>Sender: >To: >X-Original-Message-ID: <03e201bf087f$41cfcef0$9acf69cf@pacbell.net> >From: "Peter McWilliams" >Subject: Drug testing fails test >Date: Sun, 26 Sep 1999 17:28:35 -0700 >X-Mozilla-Status: 8001 >X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000 > > >Pubdate: Thu, 23 Sep 1999 >Source: Chicago Tribune (IL) >Copyright: 1999 Chicago Tribune Company >Contact: tribletter@aol.com >Website: http://www.chicagotribune.com/ >Forum: http://www.chicagotribune.com/interact/boards/ >Author: Steve Chapman, OPED Columnist > >HAZY THINKING ON DRUG TESTING OF EMPLOYEES > >Youngsters may find it hard to believe, but a mere 20 years ago, some things >we now take for granted were practically unknown--such as cellular phones, >e-mail and workplace drug testing. Now they are all unavoidable. The first >two gained popularity because they were useful and inexpensive ways of >improving our lives. But the last one, drug testing, has become ubiquitous >even though its only proven functions are to invade privacy, convey a false >sense of security and waste money. > >If you have a job, chances are good that you've taken a drug test. In its >most recent comprehensive survey, the American Management Association found >that 81 percent of its 10,000 member companies conduct drug testing of job >applicants or current employees. In 1987, only 21 percent did. Back then, >companies rarely tested anyone unless they had grounds for suspicion. Today, >34 percent of those surveyed test employees regardless of whether they've >done anything wrong. > >This is just one of the many ways in which the war on drugs has become a >general assault by the government on its own people. The vast majority of >Americans don't use illegal drugs. But they are forced into embarrassing >exercises for the sole purpose of proving their innocence. > >The trend got started thanks to Ronald Reagan, who on some occasions was >known to complain about government intrusions in our daily lives. His >Transportation Department insisted on random drug testing of virtually >everyone in the transportation industry, from truck drivers to flight >attendants--some 4 million people. > >That helped inspire the 1988 Federal Drug-Free Workplace Act, which required >any company doing business with the federal government to certify that its >employees were drug-free. The new law amounted to a mandate for drug >testing. In addition, the fear of being sued has no doubt pushed corporate >executives to require it to show their safety consciousness. > >Drug testing was sold as a way of preventing accidents, reducing absenteeism >and boosting productivity. In practice, though, it's not a particularly >effective way of doing any of these. An employee who is stoned is probably >not the guy you want at the controls of a locomotive. Unfortunately, random >tests of employees don't tell you if someone has been getting high during >work hours. It only tells you if he's been high recently. > >But someone who smokes dope at home isn't necessarily a safety hazard on the >job. As the American Civil Liberties Union notes in a new report, "Most >workers who use illicit drugs never use them at work. And, when they do use >drugs away from the job, they do so in a way that does not affect their work >performance." The ACLU notes that in a 1994 report, the National Academy of >Sciences concluded that "the moderate use of illicit drugs by workers during >off-duty hours was no more likely than moderate off-duty alcohol use was to >compromise workplace safety." > >Drug testing isn't free. So, in the absence of government pressures, you'd >assume that profit-minded corporations wouldn't use it without proof that it >works. But Eric Rolfe Greenberg, director of management studies for the >American Management Association, says its surveys provide no evidence that >testing is effective in reducing drug use. By contrast, he says, "We have >very good evidence that drug education and awareness programs are >effective." At companies with such programs, employees are at least >one-third less likely to test positive for drugs than at companies without. > >The persistence of testing is, as Samuel Johnson said of second marriages, a >triumph of hope over experience. When the management association asked >companies if they had any statistical evidence that their testing served to >reduce absenteeism, disability claims, accidents, employee theft or >violence, 75 to 80 percent of the respondents said no. A study of patients >by Kaiser Permanente, California's biggest HMO, found that marijuana users, >on average, didn't have higher health-care costs than non-users. > >For companies concerned about drug-induced dangers, there are better >remedies. One is to test anyone involved in an accident. Another is to >require workers operating hazardous machinery to do simple tests of >dexterity, vision and coordination each time they clock in--which would >screen out those who are impaired by drugs, alcohol, fatigue, emotional >distress or anything else. > >Over the past decade, drug testing has been tried on a grand scale, with no >apparent success. But our leaders in Washington don't seem to care whether >this expensive and intrusive program actually does any good. Which makes you >wonder: What are they smoking? > > >================================================================ > >This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to > the mailing list . >To unsubscribe, E-mail to: