• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: andyturbo

Employment Drug Testing While on Opiod Maintenance

O

opi8

Bluelighter
Joined
May 21, 2010
Messages
1,979
I know some questions relating to drug testing are not allowed on Bluelight, but this is (hopefully) not one of those kinds of questions.

If someone is on an opiod maintenance program and legally prescribed methadone or suboxone, can a new employer deny them a job, or a current employer fire them based on this fact? Does it depend on the specific job and are the laws different in each state?

The only things I've found so far in my searching has been related to America, and from what I gather, in the United States drug testing companies only provide information to employers about illicit drug use. If you prove to them beforehand that you have a prescription for bupe or methadone, then it is considered private medical information and it's illegal for the drug testing company to inform the employer of. This has not come from any reliable source, it's just what I've read in various forums.

Does anyone know the specific laws/regulations relating to employment related drug testing while on opiate replacement therapy for drug addiction in Australia?
 
Good question mate.

I've never heard of anyone being denied employment because of being on buprenorphine, I even know a doctor that's on it. On the other end of the spectrum I know of a truck driver that's on methadone and has to do drug tests fairly often...I'll have to ask him if they test for methadone and if he's had any issues with it.

Would also be interested in hearing if there's any specific regulations regarding this. I'd guess that even if there were, if an employer didn't like the idea of you being on maintenance, he'd probably find another way to get rid of you.

Also with jobs like truck driving, construction, or anywhere you operate heavy machinery - I'd guess that it would be arguable if someone on opiate maintenance would be suitable. I think they'd be fine, but maybe employers could argue that it impairs you to the extent of being a danger.
 
The only situation I can think of where it might be legitimate to terminate someone for that reason is if they are operating heavy machinery or driving and the use of these medications adds an additional risk factor, same with lots of other medications, which would pose both a practical an insurance problem for the company involved I believe.

Firing you simply because you are on opioid maintenance should be considered discrimination if it's not affecting your ability to work and not putting you at risk of harming others. If you are facing a drug test, you should be able to get a note from your doctor to give to the company that does not divulge why you are on the medications; it's none of their business frankly.
 
^ I agree. Also, since both methadone and bupe are used for pain management it wouldn't necessarily imply you're on OMT. Should be fine :)
 
i imagine that some professions (i'm thinking military and police specifically) may have regulations against such things, but this may tie in with what mr blonde said above - the 'operating machinery' angle.
this is quite a fascinating topic - surely anything legitimately prescribed to you should be acceptable, and the reason for the prescription should theoretically be confidential, but i wonder if there are examples of this not being the case.
 
yeah, that is pretty funny now that you mention it. fresh tracks would be a dead give away though, right? ;)
 
Hey, what's so wrong with someone like me becoming a police officer? I could work my way up to the position of "Security, Reporting, Maintenance and Quality Assurance of Seized Opiates", I could think of worse jobs.
 
As others have said, you cannot be discriminated again (read: not employed / fired) purely based on a drug dependence!

If the employer requires testing, (afaik) you're required to, however if all the right doco and such as I said, one cannot be discriminated against.

There's two major caveats though;

1. The above goes out the window if the job is such that either 1, it will effect your job/performance or 2, it's a job considered a "professional" (law enforcement, law, medicine, etc).

and 2. If this is all taken place before employment (that is, through the interview process), you'd be hard pressed to prove that's why you didn't get the job. (as the case with any group which is discriminated against - sexuality, ethnicity, gender, etc)
 
spacejunk said:
i imagine that some professions (i'm thinking military and police specifically) may have regulations against such things, but this may tie in with what mr blonde said above - the 'operating machinery' angle.
Click to expand...

Heck in the military you weren't even allowed to see a doctor off base! If you where on cough medicine and it wasn't disclosed to them you could be severely reprimanded. Kinda makes sense though seeing as you're operating deadly tools. I think there could be lots of jobs that could find a reason to not employ you because of taking those medications. Whether or not they would is another matter though.
 
As others have said, you cannot be discriminated again (read: not employed / fired) purely based on a drug dependence!

If the employer requires testing, (afaik) you're required to, however if all the right doco and such as I said, one cannot be discriminated against.

There's two major caveats though;

1. The above goes out the window if the job is such that either 1, it will effect your job/performance or 2, it's a job considered a "professional" (law enforcement, law, medicine, etc).

and 2. If this is all taken place before employment (that is, through the interview process), you'd be hard pressed to prove that's why you didn't get the job. (as the case with any group which is discriminated against - sexuality, ethnicity, gender, etc)
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, a woman who I once worked with, had operations on her feet for some fucked up reason, was put on Oxycondom's, developed a large OTC codeine habit, started acting erratic as fuck, boss sat her down, she told boss what med's she was taking, boss told her, first and final warning, that if she didn't clear up her act, she could possibly face suspension until she got clean.
 
Haha, Oxycondom's, I reckon you meant to type Oxycontin or Oxycodone. But now that I think about it, sometimes I find oxies work better at condoms for STD and pregnancy protection since I know I won't be able to ejaculate so I don't bother having sex. Maybe I could convince my GP to give me oxies off-label for my recently discovered sex addiction?
 
ThHardMotherfucker said:
As a matter of fact, a woman who I once worked with, had operations on her feet for some fucked up reason, was put on Oxycondom's, developed a large OTC codeine habit, started acting erratic as fuck, boss sat her down, she told boss what med's she was taking, boss told her, first and final warning, that if she didn't clear up her act, she could possibly face suspension until she got clean.
Click to expand...

Guess it depends what kind of job you have...

