Drug-Free Workplace

She received very bad press for that, but she flipped it. She campaigned drug abuse awareness and education. She visited prevention programs and rehabilitation centers. She preached that drugs are bad for the communities and held a youth drug abuse conference at the White House. The “National Crusade for a Drug Free America” act was signed into law by President Reagan in 1986. People thought that Nancy’s most important role as the first lady was Ronald’s personal protector. Some attempted to assassinate President Reagan, and Nancy made it her concern to know every little thing that he was doing. This caused Nancy and Ronald to argue after she found out the Iran-Contra affair was revealed. This is what caused Ronald to

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).

How many people have had an interview for a job, received a call that they were hired, and then heard their future employer say that they will have to do a drug test before they can start this new job? “Although many people think that illegal drugs such as marijuana, heroin, cocaine and other street drugs became a problem for youth in the 1960’s the truth of the matter is that there has always been a drug problem in the United States when it comes to substance abuse”(testcountry.org). This past summer I had an interview at Russel Stover Candies, when they called to tell me that the position was mine, they then informed me that I would have to pass a drug test before I could officially have the job. Although some jobs and people believe that drug testing in the workplace should take place, many people do not believe in drug testing. Opponents of WDT (Workplace drug testing) argue that the process of drug testing amounts to an unwarranted invasion of a person’s private life and their body. Some people believe that the statement “free consent” is impossible to obtain. Drug testing did not come into play in the United States until the late 1980’s as a part of the Reagan administration. Before that, there was no standard way for jobs, schools, and even sports to drug test employees, students, or athletes. People that had jobs working with heavy machinery or people that worked in the Department of Transportation were mainly the ones getting drug tested. The issues with drug

However, Waldman includes a lot of details about the bill itself and the reactions of the senate after the Mr. and Mrs. Reagans rare joint appearance. Waldman quotes that the president has “gone off a favorite tangent: drug testing by employees.” This came to surprise for many questioning the morality of the bill and Reagans motives after it was stated that those who obtain federal jobs would be tested. Just like Waldman and others, they believe and described this as “unbalanced” and “irrelevant” to the entire purpose of the anti-drug bill. You can tell that as more information surfaced about the actual bill and it’s consequences the more Waldman questioned. In her first article, nothing was mentioned about the testing of drugs even though it was mentioned. Her first article covered the five W’s and this one missed all that. For writers, following the rule of the five W’s is very important, But this article that is not the case. It focuses more on policy and the rights of the American

Drug testing in the workplace has become a controversial issue, with many believing that the act of drug testing employees is an invasion of privacy and an infringement upon rights. As more and more states legalize Marijuana there is debate whether employees can still be fired for having this “drug” in their system even though the state government, not federal, has allowed the recreational use of the drug. The “War on Drugs” significantly impacted the way employers, and employees alike perceived drug abuse and created a strong push for law enforcement to crack down on drug users. Troops returning from the Vietnam War who used Heroin also had a large impact on the drug testing protocols we see today. This paper will examine the history of drug testing, explore how testing is affected by legalized Marijuana, explore both the affirmation and the opposition to drug testing in the workplace, and conclude with recommendations for possible changes.

Many believe that government testing programs should be unconstitutional unless the authorities have either reasonable suspicion or probable cause that the individuals being tested are on drugs. To justify the use of private employer testing, President Bush said in 1989 that "Drug abuse among American workers costs businesses anywhere from $60 billion to $100 billion dollars a year in lost productivity, absenteeism, drug-related accidents, medical claims, and theft" (Horgan, 19). This claim was derived from a source that interviewed families that were 28% lower in overall income than the average household. This was used in an effort to promote Bush's "war on drugs" forum into the private sector (Horgan, 21). Many behavior's of lower income people often differ statistically from upper-income people, therefore the statement of Bush never establishes a clear or accurate statistic. "In 1989 President George Bush unveiled his National Drug Control Strategy, encouraging comprehensive drug-free workplace policies in the private sector and in state and local government" (Stencel, 201). This created many controversies within the American workplace and in National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab decision; the Supreme Court upheld that drug

Reduced health care coverage for substance abuse treatment has resulted in a diminished number of these programs, and the average length of stay under managed care review is much shorter than in early programs. Often, drug/alcohol abusers come into contact with the criminal justice system earlier than other health or social systems, and intervention by the criminal justice system to engage the individual in treatment may help interrupt and shorten a career of drug use. Treatment for the criminal justice-involved drug abuser or drug addict may be delivered prior to, during, after, or in lieu of incarceration.

