I’m really sick of hearing Republicans bring up drug testing for the unemployed, people on food stamps or anyone who gets government benefits. Drug testing has not been proven to have any benefit whatsoever in the workplace; it is a way to discriminate against people.
So now Congress wants to drug test the unemployed. How much more money can we waste in this country on unproven benefits that undermine our Constitutional Rights. We have lost a lot in the drug war. Before the war on terror, it was the war used to kill the Constitution.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
This year more than ever, Republicans have brought up again and again the topic of unemployed people using drugs. Lawmakers in a dozen state legislatures pursued jobless drug testing bills in 2011, according to the National Association of State Workforce Agencies, in an unprecedented flurry of legislative activity on the issue. But a major obstacle to those proposals is that federal law does not allow states to deny unemployment benefits for reasons not related to the circumstances of a person's unemployment -- though 20 states do have laws disqualifying workers from receiving benefits if they're fired for a drug-related reason.
The legislation percolating through the states culminated in Congress, where Republicans in the House of Representatives passed a bill on Tuesday to allow states to do all the drug testing they want. NASWA director Rich Hobbie, who's worked in the unemployment insurance field since 1975, said it's the first time a bill to drug test the unemployed has made it so far. The fate of the provision is currently in the hands of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who has said he finds it ridiculous.
Several states have shown that they want screening. South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) said this year, "I so want drug testing. I so want it." She claimed that of hundreds of people wanting work with a local employer, half flunked a drug test. "We don't have an unemployment problem," she said. "We have an education and poverty problem."
Upon investigation, however, the claim proved completely untrue. It turned out that less than 1 percent of the local employer's hires tested positive.
Because really, what is the point of drug testing? And how did we get here? Something that started out with a jet crash and a safety issue has morphed into a Constitutional Rights eating monster.
Federal Law
The drug-testing movement began in 1986, when former President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12564, requiring all federal employees to refrain from using illegal drugs, on or off-duty, as a condition of federal employment. Two years later, Congress passed the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988. That, in turn, spawned the creation of federal Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs (Section 503 of PUBLIC LAW 100-71). The mandatory guidelines apply to executive agencies of the federal government, the uniformed services (excepting certain members of the armed forces), and contractors or service providers under contract with the federal government (excepting the postal service and employing units in the judicial and legislative branches).
Although the Act only applies to federal employees, many state and local governments followed suit and adopted similar programs under state laws and drug-free workplace programs.
Constitutional Protections
The U.S. Constitution does not prohibit drug testing of employees. However, in the U.S. Supreme Court case of Treasury Employees v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656 (1989), the high court ruled that requiring employees to produce urine samples constituted a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, all such testing must meet the "reasonableness" requirement of the Fourth Amendment (which protects citizens against "unreasonable" searches and seizures). The Court also ruled that positive test results could not be used in subsequent criminal prosecutions without the employee's consent.
The other major constitutional issue in employee drug testing involves the Fifth Amendment (made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment), which prohibits denial of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law." Since the majority of private-sector employees in the United States (excepting mostly union employees) are considered "at-will employees," an employer need not articulate a reason for termination of employment. However, under certain circumstances, the denial of employment or the denial of continued employment based on drug test results may invoke "due process" considerations, such as the validity of the test results, the employee's right to respond, or any required notice to an employee.
Finally, under the same constitutional provisions, persons have a fundamental right to privacy of their person and property. Drug testing, although in itself deemed legal, may be subject to constitutional challenge if testing results are indiscriminately divulged, if procedures for obtaining personal specimens do not respect the privacy rights of the person, or if testing is unnecessarily or excessively imposed.
http://www.enotes.com/...
It has also been argued that such testing potentially implicates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the right to due process (including the prohibition against gathering evidence in a manner that shocks the conscience or constitutes outrageous government conduct), and the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures contained in the Fourth Amendment.[31]
According to Henricksson, the anti-drug appeals of the Reagan administration "created an environment in which many employers felt compelled to implement drug testing programs because failure to do so might be perceived as condoning drug use. This fear was easily exploited by aggressive marketing and sales forces, who often overstated the value of testing and painted a bleak picture of the consequences of failing to use the drug testing product or service being offered."[32] On March 10, 1986, the Commission on Organized Crime asked all U.S. companies to test employees for drug use. By 1987, nearly 25% of the Fortune 500 companies used drug tests.[33]
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/...
In Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association, the Court held that railroad operating crews can be tested for drug use after being involved in accidents. Writing for the seven-member majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the provisions of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting searches without probable cause did not apply in this case because of "special needs" in the safe transport of the public resulting from the fact that railroad employees "can cause great human loss before any sign of impairment becomes noticeable to supervisors or others."
In dissent, Justice Thurgood Marshall, joined by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., conceded that eradication of illegal drug use was a proper national objective, but concluded that testing of railroad workers without any evidence of wrong-doing allows "basic constitutional rights to fall prey to momentary emergencies."
