The argument FOR drug testing

[Mike]

I'm against mandatory drug testing in most situations, but there are a few exceptions I can understand.

I have a relative who works as an interior designer for a ritzy design firm (they do interiors for private jets). She has to occasionally take drug tests. Her husband is a manager in a medium sized factory doing specialty fabrications. He (and all his employees) know they can be randomly drug-tested. Target requires a drug test before hiring you for ANY position. Some states require testing to receive government benefits (and lots of people in my state think we should do the same thing here).

Who here is in favor of drug testing? And can someone give me a good justification for all of these cases?

[El Jefe]

For liability purposes, I absolutely understand why tests are required after any sort of possible workplace injury/accident. Especially when heavy machinery and/or vehicles are involved.

Most other mandatory tests I can think of (off the top of my head) start to quickly sound like edge cases, rather than a need for a mandatory policy.

[Iantha]

I think all law enforcement and heavy machinery operators (to include drivers) should be tested, as well as caretakers and medical staff, but only for safety and competent job performance, not for some bullshit moral reason. However - I believe that we need better drug testing mechanisms because I think there's a huge difference between being actively high and having used something for recreational use on personal time and with ample time for recovery and sobriety before heading back to work and having other people's lives in your hands.

[Kyle]

I agree with what everyone has already said.

The problem is that an employer can require a drug test if they want. And I suppose that's their prerogative. But I also know businesses that don't want to do drug tests because they won't attract the talent they want. Specifically, I know of a company that is in the design field that got rid of drug testing because it kept them from getting the top talent.

In my city, the local school district makes the high school juniors and senior take drug tests if they want a parking space on campus. If they fail, they can't park at school. That's some bullshit right there.

[El Jefe]

[Stan]

I think it's relevant only for jobs where safety is an issue and quick reactions matter. Unfortunately, most drug testing seems to happen because state or federal law forces it. For example, I work for a university and I think some federal funds require drug testing of employees. So, every new hire gets tested. I think the employment contract allows random testing but I've never heard of it happening as the school doesn't care so doesn't bother.

[Tahlvin]

I agree that it should be required in jobs where safety is a concern, such as drivers (trucks, taxis, etc.), heavy equipment operators, doctors and nurses, police/LOEs (especially those carrying weapons), and perhaps fire department personnel, among others. It is also appropriate for professional athletes being tested for performance-enhancing substances.

[Kyle]

So this is interesting. While some nurses are drug tested, almost all doctors are not. I found this interesting times article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/13/opin ... ested.html

that talks about how all medical personnel should be drug tested-- but not just because of the safety aspect, but because these are the people who have access to, and often are addicted to, very powerful drugs. And they steal them. From patients who actually need them.

[poorpete]

In a not too distant future, your wearable device will know your sobriety/impairment level. Employers could demand your "current level" data while at work. But I'd think anything archived should be deemed personal.

[Iantha]

[Mike]

My issue with most workplace drug testing is the idea that it is needed for safety reasons. I've heard many variants of, "I don't want someone on meth operating a forklift in my area while I'm trying to do my job." And my response is: "Right. And I don't want somebody who is drunk operating that forklift either. I think we should do alcohol tests and anyone who has had a drink in the last week should be fired."

The problem for me is that we're usually not testing your current level of impairment. We're testing whether you've had any of these substances in the last few days or the last week or the last month.

I agree with testing medical personnel who have access to lots of drugs. I agree with testing people with security clearances, since illegal activity can mean susceptibility to blackmail or other types of influence. I agree with testing people when there is reasonable suspicion that they are impaired at work. I can even see random testing for impairment in jobs where the risks are high. Breathalyzers are awesome at this. Some workplaces implement them, and they simply measure your current BAC to determine if you are impaired. Maybe you tied one on Saturday night, but come Monday morning, the breathalyzer says you're clean. If most drug tests were like that, I would have less problems with them. But as they stand, if a person partied on Saturday night and got hit with a drug test on Monday morning, they are likely fired.

