View source for Drug test

{{Short description|Technical analysis of a biological specimen}}
{{Redirect2|Toxicology screen|tox screen|testing for toxic substances on organisms in general|Toxicology testing}}
{{Other uses|Drug testing (disambiguation)}}
{{Use mdy dates|date=August 2011}}
{{More medical citations needed|date=March 2025|reason = detection periods seem to lack medical sources}}
{{Infobox diagnostic
|  Name       = Drug test
|  Caption    = To minimize opportunities for tampering, a direct line of sight between the observer and the specimen bottle must be maintained during collection of a cemen sample.
|  ICD10      =
|  ICD9       =
|  MeshID     = D015813
|  OPS301     =
|  OtherCodes =
}}

A '''drug test''' (also often '''toxicology screen''' or '''tox screen''') is a technical analysis of a [[biological specimen]], for example [[urine]], [[hair]], [[blood]], [[breath]], [[sweat]], or [[saliva|oral fluid/saliva]]—to determine the presence or absence of specified parent drugs or their [[metabolite]]s. Major applications of drug testing include detection of the presence of [[Use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport|performance enhancing]] [[steroid]]s in sport, employers and [[parole]]/[[probation]] officers screening for [[Prohibition (drugs)|drugs prohibited]] by law (such as [[cocaine]], [[methamphetamine]], and [[heroin]]) and [[police officers]] testing for the presence and concentration of [[alcoholic drink|alcohol]] ([[ethanol]]) in the blood commonly referred to as [[Blood alcohol content|BAC]] (blood alcohol content).  BAC tests are typically administered via a [[breathalyzer]] while [[urinalysis]] is used for the vast majority of drug testing in [[sports]] and the [[workplace]]. Numerous other methods with varying degrees of accuracy, sensitivity (detection threshold/cutoff), and detection periods exist.

A drug test may also refer to [[illegal drug trade|a test]] that provides quantitative [[chemical analysis]] of an [[illegal drug]], typically intended to help with [[responsible drug use]].<ref name=inde1>{{cite news|title=I spent my weekend testing drugs at a festival|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/secret-garden-party-drugs-service-i-tested-drugs-at-festival-service-for-everyone-a7155376.html|newspaper=The Independent|access-date=18 May 2017|date=25 July 2016|archive-date=May 3, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200503064019/https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/secret-garden-party-drugs-service-i-tested-drugs-at-festival-service-for-everyone-a7155376.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

==Detection periods==
The detection windows depend upon multiple factors: drug class, amount and frequency of use, metabolic rate, body mass, age, overall health, and urine pH. For ease of use, the detection times of [[metabolite]]s have been incorporated into each parent drug. For example, heroin and cocaine can only be detected for a few hours after use, but their metabolites can be detected for several days in urine. The chart depicts the longer detection times of the metabolites. In the case of hair testing, the metabolites are permanently embedded into hair, and the detection time is determined by the length of the hair sample used in the analysis. The standard length of head hair used in the test is 1.5", which corresponds to about 3 months. Body/pubic hair grows slower, and the same  1.5" would result in a longer detection time.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Usman |first1=Muhammad |last2=Naseer |first2=Abid |last3=Baig |first3=Yawar |last4=Jamshaid |first4=Tahir |last5=Shahwar |first5=Muhammad |last6=Khurshuid |first6=Shazia |date=2019-04-27 |title=Forensic toxicological analysis of hair: a review |journal=Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences |language=en |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=17 |doi=10.1186/s41935-019-0119-5 |issn=2090-5939|doi-access=free }}</ref>

Oral fluid or [[saliva testing]] results for the most part mimic that of blood. The only exceptions are THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) and benzodiazepines. Oral fluid will likely detect THC from ingestion up to a maximum period of 6–12 hours. This continues to cause difficulty in oral fluid detection of THC and benzodiazepines.<ref name="j368">{{cite report| last1=Lacey | first1=John  | last2=Kelley-Baker| first2=Tara | last3=Furr-Holden| first3=Debra | last4=Brainard| first4=Katharine | last5=Moore| first5= Christine | title=Pilot Test of New Roadside Survey Methodology for Impaired Driving | date=January 2007 | publisher=
United States National Highway Traffic Safety Administration | doi=10.21949/1525562 |url=https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/1775 | access-date=2024-08-10 | page=}}</ref>

Breath air for the most part mimics blood tests as well. Due to the very low levels of substances in the breath air, liquid chromatography—mass spectrometry has to be used to analyze the sample according to a recent publication wherein 12 analytes were investigated.

Rapid oral fluid products are not approved for use in workplace drug testing programs and are not FDA cleared. Using rapid oral fluid drug tests in the workplace is prohibited in only:<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.singlesourceservices.com/drug-test-kits/Statebystatelaw_800059vA_0611.pdf|title=Drug Testing - State by State Legal Status|publisher=Alere Toxicology|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140125024950/http://www.singlesourceservices.com/drug-test-kits/Statebystatelaw_800059vA_0611.pdf|archive-date=January 25, 2014|url-status=dead|access-date=2013-02-21|df=mdy}}</ref>
* [[California]]
* [[Kansas]]
* [[Maine]]
* [[Minnesota]]
* [[New York (state)|New York]]
* [[Vermont]]

The following chart gives approximate detection periods for each substance by test type.

{| class="wikitable"
|+ Approximate values for detection periods
! Substance !! Urine !! Hair !! Blood / Oral Fluid
|-
! [[alcohol (drug)|Alcohol]]
|  6–24 hours<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/alcohol/alcohol_testing.shtml|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20081020223534/http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/alcohol/alcohol_testing.shtml|url-status=dead|title=Erowid Alcohol Vault : Drug Testing|archivedate=October 20, 2008|website=www.erowid.org}}</ref> Note:  Alcohol tests may measure [[ethyl glucuronide]], which can stay in urine for up to 80 hours|| up to 90 days<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.psychemedics.com/hair-alcohol-testing/|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160623043846/http://www.psychemedics.com/hair-alcohol-testing/|url-status=dead|title=Hair Alcohol Testing (EtG)|archivedate=June 23, 2016}}</ref> || 12 to 24 hours
|-
! [[Amphetamines]] (except methamphetamine)
| 1 to 4 days<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/amphetamines/amphetamines_testing.shtml|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20081020223250/https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/amphetamines/amphetamines_testing.shtml|url-status=dead|title=Erowid Amphetamine Vault : Drug Testing|archivedate=October 20, 2008|website=www.erowid.org}}</ref> || up to 90 days || 12 hours
|-
! [[Methamphetamine]]
| 5 days- up to a week<ref name="erowid.org">{{Cite web|url=https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/meth/meth_testing.shtml|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20081020223535/http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/meth/meth_testing.shtml|url-status=dead|title=Erowid Methamphetamine Vault : Drug Testing|archivedate=October 20, 2008|website=www.erowid.org}}</ref> || up to 90 days || 1 to 3 days<ref name="erowid.org"/>
|-
! [[MDMA]] (Ecstasy)
| 3 to 5 days || up to 90 days || 3 to 4 days
|-
! [[Barbiturates]] (except phenobarbital)
| 1–4 days or 2–3 weeks || up to 90 days || 1 to 2 days
|-
! [[Phenobarbital]]
| 2 to 3 weeks<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/barbiturates/barbiturates_testing.shtml|title=Erowid Barbiturates Vault : Drug Testing|website=www.erowid.org}}</ref> || up to 90 days || 4 to 7 days
|-
! [[Benzodiazepines]]
| Therapeutic use: up to 7 days. Chronic use (over one year): 4 to 6 weeks || up to 90 days || 6 to 48 hours
|-
! [[Cannabis (drug)|Cannabis]]
|Passive inhalation: up to 22 minutes** {{br}} Infrequent users: 7–10 Days {{br}} Heavy users: 30 to 100 days<ref name="ReferenceA">{{Cite web|url=https://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_testing.shtml|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160902015634/https://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_testing.shtml|url-status=dead|title=Erowid Cannabis (Marijuana) Vault : Drug Testing|archivedate=September 2, 2016|website=www.erowid.org}}</ref><ref name="ReferenceA2">{{Cite web|url=https://norml.org/news/2006/02/23/marijuana-detection-time-shorter-than-previously-assumed/|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160902123050/http://norml.org/news/2006/02/23/marijuana-detection-time-shorter-than-previously-assumed|url-status=dead|title=Marijuana Detection Time Shorter Than Previously Assumed|date=February 23, 2006|archivedate=September 2, 2016|website=NORML}}</ref><ref name="thec_Howl">{{Cite web| title = How long does weed stay in your system?| author = Susan Squibb| work = The Cannabist| date = 2016-03-09| access-date = 2016-05-25|url=http://www.thecannabist.co/2016/03/09/how-long-does-weed-stay-in-your-system/48677/| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160311104929/http://www.thecannabist.co/2016/03/09/how-long-does-weed-stay-in-your-system/48677/| url-status = dead| archive-date = 2016-03-11}}
</ref> || up to 90 days<ref name="ReferenceA"/> || 2 to 3 days in blood of infrequent users, up to 2 weeks in blood of heavy users<ref name="ReferenceA"/>  However, it depends on whether actual THC or THC metabolites are being tested for, the latter having a much longer detection time than the former. THC (found in marijuana) may only be detectable in saliva/oral fluid for 2 to 24 hours in most cases, though in rare cases has been detected up to 28 days after consumption.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lee |first1=Dayong |title=Current Knowledge on Cannabinoids in Oral Fluid |journal=Drug Testing and Analysis |volume=6 |issue=1–2 |pages=88–111 |pmc=4532432 |year=2013 |pmid=23983217 |doi=10.1002/dta.1514 }}</ref>
|-
! [[Cocaine]]
| 2 to 4 days<ref name="pmid28325505"/> (with exceptions for heavy users who can test positive up to 4/6 weeks, and individuals with certain kidney disorders)  || up to 90 days || 2–10 days, heavy users or individuals with previous substance use 6/8 weeks
|-
! [[Codeine]]
| 2 to 3 days
|up to 90 days
|1 to 4 days
|-
! [[Cotinine]] (a breakdown product of [[nicotine]])
| 2 to 4 days || up to 90 days || 2 to 4 days
|-
! [[Morphine]]
| 2 to 3 days<ref name="pmid28325505">{{cite journal |vauthors=Moeller KE, Kissack JC, Atayee RS, Lee KC |title=Clinical Interpretation of Urine Drug Tests: What Clinicians Need to Know About Urine Drug Screens |journal=Mayo Clinic Proceedings |volume=92 |issue=5 |pages=774–796 |date=May 2017 |pmid=28325505 |doi=10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.12.007 |url=https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(16)30825-4/fulltext}}</ref> || up to 90 days || 1 to 3 days
|-
! [[Tricyclic antidepressants]] (TCA's)
| 7 to 10 days ||  || Detectable but dose relationship not established.
|-
! [[LSD]]
|1–4 days (including metabolites) || up to 90 days<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Richeval |first1=Camille |last2=Allorge |first2=Delphine |last3=Vanhoye |first3=Xavier |last4=Gaulier |first4=Jean-Michel |year=2017 |title=LSD Detection and Interpretation in Hair |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28641537/ |journal=Current Pharmaceutical Design |volume=23 |issue=36 |pages=5496–5501 |doi=10.2174/1381612823666170622102943 |issn=1873-4286 |pmid=28641537}}</ref>|| 2 to 4 days
|-
! [[Methadone]]
| 3 days<ref name="pmid28325505"/> || up to 90 days|| 24 hours
|-
! [[Steroids]]
| 3 to 30 days  || ||
|-
! [[Phencyclidine|PCP]]
| 3 to 7 days for single use; up to 30 days in chronic users<ref name="ReferenceB">{{Cite web|url=https://www.erowid.org/chemicals/pcp/pcp_testing.shtml|title=Erowid PCP Vault : Drug Testing|website=www.erowid.org}}</ref> || up to 90 days || 1 to 3 days<ref name="ReferenceB" />
|}