In the other case, National Treasury Employees Union v. Van Raab, Justice Kennedy, writing for the five-member majority, held that the U.S. Customs Service's Drug Enforcement Administration had the right to routinely test employees involved in interdicting illegal drugs and employees who carry firearms. Justice Kennedy said that testing of these employees is necessary to assure that they have the "unimpeachable integrity and judgment" required to counter illegal drug traffic, which is "one of the greatest problems affecting the health and welfare of our population." The Court did not extend the ruling to messengers and baggage clerks because of uncertainly over whether individual employees would gain access to restricted information.
Justice Antonin Scalia led the dissent, explaining that he joined the majority in the railroad case because of the compelling need to protect railroad passengers, but could not favor the decision in the Customs Service case because only 5 of 3,600 employees tested had positive results, leading to the conclusion that there was "no real evidence of a problem that will be solved by urine testing."
U.S. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh described the two decisions as victories in the war on drugs, saying that the Administration would tailor drug-testing plans being established in Federal agencies to conform with the ruling. Federal employee unions, which have filed legal challenges to a number of the testing programs, contended that the Court's rulings had limited application and, pending further decisions, would not apply to "general" employees.
http://www.enotes.com/...
Other countries do not drug test like we do in America, the land of the free. They consider it a violation of human rights.
United Kingdom
A study in 2004 by the Independent Inquiry into Drug Testing at Work found that attempts by employers to force employees to take drug tests could potentially be challenged as a violation of privacy under the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.[24] However, this does not apply to industries where drug testing is a matter of personal and public safety or security rather than productivity.
Canada
According to the Canadian Human Rights Act, random and pre-employment alcohol and drug tests are not allowed in Canada.[34] The one exception to the ban on random drug tests in Canada is alcohol testing including breathalysers in situations where the safety of employees could be at risk if alcohol is consumed at work.[34]
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Studies have shown that drug testing does not improve productivity or lower the level of drug use.
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/...
1. (drug testing and productivity) In a study of high tech industries, researchers found that "drug testing programs do not succeed in improving productivity. Surprisingly, companies adopting drug testing programs are found to exhibit lower levels of productivity than their counterparts that do not... Both pre-employment and random testing of workers are found to be associated with lower levels of productivity."
Source: Shepard, Edward M., and Thomas J. Clifton, Drug Testing and Labor Productivity: Estimates Applying a Production Function Model, Institute of Industrial Relations, Research Paper No. 18, Le Moyne University, Syracuse, NY (1998), p. 1.
2. http://www.drugpolicy.org/...
Drug Testing - Data
(2011 - drug testing - most detected drugs) "American workers continue to use prescription opiates at relatively high levels according to Drug Testing Index™ (DTI) ... Hydrocodone and oxycodones remain the most detected prescription opiates in the U.S. general workforce, with 1.3% and 1.1% positivity rates, respectively, in the first half of 2011. Compared to 2005 levels, oxycodones are 96% higher (0.56% vs. 1.1%) and hydrocodone 47% higher (0.88% vs. 1.3%) in positive prevalence.
"According to Drug Testing Index data from urine drug tests, only marijuana, at 2.0% in the first half of 2011, holds a positivity rate higher than hydrocodone (1.3%) and oxycodones (1.1%)."
4. (drug testing and management processes) "While the inquiry team could see a role for employee drug testing within safety-critical areas (although even here they were far from convinced that such drug testing was effective), there was deep scepticism as to the value of such testing more broadly. Indeed, the inquiry team noted that ‘For the most part, it is unclear that anything can be achieved through drug and alcohol testing that could not be done better through other managerial and supervisory processes’"
There are many problemswith drug testing besides the trashing of our Constitutional Rights.
Drug testing does not protect public safety. It serves mainly to identify and ban cannabis consumers from the workforce, or sanction them at the workplace or schools.
Drug Testing primarily targets people who use marijuana, as the other drugs which are tested dissipate very quickly. Marijuana may remain detectable for up to 90 days -- long after the effects are felt. Often people who have never done any drugs will fail a drug test as a result of false positives and inaccuracies within the testing industry itself.
Drug testing has nothing to do with impairment and everything to do with discrimination and is a violation of our human rights.
Potential ramifications of drug testing are loss of jobs or reputation, loss of benefits and pensions, loss of custody of children, denial of transplants, and revocation of probation or parole &emdash; landing more people in jail (thus, increasing the prison industrial system).
The National Academy of Sciences formed the Committee on Drug Use in the Workplace -- a team of nationally recognized experts -- to study the effectiveness of drug testing. They spent three years collecting, studying and synthesizing every significant study on the impact of drug use in the workplace. It was published in book form in 1994 as Under the Influence: Drugs and the American Workforce. Much of the information in this report was derived from this study.
Employers have relied on information provided by drug testing promoters who have an inherent conflict of interest on the topic. Drug Testing products and services are now a multi-billion dollar industry which rely on the magnification of the severity of drug-related problems in the workplace and extolling the benefits of drug testing as a solution. They market drug testing with the promise that they will improve productivity and profits. They use bogus studies to arrive at estimates of "costs of lost productivity." The Research Triangle Institute researchers "found no difference in the annual incomes of households with and without current marijuana users or with users of other drugs."
According the American Management Association, only 8 percent of companies with drug testing programs had performed any cost-benefit analysis.
The NAS stated, " the data…do not provide clear evidence of the deleterious effects of drugs other than alcohol on safety and other job performance indicators."
Researchers found that workers testing positive at the time of hire were no more likely than workers testing negative to become involved in an accident. The NAS claimed," Illicit drugs contribute little to the overall rate of industrial accidents." This is because most workers who use illicit drugs never use them at work. And, when they do so, it is in a way that does not affect their work performance.
In comparing the residual effect of occasional off-duty stimulant use, they found it to be no more profound than the effects that occur following "sleep deprivation in the absence of drug use."
Moderate use of illicit drugs by workers during off-duty hours was no more likely than moderate off-duty alcohol use to compromise workplace safety.
http://cannabisconsumers.org/...
Drug testing does not test impairment. And many of the urban legends about drug users costing the employer in health care do not hold up.
As a result, drug tests mainly identify drug users who may have used a drug on the weekend, as they might use alcohol, and who are not under the influence of a drug while at work or when tested. It takes several hours for drug metabolites to appear in urine, so drug tests may miss drug users who are under the influence of drugs at the time the test is given.
Using the Kaiser Permanente data, researchers found no significant differences between health care costs for marijuana users to non-users.
And there are a myriad of other problems from being discriminated for legal drugs prescribed by your doctor to humiliation with the tests. Many people are harmed by drug tests in ways they would never have imagined. It also tells your employer drugs your doctor has prescribed for you and sometimes you will be denied employment for those reasons.
Drug testing deters highly qualified workers from applying. They may be users who do not want to give up their use, or people who are opposed to giving up their privacy, or are civil libertarians. Many employers in high tech industries have discontinued drug testing programs as they limit their ability to hire qualified workers.
Drug testing programs impact morale and job satisfaction finding urine collection to be "degrading and demeaning" and humiliating.
At the time of collection, workers fill out a form to reveal personal information about medications they may be taking. This information can be used against them even for legally prescribed medications.
Firms with pre-employment testing, compared with [High tech] firms with no drug testing at all, scored 16 percent lower on productivity measures. "Companies that relate to employees positively with a high degree of trust are able to obtain more effort and loyalty in return."
Drug tests are used mainly to discriminate against people and there are alternatives.
Impairment testing not only detects people who are impaired by drugs and alcohol, but also by sleep deprivation stress, fatigue, emotional problems including anxiety, sickness or other health problems, over-the counter medications, prescription medications, or those who are otherwise not able to perform safely. Impairment due to illicit drugs is statistically much less likely than impairment from other factors. These tests, once administered, can improve safety far better than drug tests can. They are not discriminatory. Rather, they measure everyone equally by their performance which is the most significant factor in employment.
There is a growing number of people who will suffer when they are falsely labeled drug users by the inaccuracies of drug testing. People will unjustly be denied a driver's license, evicted from their homes, and be denied their rights and government benefits
Anybody being treated for depression, anxiety, heart disease, ulcers, insomnia, diabetes, or high blood pressure may be 'screened out' and denied employment as a result of drug testing. This has nothing to do with marijuana use. It is related to the medical information gathered at the drug testing site.
Th drug testing industry is comprised of manufacturers of equipment and chemicals, laboratories, medical review officers, consultants, and lobbyists.
Insurance companies use "after accident" tests to deny people benefits.
Despite the fact that alcohol is the most prevalent drug causing work related accidents and that alcohol addiction is much more costly to employers than all illicit drugs combined, the focus is on illicit drugs in the workplace.
America needs to get over its hang up about letting adults smoke a joint. Because that's the people drug tests are designed to catch. Meth, heroin, alcohol can all be out of your body in hours. Trillions of dollars have been spent to go after marijuana smokers in this forty year war. Drug testing has turned into a multi billion dollar business with no discernible results, like the rest of the drug war. We haven't made a dent in drug use in this country. Not one iota. But it's been great for destroying our rights. It’s way past time to legalize marijuana and just say no to drug tests. All studies show they don't work, don't save money, marijuana users don't have more accidents and don’t cost more for health care. There is no proven benefit to drug testing whatsoever except for the people who own the business that does it.
Americans are willingly giving up bodily fluids every day to get a job, many not knowing even their legal medications or false positive can have harmful affects on future employment. I think it’s wrong.