|
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.
[END]
|
Alexander DeLuca, M.D.