==Types==

===Urine drug screen===
[[File:Urine_drug_screen.jpg|thumb|Example of a device used to screen urine for drugs. There is no line present at the [[benzodiazepine]] area, indicating a positive screen for this class of drugs. Other drugs, and the negative control (labelled "C"), are negative.]]
Urine analysis is primarily used because of its low cost. Urine drug testing is one of the most common testing methods used. The enzyme-multiplied immune test is the most frequently used urinalysis. Complaints have been made about the relatively high rates of false positives using this test.<ref>{{Cite book|title = Drug use and abuse: A comprehensive introduction|last = Abadinsky|first = H.|publisher = Wadsworth Cengage Learning|year = 2014|isbn = 9781285070278|location = Belmont|pages = 163–165}}</ref>

Urine drug tests screen the urine for the presence of a parent drug or its metabolites. The level of drug or its metabolites is not predictive of when the drug was taken or how much the patient used.<ref>{{Citation |last1=Verstraete |first1=Alain G. |title=Clinical Drug Testing |year=2022 |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557523/ |work=StatPearls |place=Treasure Island (FL) |publisher=StatPearls Publishing |pmid=32491455 |access-date=2022-10-21 |last2=Mukhdomi |first2=Taif |archive-date=July 5, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240705030054/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557523/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

Urine drug testing is an [[immunoassay]] based on the principle of competitive binding. Drugs which may be present in the urine specimen compete against their respective drug conjugate for binding sites on their specific antibody. During testing, a urine specimen migrates upward by capillary action. A drug, if present in the urine specimen below its cut-off concentration, will not saturate the binding sites of its specific antibody. The antibody will then react with the drug-protein conjugate and a visible colored line will show up in the test line region of the specific drug strip.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Garrels |first1=Marti |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LM9sBQAAQBAJ&dq=Urine+drug+testing+is+an+immunoassay+based+on+the+principle+of+competitive+binding.+Drugs+which+may+be+present+in+the+urine+specimen+compete+against+their+respective+drug+conjugate+for+binding+sites+on+their+specific+antibody.+During+testing%2C+a+urine+specimen+migrates+upward+by+capillary+action.&pg=PA289 |title=Laboratory and Diagnostic Testing in Ambulatory Care - E-Book: A Guide for Health Care Professionals |last2=Oatis |first2=Carol S. |date=2014-08-20 |publisher=Elsevier Health Sciences |isbn=978-0-323-29236-8 |language=en}}</ref>

A common misconception is that a drug test that is testing for a class of drugs, for example, [[opioids]], will detect all drugs of that class.  However, most opioid tests will not reliably detect [[oxycodone]], [[oxymorphone]], [[meperidine]], or [[fentanyl]].<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Pesce|first1=Amadeo|last2=West|first2=Cameron|last3=Egan-City|first3=Kathy|last4=Strickland|first4=Jennifer|date=July 2012|title=Interpretation of Urine Drug Testing in Pain Patients|journal=Pain Medicine|language=en|volume=13|issue=7|pages=868–885|doi=10.1111/j.1526-4637.2012.01350.x|pmid=22494459|issn=1526-2375|doi-access=free}}</ref> Likewise, most [[benzodiazepine]] drug tests will not reliably detect [[lorazepam]].<ref>{{cite book |last1=Shaw |first1=Leslie M. |title=The Clinical Toxicology Laboratory: Contemporary Practice of Poisoning Evaluation |date=2001 |publisher=Amer. Assoc. for Clinical Chemistry |isbn=9781890883539 |page=216 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=pXvFGqz44pYC&pg=PA216 |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Ries |first1=Richard K. |last2=Miller |first2=Shannon C. |last3=Fiellin |first3=David A. |title=Principles of Addiction Medicine |date=2009 |publisher=Lippincott Williams & Wilkins |isbn=9780781774772 |page=301 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=j6GGBud8DXcC&pg=PA301 |language=en |access-date=May 27, 2020 |archive-date=January 12, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230112235030/https://books.google.com/books?id=j6GGBud8DXcC&pg=PA301 |url-status=live }}</ref>  However, urine drug screens that test for a specific drug, rather than an entire class, are often available.

