|
Unaltered
distribution is encouraged: copyright 1993 Brian S. Julin
I encourage the cross-posting
of this material to general and local discussion groups and BBS's,
or wherever else you think it may do some good. In fact I *ask*
you to do so personally. Hang it up on the office bulletin board,
if you have the guts to, and send a copy of via anonymous agent
to the chairmen, c.e.o.'s, and policy makers of your company.
Brian
Testing for drugs in the
work-place has become a very hot issue on USENET lately. Several
groups have lengthy threads discussing the morality and/or civil
liberties aspects of urinalysis. Usually these threads end up
deadlocked between libertarian and more conservative viewpoints,
as characterized by the following archetypical discussion:
Joe: Drug testing violates
the individual's rights to privacy, and that is that.
Bob: But the individual's rights must be balanced against the
good of society.
Joe: Nuh UHHHHHHhhhhhHHHHH.
Bob: Uh HuhhhhhHHHHHhhhhhh.
Now, I am very inclined toward
the libertarian standpoint, in that I think that anyone who doesn't
stand up for their rights now won't have them much longer, but
this is not what I want to argue right now. I could sit here and
type until I was blue in the keyboard and it would not do any
good because 68% of the people who will read this post believe
that drug testing by employers is acceptable, and that is that
is that.
What I want to do instead
is to provide a second argument against drug testing which does
not have its basis on ideological premises, but on sheer common
sense coupled with rational wisdom.
It is actually a rather old
set of arguments that have simply been overlooked and ignored,
but you will be seeing a lot more of them soon, I would venture.
In the following, numbers
in brackets [] indicate that the surrounding subject matter is
drawn from one of the sources listed at the end of this post.
The basic argument which
I will use can be summarized as follows:
Why do we drug test? `Simple,'
you say, `we drug test employees to make the work-place safer
and prevent the waste which is associated with drug use. We drug
test to discourage drug use and to find and treat drug users.'--
but what if I were to tell you that there was no waste? What if
I were to say that you should not worry about drug users, but
it is only the drug abusers which need help? `Absurd,' you say
`everyone knows that drug use is America's biggest problem: it
costs billions of dollars a year in lost productivity.'
But does it?
And even if it does, will
drug testing fix the problem?
It seems to me that these
are some very important questions, the answers to which everyone
seems to know. If you take a closer look at these questions, though,
you may not find what you
expected.
With the following, I will
demonstrate that:
1) The ``drug epidemic''
does not pose the huge threat to public health and safety that
some many claim.
2) Currently legal drugs
cause more problems than illicit drugs.
3) Even if it were desirable
to address casual drug use as a problem, urinalysis is not the
way to do it.
4) Urinalysis itself represents
a counter-progressive social strategy, a colossal waste of our
industrial resources, and does more harm to businesses than good.
5) Stopping and/or monitoring
work-place drug testing is everyone's problem -- both employers
and employees must actively resist the drug testing industry,
or at least be concerned enough to make sure that the industry
plays fair and that the tests are applied fairly. (In this respect,
NIDA officials should not own drug testing companies[], The PDFA
should be required to back its claims with hard evidence[], more
harmful drugs should be dealt with more severely -- including
legal drugs, etc.)
THE SO CALLED CRISIS
Former President George Bush
once claimed that use of illicit drugs cost society over sixty
billion dollars annually. It is this claim that fueled the popular
movement to install drug testing in the public work-place. However,
the claim is false. The sixty billion dollar figure was arrived
at from a study done by the Research Triangle Institute, which
tallied the results of a survey of households. The survey found
that the income of households in which any one member admitted
having ever used marijuana, whether it was every day for the last
four years or once in high school twenty years ago, was lower,
on the average, than the households in which people claimed to
have never used the drug.
The researchers, without
considering external factors, defined this as economic loss due
to marijuana use. Through a flimsy chain of extrapolation, which
included adding the estimated costs of drug related crime, they
arrived at a total figure of forty- seven million dollars.
The Bush administration liked
this statistic a whole lot, because it supported the War on Drugs.
They added an adjustment for inflation and other economic factors
to get the sixty billion dollar figure, and then publicized this
figure widely.
What the Bush administration
didn't say quite as loudly was that the RTI study also showed
*no* economic loss for current and multi-drug users. Does this
mean that people who *quit* using marijuana, or *don't* use other
drugs along with marijuana, are the real problem? Of course not,
but it does show that the RTI study was flawed, and suggests that
the whole estimate of drug- use related cost was a fluke[1].
Other studies which have
purported to show that all drug users are bad workers, or tend
to be in bad health, have been routinely shot down by the medical
community[8][9][4][3][1][13]. Many of these studies have ended
up in our newspapers and magazines, and as a result, Americans
now actually believe that casual drug use is a threat in the work-place[1][2][3],
even though no such study has been accepted by the scientific
community. It is also unusual to note that not many studies have
been done on successful drug users, and that when one is, it rarely
gets into the daily papers, but remains in medical journals where
only doctors and medical students get to see it[13].
