Workplace Drug Use And 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

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.

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

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.

There are many who would argue that the “War on Drugs” is a well-meaning attempt by the government to rein in the rapidly growing trend of drug use and abuse in the United States. However, statistics do not support this claim. The “War on Drugs” has been likened to Prohibition and labeled a “Trillion Dollar Failure.” (Cable News Network [CNN], 2012) In addition, a recent study by the National Employment Law Project (NELP) found that many employers hedged, or out-right refused, to consider employing people with criminal records. Even though the range of jobs were wide, and in spite of the fact that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has warned employers that blatant refusal to hire those with a criminal past is discriminatory, few

Drug abuse does not only impact a person’s well-being, but it also negatively impacts society. The economy is impacted by health costs incurred from prevention, treatment, and hospital visits. Public Safety is impacted by drug-affected driving. Operating a vehicle under the influence is illegal and dangerous for the driver, passenger(s), and other people on the road. There are three classifications for drug abuse related crime: nexus, economic-compulsive, and systemic. Drug abuse also hinders productivity because addiction causes an individual to constantly seek the drug while deeming all other things less important. Companies experience loss of potential income from employees that are under the influence, incarcerated, hospitalized, or seeking treatment. Finally, economic consequences effect specific populations which include children, women, and people with low-income. Drug prevention strategies have been identified as a way to decrease economic consequences on society (“Economic Consequences of Drug Abuse,” 2013).

Marijuana is the most commonly abused drug in the work environment, followed by cocaine, and then prescription drugs (Drugs and Alcohol in the Workplace, 2015). With marijuana becoming legal in most states in the United States it raises a question of whether or not the companies are doing the proper testing to implement a drug free environment for employees to work. Other than substances, alcohol is a major factor as well. Breathalyzers have shown that 16% of emergency room visits were due to employees who abused alcohol (Drugs and Alcohol in the Workplace, 2015). A survey done showed that within a year, over 24% of employees reported that they drank alcohol while at work (Drugs and Alcohol in the Workplace, 2015). This has shown that employers have an issue with alcohol and substance abuse and there has to be a change in order to help those receive treatment for their problems before it

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

This new dynamic was seen initially in 1971 by the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) spearheaded by the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The survey indicated that many illegal drug users were employed full or part time. The initial survey was used to try and understand the scope of the problem,

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.

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 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