When an employer requests a drug test from an employee, or a physician requests a drug test from a patient, the employee or patient is typically instructed to go to a collection site or their home. The urine sample goes through a specified 'chain of custody' to ensure that it is not tampered with or invalidated through lab or employee error. The patient or employee's urine is collected at a remote location in a specially designed secure cup, sealed with tamper-resistant tape, and sent to a testing laboratory to be screened for drugs (typically the [[Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration]] 5 panel). The first step at the testing site is to split the urine into two [[wikt:aliquot|aliquots]]. One aliquot is first screened for drugs using an analyzer that performs immunoassay as the initial screen. To ensure the specimen integrity and to detect possible adulterants, additional parameters are tested for.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://sobercheck.co.nz/how-adulteration-works/|title=How adulteration works|date=October 11, 2021|access-date=October 22, 2021|archive-date=October 22, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211022034938/https://sobercheck.co.nz/how-adulteration-works/|url-status=live}}</ref> Some test the properties of normal urine, such as, [[Creatinine|urine creatinine]], pH, and [[specific gravity]]. Others are intended to catch substances added to the urine to alter the test result, such as, oxidants (including bleach),<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32924786/|pmid = 32924786|year = 2021|last1 = Aydoğdu|first1 = M.|last2 = Akgür|first2 = S. A.|title = Urine drug-testing tampering approaches: Turkish probationers|journal = Medicine, Science, and the Law|volume = 61|issue = 1|pages = 6–13|doi = 10.1177/0025802420956453|issn=0025-8024|s2cid = 221720183}}</ref> nitrites,<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30408836/|pmid = 30408836|year = 2019|last1 = Steuer|first1 = A. E.|last2 = Kamber|first2 = D.|last3 = Kraemer|first3 = T.|title = Evaluation of endogenous urinary biomarkers for indirect detection of urine adulteration attempts by five different chemical adulterants in mass spectrometry methods|journal = Drug Testing and Analysis|volume = 11|issue = 5|pages = 638–648|doi = 10.1002/dta.2539|s2cid = 53241111|access-date = October 22, 2021|archive-date = October 22, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211022033450/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30408836/|url-status = live}}</ref> and gluteraldehyde.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27645818/|pmid = 27645818|year = 2016|last1 = Fu|first1 = S.|title = Adulterants in Urine Drug Testing|journal = Advances in Clinical Chemistry|volume = 76|pages = 123–163|doi = 10.1016/bs.acc.2016.05.003|isbn = 9780128046876|access-date = October 22, 2021|archive-date = October 22, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211022033448/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27645818/|url-status = live}}</ref> If the urine screen is positive then another aliquot of the sample is used to confirm the findings by [[gas chromatography]]—[[mass spectrometry]] (GC-MS) or [[LC/MS|liquid chromatography - mass spectrometry]] methodology. If requested by the physician or employer, certain drugs are screened for individually; these are generally drugs part of a chemical class that are, for one of many reasons, considered more habit-forming or of concern. For instance, [[oxycodone]] and [[diamorphine]] may be tested, both [[sedative]] [[analgesics]]. If such a test is not requested specifically, the more general test (in the preceding case, the test for opioids) will detect most of the drugs of a class, but the employer or physician will not have the benefit of the identity of the drug.

Employment-related test results are relayed to a medical review office (MRO) where a medical physician reviews the results. If the result of the screen is negative, the MRO informs the employer that the employee has no detectable drug in the urine, typically within 24 hours. However, if the test result of the immunoassay and GC-MS are non-negative and show a concentration level of parent drug or metabolite above the established limit, the MRO contacts the employee to determine if there is any legitimate reason—such as a medical treatment or prescription.<ref>{{cite web|title=Medical Review Officer Manual|url=http://workplace.samhsa.gov/DrugTesting/pdf/MRO_Manual_2010_100908.pdf|publisher=SAMSHA Gov|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130215084325/http://workplace.samhsa.gov/DrugTesting/pdf/MRO_Manual_2010_100908.pdf|archive-date=February 15, 2013|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

On-site instant drug testing is a more cost-efficient method of effectively detecting substance use amongst employees, as well as in rehabilitation programs to monitor patient progress.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Treatment |first=Center for Substance Abuse |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK64092/ |title=Appendix B. Urine Collection and Testing Procedures and Alternative Methods for Monitoring Drug Use |date=2006 |publisher=Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (US) |language=en |access-date=October 21, 2022 |archive-date=October 22, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221022212713/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK64092/ |url-status=live }}</ref> These instant tests can be used for both urine and saliva testing. Although the accuracy of such tests varies with the manufacturer, some kits have rates of accuracy correlating closely with laboratory test results.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.confirmbiosciences.com/knowledge/blog/everything-need-know-instant-drug-tests/ |title=Article in ''Confirm Biosciences'' |access-date=September 2, 2017 |archive-date=January 25, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210125035217/https://www.confirmbiosciences.com/knowledge/blog/everything-need-know-instant-drug-tests/ |url-status=dead }}</ref>

===Breath test===
{{main article|Breathalyzer}}
[[File:Breathalyzer on citizen.jpg|thumb|204x204px|Breath test being used on a volunteer.]]
Breath test is a widespread method for quickly determining alcohol intoxication. A breath test measures the alcohol concentration in the body by a deep-lung breath. There are different instruments used for measuring the alcohol content of an individual though their breath. [[Breathalyzer]] is a widely known instrument which was developed in 1954 and contained chemicals unlike other breath-testing instruments.<ref>{{Cite book|title = Forensic science: From the crime scene to the crime lab.|last = Saferstein|first = R.|publisher = Pearson Education Inc.|year = 2013|isbn = 978-0131391871|location = Upper Saddle River|pages = 295–300}}</ref> More modernly used instruments are the infrared [[Spectrophotometry|light-absorption devices]] and [[fuel cell]] detectors, these two testers are microprocessor controlled meaning the operator only has to press the start button.

To get accurate readings on a breath-testing device the individual must blow for approximately 6 seconds and need to contain roughly 1.1 to 1.5 liters of breath. For a breath-test to result accurately and truly an operator must take steps such as avoiding measuring "mouth alcohol" which is a result from regurgitation, belching, or recent intake of an alcoholic beverage.<ref>{{Cite book|title = Forensic science: From the crime scene to the crime lab.|last = Saferstein|first = R.|publisher = Pearson Education|year = 2013|isbn = 978-0131391871|location = Upper Saddle River|pages = 295–303}}</ref> To avoid measuring "mouth alcohol" the operator must not allow the individual that's taking the test to consume any materials for at least fifteen minutes before the breath test. When pulled over for a driving violation if an individual in the United States refuses to take a breath test that individual's driver's license can be suspended for a 6 to 12 months time period.

===Hair testing===
{{main article|Hair analysis}}
Hair analysis to detect addictive substances has been used by court systems in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and other countries worldwide. In the United States, hair testing has been accepted in court cases as forensic evidence following the Frye Rule, the Federal Rules of Evidence, and the Daubert Rule. As such, hair testing results are legally and scientifically recognized as admissible evidence.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Huestis |first=M. A. |year=1996 |title=Judicial acceptance of hair tests for substances of abuse in the United States courts: scientific, forensic, and ethical aspects |url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8857568/ |journal=Therapeutic Drug Monitoring |volume=18 |issue=4 |pages=456–459 |doi=10.1097/00007691-199608000-00025 |issn=0163-4356 |pmid=8857568 |access-date=October 21, 2022 |archive-date=October 21, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221021172711/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8857568/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Hair testing is commonly used in the USA as pre-employment drug test. The detection time for this test is roughly 3 months, which is the time, that takes head hair to grow ca. 1.5 inches, that are collected as a specimen. Longer detection times are possible with longer hair samples.

A 2014 collaborative US study of 359 adults with moderate-risk drug use found, that a large number of participants, who reported drug use in the last 3 months,  had negative hair tests. The tests were done using an [[immunoassay]] followed by a confirmatory [[GC-MS]].
For marijuana, only about half of self-disclosed users had a positive hair test. Under-identification of drug use by hair testing (or over-reporting) was also widespread for cocaine, amphetamines, and opioids. Because such under-identification was more common among participants, who self-reported an infrequent use, the authors suggested, that the immunoassay did not have the sensitivity required for such infrequent uses.<ref name="z300">{{cite journal | last1=Gryczynski | first1=Jan | last2=Schwartz | first2=Robert P. | last3=Mitchell | first3=Shannon Gwin | last4=O’Grady | first4=Kevin E. | last5=Ondersma | first5=Steven J. | title=Hair drug testing results and self-reported drug use among primary care patients with moderate-risk illicit drug use | journal=Drug and Alcohol Dependence | volume=141 | date=2014 | pmid=24932945 | pmc=4080811 | doi=10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.05.001 | pages=44–50}}</ref> It is worth noting, that most earlier studies reported, that hair tests found ca. 50-fold higher prevalence of illicit drug use, than self reports.<ref name="j960">{{cite journal | last1=Delaney-Black | first1=Virginia | last2=Chiodo | first2=Lisa M. | last3=Hannigan | first3=John H. | last4=Greenwald | first4=Mark K. | last5=Janisse | first5=James | last6=Patterson | first6=Grace | last7=Huestis | first7=Marilyn A. | last8=Ager | first8=Joel | last9=Sokol | first9=Robert J. | title=Just Say "I Don't": Lack of Concordance Between Teen Report and Biological Measures of Drug Use | journal=Pediatrics | volume=126 | issue=5 | date=2010-11-01 | issn=0031-4005 | pmid=20974792 | pmc=3508771 | doi=10.1542/peds.2009-3059 | pages=887–893}}</ref>

In late 2022 the US [[Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration]] denied a petition to recognize hair samples as an alternative (to the currently used urine samples) drug-testing method for truckers. The agency did not comment on the test validity, but rather stated, that it lacks the statutory authority to adopt new analytical methods.<ref>{{Cite web |title=FMCSA denies petition for federal recognition of hair-sample drug testing {{!}} Safety+Health |url=https://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/23411-fmcsa-denies-petition-for-federal-recognition-of-hair-sample-drug-testing |access-date=2023-11-16 |website=www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com |language=en |archive-date=October 30, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231030144425/https://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/23411-fmcsa-denies-petition-for-federal-recognition-of-hair-sample-drug-testing |url-status=live }}</ref>

Although some lower courts may have accepted hair test evidence, there is no controlling judicial ruling in either the federal or any state system declaring any type of hair test as reliable.