The media has shown a definite
anti-drug bias in reporting these studies, further warping the
average American's assessment of the actual situation of casual
drug use[3]. To make matters worse, several times the media has
played up accidents which may or may not have involved drugs as
`caused by drug use'[13]. When an accident occurs and the driver
or pilot tests positive for drugs, the newspapers will jump right
on the story. In almost all of these cases, other reasons are
found for the accident -- faulty equipment, alcohol use, etc.[3]
In one case, the drug test which showed a train driver to be using
marijuana was a false positive! By the time these things are found
out, though, the damage has already been done.
From the standpoint of journalism,
this reflects very poorly on the American media, which stands
accused of sensationalism. From the standpoint of business, this
makes a lot of sense: people are a lot more likely to want to
read a front-page article about a train crash and how it might
be the result of drug use. They are less likely to want to hear
out a huge argument as to the actual cause of the accident. Since
many people only read the first few articles in any particular
news story, (and many only watch the news on television, or read
the headlines and front page) they have been left with the impression
that casual drug use represents some sort of huge crisis.
This impression has been
communicated to their public officials and representatives, who
have tried to defeat the `drug problem' through laws and programs.
In the case of the train driver mentioned above, the hysteria
surrounding the crash resulted in the passing of an unprecedented
budget for George Bush's Drug War.
----------
I would like to ``press pause''
on this discussion and pick it up later, so that some of the other
aspects of drug testing can be discussed. This topic is further
discussed below.
----------
THE DANGER OF FALSE POSITIVE
No laboratory process is
completely free from error -- mistakes do happen. Even with today's
legal restrictions on the accuracy of employee drug testing, there
is still a chance that non-drug users will ``fail'' a drug test.
Failing a drug test -- even if you pass another test later on
-- can have a lot of undesirable consequences[3].
If you were to fail drug
test and claim innocence, you would be interviewed by a medical
review official, an MRO, who would try to find out why you tested
positive. During this interview, a lot of personal information
is asked for. Some of this information might be passed on to your
employer -- including medical data which you may not want your
employer to know![4][3]
What is worse, the regulations
which control just how much of this information goes directly
to your employer are currently under legislative `attack.' Soon
employers may receive negative test results directly[3].
Besides the suspicion which
may be caused by a false positive, and the loss of privacy, there
is another serious drawback to drug testing: loss of work. New,
on-the-spot drug tests will make this a huge problem[4][3][14].
These tests are nowhere near as accurate as the standard urinalysis
tests, but they are attractive to employers who worry about drug
use because they provide immediate results[14]. Employers may
want to ``play it safe'' by administering these tests, and sending
anyone who fails them home until a more accurate drug test can
be performed.
You do not have to be a drug
user to dislike drug testing. Drug testing can hurt anyone, even
if they are totally `innocent.' This is wrong. Not only can workers
lose money through lost hours, but the business itself can be
hurt through lost productivity. Even worse, some people are bound
to slip through the cracks and get fired. The worst time to have
a false positive, though, is during the hiring process. Many employers
will simply not hire you, if you test positive for drugs and will
not even tell you why they didn't[9].
SOME PERTURBING QUESTIONS ABOUT DRUG TESTING:
WHO ACTUALLY GETS CAUGHT?
WHERE DOES THE DANGER REALLY LIE?
An estimated 65% to 90% of
people who get caught on drug tests are caught for marijuana use[8][7].
This is due to two factors. First, the number of marijuana users
is far greater than the number of cocaine or heroin users[2].
And second, marijuana is easier to detect than cocaine or heroin
because it is the drug which leaves metabolites in your body the
longest[2][16].
There is no doubt among the
medical community that marijuana use presents less of a danger
than cocaine or heroin use. Marijuana is not physically addictive[16][13][6]
and it has never caused a single death by overdose [16]. Also,
people who hardly ever use marijuana are being put on the same
level as marijuana abusers and users and abusers of other drugs.
A person can be denied employment or fired for using a single
marijuana cigarette or smoking marijuana as much as a month ago
-- even if they were on vacation. New hair testing methods threaten
to extend this to three or four months[12].
If the goal of work place
drug testing is to discourage the use of harmful drugs, wouldn't
it make sense to punish drug users according to how much, how
often, and how dangerous a drug they use instead of lumping them
all together? (Supposing punishing the drug users was a good idea
in the first place.)
Another disparity in our
work-place drug control strategy is evident. Alcohol and tobacco
are both widely used, but legal, drugs which have been linked
beyond all doubt to accidents [3][8][9][16] and health problems
[3][16]. If the goal of drug testing is to make the work-place
safer, then why do we spend all this money, time and effort detecting
drug use when we could be combatting addiction to alcohol and
tobacco?
In fact, don't we run the
risk of promoting the use of less detectible drugs, or more harmful,
but legal, drugs by adopting this `zero tolerance' to casual marijuana
use? Marijuana users who want to keep their jobs may switch to
other drugs that are more dangerous to get their `highs.'
DRUG TESTING AS A FAILED
STRATEGY AND ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
Countless studies have shown
that drug users are capable of leading normal lives and holding
normal jobs[13][16]. Drug testing keeps these people from competing
in the work economy and that is *unfair*. These studies also point
out that a drug user or drug addict is much more likely to be
a constructive, contributing member of society if he has three
things: 1) a job 2) a stable home and 3) access to his drug of
choice legally and easily[13].
