>>> Part 5 of 15...
correlation between drug use and minorities, work place drug
testing is working as a giant loophole in current anti-racist
laws which allows employers to effectively fire minorities for
what seems to be a totally unrelated reason.  For this reason, it
is fair to say that work-place drug testing is not only
counterproductive to affirmative action, but is itself racist in
effect.  Given the recent concern over the racism, or at the very
least effective or institutionalized racism, evident in the War
on Drugs[15], I felt this point bore mention.
The U.S. Postal Service study did not check the living conditions
or income levels of the workers to see if this represented a
confounding factor.  It also did not control for alcoholism and
alcohol use[8][9].  The study claims to have adjusted itself for
race, but the nature and extent of this adjustment are then
called into question.  Also, the study openly suggests the use
of drug testing to screen out employees in high risk groups, like
minorities -- this is a violation of work place ethics and our
country's dedication to equal justice.  However, the authors of
the study state that the drug-use related damages are not as high
as other past studies have reported, and that the cost efficiency
of drug testing needs to be re-evaluated[8].  Why, then, is the
study used by the Department of Justice as justification for 
workplace drug testing programs?  Your guess is as good as mine.
                    THE COSTS OF DRUG TESTING
Now that we have determined that drug testing is ineffective and
possibly even harmful, one question remains.  How much are we as
Americans paying to shoot ourselves in the foot?
The revenue used to pay drug testing companies and laboratories
comes from two main sources: private industry, and your tax
dollar.  Private donations to charitable organizations which
promote or advertise drug testing must also be factored in.
One easy way to get a bottom line on the cost is to look at the
gross revenues reported by the drug testing industry.  In 1990,
these amounted to $300,000,000[4].  Needless to say, this figure
has gone up in the last two years as the drug testing industry
has continued to expand, but the important thing to keep in mind
is a large portion of the revenue going into the drug testing
effort is given directly to laboratories [4] and public relations
groups [5].  And so, this figure represents an absolute minimum. 
In reality, drug testing now costs us well over two billion
dollars annually.
I must also mention that these dollar figures do not take into
account the casualties and collateral damage inflicted on society
by drug testing, which include job loss due to false positive,
social injustice and the resulting violence, mistrust and
alienation of employees, and loss due to time spent administering
and processing drug tests.  All in all, the whole scene is a huge
mess.
                   THE SELLING OF DRUG TESTING
                    AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Drug testing is sold to employers the same way a grocer might
sell you a can of anchovies.  It is advertised, packaged, and
delivered for profit[4][13][14].  In order to get an employer to
buy drug testing, various arguments are often made to make drug
testing look like a good idea[4][5].  We have already seen how
these arguments sometimes use government statistics.  Incentives
are sometimes offered to help the sale.  These are usually
arranged by the government or large, established organizations. 
In fact, the National Institute on Drug Abuse established a toll-
free help line to assist employers in establishing work-place
drug testing programs.
Carlton Turner was once the United States' drug czar (under
Reagan.)  After this, he became a very rich man as an advisor for
drug testing companies.  His partner, Peter Bensinger is a former
head of the National Institute on Drug Awareness.  Another
partner was Robert Dupont, also a former NIDA director.  Former
White House drug advisor Donald MacDonald now owns Employee
Health Programs, which contracts MROs to drug testing programs.
It is easy to see how the connections and authority which these
people have held could have been used in self interest.  This
presents an ethical dilemma.  It is very possible for such power
to be abused.  I am not saying that all of these people are
consciously aware that they are mining a vein of fear at the
expense of the American public, but the possibility certainly
exists.
(The ethics of Carlton Turner, however, are most definitely poor. 
In 1986 he was forced to resign from his post in the Reagan
Administration.  Before he became U.S. Drug Czar, he tried to
sell fake `paraquat detectors' to marijuana smokers through the
magazine High Times, which could have injured or killed many
 >>> Continued to next message...
___
 X Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 X
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------