Hair testing is now recognized in both the UK and US judicial systems. There are guidelines for hair testing that have been published by the Society of Hair Testing (a private company in France) that specify the markers to be tested for and the cutoff concentrations that need to be tested. Addictive substances that can be detected include Cannabis, Cocaine, Amphetamines and drugs new to the UK such as Mephedrone.

====Alcohol====
In contrast to other drugs consumed, alcohol is deposited directly in the hair. For this reason the investigation procedure looks for direct products of ethanol metabolism. The main part of alcohol is oxidized in the human body. This means it is released as water and carbon dioxide. One part of the alcohol reacts with fatty acids to produce esters. The sum of the concentrations of four of these fatty acid ethyl esters (FAEEs: ethyl [[myristate]], [[ethyl palmitate]], [[ethyl oleate]] and ethyl [[stearate]]) are used as indicators of the alcohol consumption. The amounts found in hair are measured in nanograms (one nanogram equals only one billionth of a gram), however with the benefit of modern technology, it is possible to detect such small amounts. In the detection of [[ethyl glucuronide]], or EtG, testing can detect amounts in picograms (one picogram equals 0.001 nanograms).

However, there is one major difference between most drugs and alcohol metabolites in the way in which they enter into the hair: on the one hand like other drugs FAEEs enter into the hair via the [[keratinocytes]], the cells responsible for hair growth. These cells form the hair in the root and then grow through the skin surface taking any substances with them. On the other hand, the [[sebaceous glands]] produce FAEEs in the scalp and these migrate together with the sebum along the hair shaft (Auwärter et al., 2001, Pragst et al., 2004). So these glands lubricate not only the part of the hair that is just growing at 0.3&nbsp;mm per day on the skin surface, but also the more mature hair growth, providing it with a protective layer of fat.

FAEEs (nanogram = one billionth of a gram) appear in hair in almost one order of magnitude lower than (the relevant order of magnitude of) EtG (picogram = one trillionth of a gram). It has been technically possible to measure FAEEs since 1993, and the first study reporting the detection of EtG in hair was done by Sachs in 1993.<ref name="Kintz">{{cite book |author=Pascal Kintz |title=Analytical and practical aspects of drug testing in hair |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IBBq180lUEAC&pg=PA305 |date=August 30, 2006 |publisher=CRC Press |isbn=978-0-8493-6450-1 |pages=305–}}</ref>

In practice, most hair which is sent for analysis has been cosmetically treated in some way (bleached, permed etc.). It has been proven that FAEEs are not significantly affected by such treatments (Hartwig et al., 2003a). FAEE concentrations in hair from other body sites can be interpreted in a similar fashion as scalp hair (Hartwig et al., 2003b).

===Presumptive substance testing===
Presumptive substance tests attempt to identify a suspicious substance, material or surface where traces of drugs are thought to be, instead of testing individuals through biological methods such as urine or hair testing. The test involves mixing the suspicious material with a chemical in order to trigger a color change to indicate if a drug is present. Most are now available over-the-counter for consumer use, and do not require a lab to read results.
[[File:Duquenois Reagent.jpg|thumb|174x174px|Duquenois reagent]]
Benefits to this method include that the person who is suspected of drug use does not need to be confronted or aware of testing.  Only a very small amount of material is needed to obtain results, and can be used to test powder, pills, capsules, crystals, or organic material. There is also the ability to detect illicit material when mixed with other non-illicit materials. The tests are used for general screening purposes, offering a generic result for the presence of a wide range of drugs, including Heroin, Cocaine, Methamphetamine, Amphetamine, Ecstasy/MDMA, Methadone, Ketamine, PCP, PMA, DMT, MDPV, and may detect rapidly evolving synthetic designer drugs. Separate tests for Marijuana/Hashish are also available.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Global Synthetic Drugs Assessment |url=https://www.unodc.org/documents/scientific/2014_Global_Synthetic_Drugs_Assessment_web.pdf |access-date=October 21, 2022 |archive-date=October 21, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221021172713/https://www.unodc.org/documents/scientific/2014_Global_Synthetic_Drugs_Assessment_web.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>

There are five primary color-tests reagents used for general screening purposes. The [[Marquis reagent]] turns into a variety of colors when in the presence of different substances. [[Dille–Koppanyi reagent|Dille-Koppanyi reagent]] uses two chemical solutions which turns a violet-blue color in the presence of barbiturates. [[Duquenois–Levine reagent|Duquenois-Levine reagent]] is a series of chemical solutions that turn to the color of purple when the vegetation of marijuana is added. [[Ehrlich's reagent|Van Urk reagent]] turns blue-purple when in the presence of LSD. [[Scott test]]'s chemical solution shows up as a faint blue for cocaine base.<ref>{{Cite book|title = Forensic science:From the crime scene to the crime lab|last = Saferstein|first = Richard|publisher = Pearson Education Inc|year = 2013|isbn = 978-0131391871|location = Upper Saddle River|pages = 271}}</ref>

In recent years, the use of presumptive test kits in the criminal justice system has come under great scrutiny due to the lack to forensic studies, questioned reliability, rendering of false positives with legal substances, and wrongful arrests.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/magazine/how-a-2-roadside-drug-test-sends-innocent-people-to-jail.html|title=How a $2 Roadside Drug Test Sends Innocent People to Jail|last1=Gabrielson|first1=Ryan|last2=Sanders|first2=Topher|date=16 December 2016|website=The New York Times Magazine|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161206102939/http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/magazine/how-a-2-roadside-drug-test-sends-innocent-people-to-jail.html|archive-date=6 December 2016}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.propublica.org/article/common-roadside-drug-test-routinely-produces-false-positives|title=Tens of thousands of people every year are sent to jail based on the results of a $2 roadside drug test.|last1=Gabrielson|first1=Ryan|last2=Sanders|first2=Topher|date=7 July 2016|website=ProPublica.org|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190316153405/https://www.propublica.org/article/common-roadside-drug-test-routinely-produces-false-positives|archive-date=16 March 2019|access-date=16 March 2019}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cacj.org/documents/sf_crime_lab/studies__misc_materials/falsepositives.pdf|title=False Positives Equal False Justice|last=Kelly|first=John|year=2008|website=California Attorney General|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190316152146/https://www.cacj.org/documents/sf_crime_lab/studies__misc_materials/falsepositives.pdf|archive-date=16 March 2019|access-date=16 March 2019}}</ref>

===Saliva drug screen / Oral fluid-based drug screen===
[[Saliva]] / oral fluid-based drug tests can generally detect use during the previous few days. It is better at detecting very recent use of a substance. THC may only be detectable for 2–24 hours in most cases. On site drug tests are allowed per the Department of Labor.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Macdonald |first1=Scott |last2=Cherpitel |first2=Cheryl J. |last3=Stockwell |first3=Tim |last4=Martin |first4=Gina |last5=Ishiguro |first5=Sonya |last6=Vallance |first6=Kate |last7=Brubacher |first7=Jeff |date=2013-05-06 |title=Concordance of self-reported drug use and saliva drug tests in a sample of emergency department patients |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14659891.2012.760010 |journal=Journal of Substance Use |volume=19 |issue=1–2 |pages=147–151 |doi=10.3109/14659891.2012.760010 |pmid=25104914 |pmc=4120967 |issn=1465-9891}}</ref>

Detection in saliva tests begins almost immediately upon use of the following substances, and lasts for approximately the following times:

* [[Alcohol (drug)|Alcohol]]: 6-12 h<ref name="ReferenceC">{{Cite web|url=https://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/testing/testing_info1.shtml|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100217023841/http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/testing/testing_info1.shtml|url-status=dead|title=Erowid Drug Testing Vaults : The Basics|archivedate=February 17, 2010|website=www.erowid.org}}</ref>
* [[Marijuana]]: 1-24h

A disadvantage of saliva based drug testing is that it is not approved by FDA or SAMHSA for use with DOT / Federal Mandated Drug Testing.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Drug Testing Resources |url=https://www.samhsa.gov/workplace/drug-testing-resources |access-date=2022-10-21 |website=samhsa.gov |date=April 16, 2014 |language=en |archive-date=October 21, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221021172713/https://www.samhsa.gov/workplace/drug-testing-resources |url-status=live }}</ref> Oral fluid is not considered a bio-hazard unless there is visible blood; however, it should be treated with care.

