TESTING for illicit drugs is a relatively recent phenomenon in Bermuda. Prior to 1984, when the alco-analyser was introduced, it simply didn't happen.

Nineteen years later, as Bermuda works to deal with its drug problem, a number of companies have turned to Benedict Associates in the hope of getting employees at risk back on track and thereby reducing the severity of the crisis.

ACCORDING to Vaughn Mosher, Benedict Associates' managing director, drug screening for illicit drugs was first used on the island in 1996 to test Bermuda's athletes. The impact, he said, was significant and the process was taken into the workplace.

The policies have since developed into three initiatives: 'Drugs Don't Play Here', 'Drugs Don't Work Here' and, for the United Bermuda Party - whose politicians only recently underwent their first screening - 'Leadership By Example'.

"Part of the definition of disease and addiction is a person who continues with a certain kind of behaviour in spite of all the reasons not to, knowing full well what the consequences are - the threat to their livelihood, their domestic well-being, losing their families, their homes and their kids," he said.

"That's the nature of addiction and the great power of craving. What I like about (drug screening) is that it helps intervene at an earlier stage rather than to allow the behaviour to continue for several more months or years to the point where the person is hooked even more chronically.

"Intervening where there's a lighter level of addiction makes it easier to come out at the other side. That's why, by many standards (drug screening) is considered to be a form of prevention."

Although many companies establish drug-free workplaces with employees' health in mind, the often greater lure is the positive effect the policy has on production levels and staff morale.

"Many companies have become drug-free workplaces because of safety-sensitive jobs - employees working with heavy machinery or dangerous machinery such as machetes and that sort of thing," he said.

"But in some cases (it stemmed from a concern regarding employees) who make very big financial decisions. In a bank, for example, a safety-sensitive issue would not so much be (the damage to) one's physical health, but one's decision-making process.

"The policy has been extremely successful (as an aid to) continued work rather than continued turnover. People who use drugs are gone a lot; they get fired; they're just not there. Somebody has to either take their load on, or a subsititute has to be brought in for them. That has a negative impact on the morale and job satisfaction of their co-workers who aren't drug users.

"We've had a couple of programmes over the last few years where decision-makers say that their turnover levels are right down because people are there reliably pulling their own weight. That alone, some of them have said, is worth the price they pay for having a drug-ree workplace.

"We have a couple of progressive-thinking employers who have (hired) people even though they've screened positive for pre-employment. They've acknowledged that the person lied about their drug use but said, 'We're willing to take a risk with you, but we expect you to get join our Employee Assistance Programme and get counselling. And we expect you, in a very short period of time, to become drug-free. We'll ride with you if you say that you'll clean up your act and come work here.' Not all are that progressive but in this community, Butterfield and Vallis are exemplary."

Testing, Mr. Mosher said, usually arose from one of four possible situations - reasonable cause, pre-employment screening, random testing and post treatment or target testing.

"The most common is testing for reasonable cause; when a supervisor suspects that someone's observed behaviour might very well be drug-related. They don't have stereotypical attributes. It's more drug-specific.

"For instance, if somebody were on ecstasy, they'd be sort of wide-eyed and really wanting to connect with people. It'd be outrageous behaviour at 2, 3, 5 o'clock in the morning. But then it's gone the next day and the day after.

"It's hard at times to detect a moderate, but steady use of cocaine, because that person is a top performer being driven by the drug. We all generally know what the stereotypes are of marijuana and of alcohol.

"Heroin has yet again a different type of behaviour associated with it - flu-like symptoms, sniffling, cramps and physical pain during withdrawal. And then the person gets a hit and within a very short period of time, functions perfectly normally.

"We work with supervisors and managers to let them know what kinds of signs and symptoms are there to be seen. And they make a referral. That person comes in, has a drug screen, and is either drug-free or not."

PRE-EMPLOYMENT testing, he added, has become a great aid to employers as they field through potential workers. "It's becoming more and more common. We've (detected) nearly double the rate as compared to (the users we've discovered) in the workplace. It could be that they're not expecting it, and it could also be that that's why they're looking for work; (the abuse is) the reason they're out of work.

"The third form is random testing, where a percentage of (those involved are) called up, at no notice, to come in and supply a urine sample. In sports here, the percentage is ten per cent. It varies in the workplace.

"Say there are 200 employees, we have one company that will have 100 polls in a year - an average of 50 per cent tested per year. It's working very, very well. They've really made a commitment to having a drug-free workplace and helping those who find themselves to be on drugs."

Target, or post-treatment testing, differs in that it serves as a form of rehabilitation for the admitted drug user, according to Mr. Mosher.

"Once the person says, 'Yes, I do want to stay in this sport and play domestically, yes, I do want to continue to work at this company, thanks for giving me the opportunity to do so, I will go for counselling and expect to stop using my drug of choice,' the counsellor - or in our case, the administrator here - calls up independently of the counselling session and tells them when to come in and give a sample.