In September 1986, President Reagan issued Executive Order 12564. This was done in an effort to make the Federal Government a drug free work place. He believed that persons who used illegal drugs were not suitable for Federal employment. The order required the heads of governmental agencies to establish both a voluntary and mandatory testing program to determine the use of illegal drugs by employees in sensitive positions.

Being apart of the Drug-Free Hire Me program, I am aware of the many importances of being substance, alcohol, and drug free. When someone is under the influence, their body has been taken over and has been filled with a toxic substance that makes decisions for the intoxicated individual. This results in decisions that could affect the person greatly and possibly ruin their potential and bright future. Some of these decisions could include to continue being intoxicated as well as making it worse, sexual activity, and driving. Some effects that could come out of these decision could be pregnant and many injuries that take place chronically or even initially happen as the decision was made such as a car accident. It is important for individuals

This would conclude that drug testing programs did not meet these expectations. This paper will support the idea that drug testing in the work place does not increase productivity, and that it costs more money than it saves for those businesses.

“Sixty-five percent of all job related accidents are alcohol and drug related” (Statistic Brain, 4). Employers in the U.S. should make drug tests a necessary precaution for their employees to reduce the percentage of accidents related to controllable causes such as drug and alcohol use, whether it is a pre-employment test or a random drug test with the current employee. Employers should make their employees perform a drug tests.

Arguably, when it comes to the workplace, anything that isn’t work related is of private matter to the individual, including their choice whether or not to take drugs. And yet Dixon assumes that because the frequency of drug testing in the USA has decreased from 13.6% to 4.9% in the last decade, that a drug test is not an invasion of privacy. Regardless, employers do not technically have to right to know what the employee does in his or hers free time, especially if the employers only grounds for investigation are concerned with drops in productivity. Drug tests have no indicators of levels of productivity within an individual; merely the level of the tested substance in their system, and therefore are irrelevant in regards to this concern. For drug testing to be seen a less of a threat to employee’s privacy it must comply with guidelines such as those set out by Desjardins and Duska (1987) who suggest that drug testing must only be used for those who work in potentially unsafe job; that there is a clear and present potential for harm; the method of testing is most efficient action to produce harm-preventing results; and that this method is fair, and is discussed and agreed upon by both employer and employee. Overall there a very few situations in which drug testing is not be considered a breach of privacy; and none of which have any correspondence to the frequency in which

In many years, companies adopted many programs to monitor substance abuse in the workplace. The implementation of drug testing by companies grew in recent years. American workers have seen a dramatic increase in the use of drug testing in the previous years. Drug testing is implemented to assure safe workplaces for American workers. Drug testing can reduce the company’s health care and insurance costs. Even though drug testing has become common in the workplace, there is little research that exists regarding this matter. Overall, drug testing affects the decisions of workers by adopting a “zero tolerance” policy. Experienced users try to beat these tests by using drug to cancel the tracking of the drug itself. These workers attempt to avoid the detection of drug use for long periods (Borack, 1995).

The "business" in this instance was actually a government agency, specifically the city of Lakewood in the state of Ohio, but practically everything said and argued in this report would be applicable to this situation regardless of that being the case. A city employee by

In compliance with the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, [Company Name] has a longstanding commitment to provide a safe, quality-oriented and productive work environment consistent with the standards of the community in which the company operates. Alcohol and drug abuse poses a threat to the health and safety of [Company Name] employees and to the security of the company's equipment and facilities. For these reasons, [Company Name] is committed to the elimination of drug and alcohol use and abuse in the workplace.