===Sweat drug screen===
Sweat patches are attached to the skin to collect sweat over a long period of time (up to 14 days).<ref name="Drug Test">{{cite web|url=http://aboutdrugtesting.org/drug_test.htm|title=Drug Test|year=2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071011043028/http://aboutdrugtesting.org/drug_test.htm|archive-date=2007-10-11|website=aboutdrugtesting.org}}</ref> These are used by child protective services, parole departments, and other government institutions concerned with drug use over long periods, when urine testing is not practical.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/167/thepatch.shtml|title=Federal Court Drug-Testing Device Under Fire, PharmChem Sweat Patch May Be "Too Good"|date=January 5, 2001|access-date=January 18, 2008|archive-date=May 3, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080503094811/http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle-old/167/thepatch.shtml|url-status=live}}</ref>

There are also surface drug tests that test for the metabolite of parent drug groups in the residue of drugs left in sweat. An example of a rapid, non-invasive, sweat-based drug test is fingerprint drug screening.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Clearing The Haze: Intelligent Fingerprinting Drug Screening with Dr. Paul Yates _049 on Apple Podcasts|url=https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/intelligent-fingerprinting-drug-screening-dr-paul-yates/id1479292049?i=1000493620251|access-date=2021-04-14|website=Apple Podcasts|language=en-us|archive-date=April 14, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210414123505/https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/intelligent-fingerprinting-drug-screening-dr-paul-yates/id1479292049?i=1000493620251|url-status=live}}</ref> This 10 minute fingerprint test<ref>{{Cite news|first=Oliver|last=Moody|title=New device can sniff out the weekend drug-takers|newspaper=[[The Times]]|language=en|url=https://www.thetimes.com/uk/society/article/new-reader-1000-device-can-sniff-out-the-weekend-drug-takers-intelligent-fingerprinting-sheffield-medico-legal-centre-rzwzq27gf|access-date=2021-04-14|issn=0140-0460|archive-date=April 14, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210414123506/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-reader-1000-device-can-sniff-out-the-weekend-drug-takers-intelligent-fingerprinting-sheffield-medico-legal-centre-rzwzq27gf|url-status=live}}</ref> is in use by a variety of organisations in the UK and beyond, including within workplaces,<ref>{{Cite web|date=2021-02-25|title=Keepmoat Homes deploys fingerprint drug testing for plant operator Health & Safety|url=https://www.bdcmagazine.com/2021/02/health-safety-environmental/occupational-hs/keepmoat-homes-deploys-fingerprint-drug-testing-for-plant-operator-health-safety/|access-date=2021-04-14|website=BDC Magazine|language=en-GB|archive-date=February 25, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210225203357/https://www.bdcmagazine.com/2021/02/health-safety-environmental/occupational-hs/keepmoat-homes-deploys-fingerprint-drug-testing-for-plant-operator-health-safety/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|title=Vantec Europe introduces Intelligent Fingerprinting drug tests|url=https://www.commercialfleet.org/news/latest-news/2021/03/18/vantec-europe-introduces-intelligent-fingerprinting-drug-tests|access-date=2021-04-14|website=commercialfleet.org|language=en|archive-date=April 14, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210414123507/https://www.commercialfleet.org/news/latest-news/2021/03/18/vantec-europe-introduces-intelligent-fingerprinting-drug-tests|url-status=live}}</ref> drug treatment and family safeguarding services<ref>{{Cite web|title=Introducing intelligent fingerprinting – better, safer drug testing {{!}} Change Grow Live|url=https://www.changegrowlive.org/about-us/news-views/intelligent-fingerprint-testing|access-date=2021-04-14|website=www.changegrowlive.org|language=en|archive-date=April 14, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210414123506/https://www.changegrowlive.org/about-us/news-views/intelligent-fingerprint-testing|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Attias|first=Julia|date=2019-09-03|title='Revolutionary' drug test can tell if you're intoxicated from just a fingerprint|url=https://www.mirror.co.uk/science/revolutionary-drug-test-can-tell-19321447|access-date=2021-04-14|website=mirror|language=en}}</ref> at airport border control (to detect drug mules)<ref>{{Cite web|title=Fingerprint-based drug test accelerates identification of drug mules|url=https://www.internationalairportreview.com/news/96347/fingerprint-drug-testing/|access-date=2021-04-14|website=International Airport Review|language=en|archive-date=April 14, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210414123506/https://www.internationalairportreview.com/news/96347/fingerprint-drug-testing/|url-status=live}}</ref> and in mortuaries to assist in investigations into cause of death.<ref>{{Cite web|last=SelectScience|title=Revolutionary Fingertip Drug Test Aids Forensic Toxicology {{!}} SelectScience|url=http://www.selectscience.net/product-news/revolutionary-fingertip-drug-test-aids-forensic-toxicology/?artID=44551|access-date=2021-04-14|website=www.selectscience.net}}</ref>

===Blood===
Drug-testing a blood sample measures whether or not a drug or a metabolite is in the body at a particular time. These types of tests are considered to be the most accurate way of telling if a person is intoxicated. Blood drug tests are not used very often because they need specialized equipment and medically trained administrators.

Depending on how much marijuana was consumed, it can usually be detected in blood tests within six hours of consumption. After six hours has passed, the concentration of marijuana in the blood decreases significantly. It generally disappears completely within 30 days.

===Random drug testing===
Can occur at any time, usually when the investigator has reason to believe that a substance is possibly being used by the subject by behavior or immediately after an employee-related incident occurs during work hours. Testing protocol typically conforms to the national medical standard, candidates are given up to 120 minutes to reasonably produce a urine sample from the time of commencement (in some instances this time frame may be extended at the examiner's discretion).

===Diagnostic screening===
In the case of life-threatening symptoms, unconsciousness, or bizarre behavior in an emergency situation, screening for common drugs and toxins may help find the cause, called a ''toxicology test'' or ''tox screen'' to denote the broader area of possible substances beyond just self-administered drugs. These tests can also be done post-mortem during an autopsy in cases where a death was not expected. The test is usually done within 96 hours (4 days) after the desire for the test is realized. Both a urine sample and a blood sample may be tested.<ref name=webmd>[http://firstaid.webmd.com/toxicology-tests WebMD --> Toxicology Tests] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120115101950/http://firstaid.webmd.com/toxicology-tests |date=January 15, 2012 }} </ref> A blood sample is routinely used to detect [[ethanol]]/[[methanol]] and [[Acetylsalicylic acid|ASA]]/[[paracetamol]] intoxication. Various panels are used for screening urine samples for common substances, e.g. ''triage 8'' that detects [[amphetamines]], [[benzodiazepine]]s, [[cocaine]], [[methadone]], [[opiates]], cannabis, [[barbiturates]] and [[tricyclic antidepressants]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.surrey.ac.uk/MDA/Pages/GuildfordEvaluations/PreviousReports/Reports/Drugs%20of%20abuse%20report.htm|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110811080853/http://www.surrey.ac.uk/MDA/Pages/GuildfordEvaluations/PreviousReports/Reports/Drugs%20of%20abuse%20report.htm
|url-status=dead|title=Sixteen devices for the detection of drugs of abuse in urine|archivedate=August 11, 2011}}</ref> Results are given in 10–15 min.

Similar screenings may be used to evaluate the possible use of [[date rape drug]]s. This is usually done on a urine sample.<ref name=webmd/>

===Optional harm reduction scheme===
[[Drug checking|Drug checks/tests]] (also known as pill testing) are provided at some events such as concerts and music festivals. Attendees can voluntarily hand over a sample of any drug or drugs in their possession to be tested to check what the drug is and its purity. The scheme is used as a [[harm reduction]] technique so people are more aware of what they are taking and the potential risks.<ref>{{cite news |last= Moodie |first= Kim |date= 18 December 2019 |title= Govt to back research on drug-checking programmes at music festivals |url=https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12295114 |work= The New Zealand Herald |access-date= 23 December 2019 |archive-date= December 23, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191223225112/https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12295114 |url-status= live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |date= 22 May 2017 |title= Six UK music festivals are to allow drug testing including Reading and Leeds |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/39996522/six-uk-music-festivals-are-to-allow-drug-testing-including-reading-and-leeds |work= BBC Newsbeat |access-date= 23 December 2019 |archive-date= December 24, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191224011313/http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/39996522/six-uk-music-festivals-are-to-allow-drug-testing-including-reading-and-leeds |url-status= live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |date= 3 September 2018 |title= Thousands of people use drug-testing facilities at UK music festivals |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-45367810 |work= BBC News |access-date= 23 December 2019 |archive-date= December 24, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191224011308/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-45367810 |url-status= live }}</ref>

