This topic reminded me of this article over at
yahooka.com
Almost 75% of big companies in the United States drug test, and congress is helping small companies begin new testing programs (Koche). Although drug testing is supposed to decrease drug use, it has actually led to an increase in hard drug use. As more companies drug test, these tests are becoming easier to deceive. Studies have also shown that drug testing does not decrease drug use yet, companies still test their employees. This is seen as a waste of money because the whole point of drug testing employees is to make sure they are not using drugs. Not only that, drug testing is also unnecessary and invasive for some jobs. Employeers don’t need to be looking at the pee of an employee who greets customers all day. Even if an employee had drugs in his system, there is no proof that the drugs he took affected his work effort. The theory of drug testing is one that has both its pros and cons.
Unannounced drug tests are not necessary because studies have not shown it actually deters drug use, therefore it is a waste of money. According to Koche, Eigthy percent of large employers drug test their employees. All of these big companies drug test when you apply for a job and randomly once you are employed. Many studies that show drug testing decreases drug use are actually misleading because of the bigger pool of testers. When employers switched from “suspicion-based drug testing†to random drug testing, they increased the amount of people being tested (Koche). This of course led to a misleading ratio. Along with the move to random based drug testing came increased cost as well. In 1990 the government spent $11.7 million on testing employees. Out of 29,000 employees only 153 testing positive for drugs. The positive-tests added up to a total of $77,000 (Ehrenreich). Even though random tests occur, this may only stop the novice drug users. There are many ways to fool the drug test to produce clean results. According to Marshall Poe, there is everything from pills to synthetic urine. From my personal experience, I know that some of these concepts do not really work. For example, there is a special plant called Golden Root. The pill itself makes you urinate more frequently then average. The goal of it is to urinate all your THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, from your body. That way when you take the test, it will come up negative for marijuana.
Employeers believe employees should be randomly drug tested because it decreases drug use. Some studies state that in recent years drug abuse in America has gone down. While this may be true, there are no studies that directly relate the decrease in drug abuse and workplace drug testing. In fact, many experts argue that the times have changed and drugs that are more dangerous and harder to catch through urine testing are now being abused (Walsh). The reason people are turning to more dangerous drugs, such as cocaine, is because of the time it takes to get out of your body. While drugs like marijuana can stay in your body from 3 to 70 days, cocaine is in your system for up to 2 days (Koche). So an employee maybe using crack at the time of an incident, but if he avoids the drug test for a day or two, he will appear innocent. This sends employees a rather different, and unintended message.
Random drug testing of employees can help employers cut down on work place accidents. An article in Occupation Health and Saftey, states that substance users account for $200 billion yearly. They also say that users file 300% to 400% higher medical claims (David 1). Even if these employees tested positive, that does not necessarly mean they were under the influence of the drugs. According to Current, drug testing increased productivity by 63% (Current 2). Though the productivity increased, this leaves more room for accident, or more time for employees to be standing around. When employees are standing around doing nothing, they have a chance of getting injured on the job. While the accidents caused by these employees cost a large amount of money, so do the drug tests that are not preventing them from using in the first place.
If a employee comes up positive on a random drug test, it does not prove they were using the drug while they were working, but only the fact that presence of drug residue remains in their system. Part of this whole controversy is concept of recreational drug use. If an employee gets off work and smokes a joint of marijuana, that wont effect his quality of work the next day or 30 days after that. According to McCallion, when a drug user gets in an accident, they usually drug test him for insurance liabilities. If the user comes up positive, not only does he have a chance of being fired, he is not eligible for workers compensation, or unemployment insurance (McCallion). The worker is being severly punished for something that may not have occurred on the job. Now, that worker is faced with no income until he can find another job. In times like this, that is not a situation you want to be in. According to Koche, the joint that worker smoked after work, could be in the users urine for up to 70 days if they are a chronic user. The user was not high while they were at work, yet still is getting a harsh penalty for what he did after hours.
Employees that do not have safety sensitive jobs should be protected from unannounced drug tests because it is unnecessary, therefore making it invasive. In the past jobs were scanning “safety sensitive†positions, which cost less and made sense. If someone is driving a bus or a taxi, of course they should not be intoxicated. According to an article by Koche, places have started to test all applicants and current employees. Congress passed a $10 million dollar bill, which would test one tenth of the governments’ work place, including the mail service (Koche). Since the government is doing this, it is encouraging small businesses to drug test as well. For example, Ehrenreich interviewed a hotel owner who said he started drug testing his employees just because he did not want to get stuck with all the druggies in town. For someone who is getting paid to stand behind a desk, or count inventory a drug test isn’t quite necessary. They get paid so little that they barely can afford basic living necessities. Koche stated it was “an evisceration of the fourth amendmentâ€. The employers think they can search through employees urine because you work for them. In some cases they make you pee in front of a lab technician. There are other noninvasive ways to check if an employee is abusing drugs, such as a performance test. A performance tests consist of a few basic motor skill exercises on the computer. Once you complete them it gives you a baseline score. If you are intoxicated, that score should be unattainable.
Overall, drug testing in the United States is invasive to employees, a waste of money, and deceiving. Though there are all these clear negative issues attached to drug testing, it is still allowed in the United States. Hopefully, if enough cases are fought in court, it will be ruled invasive to peoples fourth right. Congress will want to continue drug testing as long as possible because they are using it as a weapon against the drug war. Hopefully, future leaders will realizes that drug testing is very invasive and a waste of our resources.
