Argument Essay Random Drug Testing

The performance of random drug testing has seen its fair share of scrutiny in terms of cost, test result reliability, and constitutionality. Drug testing has been fraught with controversy for decades by both employers and employees alike and there are three valid reasons as to why the testing is not ideal. One of the main elements that is a cause for concern is an employee’s invasion of privacy. When an employee tests positive, there is a strong possibility and fear that they will be permanently stigmatized. Any explanation given to the employer, whether it’s voluntary or forced on contingency of employment, violates their HIPAA Rights. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, for example, has referred to the practice as a "needless indignity" (DeCew, 1994).

There are a lot of companies that require any job applicant to submit a drug test. According to the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 66% of substance abusers age 18 and older were employed. Employers spend between thirty and fifty dollars per test per person. Employees find that substance abusers increase employee turnover which end up costing them more money in the long run because of the cost of training. The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration conducted a study in 2007 that said substance abusers change jobs as often as three times a year. Employers that require drug testing saw a 16% decrees in employee turnover rates. Another reason an employer may require drug testing is because people with no substance abuse problems are more productive. People with substance abuse problems are also 2.5 times more likely to call into work. Companies who require drug testing also saw a 50% decrease in workers compensation clams. So in the long run, employers end up saving a lot of time and money by drug testing all job applicants.

Oakland Athletics pitcher Brandon McCarthy "lives in fear," because his employer has become aggressive with random drug testing (cited by McCauley, 2012). McCarthy is clean; he says he is "legitimately nervous knowing you're 100 per cent clean," because of the possibility of sabotage or a freak false positive (cited by McCauley, 2012). Surely, a personal rights-based ethical framework needs to be taken into consideration when applying anti-drug policies universally to every profession. The right to privacy also needs to be taken into account, especially with regards to employees like Sue Bates, who was fired from her job with no consultation or warning. Her employer, Dura Automotive Systems, suddenly altered their policy of drug testing to include prescription drugs legitimately prescribed by doctors and not bought off the street for recreational use (Zezima & Goodnough, 2010).

There are groups of people in the criminal justice system who considers drug addiction a personal issue, not a criminal one. This could not be further from the truth; drug abuse is illegal and should be treated as such. It is a catalyst for many crimes seen today from mugging to murder. If the numbers of those who abuse drugs are reduced, the amount of crimes associated with the addiction are also reduced. Not only will crime levels be reduced, most of those who undergo treatment tend to be better prepared to do more with their lives and not re-offend.

Additionally, the prevalence of drug-testing policies tends to differ by industry type. For example, employers in the transportation and nuclear power industries are required by federal law to conduct drug testing for all their

     There are different testing categories, and each comes under its own legal questioning. The first and by far the most common type of drug testing is pre-employment testing. This usually takes place when a company has decided to hire an employee, but makes that prospective employee pass a drug test before any sort of employment agreement is settled. Second, there is random drug testing that can involve two different policies. The first, simply being that random employees names are picked to undergo the testing. The second requiring all employees to take a drug test on a random day that can either be pre-announced or not. For example, my high school conducted drug testing on random students and on random days in a month. The third type of testing allows employers to test when they have reasonable suspicion to believe

An obvious counter argument to drug testing could be that, for some drugs, employees will not be affected in terms of performance. However, many times drug abuse is lead on by unhappy personal lives and this could have a negative affect not only on the well-being of the employee, but on others in the workplace as well. If an employee is experiencing drug abuse as well as depression, this can bring about great concern to management in terms of workplace safety and employee morale. If an employee is unhappy and under motivated, there have been studies that show they can affect the mood of others around them. This negative impact could create an organization wide decrease in morale as well as significant decrease in productivity. In this case employer have a justifiable concern to drug test potential employees in the hiring process and, through contractual agreement only, randomly drug test employees to assure employees have not picked up a drug problem

Employers use pre employment drug testing the most because it is federally mandated in most states. The importance of drug testing is to identify who would potentially be the best employee and help the business prosper while they are working. It also protects the business from negative impacts of drug users such as accidents, lawsuits and loss of customers.

In order to keep organization ethical as it relates to drug testing, the U.S. Supreme Court has approved four methods for drug testing. The organization can request a blood, breath, hair, or urine tests. These tests will not harm the job candidate or employee. The company will send the job candidate or employee to an off-site medical

Those who refuse to give consent to be tested, or whose parents refuse consent, might face discrimination. It isn't clear weather testing serves any purpose. In some cases, a test might reveal that drugs were taken outside school hours, a time when the school has limited authority over a student. And problems might arise when drug testing is allied with issues of discipline, what right does the school have to discipline a student for actions outside of the classroom.

The big controversy right now within the government and high schools is whether or not random drug testing should be legal in schools. There are many reasons why it should not be legalized, one reason being it goes against the fourth amendment. Why should we have testing in schools when many major health organizations oppose it? All it will do is make teens turn to other illegal and counterproductive things. These are many reasons why drug testing should not be allowed in high schools.

According to Joseph Desjardins and Ronald Duska’s Drug Testing in Employment, administering a drug test before and during employment may be popular but is mostly unnecessary and a

It seems that drugs have become a major epidemic within teenagers in the last few years. There is only so much that can be done to try and eliminate drug use, while not dramatically changing anything in the community. Drug testing the district’s student athletes provides many reasons that it is a worthwhile expense. Lawyers, Mark Vetter and Daniel Chanen, stated in the Sports Law Institute Newsletter “First, student-athletes were the leaders of the drug culture” (Vetter and Chanen ¶3). This simple statement proves that athletes need to be drug tested; it will improve multiple circumstances within the district and the lives of athletes. Drug testing student athletes at the high school level is a step every school district needs to take in order to improve their schools, and the students’ lifestyles despite the high price tag on these tests.

Today in our modern society, many people believe that teen’s develop a mindset of having a clean system and to stay drug free. However, people are not able to foresee that the drug use in America has rising up tremendously. Studies have shown that drugs can not only have impact on your life, but also have impact on those who surround you and also can led to the absence of adolescence. It leads to bad habits and only brings evil deeds. The possession of drugs and the conspiracy sell is illegal in the Unites States. If arrest and put on trial due to drugs can mean serious jail time. According to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, people are considered to have a substance use disorder. (Live Science) The Live Science states “... people have strong urges to use a substance or can't control their use of it, or if their use impairs them in social situations or leads to risky behavior.” Members of society have needs when a drug is being in place into there normal day routine. The report also states that an estimated 27.1 million people in the U.S. used an illegal drug in the past month. (Live Science) The mass-production, sale and possession of illegal drugs should be banned in the United States.

Imagine walking into work and seeing a new co-worker acting weird, or precisely showing signs of drug use and to have no clue about it. Is it not that person’s right to know that he/she will be sharing the same environment as someone who frequently practices drug use? On the other hand, The Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) recognizes that addictions to drug and alcohol are considered ‘disabilities,’ meaning those who practice drug and alcohol use are in their right to not be discriminated or judged based on their ‘disability’ and instead accommodated. This issues remains controversial to this day since every organization or individual has its own situation that emphasis drug tests and their repercussions differently. Some organizations just simply cannot be bothered to spend time and money on drug tests while others have a hard time drawing the line between what are the ethical approaches to positive drug tests. Currently, random testing of current staff in an organization without an approved written drug policy is not legal and will not be upheld by courts in Canada. This was settled by the Supreme Court in June of 2013. However, pre-employment testing of job candidates should be allowed in the workplace and be upheld by courts at any time as it is the utilitarian practice for any organization and its stakeholders.