Drug Testing In The Workplace

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

New Jersey statute N.J.A.C. 6A:16-4.4 raises a host of legal and financial issues for school district administrators. According to the law, when it comes to random testing of student alcohol and other drug use, districts that decide to do random drug tests must follow certain protocols to ensure students’ 4th Amendment rights are not violated.

The issue of drug testing in the workplace has sparked an ongoing debate among management. There are many who feel that it is essential to prevent risks to the greater public caused by substance abuse while on the job. However, others believe that the costs far outweigh the benefits and that it is an invasion of privacy. Putting all ethical issues aside, evidence presented in this paper supports the latter. The costs of drug testing are excessive and only a small percentage of employees are actually found to be substance users. Drug testing in the work place has a negative effect on productivity; contrary to what was originally intended. It actually decreases productivity

Some people may say that mandatory drug testing is a violation of the athletes’ Fourth Amendment right. According to some people, these tests are unnecessary and therefore violate these rights. The author of “Mandatory Drug Testing Violates Rights” believes that drug testing is a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution; “Courts have ruled that drug tests are a search. A search is a privacy issue, and there has to be a reason for the search.” This is true. Drug tests are a search, and in some cases they may violate the rights of some citizens. Professional athletes, on the other hand, do not get their rights violated by this. This does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the athletes have already agreed to the rules of participating in the sport. Deborah Lee and Ann Griswold, authors of “Point: Athletes Should be Tested for Drugs” explains that “in none of these cases have athletes’ Constitutional rights been abrogated because the participation in athletic events is always voluntary and never mandatory. The ‘mandate’ only comes into play after the athlete has agreed to participate, thereby voluntarily agreeing to obey the rules of the sport.” This explains how the athletes have agreed to the rules of the activity, which in most cases prohibit the use of many performance enhancing substances, so since they have agreed to these conditions, the mandatory drug testing of athletes is not a violation of their rights. An athlete’s rights are not being violated by

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.

Drug testing began to take place in the mid 1960's when drugs like Marijuana, hallucinogens and other drugs were becoming widespread (Stencel, pp.201). The military implemented

Should drug testing be mandatory in the workplace? Many factors, including safety, productivity and reducing the number of employees who use drugs, enhance companies to do mandatory drug testing. On the other hand, many employees feel that drug tests are unfair, an invasion of privacy, and a violation of rights. Suppose an airline company had two pilots standing by their planes. The agency told the travelers that both pilots were flying the same route and that they could choose either plane. One pilot held a sign that said, “I am drug free”. The other pilot’s sign said, “I’m high on cocaine”. Which plane do you think most people would choose? Drug testing should be mandatory in the workplace.

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.

Thesis statement: Administering a drug and alcohol policy can be challenging, but it can also be beneficial to the manufacturing company.

In 1977, Peter Goldmark, the director for the state of New York, said, "Welfare, is hated by those who administer it, mistrusted by those who pay for it, and held in contempt by those who receive it" (Auerbach 2016). Goldmark's statement still rings true today. People have found a way to live off of welfare. They have figured out how to live off of another person's hard worked for money. It is unfair to those who are working to make a living to have to support people who do not even try to support themselves. People have become so entitled today that they believe that the world owes them. We owe it to ourselves to work for the lifestyle we want. We have to work for what we want because no one else should have to for us. It is understandable

In the article titled “Should Colleges Be Allowed to Enforce Mandatory Drug Testing…” Linn State Technical College in Missouri implemented mandatory drug testing for all students as part of the general admissions process. Linn State Technical College explains their reasoning behind the drug testing as part of their mission to “prepare students for profitable employment and a life of learning”. Lawsuits have been filed against the college stating that the students Fourth Amendment rights have been violated. One of the main reasons school officials stand by the mandatory drug testing policy is for the students who are enrolled in programs that involve operating of heavy equipment.

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).

I believe that drug testing is necessary to maintain a workplace safe and more productive. Drug use increases accidents and jeopardize the security of the company and other employees. It also increases employee’s confidence that they are working in a safe environment, and they do not have to fear a drug- or alcohol-related incident jeopardizing their welfare in any way. A drug testing reduces near miss accidents. Moreover, it Reduces potential workplace conflict and violence. As a result, a drug testing creates a healthier workplace, and increases the reputation of an organization. Finally, A workplace drug testing program helps to keep the environment at work safe for everyone. Drug testing in the workplace can help minimize workplace accidents,

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

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