===Occupational harm reduction strategies===
Drug and alcohol impairment while at work increases the risk of work-place accidents and decreases productivity. Employers such as the commercial driving and airline industry may conduct random drug tests on employees with the goal of deterring use to improve safety.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Akanbi|first1=Maxwell O.|last2=Iroz|first2=Cassandra B.|last3=O'Dwyer|first3=Linda C.|last4=Rivera|first4=Adovich S.|last5=McHugh|first5=Megan Colleen|date=January 2020|title=A systematic review of the effectiveness of employer-led interventions for drug misuse|journal=Journal of Occupational Health|volume=62|issue=1|pages=e12133|doi=10.1002/1348-9585.12133|issn=1348-9585|pmc=7293184|pmid=32533807}}</ref> There is some evidence that increasing the use of random drug testing in the airline industry reduces the percentage of people who test positive, however, it is unclear if this decrease is associated with a corresponding decrease in fatal or non-fatal injuries, other accidents, number of days absent from work.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last1=Els|first1=Charl|last2=Jackson|first2=Tanya D.|last3=Milen|first3=Mathew T.|last4=Kunyk|first4=Diane|last5=Wyatt|first5=Graeme|last6=Sowah|first6=Daniel|last7=Hagtvedt|first7=Reidar|last8=Deibert|first8=Danika|last9=Straube|first9=Sebastian|date=2020-12-27|title=Random drug and alcohol testing for preventing injury in workers|journal=The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews|volume=2020|issue=12|pages=CD012921|doi=10.1002/14651858.CD012921.pub2|issn=1469-493X|pmc=8130990|pmid=33368213}}</ref> It is also not clear if there are other unwanted side effects that may result from random drug and alcohol testing in the workplace.<ref name=":0" />

==Commonly tested substances==

===Anabolic steroids===
[[Anabolic steroid]]s are used to enhance performance in sports and as they are prohibited in most high-level competitions drug testing is used extensively in order to enforce this prohibition. This is particularly so in individual (rather than team) sports such as [[sport of athletics|athletics]] and [[cycle sport|cycling]].

==Methodologies==
Before testing samples, the [[tamper-evident]] seal is checked for integrity. If it appears to have been tampered with or damaged, the laboratory rejects the sample and does not test it.

Next, the sample must be made testable. Urine and oral fluid can be used "as is" for some tests, but other tests require the drugs to be extracted from urine. Strands of hair, patches, and blood must be prepared before testing. Hair is washed in order to eliminate second-hand sources of drugs on the surface of the hair, then the [[keratin]] is broken down using [[enzymes]]. [[Blood plasma]] may need to be separated by [[centrifuge]] from [[blood cells]] prior to testing. Sweat patches are opened and the sweat collection component is removed and soaked in a [[solvent]] to dissolve any drugs present.

Laboratory-based drug testing is done in two steps. The first step is the '''screening test''', which is an immunoassay based test applied to all samples. The second step, known as the confirmation test, is usually undertaken by a laboratory using highly specific chromatographic techniques and only applied to samples that test positive during the screening test.<ref name="principles of drug testing technology">[http://www.drugtestsdirect.com.au/docs/other/principles-of-drug-testing-technology.pdf "Principles of Drug Testing Technology,"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130419032353/http://www.drugtestsdirect.com.au/docs/other/principles-of-drug-testing-technology.pdf |date=April 19, 2013 }}</ref> Screening tests are usually done by [[immunoassay]] ([[Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Technique|EMIT]], [[ELISA]], and RIA are the most common). A "[[wikt:dipstick|dipstick]]" drug testing method which could provide screening test capabilities to field investigators has been developed at the [[University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign|University of Illinois]].<ref>{{cite news |author=Jim Barlow |title=A Little Dab Will Do It |url=http://www.las.uiuc.edu/news/2006fall/06nov_dipstick.html |work=LASNews |publisher=University of Illinois |date=November 2006 |access-date=November 29, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070129082943/http://www.las.uiuc.edu/news/2006fall/06nov_dipstick.html |archive-date=January 29, 2007 |url-status=dead |df=mdy}}</ref>

After a suspected positive sample is detected during screening, the sample is tested using a '''confirmation test'''. Samples that are negative on the screening test are discarded and reported as negative. The confirmation test in most laboratories (and all [[SAMHSA]] certified labs) is performed using [[mass spectrometry]], and is precise but expensive. False positive samples from the screening test will almost always be negative on the confirmation test. Samples testing positive during both screening and confirmation tests are reported as positive to the entity that ordered the test. Most laboratories save positive samples for some period of months or years in the event of a disputed result or lawsuit. For workplace drug testing, a positive result is generally not confirmed without a review by a Medical Review Officer who will normally interview the subject of the drug test.

===Urine drug testing===
Urine drug test kits are available as on-site tests, or laboratory analysis. Urinalysis is the most common test type and used by federally mandated drug testing programs and is considered the Gold Standard of drug testing. Urine based tests have been upheld in most courts for more than 30 years. However, urinalysis conducted by the Department of Defense has been challenged for reliability of testing the metabolite of cocaine. There are two associated metabolites of cocaine, benzoylecgonine (BZ) and ecgonine methyl ester (EME), the first (BZ) is created by the presence of cocaine in an aqueous solution with a pH greater than 7.0, while the second (EME) results from the actual human metabolic process. The presence of EME confirms actual ingestion of cocaine by a human being, while the presence of BZ is indicative only. BZ without EME is evidence of sample contamination, however, the US Department of Defense has chosen not to test for EME in its urinalysis program.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/books-of-the-year-2013-sport-8973040.html | location=London | work=The Independent | first=Chris | last=Maume | title=Books of the year 2013: Sport | date=November 29, 2013 | access-date=August 26, 2017 | archive-date=December 20, 2016 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161220064035/http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/features/books-of-the-year-2013-sport-8973040.html | url-status=live }}</ref>{{relevance inline|date=October 2016}}

A number of different analyses (defined as the unknown substance being tested for) are available on Urine Drug Screens.

===Spray drug testing===
Spray (sweat) drug test kits are non-invasive. It is a simple process to collect the required specimen, no bathroom is needed, no laboratory is required for analysis, and the tests themselves are difficult to manipulate and relatively tamper-resistant. The detection window is long and can detect recent drug use within several hours.

There are also some disadvantages to spray or sweat testing. There is not much variety in these drug tests, only a limited number of drugs can be detected, prices tend to be higher, and inconclusive results can be produced by variations in sweat production rates in donors.  They also have a relatively long specimen collection period and are more vulnerable to contamination than other common forms of testing.<ref name="Drug Test"/>

===Hair drug testing===
Hair drug testing is a method that can detect drug use over a much longer period of time than saliva, sweat or urine tests. Hair testing is also more robust with respect to tampering. Thus, hair sampling is preferred by the US military<ref name=idk38>{{Cite thesis|last=Hatala|first=John W.|date=June 2003|title=The Feasibility of Testing Hair for Illicit Drug Use in the United States Marine Corps|place=Monterey, California|publisher=[[Naval Postgraduate School]]|pages=2|url=http://www.usna.edu/IR/htmls/lead/database/cohort6/c06_hatala.pdf|access-date=May 7, 2009|hdl=10945/976|hdl-access=free|archive-date=January 17, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090117085241/http://www.usna.edu/IR/htmls/lead/database/cohort6/c06_hatala.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> and by many large corporations, which are subject to [[Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988]].

Head hair normally growth at the rate of 0.5&nbsp;inches per month.<ref name="zme">{{cite web |url=https://www.zmescience.com/other/science-abc/how-fast-hair-grows-042394/ |title=How fast hair grows, and other hairy science |last=Puiu |first=Tibi |date=August 23, 2018 |website=zmescience.com |publisher=ZME Science |access-date=September 28, 2018 |quote=The hair on your head grows about 6 inches a year. |archive-date=August 30, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180830142322/https://www.zmescience.com/other/science-abc/how-fast-hair-grows-042394/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Thus, the most common hair sample length of 1.5" from the scalp would detect drug use within the last 90-100 days. 80-120 strands of hair are sufficient for the test.<ref name="i910">{{cite book | title=Analytical and Practical Aspects of Drug Testing in Hair | publisher=CRC Press | date=2006-08-30 | isbn=978-0-429-24525-1 | doi=10.1201/9781420006193 | page= | editor-last1=Kintz | editor-first1=Pascal }}</ref> In the absence of hair on the head, body hair can be used as an acceptable substitute. This includes facial hair, the underarms, arms, and legs or even pubic hair. Because body hair usually grows slower than head hair, drugs can often be detected in body hair for longer periods, e.g. up to 12 months.

Most drugs are analysed in hair samples not as the original psychoactive molecules, but rather as their metabolytes. For example, [[ethanol]] is determined as [[ethyl glucuronide]], while [[cocaine]] use is confirmed using [[ecgonine]]. Testing for metabolytes reduces the likelihood of false positive results due to contamination. One disadvantage of hair testing is, that it cannot detect recent drug use, because it takes at least a week after a drug intake for the metabolytes to show up in a growing hair above the skin.<ref name=idk38/> Urine tests are better suited for detecting recent (within a week) drug use.

