>>> Part 3 of 3...
     ly impaired driving performance 
     or the risk of accident involve-
     ment... [T]here is little if any 
     evidence to indicate that drivers
     who have used marijuana alone are
     any more likely to cause serious 
     accidents than drug free drivers.
The most exhaustive review of the research 
clearly confirms that there is simply no 
compelling case for the intrusive Orwellian 
surveillance of private activity that is im-
posed by drug testing.  As Dr. John Morgan,  
director of pharmacology at City University
of New York Medical School, wisely observed: 
     Urine testing is ... a method for 
     surveillance, not a tool for safety.
Indeed, drug testing is not about safety or 
job performance; drug testing is a necessary 
feature of the Surveillance State that is now 
being built around us to ensure total cradle- 
to-grave surveillance and control of workers.
While it's been said that those who are will-
ing to give up liberty for safety will soon 
have neither,  in the case of illicit-drug 
testing -- which cannot even promise improv-
ed safety -- we can say that those who are
willing to give up liberty for nothing will
soon have only that for which they surrend-
ered their priceless liberty: nothing. 
************************************************************************
 IAN GODDARD    Q U E S T I O N   A U T H O R I T Y
___---------------------------------------------------------------------
 VISIT Ian Goddard's Universe   ----->    http://www.erols.com/igoddard 
________________________________________________________________________
(c) 1996 Ian Williams Goddard - (*) free to copy nonprofit w/ attribute.
[1] National Household Survey on Drug Abuse,
1995. http://www.health.org/pubs/95hhs/any.htm
[2] U.S. Department of Labor statistics, 1996.
ftp://stats.bls.gov/pub/news.release/History/empsit.100496.news
ftp://stats.bls.gov/pub/news.release/empsit.txt
[3] The USDL statistics [2] indicate that the 
Employment Population Ratio (EPR) for all men 
and women ages 20 and above is 65%. However, 
the NHSDA study [1], showing a 71% EPR for il-
licit-users, includes all users ages 18 and 
above. Would this give the illicit users an 
unfair advantage in this analysis? No, because 
the EPR for ages 18-19 is roughly 1 to 3% lower 
than for ages 20 and above (likely due to being 
in school);  this lower rate of employment for 
ages 18-19 would serve only to lower the il-
licit-user EPR results.  Therefore, the inclu-
sion of ages 18-19 in the NHSCA study must lo-
wer, NOT inflate, the higher rate of employ-
ment measured among illicit users. 
[4] SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: Testing Negative, a 
look at the "evidence" justifying illicit-drug 
testing, 3/90. http://www.pantless.com/%7Epdxnorml/test.html
[5] JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE: Rela-
tion of the Pre-employment Drug Testing Result 
to Employment Status, A One-year Follow-up. 
Parish, David C.  Jan/Feb, 1989.  pp. 44-47. 
[6] http://www.erols.com/igoddard/hempsafe.htm
[7] NATIONAL HIGHWAY AND TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINIS-
TRATION. "Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance,"  
Robbe, H., O'Hanlon, J., National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, Nov. 1993. 
Special thanks to Eric Skidmore for his assistance.
___
 X Blue Wave/DOS v2.30 X
--- Maximus 3.01
---------------