>>> Part 4 of 15...
testing keeps these people from competing in the work economy and
that is *unfair*.  These studies also point out that a drug user
or drug addict is much more likely to be a constructive,
contributing member of society if he has three things:  1) a job 
2) a stable home and 3) access to his drug of choice legally and
easily[13].
The third item on this list I will not get into, but it is easy
to see how drug testing does not help addicts or users to help
themselves.  In fact, it does just the opposite, by denying them
employment and limiting their income[9] it actually hurts the users'
chances of ever becoming stable, ordinary individuals.  When
deciding whether drug testing is a good idea, ask yourself this: 
Do I want healthy, employed, drug users who work full time jobs
and participate in society -- or -- do I want desperate,
unemployed drug users who spend their time on the streets looking
for drugs, money, and trouble?
The answer is obvious, but what about work place impairment?  Do
we just stop checking to see if people are capable of doing their
jobs?  Rest assured, there are plenty of ways to tell if our
pilots, drivers, mechanics, etc. are impaired.  Most of them
involve simple tests of hand-eye coordination and reflex[3].  In
many ways, these tests are actually better than drug tests.
Video-game style tests can be administered cheaply on-the-spot. 
They not only detect those drug users who are not able to
function, they also detect people who are drunk, tired, on
medication, or otherwise not able to perform safely.  Such tests
can be administered daily and even hourly, which makes them more
effective than drug testing[3].
Another alternative is to drug test, but instead of just firing
drug users automatically, first determine the extent and danger
of their drug use, and recommend a treatment program instead.
                THE SO CALLED CRISIS (CONTINUED) AND
        THE POSSIBLY RACIST IMPLICATIONS OF DRUG TESTING
A ``post hoc fallacy'' is a logical error commonly made in
newspaper statistics.  It involves assuming that one thing (drug
use) causes another (accidents, poor job performance) because you
are unaware of a third factor which causes both -- a root cause. 
This third factor could be anything, but it is often referred to
as a ``confounding factor.''  
The 1990 study of U.S. Postal Service workers is *the* study
which the Department of Justice uses to justify the use of drug
testing in the work-place[2], and the PDFA uses in many of their
propaganda pieces, which often provide numbers for employers to
call for information on how to set up drug testing programs[5]. 
The people who did this study themselves stipulate that it may be
subject to confounding factors[8]. 
The most evident confounding factor is race.  The sample in the
study was 90.1% Caucasian and 8.9% minorities.  However,
Caucasians and minority workers did not test positive for drug
use at the same rate.  Of those testing positive for cocaine, for
example, 83.6% were Caucasian and 16.4% were minority.  This
shows that minorities use drugs more than Caucasians.  Previous
studies have shown that minorities also were more likely to
exhibit poor work-place performance, high accident rates,
etc[1][8][9].
Whoa.  Now hold up.  Before I go one inch further I would like to
clear something up.  I am not saying that minority races are in
any way inferior to Caucasians.  I do not believe this.  In fact,
the very statistic which I just mentioned is probably a post hoc
fallacy itself.  The real correlation probably has more to do
with poverty and education than anything else.  Through no fault
of their own, many minorities have been historically poor in this
country.  It is easy to see how a person who is poor might have
more trouble on the job than a person who is wealthy -- a poor
person may be undernourished, under-slept, or may have just
walked to work in the freezing cold.  Likewise, a less educated
person is more likely to make errors during complex tasks.
I am also definitely not saying that employers should refuse to
hire the less educated and underprivileged.  I am only saying
that, if it is the goal of work-place drug testing to improve the
work-place, it could be done much more cheaply by simply firing
all of the minority workers.  THERE ARE REASONS WHY THIS IS
ILLEGAL.  If employers were to be so inane as to fire all of
their workers who were not rich college graduates, the overall
situation in this country would deteriorate.  Said employer would
probably post better profits during the next economic quarter,
but on his way out of the office, he would also stand a better
chance of getting mugged.  And he would deserve it!
However, this is what is being done, in effect, by work place
drug testing.  Work-place drug testing should be illegal by the
very same token -- firing drug users is counterproductive in the
long run and is a strategy motivated mostly by hate and prejudice
against the economically disadvantaged.  In fact, because of the
 >>> Continued to next message...
___
 X Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 X
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------