* Forwarded (from: NETMAIL) by Terry Liberty-Parker using timEd 1.10+.
* Originally from Ian Goddard (1:382/87) to terry liberty-parker (1:382/804).
* Original dated: Mon Dec 16, 04:40
From: Ian Goddard
(free 2 copy (*)--------------(free 2 forward)
T H E D R U G - T E S T S C A M
by Ian Williams Goddard
Alas, the sorry sound of a Big Lie crashing:
The stereotype of the lazy, illicit-drug using
bum promotes an acceptance of claims that il-
licit drug use imposes heavy economic burdens
upon businesses and society, and consequently
that universal drug testing is the most cost-
effective reaction to this unprofitable burden.
But how true are these claims, which seem to
enjoy the support of reputable scientific re-
search? Under examination these claims are
proven to be nothing more than a greedy scam
designed to expand the bureaucratic empires
and profits of a few by sacrificing the most
fundamental liberties of the many.
ILLICIT DRUG USERS WORK MORE
Contradicting the "unproductive drug user"
stereotype, while the National Household Sur-
vey on Drug Abuse [1] finds that 71% of il-
licit-drug users are employed, U.S. Depart-
ment of Labor statistics [2] show that only
65% of those 20 and over are employed. From
the data we can extrapolate that the aver-
age illicit-drug user is more likely to
be employed than the average person [3].
The evidence suggests that, while not favor-
able to police-state mega profits, the most
true-to-life stereotype could be: "The pro-
ductive and motivated drug user."
Why might this be so? It's possible that the
desire for the reward of drug intoxication
acts as a stronger incentive to work more
(in an effort to earn the money necessary
to purchase the drug-reward) than non-drug
rewards act as an incentive for nonusers to
work more. Such is Economics 101: the higher
the reward, the higher the output to acquire
it; or, the sweeter the carrot on the stick,
the faster the horse will run after it.
ILLICIT DRUG USERS COST LESS & WORK HARDER
The journal SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN [4] cited a
study of workers at two utility companies:
Utah Power & Light and Georgia Power Company.
The workers who tested positive for illicit
drugs were found to (a) cost employers $215
less per worker per year in health insurance,
and (b) have a higher rate of promotion. Work-
ers testing positive for cannabis only had
an absentee rate 30% lower than average. The
logical conclusion: illicit users were less
costly to employers while at the same time
being more productive and reliable. More for
less! -- now there's a deal.
The JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE [5]
published a study that found "no difference
between drug-positive and drug-negative em-
ployees." However, the study's author ob-
served that during the study, 11 of the non-
users were fired while none of the users
were fired. Ironically, once the study end-
ed, all of the users could have been fired
for using the "wrong" drugs, regardless of
their productivity and professionalism.
The claim that illicit-drug use costs busi-
nesses X billion dollars per year, is der-
ived from a 1982 study by the Research Tri-
angle Institute. The study found that house-
holds with at least one member who used can-
nabis daily at some point in their life had
a 28% lower income than the average house-
hold income. Yet the study also showed that
those currently using any illicit drug had
an income equivalent to the average [4].
If we conclude that because cannabis use pre-
ceded a lower income, therefore, cannabis use
caused a lower income (a post hoc ergo prop-
ter hoc fallacy), then we must also conclude
based on the data that if you used cannabis
in the past, you should start using it again
to increase your income to current-user rates.
Interesting to note: if current drug users
earn more than former users, this supports the
theory that drug rewards are a more powerful
incentive for work than nondrug rewards.
THE RIGGING OF RESEARCH
In an effort to push Congress to pass manda-
tory illicit-drug-testing legislation, U.S.
Chamber of Commerce officials, in testimony
before Congress, claimed that research showed
illicit-drug users were "3.6 times more like-
ly to injure themselves or another person in
a workplace accident...[and] five times more
likely to file a workers' compensation claim."
However, as SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN [4] observed:
In fact, the study on which the
claim is based has "nothing to
do with [illicit] drug users,"
according to a 1988 article in
the University of Kansas Law Re-
view by John P. Morgan of the
City University of New York Med-
ical School. Morgan, an author-
ity on drug testing, has traced
the Chamber of Commerce claim to
an informal study by the Fire-
stone Tire and Rubber Company of
employees undergoing treatment
for alcoholism.
^^^^^^^^^^
Using the devastating effects of the govern-
ment subsidized drug alcohol to initiate a leg-
islative pogrom against safer, albeit, illicit
drugs -- an obvious and shameless scam.
