Essay On Establishing A Drug Testing Program

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.

From the states to the individual citizens, hundreds of people believe in the need to have drug testing for welfare rights. Even though it does protect some people’s rights it also takes away the rights from others. Drug testing should be required in order maintain the help of the government. If someone has nothing to hide then they have no need to worry about drug testing. Not everyone, but those who are irresponsible and truly do no deserve welfare will throw away the governments money on things like new cars, or drugs. We as a nation can reduce that if we simply allow drug testing in the

Drug misuse is associated with domestic violence, increased involvement with crime and police and decline in work quality. Obviously these characteristics would not even make a close to feasible argument as to why a person like that would be a candidate for any job(Terry).

There is a big question floating in the air around a lot of people today,

The negative impact the drugs and alcohol abuse and addiction has on the overall health of the user must be considered. Every process and system in the body is adversely affected by the over-indulgence of drugs and alcohol. Some of the health problems regularly noted include organ damage, kidney and liver disease, organ failure, congestive heart failure, respiratory depression, memory lapses, brain damage, infection, stroke, heart attack, and overdose.

Long term, it is much easier and cheaper to perform preventive health care than to try to manage acute and/ or chronic diseases. All at risk individuals should be given education on the dangers of developing a substance abuse problem, emphasizing that it can happen to anyone- young or old, rich or poor, etc. Health care providers need to address the supposed invincibility commonly associated with those who excessive drink alcohol or use drugs. These individuals are not quite as invincible nor do most have everything as under control as they may think. Although many may know the dangers, it is important to explain that the negative health impacts may not be noticeable right away, but the damage is still being done. Additionally, these at risk patients should work with social workers or case management to set up referrals to substance abuse cessation programs within the

S203). In addition to the severe consequences drug abuse has on health, the social consequences are just as severe and includes increased crime and imprisonment, physical and mental disabilities, and loss of productivity.

It must be noted however, that the physical effects of drug use and the damage that it can cause to the body is occurring with the abuse and misuse of drugs and alcohol regardless of whether or not a person suffers withdrawal symptoms when sober. The health risks related to substance abuse and addiction include memory loss, stress on the organs and systems of the body, organ failure, depressed respiratory function, cancer, stroke, heart attack, cirrhosis of the liver, infection, kidney disease, depression, anxiety, and

The topic of mandating regular drug testing for those on welfare is very controversial. It seems too one-sided to say that those who do drugs are the only people who should not be allowed welfare. There are many other ways that people might abuse their need of welfare money in illegal and unethical ways. Also, with the ever-increasing demand for welfare it seems more cost prohibitive to conduct regular drug testing on those who receive welfare. There is also the possibility of the drug test being compromised or destroyed due to human corruption. Instead, we should put more focus on the advancement and use of technology to monitor how welfare money is being used.

Kathryn Keep says, “A drug-using employee is 3.6 times more likely to be involved in an accident, and five times more likely to make a worker’s compensation claim. Impaired judgment can result in slow reaction times and misguided decisions, which may lead to accidents.” Each drug user can cost a company thousands of dollars, translating into billions spent each year due to work-related accidents or injuries. The company will have to pay the healthcare

Throughout recent years, applicant drug testing has become one of the most prevalently used strategies by many organizations to control substance abuse in the workplace. Drug testing is a selection tool used by organizations to determine whether or not an individual has previously used drugs and/or alcohol. Most employers find that drug testing, if done correctly, is a worthwhile investment associated with increased workplace safety, lower absenteeism, fewer on-the-job accidents, improved productivity, lower theft rates, and less medical and workers' compensation expenses (Grondin 142). By identifying and screening out substance abusers, organizations believe that they are also screening out those

Drug testing has become a very big issue for many companies. Approximately eighty-one percent of companies in the United States administer drug testing to their employees. Of these, seventy-seven percent of companies test employees prior to employment. Even with the commonality of drug testing, it is still a practice that is generally limited to larger corporations which have the financial stability, as well as the human resources to effectively carry out a drug testing program. In the United States, it is suggested that as many as 70 percent of drug users are employed. Now this is a huge chunk, but as a result of drug testing, these big corporations have a significantly lower percentage of the employed drug users on their

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.

Literature implies that employee drug use in the workplace may create high costs to firms in the form of lower productivity, increased absences, and an increase in workplace accidents. As a response to these costs, employers have implemented a variety of policies and programs to decrease employee drug use. Educational programs and standards such as “Zero Tolerance” policies, employers have turned to drug testing programs more in the past decades. About 46 percent of American workers report that their employer conducts drug testing, although other sources indicate that 90 percent of Fortune 200 companies use some type of drug testing (Flynn 1999). The factor behind workplace drug

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