"(The process is effective in that it combines) the counselling, to help change the lifestyle, with monitoring of possible drug. It's helpful to the counsellor as well. The person might be presenting themselves beautifully, when in fact they're still using drugs." The testing process, which includes everyone from the company president to the newest recruit, is a fairly simple one, Mr. Mosher explained.

Once notified, employees are screened within 24 hours.

The person is required to inform the counsellor or administrator of the test of any medications or products - including nutritional and herbal products - that they have taken within the past ten days.

A urine sample of 75 millilitres - which must be produced into a receptacle while being witnessed - is required.

Thirty millilitres of the urine, poured into a second receptacle, will be tested if the first sample proves positive.

Regent strips may be used to check the pH and specific gravity of the first sample to ensure that it is valid for analysis.

The first sample is then tested for illicit drugs.

If the first sample shows a positive presence, the second is tested and questions are raised again as to any medications or products taken in the last ten days.

A drug use control form is signed by the administrator and the person tested, verifying that the sample collection procedure was properly carried out.

Whether the on-site test is negative or positive, the person is told immediately and (their employer) receives written confirmation of that fact.

That the tests be considered a valid measure by those taking and administering them, is crucial, Mr. Mosher says. And, in spite of the hopes of many drug users, there is no way to beat them.

"Two things have really blown it for validity elsewhere in the world and here in the past. It's important to have someone witness as a urine sample is supplied. Otherwise, it could be anybody's.

"It seems like a no-brainer and yet, a lot of places don't do that. A lot of places elsewhere in the world will say, 'Here you go, come out with this filled please.'

"And, in fact, we have found a few people who have tried to get somebody else's urine from their receptacle into our receptacle.

"But we have mechanisms to safeguard (against invalid samples). We witness the delivery and there's a heat mechanism (attached to the receptacle).

"There are some products on the market that promise they can help users to beat the test. They're there on the Internet and a lot of people have spent outrageous sums of money - $30, $35 - on them.

"Most of them do one of two things - they either wash the person right out so it could be pure water (they're urinating), or camouflouge the drugs. We've got a mechanism that enables us to screen for validity. If the sample doesn't show a valid measure, we don't screen. We know we're not going to find anything.

"We had one guy come in on four occasions. Each time he said, 'Well, I just drink a lot of water'. And maybe he did. But a couple of weeks later, his supervisor went and demanded he come with him immediately. He didn't have a chance to use one of his tests and, of course, he tested positive.

"It's rare, but we do sometimes find false positives and false negatives. What we do then is take the samples to the Government lab, which then either confirms or does not confirm our initial findings.

"Our instruments are very, very sensitive. So much so, that we can pick up traces of certain drugs which look to be positive when in fact (the readings) are not high enough to be over the threshold to be called positive.

"There are legal cutoffs. With marijuana, for instance, the cutoff is 50 nanograms for 100 millilitres. As some countries and jurisdictions have the cutoff as 15 nanograms, our instrument picks up (drug presence even when the reading is) under 50.

"But it's not unless it's over 50 that (we recognise a test) as positive. A person can claim second-hand smoke and a number of other things when there is only a trace, and we want to give people the benefit of the doubt."

FOR athletes, a first infraction can result in one year of ineligibility with monitored successful rehabilitation, a second infraction brings three years of ineligibility while a third infraction results in a lifetime ban from sport. Obviously, the options are somewhat different when the workplace is involved.

"There's a big difference between the cost of marijuana and the cost of cocaine and heroin," Mr. Mosher added. "And sometimes, that's where the feathers hit the fan first. There's usually a financial, followed by a physical crisis.

"Often you will see a cocaine user who's still able to function; the person may, in fact, be a top performer because of the cocaine. But then they get to the point where, depending on the amount they use, their body isn't able to (stand up to it.).

"An employer can go for months saying, 'I think you are using,' and have the employee say, 'No, I'm not. A drug screen cuts right through that.

"When a company decides to become drug-ree, they give those who are found to be using drugs the opportunity to clean up. Some do, and stay, and that's good. But there are others who opt to continue with their drug of choice, and leave.

"If we factor in (those users detected through) pre-employment testing, the results are even greater. Those who are using, (aren't hired) in the first place or if they are, they're expected from the get-go to clean up knowing that if they don't, they go.

"That's why employers love (testing). It immediately drops (the incidence of) drug use from who knows what level to practically nothing. With our athletes especially, we can see the trends.

"Nine per cent of our national squad was found to be not drug-free four years ago; for the last two years it has been around one per cent; this year it's under one per cent. The change is phenomenal. It's very, very good."

For more information on drug testing and its benefits in the workplace, phone Benedict Associates at 295-2070.