>>> Part 7 of 15...
attention you can get.
Of course, the most effective method of fighting is to get a
large group, or a few crucial employees, to refuse to take the
tests.  Again, I urge an active effort at gaining publicity for
your protest.  
                             SOURCES
Sources marked with a star (*) I highly recommend obtaining a
copy of and reading.  Many of these sources have been excerpted
to quite some extent below, painstakingly by hand :-(, especially
those more recent.  I did so because I feel that they hold
important ideas and information which will benefit the general
public.  Please read them.  
I would like to close by remarking that both the quantity and
quality of articles like those which I have recommended has
surged recently.  The medical and sociological communities are
experiencing more input on this subject than ever before. 
Whether this is due to increased interest or simply a warmer
political climate, I don't know, but it seems that the dominant
opinions may not be quite that dominant anymore.  To me this is
good news.
Much credit for this bibliography goes to Aaron Wilson,  Vice
President of the UMASS Cannabis Reform Coalition
[1] (*) SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, March 1990, p 18.  `Science and the
Citizen: Test Negative' by John Horgan
     What underlies the broad acceptance of ... [drug testing]
     ...?  One factor may be the alarming statistics cited by
     testing advocates to demonstrate high costs of drug abuse. 
     Examination of some of these claims suggests that they do
     not always accurately reflect the research on which they are
     based.  ...
     Last Year President George Bush declared that ``drug abuse
     among American workers costs businesses anywhere from $60
     billion to $100 billion a year in lost productivity,
     absenteeism, drug-related accidents, medical claims, and
     theft.''  ... All such claims are derived from a single
     study, one that ``was based upon assumptions that need
     additional validation,'' according to an assessment last
     year from NIDA ...
     The study grew out of a survey ... by the Research Triangle
     Institute (RTI) in 1982.  The RTI group found that the
     average income of households with at least one person who
     admitted to having *ever* used marijuana daily was 28
     percent lower ... The RTI researchers defined the difference
     in income as ``loss due to marijuana use''; the total loss,
     when extrapolated to the entire population, came to $26
     billion.  The researchers then added on the estimated costs
     of drug-related crime to arrive at a total of $47 billion
     for ``costs to society of drug abuse.''  This figure --
     ``adjusted'' to account for inflation and population
     increase -- represents the basis of Bush's statement.
     The RTI survey included questions on current drug use ...
     there was no significant difference between the income of
     households with current users of any illegal drug ... and
     the income of otherwise similar households.  Does this mean
     that current use of even hard drugs -- as opposed to perhaps
     a single marijuana binge in the distant past -- does not
     lead to any ``loss''? 
     ...
     Perhaps the study most publicized of late by testing
     proponents involves employees of the U.S. Postal Service. 
     ...
     This study may be distorted by more subtle biases -- ...
     minority postal workers tested positive at a much higher
     rate than non-minority workers and that previous studies
     have shown minorities to have higher absenteeism.
     ...
[2]  BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS NATIONAL REPORT, ``Drugs,
Crime, and the Justice System'' *December 1992*, *U.S. Department
of Justice*
     CHAPTER III, SECTION 4.  Drug testing
     ...
  
     Work-place drug testing aims to reduce or prevent drug use
     and impairment.  The APT Foundation notes that the prime
 >>> Continued to next message...
___
 X Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 X
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------