Maybe you don't have a problem with that. Most people I know don't. For them, if you engage in illegal activity, you should be fired. I don't know how productive that is. I don't know that it prevents much drug use either. It simply means that a bunch of people who are perfectly suited for particular jobs don't take those jobs because they like to get high once in a while.

Disclaimer: I don't use any illegal drugs myself. I barely ever drink. I don't work in a place that requires drug testing, but if I did, I'd pass with flying colors. Drug/Alcohol testing policies don't directly affect me.

[Kyle]

[Mike]

That is not how I understood most drug testing to work. I am educated.

That does mitigate some of my feelings on the issue. Because, as I mentioned, if we're testing mostly for current impairment and not for previous history, then I have less problems with the issue. Thank you.

Now I have to let this gel.

[Stan]

Yea, but there's a second part to Kyle's post. Habitual drug users are likely to be cued in enough to rarely fail a drug test. That means the tests are more likely to be money wasted just so somebody could say they did something.

[Zen]

I think my opinion that some form of drug testing is occasionally warranted was cemented by two separate incidents that happened YEARS apart. The first was more than 21 years ago when my wife was working in the quality control lab of a liquid packaging plant in one of the smaller towns nearby. She worked 2nd shift at the time, so she worked from around 5:30 in the afternoon until 2:00 am. One night, I got a call from her during her shift. She told me that she wanted me to know the details of who to sue if she died in a fire during the next few hours of her shift because one of the workers on the "alcohol line", where things like hairspray, hair gel, and other products that have large amounts of 100 proof alcohol as one of the components and are highly volatile are packaged, came to work obviously high on coke and the supervisor didn't stop them from working on the line. That line is right next to the lab. Literally, one wrong step in the processing on that line that causes a spark in the wrong place could start a fire that would consume both the line and the lab in a matter of minutes if not seconds.

Then, several years later, there was a news story about an explosion at that same plant. It wasn't on the line and it wasn't caused, as far as anyone knows, by drugs, but there was one death involved. They had a special room where the compounding (which is the term used for mixing the ingredients together for the products) is done for the products using alcohol. It blew up. The compounder working there evidently made a mistake. She paid for it with her life. Even though it had been over 15 years since my wife had worked there, she immediately knew who had died. The woman who died was the only one who did compounding for alcohol products. She was the most experienced one at the plant. She was also a fairly close friend when my wife worked there, though they hadn't kept in touch. (It is a town that is nearly 30 minutes away.)

If someone with probably 20 years of experience can blow herself up by making a simple error, anyone working with products associated with that type of volatility should be regularly drug tested. Luckily, the design of the building saved everyone else. The Alcohol room is, basically, a giant chimney. When the explosion happened, it blew the roof off that part of the building and burnt off the fuel inside the room, but the rest of the plant was left unharmed. The news story did say that one of the younger workers ran to try to get her out as a first reaction but was restrained by one of her older coworkers, who told him if he opened that door, he'd kill everyone. She wouldn't want that and she was already dead. It was a gutwrenching news story to watch, but it really brought back that night, and the many after that until she quit that job, frankly, that I sat up waiting for my wife to get home, worried that some coke head might kill her and, at the time, my unborn child, because her company didn't have any policy to prevent people who were obviously on drugs from working with dangerous materials.

[mimekiller]

drug test those clowns in congress!

[Zen]

[El Jefe]

There's another side of it that Kyle brings up. How easily tests can be beaten (under the standard urine test). And they're meant to be random, right? So that shouldn't be a problem, right?

The problem is that actual practice is that companies who do this frequently get lazy about it. If you're working in any kind of site with a large number of employees, I'm willing to put money down on the fact that the rumor mill knows days before the tests are coming. See the rest of Kyle's post to see the result on that. You're not going to catch most habitual users this way. (Ever need to clear a test, talk to an addict. Oh my, do we have all kinds of ridiculous ways to do this. Half of them might even work.)

What you will catch is the really careless users or the occasional social users who don't regularly plan their chemical entertainments to always be prepared to clear a test.

I literally hate drinking water because of my former addict years. Give me anything else to drink. ANYTHING.

[mimekiller]

[Iantha]