In a practical test, hair sample is usually washed with a low polarity solvent (such as [[dichloromethane]]) to remove surface contaminations. Then, the sample is pulverized and extracted with a more polar solvent, such as methanol.<ref name="h623">{{cite journal | last1=Musiał | first1=Jadwiga | last2=Powierska-Czarny | first2=Jolanta | last3=Czarny | first3=Jakub | last4=Raczkowski | first4=Michał | last5=Galant | first5=Natalia | last6=Buszewski | first6=Bogusław | last7=Gadzała-Kopciuch | first7=Renata | title=One-step extraction and determination of 513 psychoactive substances, drugs, and their metabolites from hair by LC–MS/MS | journal=Archives of Toxicology | volume=96 | issue=11 | date=2022 | issn=0340-5761 | pmid=36008489 | pmc=9525419 | doi=10.1007/s00204-022-03343-w | pages=2927–2933| bibcode=2022ArTox..96.2927M }}</ref>

Although thousand different substances can be determined in a single [[gas chromatography–mass spectrometry]] or [[liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry]] experiment, due to the low concentration of analytes, practical measurements (see [[Gas chromatography%E2%80%93mass spectrometry#Selective ion monitoring|selective ion monitoring]]) are limited to a smaller number (10-20) of analytes. [[Designer drugs]] are usually missed in such measurements, because the analyst must know in advance what chemicals to look for.

Most hair testing laboratories use the aforementioned [[chromato-mass-spectrometry]] methods for confirmation or for rarely tested drugs only. Mass screening (preliminary or final) is usually done with [[immunoassays]], because of their lower cost.

==Legality, ethics and politics==
The results of federally mandating drug testing were similar to the effects of simply extending to the trucking industry the right to perform drug tests, and it has been argued that the latter approach would have been as effective at lower cost.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1086/345584 |title=Drug Testing in the Trucking Industry: The Effect on Highway Safety |author=Mireille Jacobson |journal=Journal of Law and Economics |volume=46 |issue=1 |date=April 2003 |pages=131–156|citeseerx=10.1.1.489.2439 |s2cid=38999582 }}</ref>

Psychologist [[Tony Buon]] has criticized the use of workplace drug testing on a number of grounds, including:

# Flawed technology: The real world performance of testing is much lower than that claimed by its promoters. Buon suggest that tests are probably adequate for rehabilitation and treatment situations, possibly adequate for pre-employment situations, but not for dismissing employees.
# Ethical Issues: Because of the fairly simple ways that an employee can invalidate the test, drug testing must be strictly monitored.  This means that the specimen must be observed leaving the body. Many legal objections currently being raised in the courts about drug testing are pointing to legal requirements of prior notice, consent, due process, and cause.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Buon |first1=Tony |title=Alcohol, drug and other problems in academia |journal=Drugs in Society |date=June 1996 |issue=2 |pages=8–12 |url=https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/ielapa.970100533 |access-date=June 12, 2021 |archive-date=August 10, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240810104539/https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/ielapa.970100533 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Brockett |first1=James |title=Does testing work? |journal=People Management |volume=12 |issue=23 |date=November 2006 |page=13 }}</ref>
# Wrong focus: As has been shown with [[Employee Assistance Program]]s, the focus of management concern should be on work performance decline.  Buon suggests effective management practices are an infinitely better approach to managing workplace alcohol and other drug issues.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Buon |first1=Y. |last2=Compton |first2=B. |year=1994 |chapter=The Development of Alcohol and Other Drug Programs in the Workplace |editor1-last=Stone |editor1-first=R. J. |title=Readings in Human Resource Management |volume=2 |pages=240–252 |location=Brisbane |publisher=John Wiley }}</ref>

[[Tony Buon]] has also reported by the [[CIPD]] as stating that "drug testing captures the stupid—experienced drug users know how to beat the tests".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cipd.co.uk/pm/peoplemanagement/b/weblog/archive/2013/01/29/doestestingwork-2006-11.aspx|title=Does testing work? - People Management Magazine Online|work=cipd.co.uk|access-date=May 9, 2015|archive-date=May 18, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150518082712/http://www.cipd.co.uk/pm/peoplemanagement/b/weblog/archive/2013/01/29/doestestingwork-2006-11.aspx|url-status=dead}}</ref>

From a [[penology|penological]] standpoint, one purpose of drug testing is to help classify the
people taking the drug test within risk groups so that those who pose more of a danger to the public can be [[incapacitation (penology)|incapacitated]] through incarceration or other restrictions on liberty. Thus, the drug testing serves a crime control purpose even if there is no expectation of [[rehabilitation (penology)|rehabilitating]] the drug user through treatment, [[deterrence (penology)|deterring]] drug use through sanctions, or sending a message that drug use is a deviant behavior that will not be tolerated.<ref name=newpenology>{{cite journal |last1=Feeley |first1=Malcolm M. |last2=Simon |first2=Jonathan |title=The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and Its Implications |journal=Criminology |year=1992 |volume=30 |issue=4 |pages=449–474 |doi=10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01112.x |url=https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/718 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130929162512/http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/718/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=September 29, 2013 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

===United Kingdom===
A study in 2004 by the Independent Inquiry into Drug Testing at Work found that attempts by employers to force employees to take drug tests could potentially be challenged as a violation of privacy under the [[Human Rights Act 1998]] and Article 8 of the [[European Convention of Human Rights]].<ref>{{cite web|author = Independent Inquiry into Drug Testing at Work|title= Drug testing in the workplace: Summary conclusions of the Independent Inquiry into Drug Testing at Work|url=http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/foundations/694.asp|access-date= January 17, 2008|url-status= dead|archive-url  =https://web.archive.org/web/20070928073933/http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/foundations/694.asp|archive-date =September 28, 2007|df= mdy-all}}</ref> However, this does not apply to industries where drug testing is a matter of personal and public safety or security rather than productivity.

===United States===
In consultation with Dr. Carlton Turner, President Ronald Reagan issued [[Executive order (United States)|Executive Order]] 12564. In doing so, he instituted mandatory drug-testing for all safety-sensitive executive-level and civil-service Federal employees. This was [[National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab|challenged in the courts]] by the [[National Treasury Employees Union]]. In 1988, this challenge was considered by the US Supreme Court.<ref>National Treasury Employees Union v. von Raab. 86-1879, US Supreme Court, 1989.</ref> A similar challenge resulted in the Court extending the drug-free workplace concept to the private sector.<ref>Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Assoc. 87-15555. US Supreme Court, 1989</ref> These decisions were then incorporated into the White House Drug Control Strategy directive issued by President George H.W. Bush in 1989.<ref>{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1016/0740-5472(90)90047-T | last1 = Miller | first1 = NS | last2 = Giannini | first2 = AJ | last3 = Gold | first3 = MS | last4 = Philomena | first4 = JA | title = Drug testing: medical, legal, and ethical issues | journal=Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment | volume = 7 | issue = 4 | pages = 239–44 | year = 1990 | pmid = 2290186 | doi-access = free }}</ref> All defendants serving on [[federal probation]] or [[federal supervised release]] are required to submit to at least three drug tests. Failing a drug test can be construed as possession of a controlled substance, resulting in mandatory revocation and imprisonment.<ref>{{usc|18|3563}}, {{usc|18|3583}}</ref>

There have been inconsistent evaluation results as to whether continued pretrial drug testing has beneficial effects.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Visher |first1=Christy A. |title=Pretrial Drug Testing: Panacea or Pandora's Box? |journal=The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science |date=1 May 1992 |volume=521 |issue=1 |pages=112–131 |doi=10.1177/0002716292521001007 |jstor=1046545 |s2cid=145609412 }}</ref>

Testing positive can lead to bail not being granted, or if bail has already been granted, to bail revocation or other sanctions. [[Arizona]] also adopted a law in 1987 authorizing mandatory drug testing of felony arrestees for the purpose of informing the [[pretrial release]] decision, and the [[District of Columbia]] has had a similar law since the 1970s. It has been argued that one of the problems with such testing is that there is often not enough time between the arrest and the bail decision to confirm positive results using GC/MS technology. It has also been argued that such testing potentially implicates the [[Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution|Fifth Amendment]] [[privilege against self-incrimination]], the [[right to due process]] (including the prohibition against gathering evidence in a manner that [[shocks the conscience]] or constitutes [[outrageous government conduct]]), and the [[prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures]] contained in the [[Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution|Fourth Amendment]].<ref>{{cite journal |title=The Constitutionality of Drug Testing at the Bail Stage |author=Cathryn Jo Rosen; John S. Goldkamp |journal=The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology |volume=80 |issue=1 |date=Spring 1989 |pages=114–176 |doi=10.2307/1143765 |jstor=1143765 |url=https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol80/iss1/2 |access-date=January 31, 2019 |archive-date=August 10, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240810104540/https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol80/iss1/2/ |url-status=live |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

