TOXICOLOGY SERVICES

American Toxicology Inc. (ATI), is the ONLY laboratory in Nevada exclusively dedicated to drug testing. ATI, established in 1982, is the largest privately owned drug testing laboratory in Nevada, offering court-approved drug testing through competent screening and confirmatory tecchnology. ATI, does 100% of its analysis locally thereby reducing the possibility of loss, delay or misappropriation of specimens.

Our Services

Pre-Employment Screening
Post Accident Testing (24/7)
Probable Cause Testing (24/7)
Random Testing
Out-Patient Testing
24 hour turn around on negative samples
Complete confidentiality (only authorized people receive results)
On-site Drug Collections
Drug Testing Only - Clients wait time for collections is minimal
Medical Review
DATIA Certified
DOT

ATI offers affordable drug testing programs with the fastest turnaround times in the industry. ATI also offers expert witnesses in all aspects of drug testing and in the interpretation of drug test results. ATI provides, free of charge, additional analysis and testing interpretation of any client results found to be in question or in need of future inquiry.

ATI Hair Drug Testing History

My purpose for writing this article is to lay a foundation for American Toxicology’s hair testing and to assist those who are contemplating using hair testing for their workplace drug testing. Questions often arise about how accurate hair testing is, how save it is and how easy is it to administer. I hope to satisfactorily answer those questions.

In 1989, I believed in the school of thought that hair testing was too problematic to be used for drug testing in any arena. I had no personal experience to support my views. It was all based upon things I read. There were only a few scientists supporting hair testing at that time. I was approached by a District Court Judge who wanted to investigate the possibility of using hair testing in child custody cases. I was performing urine testing at the time for this judge, as well as for other judges, and he said the interest was not just his own.

So I began researching hair testing in my own laboratory, but with a bias against it. I had been an expert witness for the courts since 1972. I had been used extensively by the District Attorney’s office and had built up a reputation for being a reliable witness in forensic drug testing in thousands of cases by that time. Hair testing would have to prove impeccable before I would ever testify to any result coming from it. At the time, I did not believe this would happen.

As I began the research, I became intrigued right away. It gave me enough interest to continue on, spending hundreds of hours at a time. I knew in order to use the test in District Court, a positive result had to be true indication that someone had, without doubt, used drugs. The test had to know the difference between outside contamination and personal use. This was especially critical when one spouse used drugs and the other did not. Also, because in child custody cases one spouse generally knows what the other is doing, the test had to show true negative results. False negatives would cause as many problems as false positives. So the research proceeded with this in mind.

After about 18 months of research, I had changed my mind about hair testing. It was showing to be a true and accurate test. My main source of hair samples to conduct the research came from known users in Parole and Probation or Methadone Clinics. I was performing urine drug testing for these organizations at the time. However, in my research, I discovered that marijuana use was not testing accurately. But the other drugs, or “hard drugs”, were testing very well. Finally, I was ready to use the hair test I developed in actual cases. I was personally convicted of its accuracy for the hard drugs. But I knew it still needed to be tested in court. Now, it is important at this point for the reader to understand that there is not just one way to perform hair testing.

The method I developed is not the same as the methods used by other hair testing laboratories. Most publications about hair testing involve methods used for small number of samples. I developed a method that could handle a large number of samples rapidly. At the same time, the results had to accurately depict the true drug user. This required special procedures that remain, to this day, unique to ATI’s hair testing. At this time there was only one other laboratory in the country that performed hair testing in mass volume. They had since patented their procedures. I made certain that the method I developed did not infringe upon their patent rights. It turned out that I was able to successfully develop a method radically different from theirs. A patent on this method is pending.

It is important that the reader understand another concept about the development of American Toxicology’s hair testing. To be tested in District Court in child custody cases is very significant. We are talking about taking children away from parents. We are talking about people who have already retained legal counsel. There is no room for error. There is also other evidence that corroborates test results that the court sees. If the hair testing was inaccurate, either to the negative or positive, it would not take long for that to be discovered. Simply stated, the testing would not survive.

After over a year of using the hair test in District Court in hundreds of cases, not a single test was impeached or declared inaccurate. It was then that the hair test was introduced into the workplace for pre-employment drug screening. This was in 1993. Since then American Toxicology has continued to perform testing for the District Courts, now into the thousands of cases, and still maintains the same record. Using identical procedures we routinely run workplace hair testing along with court ordered hair testing.

I strongly believe that because American Toxicology hair testing was proven in District Court before being introduced into the workplace, it is ethically a good test and can be used for pre-employment purposes. The argument against using hair testing for pre-employment has always been that someone unknown is taken off the street and a single test determines if they receive a job. There is no corroboration from other sources, no judge, no hearing, no sworn testimonies, or any other evidence able to support a positive result. I believe American Toxicology has overcome this argument by first proving the reliability of its hair test when these elements were available it would be unconscionable for a laboratory to introduce a hair test into the workplace without first proving its reliability.

I hope from what I have presented that those contemplating using hair testing will be convinced that American Toxicology has a reliable hair test. In addition, because drug testing is all that American Toxicology does, we are deeply concerned about employers or agencies that perform drug testing. We will help employer to run its drug testing program safely and smoothly in every way we can. This includes dealing directly with the people who have been tested, if this is desired.

I believe hair testing is the answer to pre-employment drug screening. It gives a cleaner employee population because the window of detection is longer than with urine. American Toxicology uses hair and urine combination, called a profile 100, where the hard drugs are tested in the hair and marijuana is tested in the urine. This is a good profile and has proved to work very well in all aspects of pre-employment drug screening. A urine sample also adds forensic integrity to the tests as well as a greater ability to investigate drug usage. A urine option is also important because some people do not have an adequate hair sample.

For more information visit American Toxicology