Mandatory Random Drug Testing Essay Sample

Crunch! A warehouse employee’s pes has merely been run over by a forklift driver. During the accident probe it was discovered that the forklift driver had been under the influence of marihuana. No 1 wants his/her physician to be intoxicated or high on drugs as he slices him/her unfastened with a scalpel. Regardless if the operation is successful. he/she will be much happier cognizing the physician was non impaired. A individual walking his/her Canis familiaris on a pavement near a high-rise building site sees a building Crane. He/she will be much more content knowing that the Crane operator knows precisely what he/she is making. Compulsory drug testing is necessary to keep a safe work environment.

In 1986. former President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12564. which requires all federal employees to avoid utilizing illegal drugs. whether on or off-duty. as a status for federal employment. In 1988. Congress passed the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988. which. in bend. initiated the creative activity of federal Mandatory Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs ( Section 503 of Public Law 100-71 ) . The compulsory guidelines apply to the uniformed services. contractors or service suppliers under contract with the federal authorities. and to executive bureaus of the federal authorities. Even though the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 applies to federal employees. province and local authoritiess followed along and adopted similar plans under province Torahs and drug-free workplace plans ( Drug proving. 2011 ) .

The Fourth Amendment provinces. “The right of the people to be secure in their individuals. houses. documents. and effects. against unreasonable hunts and ictuss. shall non be violated. and no Warrants shall publish. but upon likely cause. supported by Oath or avowal. and peculiarly depicting the topographic point to be searched. and the individuals or things to be seized ( Fourth amendent. n. d. ) . Some argue that compulsory random drug proving violates their Fourth Amendment rights in that they are being subjected to an illegal hunt because proving allegedly intrudes upon outlooks of privateness that people have long considered as sensible. However. the United States Supreme Court has ruled that drug testing plans are constitutionally allowed in both the private and public sectors ( LaFoullette. 1994 ) . Although employers are non required by jurisprudence to make a drug-free workplace policy. it has become a standard concern pattern. A cardinal proviso under province and federal drug-free workplace plans include trials may be conducted pre-employment. “upon sensible suspicion” or “for cause. ” at random. routinely. and/or station intervention or rehabilitation. Another cardinal proviso is that random proving agencies unheralded and/or non-routine proving that may be applied at random to some. but non all employees ( Drug proving. 2011 ) .

The oppositions of compulsory random drug proving claim that compulsory drug testing is frequently inaccurate ( American Civil Liberties Union. 1997 ) . That may hold been true back in the early yearss of drug testing. but with the progresss of modern engineering drug testing is much more accurate. The huge bulk of urine drug screens done these yearss conform to The National Institute of Drug Abuse ( NIDA ) criterions. The NIDA is the authorities organisation responsible for modulating the drug-testing industry ( Test criterions & A ; truth. n. d. ) . Dr. Gero Leson of Leson Environmental Consulting conducted a survey that evaluated the intervention of delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol ( THC ) degrees in hemp nutrient merchandises with employee drug testing. The aim of the survey was “to set up a correlativity between extended day-to-day consumption of THC via hemp nutrient and the likeliness of neglecting testing and/or verification testing of piss for marijuana” ( Leson. 2000 ) . Dr. Leson’s survey found that even with drawn-out consumption of presently available hemp nutrients it is improbable to trip a positive consequence on a drug trial.

Oppositions of compulsory random drug proving claim it is unjust to coerce workers who are non suspected of utilizing drugs. and whose occupation public presentation is satisfactory in order to “prove” their artlessness with drug trials. They claim the process is degrading. unsure. and that it violates personal privateness ( American Civil Liberties Union. 1997 ) . Many advocates of compulsory drug proving province. “If the workers have nil to conceal. so there should be nil to worry approximately ( American Civil Liberties Union. 1997 ) . Oppositions claim that proving can uncover to an employer whether an employee or occupation applier is being treated for a bosom status. depression. epilepsy. diabetes or is pregnant. Most employers are non looking for those things ( Hartman. 2011 ) .

There are a assortment of drug trials that can be performed ; nevertheless. the three that are used most frequently are urine. blood. and hair strand trials. The most common drug trial used is the 5 panel drug screen ( urine trial ) . The 5 panel drug screen can include PCP. marihuana. cocaine. methamphetamines/amphetamines. and opiates ( McClellan. 2011 ) . There are blood and hair strand trials available. besides. Of the three types of trials. blood testing is the most expensive. The hair strand trial consequences are non affected by a person’s knowing abstention. and this trial can place whether the individual has abstained within a recent period of clip ( Williams. 2010 ) .

The Department of Health and Human Services. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration ( SAMHSA ) conducted a national study on drug usage and wellness in 2007. The study revealed that an estimated 19. 9 million Americans aged of 12 or older were considered current illegal/illicit drug users. intending they had used illegal/illicit drugs in the month prior to taking the study. The most normally used drug was marijuana. The survey farther revealed that among unemployed grownups aged 18 or older. 18. 3 per centum were current illegal/illicit drug users. The per centum was higher than the 8. 4 per centum of those employed full- clip and 10. 1 per centum of those employed part-time. Of peculiar note is the fact that most of the illegal/illicit drug users were employed. The survey stated. “Of the 17. 4 million current illicit drug users aged 18 or older in 2007. 13. 1 million ( 75. 3 per centum ) were employed either full or part-time” ( Consequences from the. 2008 ) . Conducting compulsory random drug trials can take down concern costs in the present and the hereafter.

A individual who uses illegal drugs carries the hazard of serious jobs. particularly in bad workplaces such as on a mill floor where accidents result in hurt or worse ( Stepper. 2007 ) . Accidents in the workplace are expensive and could take to enormous loss of productiveness and net income. Employers utilize drug proving to guarantee the employees they have are trusty. Employers feel employees who take illegal drugs are already interrupting the jurisprudence and are more likely to be involved with illegal activities than employees who don’t take/do drugs. Employees under the influence of drugs or coming down away of a high. are much less functional than they usually are. There is the possible for attending jobs. every bit good as larceny ( Rhodes. 2009 ) . With compulsory random drug proving. employers can head off possible jobs and it gives a peace of head to employers and employees likewise. Employees will cognize that if they have a positive consequence on a drug trial. they will be terminated and ineligible to have unemployment benefits.

Since 1986. compulsory random drug testing has become platitude. To protect employee rights. it is imperative for employers to implement compulsory random drug proving plans that follow province and federal guidelines. With compulsory random drug proving. employers are able to use the old proverb. “An ounce of bar is worth a lb of remedy. ” The bottom line is that compulsory drug testing is necessary to keep a safe work environment.

Mentions

American Civil Liberties Union. ( 1997. December 31 ) . Privacy in United States: Workplace drug proving. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. aclu. org/drug-law-reform_technology-and-liberty/privacy-america-workplace-drug-testing Drug testing. ( 2011 ) . Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. enotes. com/everyday-law-encyclopedia Fourth amendment ( u. s. fundamental law ) . ( n. d. ) . Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. lectlaw. com/def/f081. htm Hartman. D. ( 2011. April 10 ) . Compulsory drug trials for employees. Retrieved from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. ehow. com/info_8196714_mandatory-drug-tests-employees. hypertext markup language LaFollette. H. ( 1994 ) . Compulsory drug proving. In S. Luper-Foy & A ; C. Brown ( Eds. ) . Drugs. morality. and the jurisprudence ( pp. 283-299 ) . Retrieved from