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."<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.2307/3551028 |title=The Unconvincing Case for Drug Testing |jstor=3551028 |author=Lennart E. Henriksson |journal=Canadian Public Policy |volume=17 |issue=2 |date=June 1991 |pages=183–196}}</ref> 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|''Fortune'' 500]] companies used drug tests.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1007/BF01016746 |title=A Critical Review of the Assumptions Underlying Drug Testing |author=Deborah F. Crown; Joseph G. Rosse |journal=Journal of Business and Psychology |volume=3 |issue=1 |date=Fall 1988 |pages=22–41 |s2cid=143525716 }}</ref>

According to an uncontrolled self-report study done by DATIA and [[Society for Human Resource Management]] in 2012 (sample of 6,000 randomly selected human resource professionals), human resource professionals reported the following results after implementing a drug testing program: 19% of companies reported a subjective increase in employee productivity, 16% reported a decrease in employee turnover (8% reported an increase), and unspecified percentages reported decreases in absenteeism and improvement of workers' compensation incidence rates.<ref>{{cite web|title=Employee Drug Testing Study|url=http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/Issues/Vol%205%20Issue%204/Basic-11-22Efficacy%20Study%20Publication%20Final.pdf|publisher=Global Drug Policy|access-date=October 19, 2012|archive-date=March 24, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120324120724/http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/Issues/Vol%205%20Issue%204/Basic-11-22Efficacy%20Study%20Publication%20Final.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>

According to [[United States Chamber of Commerce|US Chamber of Commerce]] 70% of all illicit drug users are employed.<ref>{{cite web|title=EAP Employee and Supervisor Drug Education|url=http://www.usuhs.mil/chr/doc/EAPDrugFree.pdf|publisher=USUHS.mil|access-date=October 22, 2012|archive-date=June 12, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130612073442/http://www.usuhs.mil/chr/doc/EAPDrugFree.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> Some industries have high rates of employee drug use such as construction (12.8%), repair (11.1%), and hospitality (7.9-16.3%).<ref>{{cite web|title=Substance Abuse in the hospitality industry|url=http://asbtdc.ualr.edu/drugfree/hospitly.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090216184651/http://asbtdc.ualr.edu/drugfree/hospitly.htm|url-status=dead|archive-date=February 16, 2009|publisher=Arkansas Small Business Development Center|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

===Australia===
A person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU—the new term that includes employers) has duties under the work health and safety (WHS) legislation to ensure a worker affected by alcohol or other drugs does not place themselves or other persons at risk of injury while at work. Workplace policies and prevention programs can help change the norms and culture around substance use.<ref>{{Cite web |last=NSW |first=SafeWork |date=2018-09-10 |title=PCBU |url=https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/about-us/glossary/glossary-acordion/pcbu |access-date=2022-10-21 |website=SafeWork NSW |language=en-AU |archive-date=October 21, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221021172712/https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/about-us/glossary/glossary-acordion/pcbu |url-status=live }}</ref>

All organisations—large and small—can benefit from an agreed policy on alcohol and drug misuse that applies to all workers. Such a policy should form part of an organisations overall health and safety management system. PCBUs are encouraged to establish a policy and procedure, in consultation with workers, to constructively manage alcohol and other drug related hazards in their workplace.  A comprehensive workplace alcohol and other drug policy should apply to everyone in the workplace and include prevention, education, counselling and rehabilitation arrangements. In addition, the roles and responsibilities of managers and supervisors should be clearly outlined.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Work-Related Alcohol And Drug Use |url=https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/1702/workrelatedalcoholanddruguse_afitforworkissue_2007_pdf.pdf |access-date=October 21, 2022 |archive-date=October 21, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221021172721/https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/1702/workrelatedalcoholanddruguse_afitforworkissue_2007_pdf.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>

All Australian workplace drug testing must comply with Australian standard AS/NZS4308:2008.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Department of Health {{!}} Australia: POC testing for drugs of abuse |url=https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/qupp-review~qupp-aust-poc-test-drug-abuse |access-date=2022-10-21 |website=www1.health.gov.au |archive-date=October 21, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221021172714/https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/qupp-review~qupp-aust-poc-test-drug-abuse |url-status=live }}</ref>

In Victoria, roadside saliva tests detect drugs that contain:<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://adf.org.au/insights/roadside-drug-testing/|title=Roadside drug testing|website=adf.org.au|publisher=Alcohol and Drug Foundation|access-date=2015-07-18|archive-date=August 21, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170821085324/https://adf.org.au/insights/roadside-drug-testing/|url-status=live}}</ref>
* THC (Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol), the active component in cannabis.
* methamphetamine, also known as "ice", "crystal" and "crank".
* MDMA (Methylenedioxymethamphetamine), which is known as ecstasy.

In February 2016 a New South Wales magistrate "acquitted a man who tested positive for cannabis". He had been arrested and charged after testing positive during a roadside drug test, despite not having smoked for nine days. He was relying on advice previously given to him by police.<ref name="abc.net.au2016-02-02-man-caught">{{cite web
 |url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-02/man-caught-drug-driving-days-after-smoking-cannabis-acquitted/7133628
 | title =Acquittal of man caught drug-driving nine days after smoking cannabis throws NSW drug laws into doubt
 | last1 =Knowles
 | first1 =Lorna
 | last2 =Branley
 | date =2 February 2016
 | publisher =Australian Broadcasting Corporation
 | access-date =2 February 2016
 | quote =A spokeswoman for NSW Roads Minister Duncan Gay said roadside tests were followed up with lab tests and 97 per cent of tests matched. She said the research they had indicated drugs were only detected in a person's saliva for 12 hours after being ingested.
 | archive-date =February 3, 2016
 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160203045716/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-02/man-caught-drug-driving-days-after-smoking-cannabis-acquitted/7133628
 | url-status =live
 }}</ref>

==Refusal==
In the United States federal criminal system, refusing to take a drug test triggers an automatic revocation of probation or supervised release.<ref>{{Uscsub|18|3565|b|5}}</ref><ref>{{Uscsub|18|3583|g|3}}</ref>

In Victoria, Australia the driver of the car has the option to refuse the drug test. Refusing to undergo a drug test or refusing to undergo a secondary drug test after the first one, triggers an automatic suspension and disqualification for a period of two years and a fine of AUD$1000. The second refusal triggers an automatic suspension and disqualification for a period of four years and an even larger fine.

===Historical cases===
* In 2000, an Australian Mining Company South Blackwater Coal Ltd with 400 employees, imposed drug-testing procedures, and the trade unions advised their members to refuse to take the tests, partly because a positive result does not necessarily indicate present impairment; the workers were stood-down by the company without pay for a week.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Case-Study. Drug Testing in the Australian Mining Industry |url=http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles1(2)/drugsmining.pdf |journal=[[Surveillance & Society]] |pages=204–9 |author=Holland, Peter |access-date=July 27, 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100628232845/http://www.surveillance-and-society.org/articles1(2)/drugsmining.pdf |archive-date=June 28, 2010 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
* In 2003, sixteen members of the [[Chicago White Sox]] considered refusing to take a drug test, in hopes of making [[steroid]] testing mandatory.<ref>{{cite news |title=White Sox Players Almost Refused Drug Test |agency=Associated Press |date=March 12, 2003 |work=Los Angeles Times |url=https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-mar-12-sp-bbnotes12-story.html |access-date=February 21, 2020 |archive-date=March 6, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160306013906/http://articles.latimes.com/2003/mar/12/sports/sp-bbnotes12 |url-status=live }}</ref>
* In 2006, [[Levy County, Florida]], volunteer librarians resigned en masse rather than take drug tests.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006210070330 |title=Library volunteers just say no to drug testing |author=Voyles, Karen |date=October 6, 2006 |newspaper=Gainesville Sun |access-date=July 27, 2010 |archive-date=June 15, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110615011546/http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006210070330 |url-status=live }}</ref>
* In 2010, Iranian super heavyweight class weightlifters refused to submit to a drug test authorized by the Iran Weightlifting League.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=214245|title=Iranian weightlifters refuse drug testing|date=February 16, 2010|access-date=July 27, 2010|archive-date=June 14, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110614003528/http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=214245|url-status=live}}</ref>

==See also==
{{col div|colwidth=30em}}
* [[Cannabis drug tests]]
* [[Detoxification]]
* [[Drug checking]]
* [[Drug testing welfare recipients]]
* [[Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988]]
* [[Equine drug testing]]
* [[Forensic toxicology]]
* [[Lacing (drugs)]]
* [[Occupational health concerns of cannabis use]]
* [[Poppy seed defence]]
* [[Presumptive and confirmatory tests]]
* [[Reagent testing]]
* [[School district drug policies]]
* [[Urinalysis]]
{{colend}}

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

==External links==
* [http://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/drug-testing/ National Institute on Drug Abuse] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200529074148/https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/drug-testing |date=May 29, 2020 }}

{{Drug use}}
{{Employment}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Drug Test}}
[[Category:Drug testing|*]]
[[Category:Drug control law]]
[[Category:Doping in sport]]
[[Category:Workplace programs]]
[[Category:Medical tests]]
[[Category:Addiction medicine]]