Is Random Drug Testing Effective? 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).

Drug abuse has always been a very delicate question as it always it deals with the health, well-being and even lives of human beings belonging to any country. Many people have argued that mandatory drug testing is a violation of their civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment grants you the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, otherwise known as a person's right to privacy. However, employers have the right to know whether or not the people working under them are stable to do their jobs. Indeed, for safety of all the humans randomly drug testing is the best way to maintain the quality of the employees.

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.

Variable interval schedule of reinforcement is when a response or outcome is rewarded after a fixed amount of time. The fixed amount of time is never consistent. For example, pop quizzes. If a professor says at the beginning of the semester there are pop quizzes, but never tells you exactly when. The student will be paying attention throughout the weeks because he knows there might be a pop quiz. Once the professor gives out the pop quiz the student doesn’t know exactly when the next one will be coming, therefore he continues to pay attention. The example is appropriate because the student doesn’t know when there will be a quiz and the professor gives the quizzes out at random, therefore there are not a fixed number of days or weeks that the pop quizzes will

Nevertheless, some situations, such as a participant in the program refuse to continue to participate in the treatment, will result in termination and likely lead to the individual being taken back into custody. But for someone who violates the terms of the drug agreement by relapsing will result in extending time adding to their time. But for someone who violates the curfew or show sign of disrespectful to other people in the program will result to freedom being taken away like he or she cannot use a cellphone for two weeks, wash all the dishes, no tv privileges. Furthermore, when it comes to this drug court being successful in this program require successful completion of all the program is contingent upon remaining drug-free and without arrest for a specific for a specific period of

Each Player shall be tested upon reporting to spring training. All Players will be selected for an additional unannounced urine specimen collection on a randomly selected date. Testing for drugs of abuse is not administered randomly, but on a basis of reasonable cause. If one of the Health Profession Advising Centers (HPAC) panel members has evidence that a player has used, possessed, or sold banned substances in the last 12 months, they call a conference and discuss the evidence with the other members. If a majority vote to test the suspected player is reached then testing will take place no more than 48 hours later. A test is deemed positive if: 1) A Player refuses or, without good cause, fails to take a test or refuses to cooperate with the testing process. 2) A Player attempts to substitute, dilute, mask or adulterate a specimen sample or in any other manner alter a test. 3) If the substance identified in the test results meets the levels in which the MLB has decided are too high. On January 10, 2013, MLB and the players union reached an agreement to add random, in-season human growth hormone and to a new test to reveal the use of

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.

There are several different types of schedules that can be as simple as a “To do List” or as complex as a plan for a construction project.

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

One of the issues in favor of the anti-drug testing position is that sometimes persons are falsely accused due to poor testing methods or unreliability of those tests. Tests which measure impairment and alertness are the methods most commonly cited as unreliable. According to an article appearing in Business Week Magazine (1991), companies that use a test known as "Factor 2000" are finding that drug and alcohol use are not the most common reasons for failure. Fatigue and illness are the most common reasons for failure, not substance abuse. Lewis Maltby (1986) of the Drexelbrook Controls Company clarifies this by stating that drug testing does not tell whether an employee is impaired, but it does tell whether they have a substance problem. It is very hard to find evidence that positively identifies poor performance due to drug use. There are too many variables involved to pinpoint the exact reason, but labeling it as a drug related problem is not only incorrect, but is a dangerous assumption. The results of a drug test should not be used to assess job performance.

Many high schools across the country have brought much attention to the idea of giving random drug tests to students in high school. The newfound interest in student drug testing may be as a result of recent polls, which have shown an increase in drug use among high school students. Many teachers, parents, and members of school comities are for the drug testing, while most students and some parents feel that this would be a violation of students rights as Americans, which is true.

Introducing the fear to students on drug testing that will directly affect them, will most likely decrease the use of drugs being abused. The president of the Institute for Behavior and Health explains that RSDT (Random Student Drug Test) could be used on any athlete, any day, and any time without notice (DuPont et al ¶6). Making the testing random will help eliminate any cheating or strategizing that the students who would test positive could be doing. Keith Ablow, MD and psychiatrist published an article in 2011 said that, both varsity and junior varsity teams should be tested with results kept private (¶6). To only test Varsity athletes would be unacceptable because JV athletes could cause just as much harm to athletes around them as to themselves. To make it fair and because kids follow by example, coaches would test also (Ablow ¶ 9). When a positive test appears, there should be punishment, but not to the extent of expulsion. Guidelines to RSDT programs say it is not supposed to end up in punishment for drug tests (DuPont et al ¶25). Not giving any punishment would defeat the purpose because then kids would not care to stop their drug use. Random drug tests to not only student-athletes, but students in general will promote a healthier lifestyle without drug use (DuPont et al ¶5). Students should be on edge not knowing if they are going to be tested or

Specific plans and projects. Scheduling is concerned about the implementation of activities necessary to achieve the laid down plans. The function of control is to institute a mechanism that can trigger a warning signal if actual performance is deviating (in terms of time, cost and some other measures of effectiveness) from the plan. If such a deviation is unacceptable to the concerned manager, he will be required to take corrective action to bring performance in conformity with the plans. The PERT and