Drug Use And 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).

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

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

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

In one federal case, the Tenth Circuit rejected a challenge to a policy that required employees to disclose their prescription drug use at the time of a drug test for illegal drugs. The company said it was necessary to assure the accuracy of the drug test. The court ruled that since the information was not disclosed to others, it represented an "insignificant" invasion of privacy. See- Roe v. Cheyenne Mountain Conference Resort, D. Colo. 1996) 920 F. Supp. 1153. However, in a California case, the court ruled that an employer's requirement of disclosure of prescription drug use as part of a medical exam for applicants and promotion candidates was illegal. See- Loder v. City of Glendale (1997) 14 Cal.4th 846 [59 Cal.Rptr.2d 696, 927 P.2d 1200].

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

Workplace drug testing has become a growing trend throughout organizations in the United States. According to the American Medical Association (AMA), 67 percent of U.S. corporations have drug-testing policies. Also, approximately 97 percent of Fortune 500 companies have implemented drug-testing policies, according to the Institute for a Drugfree Workplace (Cadrain 42). These statistics clearly demonstrate the importance to employers of maintaining a drug-free workplace. Furthermore, research indicates that organizations tend to differ in the way they implement their trust drug-testing policies according to company size, industry type, and occupation. Research demonstrates that there is a strong, positive relationship between the size of a company and the prevalence of a drug-testing policy (Hartwell et al. 36). In other words, large firms are more likely to use a drug-testing policy than small firms.

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

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

Throughout history, there have always been people willing to work for what they want, and those who expect things to be handed to them as if it was a natural-born right. While the welfare system does positively impact some families in need, many people take advantage of it. With this being a well known fact, the government still continues to use ten percent of the federal budget on welfare (“Budget” 1).

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

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

For my final paper I have decided to choose the topic on the very controversial issue of drug testing for current and prospective employees in the workplace. In the textbook we reviewed the opposing opinions of authors Joseph Desjardins and his co-author Ronald Duska and Michael Cranford. The main issue between these writers is whether drug testing invades an individual’s privacy and in what circumstances should drug testing be permissible. I will first review both Desjardins and Cranford’s views on the issue then offer my evaluation.