>>> Part 1 of 3...
(free 2 copy (*)--------------(free 2 forward)
     T H E   D R U G - T E S T   S C A M
by Ian Williams Goddard
Alas, the sorry sound of a Big Lie crashing: 
The stereotype of the lazy, illicit-drug using
bum promotes an acceptance of claims that il-
licit drug use imposes heavy economic burdens 
upon businesses and society, and consequently 
that universal drug testing is the most cost- 
effective reaction to this unprofitable burden. 
But how true are these claims, which seem to 
enjoy the support of reputable scientific re-
search?  Under examination these claims are
proven to be nothing more than a greedy scam 
designed to expand the bureaucratic empires 
and profits of a few by sacrificing the most 
fundamental liberties of the many.
ILLICIT DRUG USERS WORK MORE
Contradicting the "unproductive drug user" 
stereotype, while the National Household Sur-
vey on Drug Abuse [1] finds that 71% of il-
licit-drug users are employed, U.S. Depart-
ment of Labor statistics [2] show that only 
65% of those 20 and over are employed. From
the data we can extrapolate that the aver-
age illicit-drug user is more likely to 
be employed than the average person [3].
The evidence suggests that, while not favor-
able to police-state mega profits, the most 
true-to-life stereotype could be: "The pro-
ductive and motivated drug user." 
Why might this be so? It's possible that the
desire for the reward of drug intoxication
acts as a  stronger incentive to work more
(in an effort to earn the money necessary 
to purchase the drug-reward) than non-drug 
rewards act as an incentive for nonusers to 
work more. Such is Economics 101: the higher
the reward, the higher the output to acquire 
it; or, the sweeter the carrot on the stick, 
the faster the horse will run after it. 
ILLICIT DRUG USERS COST LESS & WORK HARDER
The journal SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN [4] cited a 
study of workers at two utility companies: 
Utah Power & Light and Georgia Power Company. 
The workers who tested positive for illicit 
drugs were found to (a) cost employers $215 
less per worker per year in health insurance, 
and (b) have a higher rate of promotion. Work-
ers testing positive for cannabis-only had  
an absentee rate 30% lower than average. The 
logical conclusion: illicit users were less 
costly to employers while at the same time 
being more productive and reliable. More for 
less! -- now there's a deal.
The JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE [5] 
published a study that found "no difference 
between drug-positive and drug-negative em-
ployees."  However, the study's author ob-
served that during the study, 11 of the non-
users were fired while none of the users 
were fired. Ironically, once the study end-
ed, all of the users could have been fired 
for using the "wrong" drugs, regardless of 
their productivity and professionalism.
The claim that illicit-drug use costs busi-
nesses X billion dollars per year, is der-
ived from a 1982 study by the Research Tri-
angle Institute. The study found that house-
holds with at least one member who used can-
nabis daily at some point in their life had 
a 28% lower income than the average house-
hold income. Yet the study also showed that 
those currently using any illicit drug had 
an income equivalent to the average [4]. 
If we conclude that because cannabis use pre-
 >>> Continued to next message...
___
 X Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 X
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------