I know with nurses, if they're found out to have a drug dependence they get heaps of support. A nurse friend was telling me about this other girl she works with, she was caught taking opiates from the locked medication cabinet. They gave her two weeks paid leave...she got a formal reprimand by letter but at the same time her bosses were really understanding....they took away her key and she has to go through a senior nurse to get certain medications, and can't dispense them without another staff member around...but yeah I was surprised. I thought she would have lost her job right away for that.
 
^Wow I am surprised by that as well.

I know my mate always gets picked up for opiates in the basic piss test (from poppy seeds on buns, seriously, he won't even drink) but when they send it away to the lab to analyse as always it comes back negative for hard drugs. Along those lines maybe semi-synthetics and maybe even synthetics would be picked up, when they go to the lab I don't know if they'd report them though or only the illegal hard drugs.
 
Equal opportunity legislation does have some variation between states - but generally it covers discrimination against people within specific domains: age, gender, sexuality, cultural background, disability and religion. There is no specific law against discriminating against someone on the basis of their DOC. I believe there was a case a few years ago where a chap successfully argued against exclusion from an RSL in NSW because he was on methadone - he argued that he was being discriminated against on the basis of disability (drug dependence). So I guess there is some precedence there... Also it will depend on the size of the organisation you are working for - bigger employers are generally better in this regard because they are quite risk averse when it comes to EO breaches. Your mileage may vary in pursuing unfair dismissal in other cases...
 
As others have said, I'm sure you could get a note from a doctor saying something along the lines of 'the patient is prescribed an opiate for a medical condition. this may show give a positive indication on a drug test'. doctors are generally pretty good about writing such things.
 
ayjay said:
I believe there was a case a few years ago where a chap successfully argued against exclusion from an RSL in NSW because he was on methadone - he argued that he was being discriminated against on the basis of disability (drug dependence).
Click to expand...

This Fu#*&n sickens me! I'm assuming he was a war veteran? Heaps of Vietnam vets (and more recently Iraq and Afghanistan) where known to sometimes [ab]use the abundant local heroin while on deployment to escape/forget some of the horrific experiences they endured. If that means they come home, go on methadone (although the amount of soldiers who didn't quit cold turkey was surprising low (under 10% for Vietnam)) and aren't celebrated by their brethren who for some reason cannot relate then fu#* me! I may be bias (served a very short military stint) but these people are my heros. I don't care for the politics but these men don an outfit and fight for their lives, for their country, for our government, for us; while we sleep comfortably in our beds at night enjoying the air conditioning yet still complaining about the weather. They have my utter respect and hopefully the respect of many others (even if those same people don't respect the nature or war or the decisions made BY POLITICIANS regarding war).

psytaco said:
As others have said, I'm sure you could get a note from a doctor saying something along the lines of 'the patient is prescribed an opiate for a medical condition. this may show give a positive indication on a drug test'. doctors are generally pretty good about writing such things.
Click to expand...
Yeh but it's not school we're talking about. Employers, if they can provide (find or even make up) a valid reason why opiates or any other DOC could cause a safety/efficiency issue then it is likely they would be able to successful fire someone (provided that someone doesn't have union fat cats to provide muscle for them). When i say efficiency I basically mean if my job required physical exertion for example and opiates made me lazy or slow (which they do) and I wasn't as productive as everyone else then they could fire me simply because I'm no longer a productive member of the team.

Also bosses may fire you because of drug use but may state otherwise (for example... "Despite Dr X's qualifications and previous good employee reports, Dr X's performance rate when tasked with the complex duties his profession requires doesn't meet the high standards we have come to expect from our carbohydrate frying professionals here at McDonalds Restaurants").
 
Last edited:
^not a vietnam vet!
In the case Marsden v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and Coffs Harbour & District Ex-Servicemen & Women’s Memorial Club Ltd,2 the applicant, Mr Marsden, alleged that he was refused service and expelled from a club on the basis of his “disability”, namely his opioid dependence. The applicant had been in methadone treatment for some years for heroin dependence. At first instance, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) dismissed Mr Marsden’s complaint on the basis that it did not consider “opioid dependency” to be a “disability” within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cwlth). On appeal, Branson J of the Federal Court held that the Inquiry Commissioner had erred and that “opioid dependency” could constitute an “illness, disorder or disease” and therefore a “disability” within the meaning of the Act. The complaint was remitted to the HREOC but was settled prior to rehearing.
Click to expand...
From here
The link page refers to a bill that would have amended the act to allow lawful discrimination against people addicted to drugs if they were not in treatment - i don't think this passed.

BUT on the other hand I have certainly heard anecdotal evidence of people being refused employment and even geting the sack after it was found (via drug testing) that they were on pharmacotherapy - I guess the employer was smart enough not to say that was the reason!
 
Ah ok so this dude was a member of an RSL but had no affiliation to the ADF? Sorry I didn't realise that was possible (not that it's really relevant anyway I guess I was just ranting at the time). Thanks ayjay for taking the time to hunt down that case report, you get my kudos, respect and some street cred points for that!

Anyway back to discrimination... We are only talking about legal use of drugs aren't we? If I was a parent (which I'm not) and my wife and I went away every second weekends say (this is totally irrelevant 8( ), so we employed a babysitter on a pretty regular and professional basis (I realise this is more just a casual job, which people can be sacked for without reason, but just doing it for a point), and one day my wife and I came home early and found our babysitter administering (in whatever form prescribed) unscheduled psychadelics or taking prescribed desoxyn or hydromorphone or something and we felt that it impaired her ability to look after our kids I would not hesitate to fire her (sexistly assuming the babysitter is female).

After writing that I just realised day care would have been a much better example. Anyway I think the fact that my wife and I would most likely hire a female to babysit is already showing discrimination (I wouldn't care hiring a male if I knew a particular man was good, but if I was going off no background I'd pick a female). So in the same way that discrimination would be displayed in that sense, I think it could be displayed in all sorts of roles at all sorts of stages in life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top