This scam is promoted not only by governmental
interests in an effort to expand bureaucratic
empires, but also by private interests in an
effort to maximize profits, as the SCIENTIFIC
AMERICAN observed: "The pharmaceutical giant
Hoffman-La Roche, which is leading an anti-
drug campaign among businesses (and has a big
share of the drug-testing market), also promul-
gates this claim in 'educational' literature."
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN observed other errors in
the research promoted by the GovtMedia that
purports to show that drug users are bad for
business. For example, a study that found a
higher absentee rate among users failed to
note that most users in the study were minor-
ities, and minorities have an absentee rate,
regardless of drug use, identical to the rate
observed in the study. Logic therefore dic-
tates, contrary to the GovtMedia's conclusion,
that NO statistically significant correlation
between drug use and absenteeism was found.
CONCLUSIONARY OVERVIEW
Ultimately, the drug-testing and drug-rehab-
ilitation program is a massive cannabis-user-
identification and reeducation pogrom. This
is because 90% of drug-positive urine tests
are for cannabis, which is due to the fact
that inactive metabolites of THC remain in
the urine for up to 30 days after a single
use, whereas most other drugs are out of the
system in a day or even less. But why sacri-
fice primary liberties for cannabis control?
Not only is cannabis one of the safest known
drugs [6], and, as we have just observed, is
correlated to better employee performance,
but there is no established correlation bet-
ween cannabis and motor-skill impairment;
thus, unlike legal alcohol, it cannot even
be said to impair driving skills, which is
a major drug testing pretext. Observing the
safety of cannabis use, the National High-
way Traffic Safety Administration [7] said:
No clear relationship has ever
been demonstrated between mari-
juana smoking and either serious-
ly impaired driving performance
or the risk of accident involve-
ment... [T]here is little if any
evidence to indicate that drivers
who have used marijuana alone are
any more likely to cause serious
accidents than drug free drivers.
The most exhaustive review of the research
clearly confirms that there is simply no
compelling case for the intrusive Orwellian
surveillance of private activity that is im-
posed by drug testing. As Dr. John Morgan,
director of pharmacology at City University
of New York Medical School, wisely observed:
Urine testing is ... a method for
surveillance, not a tool for safety.
Indeed, drug testing is not about safety or
job performance; drug testing is a necessary
feature of the Surveillance State that is now
being built around us to ensure total cradle-
to-grave surveillance and control of workers.
While it's been said that those who are will-
ing to give up liberty for safety will soon
have neither, in the case of illicit-drug
testing -- which cannot even promise improv-
ed safety -- we can say that those who are
willing to give up liberty for nothing will
soon have only that for which they surrend-
ered their priceless liberty: nothing.
************************************************************************
IAN GODDARD Q U E S T I O N A U T H O R I T Y
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe -----> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
________________________________________________________________________
[1] National Household Survey on Drug Abuse,
1995. http://www.health.org/pubs/95hhs/any.htm
[2] U.S. Department of Labor statistics, 1996.
ftp://stats.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/empsit.100496.news
ftp://stats.bls.gov/pub/news.release/empsit.txt
[3] The USDL statistics [2] indicate that the
Employment Population Ratio (EPR) for all men
and women ages 20 and above is 65%. However,
the NHSDA study [1], showing a 71% EPR for il-
licit-users, includes all users ages 18 and
above. Would this give the illicit users an
unfair advantage in this analysis? No, because
the EPR for ages 18-19 is roughly 1 to 3% lower
than for ages 20 and above (likely due to being
in school); this lower rate of employment for
ages 18-19 would serve only to lower the il-
licit-user EPR results. Therefore, the inclu-
sion of ages 18-19 in the NHSCA study must lo-
wer, NOT inflate, the higher rate of employ-
ment measured among illicit users.
[4] SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: Testing Negative, a
look at the "evidence" justifying illicit-drug
testing, 3/90. http://www.pantless.com/%7Epdxnorml/test.html
[5] JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE: Rela-
tion of the Pre-employment Drug Testing Result
to Employment Status, A One-year Follow-up.
Parish, David C. Jan/Feb, 1989. pp. 44-47.
[6] http://www.erols.com/igoddard/hempsafe.htm
[7] NATIONAL HIGHWAY AND TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINIS-
TRATION. "Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance,"
Robbe, H., O'Hanlon, J., National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, Nov. 1993.
Special thanks to Eric Skidmore for his assistance.
___
--- timEd 1.10+
---------------
* Origin: LibertyBBS, Austin,Tx [512]462-1776 (1:382/804)
|