return from an excursion or a day release. Therefore, there is a need for a balanced concept, which, on one hand, determines when saliva tests and urine tests should be used, and, on the other hand, determines which parameters of a saliva sample should be subjected to analysis. The order volume will generally depend on this concept. If there is nationwide implementation, there will have to be an invitation to tender under the Federal Public Procurement Act (Bundesvergabegesetz) – even if costs are estimated conservatively. The nationwide invitation to tender should also result in a price reduction. In the view of the NPM, saliva testing has more advantages than disadvantages despite the shortcomings identified to date (higher costs and lack of immediate availability of the test results). This was also made clear at a symposium on the topic of “Narcotic Substances Act (Suchtmittelgesetz) in Practice”, in which the NPM participated, held at Technical University Vienna in December 2014. NPM includes outside opinions in its assessment As scientists and practitioners stated on that occasion, certain substances (e.g. cocaine, amphetamines) can be detected better and for a longer time in saliva. Other substances can be detected sooner in saliva than in urine, e.g. cannabis. Another advantage of the saliva test is that the test results cannot be “diluted” and therefore falsified by drinking a lot of water in advance. Another problem is that the results of the urine strip test currently in use depend on the subjective observations of the person who evaluates the strip. The lighting conditions at the time also play a role in this. Moreover, quick test urine strips lack sufficient forensic validity. The latter can only be achieved by a special gas chromatographic investigation (GC/MS analysis) by a laboratory. Only this procedure yields a clear result. In summary, the NPM cannot accept the argument based on the immediate availability of results when urine strip quick tests are used due to the short analysis time in the chemical laboratories and the option of electronic transmission of the results. With respect to costs, it should be noted that costs are naturally higher if the test results are analysed by a chemical laboratory. However, if a forensically valid analysis (by a laboratory) is obtained, urine tests and saliva tests are almost equally cost-intensive.   Saliva tests should replace urine tests because they are less intrusive by nature. All institutions should make saliva tests available as soon as possible. 99