Drug Testing is Not a Violation of Individual Rights Essay

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).

Drugs in sports is becoming a problem everywhere. “Another 26-year old athlete died of liver cancer after taking a number of different types of steroids over a four year period ” (Drugs and…). This is significant because this shows how dangerous drugs can be. If we have drug testing in schools this student could still be alive and would have stopped drugs before it got bad. The evidence points to the fact that drugs are a major health risk that is very concerning. In some cases taking drugs can even lead to death. In addition, another situation took place that affected a college student named Bob. Bob tried everything to gain weight so he could play football, so he chose to try steroids like everyone else. Steroids got him to play professional football, but horrible things were happening to him. He was having serious health problems. Bob quit drugs and is lucky to be alive (Drugs and…). This connects to the fact that doing drugs is a major

Rains, B. (2009). Testing Student Athletes for Drugs is Appropriate. In C. Watkins, Sports and Athletes (pp. 192-196). Detroit: Greenhaven Press.

Drug testing in the United States began with the explosive use of illegal drugs, in order to curb drug abuse. This began during the Vietnam War with drug use at a climax. In general, Drug testing is a way to detect illegal drug use and deter it, usually by Urinalysis. Drug testing in the United States violates a citizen's right to unreasonable search and seizure's along with jeopardizing one's freedom. Furthermore, Drug testing is not only an unreliable invasion of a person's privacy but it assumes that one is guilty before submitting to the test.

Slowly pushing students to become addicts, drug testing high school student athletes may or may not be to blame. In Facts & Statistics on Random Drug Testing of High School Students, Dr. M.H. Davis stated, “In the early 1990s, many school districts began to look into drug testing as a way to curb student drug use, which led to two U.S. Supreme Court cases involving student privacy. The court upheld the constitutionality of drug testing student athletes in 1995, and in 2002, the court expanded high school drug testing policies to include all students who participate in a competitive extracurricular activity. In those rulings, the court stated deterring student drug use was more important than privacy” (Davis). Drug testing high school athletes

In recent years the number of athletes caught using drugs has increased dramatically. The use of a illegal or unprescribed drugs can cause serious problems and unfairness in many ways. Certain drugs can cause harm to the user and the people around the user, most student athletes do not even know what they are putting into their bodies. With all the risks many persons propose student athletes to be drug tested at random.

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

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 instead of improving it. Drug testing causes a feeling

Since the early 1960’s there have been an alarming increase in drug use in the United States in 1962, four million Americans had tried an illegal drug. By 1999, that number had risen to a staggering 88.7 million, according to the 1999 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse.

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

Drug testing in the workplace is a touchy issue for both employers and employees. Employers who drug test current and potential employees do so for several reasons. There are some industries and tasks which are very sensitive because of the material used, or the processes involved in the work, or because the work concerns matters of national security. There are numerous practical reasons for employers to test employees for illegal or illicit substances as well as legal substances that in excess cause harm to the person taking them and/or those around the person taking drugs. There exists a boundary between drug testing for safety and drug testing as a way to invade the privacy of employees for a number of reasons including excessive control, blackmail, or other forms of manipulation.

Workplace drug testing programs are often met with extreme criticism. Relieving the workplace of drug use through testing is often challenged since there is little evidence on the relationship of drug use and workplace outcomes, such as performance, attendance, and safety. Many believe that drug testing may act as a deterrent, since employees are being tested randomly they are most likely to deter their use. They also have the ability to save companies money by improving employee turnover rates and reducing the costs related to recruiting candidates. Companies often struggle to develop successful programs to deal with the effects of illicit substance use by their employees. The results of these possibilities are controversial, and it is left

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.

Drug abuse is a major public health issue that impacts society both directly and indirectly; every person, every community is somehow affected by drug abuse and addiction and this economic burden is not exclusive to those who use substance, it inevitably impacts those who don 't. Drugs impact our society in various ways including but not limited to lost earnings, health care expenditures, costs associated with crime, accidents, and deaths. The use of licit or illicit drugs long term, causes millions of deaths and costs billions for medical care and substance abuse rehabilitation and the effects of drug abuse extend beyond users, spilling over into the society at large, imposing increasing