>>> Part 3 of 4...
authors of the study note, with refreshing candor, that "the primary 
subject for the database is the problem employee." Indeed, the negatives 
and positives all missed work much more often than the company average. 
It's kind of like testing burglars for marijuana and concluding that 
--because those who tested positive had robbed a few more houses than 
those who did not-- marijuana makes ordinary people more likely to steal.
Moreover, couldn't alcohol, which is often consumed in conjunction with 
illegal drugs, contribute to the higher absenteeism of the positives? 
None of the employees was tested for alcohol. Of course, tests wouldn't 
prove much anyway, since alcohol is detectable in body fluids for only 
six hours or so, whereas cocaine persists for two or three days and 
marijuana for up to a month.  That may be one reason that this and some 
other studies fail to consider the possibility that alcohol abuse is 
sometimes responsible for misbehavior attributed to illegal drugs.
When I asked Walsh about the flaws in these studies, he replied: "You 
could make the same argument about any database in higher research, such 
as cancer research, or mental health research." This is an insult to 
every scientist in those fields, none of the studies that Walsh touts has 
passed peer review (or is likely to), whereas thousands of papers on 
cancer and mental health have passed this minimal standard.
Walsh sometimes sounds quite reasonable and "scientific," especially 
when he talks about the mechanics of testing. He emphasizes that when a 
drug test comes up positive it should be confirmed by a more 
sophisticated analysis (a good idea, since poppy seeds, ibuprofen, and 
cold pills can trigger false alarms for heroin, marijuana, and 
amphetamines, respectively). He also stresses the importance of 
maintaining high laboratory standards and confidentiality.
But whenever he ventures beyond the mechanics of testing and tries 
to justify the enterprise itself, he shows an odd disregard for facts.  
For example, he frequently suggests that drug abuse is rampant not just 
in specific sectors of society, but broadly and pervasively.  "The 
problem of drug abuse is so widespread in America," he declared in a 
speech last year, "that every company must assume that its employees will 
eventually be faced with a substance abuse-problem of their own, of a 
family member, of a co-worker, or of a friend." He always neglects to 
mention that NIDA'S own statistics show that the use of illegal 
drugs-marijuana, cocaine, PCP, the whole lot--has been declining sharply 
for years. Severe cocaine addiction (daily use) has increased, but 
primarily among the unemployed, who are beyond the reach of workplace 
testing.
I asked Walsh whether he thought that, given these data, his efforts to 
promote workplace testing might be misplaced.  "I think drug abuse has 
gone down because of these workplace programs," he replied. I pointed 
out--again according to NIDA's data--that the decline began in 1979, well 
before testing had caught on. Then Walsh asserted that, whether or not 
drug use has declined among workers and whether or not severe addiction 
occurs largely among the unemployed, there are still an estimated 10 
million working people who are using illicit drugs, and they represent a 
"much bigger problem than the few hard core...... The concept is to 
eliminate illegal drug use," he said, "not just to focus on those who are 
addicted."
This sentiment, of course, lies at the core of all of Walsh's uninformed 
claims. He adheres to the zero-tolerance line, which doesn't discriminate 
between use and abuse, between a secretary smoking marijuana on weekends 
and an AIDS-ridden prostitute smoking $100 worth of crack a day. From 
this perspective, drug testing--which also fails to discriminate between 
casual and chronic user--makes sense.
But then, Walsh does believe that even occasional marijuana use can have 
devastating effects. "I think we have reached the point where the 
involvement of marijuana in accidents exceeds that of alcohol," he said. 
Where is his proof for this dramatic statement? He doesn't have any, but 
"it's one of the things in my research program we're trying to do right 
now." Note the procedure: Walsh reaches his conclusion first, then sets 
out to prove it.
As a scientist, Walsh is probably in over his head. He has testified to 
having "over twenty years of experience (fifteen years in the laboratory) 
in research on the physiological and behavioral effects of psychoactive 
drugs." Well, sort of.  Before joining NIDA in 1980, Walsh spent fourteen 
years at the Naval Medical Research Institute studying what might be 
called underwater altered states. For his Ph.D., which he received from 
American University in 1973, he studied nitrogen narcosis ("rapture of 
the deep"). Typical of his pre-NIDA publications is a paper about what 
happens to mice when they are given morphine under "hyperbalic abnormally 
high] pressure" and an article called "Should Divers Take Drugs?" 
published in something called Faceplate.
On the other hand, if you view Walsh not as a scientist but as a 
propagandist, you have to admit he has done his job well.  A decade ago 
virtually no companies had testing programs.  Now a majority --including 
such bastions of liberalism as The New York Times-- test employees, job 
applicants, or both.    Walsh can't take all the credit, but he certainly 
has done his part.  Perhaps that is why he remains so strangely sanguine 
when confronted with all the inconsistencies in his logic. He has already 
won the day. "Drug testing," he says with pride, "is here to stay."
JOHN HORGAN writes for _Scientific American_.
(This article was published in The New Republic, April 2, 1990)
 >>> Continued to next message...
___
 X Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 X
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------