>>> Part 2 of 3...
tests yield false positive results at least 10 percent, and possibly as
much as 30 percent, of the time. Experts concede that the tests are
unreliable. At a recent conference, 120 forensic scientists, including
some who worked for manufacturers of drug tests, were asked, "Is there
anybody who would submit urine for drug testing if his career,
reputation, freedom or livelihood depended on it?" Not a single hand was
raised. Although more accurate tests are available, they are expensive
and infrequently used. And even the more accurate tests can yield
inaccurate results due to laboratory error. A survey by the National
Institute of Drug Abuse, a government agency, found that 20 percent of
the labs surveyed mistakenly reported the presence of illegal drugs in
drug-free urine samples. Unreliability also stems from the tendency of
drug screens to confuse similar chemical compounds. For example, codeine
and Vicks Formula 44-M have been known to produce positive results for
heroin, Advil for marijuana, and Nyquil for amphetamines.
___
Still, isn't universal testing the best way to catch drug users?
___
Such testing may be the easiest way to identify drug users, but it is
also by far the most un-American.
Americans have traditionally believed that general searches of innocent
people are unfair. This tradition began in colonial times, when King
George's soldiers searched everyone indiscriminately in order to uncover
those few people who were committing offenses against the Crown. Early
Americans deeply hated these general searches, which were a leading
cause of the Revolution.
After the Revolution, when memories of the experience with warrantless
searches were still fresh, the Fourth Amendment was adopted. It says
that the government cannot search everyone to find the few who might be
guilty of an offense. The government must have good reason to suspect a
particular person before subjecting him or her to intrusive body
searches.
These longstanding principles of fairness should also apply to the
private sector, even though the Fourth Amendment only applies to
government action. Urine tests are body searches, and they are an
unprecedented invasion of privacy. The standard practice, in
administering such tests, is to require employees to urinate in the
presence of a witness to guard against specimen tampering. In the words
of one judge, that is "an experience which even if courteously
supervised can be humiliating and degrading." Noted a federal judge, as
he invalidated a drug-testing program for municipal fire-fighters, "Drug
testing is a form of surveillance, albeit a technological one."
___
But shouldn't exceptions be made for certain workers, such as airline
pilots, who are responsible for the lives of others?
___
Obviously, people who are responsible for others' lives should be held
to high standards of job performance. But urine testing will not help
employers do that because it does not detect impairment. If employers in
transportation and other industries are really concerned about the
public's safety, they should abandon imperfect urine testing and test
performance instead. Computer assisted performance tests already exist
and, in fact, have been used by NASA for years on astronauts and test
pilots. These tests can actually measure hand-eye coordination and
response time, do not invade people's privacy, and can improve safety
far better than drug tests can.
___
Drug use costs industry millions in lost worker productivity each
year. Don't employers have a right to test as a way of protecting
their investment?
___
Actually, there are no clear estimates about the economic costs to
industry resulting from drug use by workers. Proponents of drug testing
claim the costs are high, but they have been hard pressed to translate
that claim into real figures. And some who make such claims are
manufacturers of drug tests, who obviously stand to profit from
industry-wide urinalysis. In any event, employers have better ways to
maintain high productivity, as well as to identify and help employees
with drug problems. Competent supervision, professional counseling and
voluntary rehabililtation programs may not be as simple as a drug test,
but they are a better investment in America. Our nation's experience
with cigarette smoking is a good example of what education and voluntary
rehabililtation can accomplish. Since 1965, the proportion of Americans
who smoke cigarettes has gone down from 40.4 percent to 29.1 percent.
This dramatic decrease was a consequence of public education and the
availability of treatment on demand. Unfortunately, instead of
adequately funding drug clinics and educational programs, the government
has cut these services so that substance abusers sometimes have to wait
for months before receiving treatment.
___
Have any courts ruled that mandatory urine testing of government
employees is a violation of the constitution?
 >>> Continued to next message...
___
 X Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 X
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------