|
Introduction.
Is
it not economically unjustifiable and morally irresponsible to promote the
often indiscriminant use of an intrusive, stigmatizing, very expensive
and arguably unconstitutional drug-testing technology whose efficacy has never been demonstrated?
Origins of drug testing.
In 1986, Reagan made the concept of a “drug free
workplace” a national policy goal and mandated every federal agency
establish a program of urine drug testing for employees working in
“sensitive positions.” In that year, 21% of companies had testing
programs; a decade later 81% did and 13% of workers had had a mandatory
test.
What is the problem for which drug testing is the
solution?
There is no evidence that drug testing can make
the workplace a safer and more prosperous environment nor is there any
credible evidence that drug testing has any appreciable impact on rates of
problematic substance misuse. Rather, the value of drug testing programs
is symbolic. Workplace drug testing is a proxy for ‘doing something
about the drug problem.’ It stands in lieu of a rational, planned
managerial response to the real problems. Having a drug-testing program
makes a public statement that the employer is ‘tough on drugs.’
Claims of drug testing proponents: Productivity.
A study by the Research Triangle Institute estimated
that drug users cost business $33 billion in “lost productivity.” To
get that number they compared the income of households with a daily
marijuana (MJ) use to those without, took the difference and multiplied it
by the number of MJ users in the work force. One
can only comment that a statistic labeled “lost productivity” that is
not based on analysis of any actual productivity data is meaningless.
Claim: Drug users cause
workplace accidents.
The claim that drug users cause workplace
accidents has been conclusively shown to be false. There is no association
between drug use, past or present, and accidents.
Claim: Drug users use more
medical benefits.
Research on the claim that drug users consume
more than their share of medical benefits is equivocal. Some studies do
support this claim, others show drug users costing companies less in
medical benefits.
Claim: Drug users are
associated with increased employee turnover.
The claim that drug users quit or are fired at
a higher rate may have some merit. Workers drinking to intoxication or
using drugs weekly were more likely to get fired or resign but only a very
small proportion of workers fall into this category of use and they are
identifiable without the use of drug testing.
Claim: The historical decrease in test
positivity rates proves drug testing
is effective.
This appears to be true if you only examine
drug use rates since 1986 when wide-scale testing was started. However the
marked trend of decreasing drug usage began a decade earlier. To claim
drug testing caused the decline is, ahh, disingenuous to say the least.
What can drug testing accomplish?
Drug tests cannot detect impairment, shed no
light on the intensity or chronicity of use and are entirely useless in
distinguishing non-problematic recreational use from use which leads to
medical, behavioral or social consequences. A urine drug test administered
to workers on arrival at the workplace would more likely be positive in a
person who had smoked marijuana three days earlier than it would a person
who snorted cocaine in the parking lot and then walked in the door. And
alcohol, a substance that is far more widely abused than are illicit
drugs, is completely ignored.
Drug testing is expensive.
In 1990 the federal government spent approximately
11.7 million dollars to test workers in some 38 federal agencies. Of
29,000 tests administered, only 153 were positive or about 0.5 percent.
The cost per positive drug test to the taxpayer is therefore about
$77,000. But because drug testing can only detect past drug use, not drug
abuse or drug impairment, the real cost is even higher.
Drug testing is unconstitutional.
The Fourth Amendment requires the government to
obtain a warrant supported by probable cause to search a person, the only
exception being when the government has demonstrated to the satisfaction
of the Court that it has a special need for a search, such as protecting
public safety. The crux of the constitutional problem with suspicion-less
drug testing: you cannot claim a special
interest in everyone.
Why don’t we just declare victory and go home?
Drug
(including alcohol) use is not equivalent with drug abuse. By definition,
drug abuse is drug use that causes problems or harm to self or others.
Frequent, immoderate drug and alcohol abuse does indeed cause problems in
the workplace, but this group is underrepresented in the work force and
represents a very small minority. There
is no “drug problem” in the workplace that a mass-screening program
like suspicion-less drug testing could possibly impact.
There is an alternative…
Suspicion-less drug testing is the antithesis of
everything the human relations movement in labor management stands for. It
is a paternalistic and degrading technology that establishes a de-facto
adversarial relationship between employers and employees in companies that
practice it. We have seen that drug testing targets a group of employees,
casual marijuana users, which are particularly unlikely to be a source of
workplace problems and that it is utterly ineffective in detecting acute
or chronic hard drug use or any degree of alcohol abuse. It may be an
effective symbol that an employer is “tough on drugs” but it is
morally wrong to trash the individual liberties of the many, and cause
harm to innocents, in order that the few be punished in pursuit of making
a symbolic point.
|
Alexander DeLuca, M.D.