employer to explain her absence, and on September 25, 2006, she had undergone tests for drugs and alcohol which had proved positive for cannabis.

During a meeting with a doctor on October 11, 2006, to discuss the test results, the panel's findings say Andrews had admitted using cannabis regularly and had later conceded that some of her previous absences from work were the result of the effects of too much alcohol. She again didn't turn up for work on November 23, 2006, due to "alcohol-related issues" and the following month tested positive again for cannabis.

The hearing had been told that on January 15, 2007 - when she was required to provide a further urine sample - she had requested the help of a colleague in providing the sample on her behalf. Describing her attendance at work as "patchy" at the relevant time with a "lack of communication", Mr Williams said it demonstrated "she was taking substances which had the potential to affect her cognitive function". Without evidence of any change in Ms Andrews' situation since the relevant events, Mr Williams said the panel had decided to erase the medic's name from the register of medical practitioners.

An RD &E spokeswoman: "In common with all NHS organisations, the RD &E has robust human resources policies and procedures in place. "We consider that we took the appropriate action to first monitor and then dismiss this employee, when it became apparent that there was a serious issue which could not be resolved."

Source: this is exeter - news, entertainment, jobs, homes and cars

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:27:53 GMT

��: dying over drug politics

That means sick people with authorization from their doctors to use marijuana are still in legal jeopardy, that California employers can fire workers who use marijuana recommended by a physician, and that people in need of an organ transplant can be barred from organ-transplant waiting lists.
----------------
mathew

mathew =email=

��

Lung cancer: One joint = 20 cigarettes?

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:29:33 GMT

The lung cancer study was the scariest. Since cigarettes are a known lung cancer risk, it seems plausible that marijuana might carry similar risks. In fact, most of the scientific evidence tends in the opposite direction - though one would never know it from reading either the study or the Reuters wire story that got the heaviest circulation.

Conducted in New Zealand, this was what is called a "case-control" study, in which researchers looked at a group of patients who had lung cancer and compared them to a group without cancer - the controls - matched for age and other demographics. All were asked about various factors that might increase their lung cancer risk, including smoking cigarettes or marijuana. After running the data on 79 cancer cases and 324 controls through myriad equations and mathematical analyses, the researchers proclaimed that one joint packed a cancer risk roughly equal to 20 cigarettes - an assertion that became Reuters' lead.

What was downplayed in the study, published in the European Respiratory Journal, and missing entirely from most media reports was context - context that strongly suggests that its alarming conclusion is wrong.

For one thing, the new conflicts with other, much larger studies. In a study published in 1997, Kaiser-Permanente researchers followed 65,000 patients for 10 years and saw no sign of marijuana use increasing the risk of lung cancer or other smoking-related cancers. And a UCLA study similar in design to this one, published in 2006, found a trend toward lower lung cancer rates among marijuana smokers. Instead of 79 cancer cases, the UCLA team looked at 1,212. The result was so striking that they speculated that it "may reflect a protective effect of marijuana."

That's right: Marijuana might protect from cancer. Piles of published studies going back to the mid-1970s document the cancer-fighting properties of marijuana's active components, THC and other chemicals called cannabinoids. Anticancer activity has been shown in many types of malignant cells, including lung cancer cells. So even though marijuana smoke contains tars and other potentially carcinogenic compounds, it is entirely plausible that cannabinoids counter any harmful effects.

But even without such context, a closer look at the New Zealand data raises questions that should have been asked by reporters. For example, most marijuana smokers in the study actually didn't show an increased risk of cancer. The only group that did was those whose marijuana use equaled at least 10.5 "joint-years" (one joint-year equals smoking a joint every day for one year). That group constituted a whopping 14 people. All those complicated mathematical models leading to the "20 times the risk" assertion, and contradicting reams of published research, rest on exactly 14 people.

��

LABORATORY TECHNIQUES AND QUALITY CONTROL

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:35:07 GMT

The Laboratory uses a range of carefully controlled chromatographic and immunoassay techniques for detecting and confirming the presence of drugs of abuse in urine specimens. The Laboratory aims to ensure a minimum of false 'negative' results, and that no false 'positive' results are reported. Confirmatory tests are always performed for the identification of specific amphetamine and opiate class drugs. However, in the cases of benzodiazepines, cannabis, cocaine and methadone, confirmatory tests are NOT routinely carried out, because these immunoassay are relatively specific and rarely produce false positives. Confirmatory test are, however, available for unexpected findings. The Laboratory is able to provide "absolute" confirmation of findings using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry techniques. The Laboratory participates regularly in external quality assurance schemes as part of an effort to achieve a consistently high standard of performance.

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 02:05:19 GMT

��: a better way to detect drugs!

This kind of Standard Operating Procedure in detecting DRUGS is the basic thing that our agents is doing in this kind of problem. Drugs have always been the dominating problem of our society and Government always providing us ways on how to solve this problem or somehow get rid of it.
May I ask what are those techniques you're doing in order to detect DRUGS from the urine's specimen?
_______________
heizen

heizen =email=

��

Use of on-site testing for drugs of abuse.

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:23:56 GMT

There is currently a profusion of near-patient testing devices that have been specifically targeted at drug dependency units and clinics. Some of these devices have been shown to produce accurate results. However, some devices suffer from inappropriate labeling, which together with the subjective interpretation of poorly defined reaction end-point markers, leads to misinterpretation of the results generated.

A literature search was conducted regarding the use and evaluation of near-patient testing devices for drugs-of-abuse screening. The results of this research, together our own practical evaluations of such devices, have been collated into this review.

It is proposed that although near-patient testing devices may be useful in remote areas or where rapid action needs to be taken, it should be remembered that they provide only initial screening data and may yield false-positive or flase-negative results. Such devices need to be used with caution because a rapid but unconfirmed result may lead to misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment for those who have a drug problem. It should be noted that a single result, which may be inaccurate, could lead to the cessation of treatment and a failure to provide care for those in greatest need. In addition, false-positive results may also have medico-legal implications, especially with the initiation of the drug testing and treatment orders.

Near-patient testing devices for drugs of abuse could be an expensive and potentially inaccurate means to monitor patient treatment and drug abuse status.

��

Urine Sample Specimen Collection

Mon, 25 Feb 2008 08:20:19 GMT

The appropriate specimen for screening for drugs of abuse is a 'spot' urine sample (20-30 ml) which should be stored in a sterile plastic container without preservative. The patient's full name, hospital or other identification number, and the date and time of collection should be written clearly on the specimen container and on the request form. It is also important to record each client's full home postcode. Special care should be taken to ensure that the specimen obtained is authentic i.e. it has been freshly voided by the patient under supervision, and not subsequently adulterated or substituted for a "drug free" specimen. A urine specimen for drugs of abuse screening should be sent by courier or first class mail, but if there is likely to be a delay in dispatch, it should be kept in a 4oC refrigerator prior to being sent to the laboratory.

��