The third item on this list
I will not get into, but it is easy to see how drug testing does
not help addicts or users to help themselves. In fact, it does
just the opposite, by denying them employment and limiting their
income[9] it actually hurts the users' chances of ever becoming
stable, ordinary individuals. When deciding whether drug testing
is a good idea, ask yourself this: Do I want healthy, employed,
drug users who work full time jobs and participate in society
-- or -- do I want desperate, unemployed drug users who spend
their time on the streets looking for drugs, money, and trouble?
The answer is obvious, but
what about work place impairment? Do we just stop checking to
see if people are capable of doing their jobs? Rest assured, there
are plenty of ways to tell if our pilots, drivers, mechanics,
etc. are impaired. Most of them involve simple tests of hand-eye
coordination and reflex[3]. In many ways, these tests are actually
better than drug tests.
Video-game style tests can
be administered cheaply on-the-spot. They not only detect those
drug users who are not able to function, they also detect people
who are drunk, tired, on medication, or otherwise not able to
perform safely. Such tests can be administered daily and even
hourly, which makes them more effective than drug testing[3].
Another alternative is to
drug test, but instead of just firing drug users automatically,
first determine the extent and danger of their drug use, and recommend
a treatment program instead.
THE SO CALLED CRISIS
(CONTINUED) AND THE POSSIBLY RACIST IMPLICATIONS OF DRUG TESTING
A ``post hoc fallacy'' is
a logical error commonly made in newspaper statistics. It involves
assuming that one thing (drug use) causes another (accidents,
poor job performance) because you are unaware of a third factor
which causes both -- a root cause. This third factor could be
anything, but it is often referred to as a ``confounding factor.''
The 1990 study of U.S. Postal
Service workers is *the* study which the Department of Justice
uses to justify the use of drug testing in the work-place[2],
and the PDFA uses in many of their propaganda pieces, which often
provide numbers for employers to call for information on how to
set up drug testing programs[5]. The people who did this study
themselves stipulate that it may be subject to confounding factors[8].
The most evident confounding
factor is race. The sample in the study was 90.1% Caucasian and
8.9% minorities. However, Caucasians and minority workers did
not test positive for drug use at the same rate. Of those testing
positive for cocaine, for example, 83.6% were Caucasian and 16.4%
were minority. This shows that minorities use drugs more than
Caucasians. Previous studies have shown that minorities also were
more likely to exhibit poor work-place performance, high accident
rates, etc[1][8][9].
Whoa. Now hold up. Before
I go one inch further I would like to clear something up. I am
not saying that minority races are in any way inferior to Caucasians.
I do not believe this. In fact, the very statistic which I just
mentioned is probably a post hoc fallacy itself. The real correlation
probably has more to do with poverty and education than anything
else. Through no fault of their own, many minorities have been
historically poor in this country. It is easy to see how a person
who is poor might have more trouble on the job than a person who
is wealthy -- a poor person may be undernourished, under-slept,
or may have just walked to work in the freezing cold. Likewise,
a less educated person is more likely to make errors during complex
tasks.
I am also definitely not
saying that employers should refuse to hire the less educated
and underprivileged. I am only saying that, if it is the goal
of work-place drug testing to improve the work-place, it could
be done much more cheaply by simply firing all of the minority
workers. THERE ARE REASONS WHY THIS IS ILLEGAL. If employers were
to be so inane as to fire all of their workers who were not rich
college graduates, the overall situation in this country would
deteriorate. Said employer would probably post better profits
during the next economic quarter, but on his way out of the office,
he would also stand a better chance of getting mugged. And he
would deserve it!
However, this is what is
being done, in effect, by work place drug testing. Work-place
drug testing should be illegal by the very same token -- firing
drug users is counterproductive in the long run and is a strategy
motivated mostly by hate and prejudice against the economically
disadvantaged. In fact, because of the correlation between drug
use and minorities, work place drug testing is working as a giant
loophole in current anti-racist laws which allows employers to
effectively fire minorities for what seems to be a totally unrelated
reason. For this reason, it is fair to say that work-place drug
testing is not only counterproductive to affirmative action, but
is itself racist in effect. Given the recent concern over the
racism, or at the very least effective or institutionalized racism,
evident in the War on Drugs[15], I felt this point bore mention.
The U.S. Postal Service study
did not check the living conditions or income levels of the workers
to see if this represented a confounding factor. It also did not
control for alcoholism and alcohol use[8][9]. The study claims
to have adjusted itself for race, but the nature and extent of
this adjustment are then called into question. Also, the study
openly suggests the use of drug testing to screen out employees
in high risk groups, like minorities -- this is a violation of
work place ethics and our country's dedication to equal justice.
However, the authors of the study state that the drug-use related
damages are not as high as other past studies have reported, and
that the cost efficiency of drug testing needs to be re-evaluated[8].
Why, then, is the study used by the Department of Justice as justification
for workplace drug testing programs? Your guess is as good as
mine.
THE COSTS OF DRUG TESTING
Now that we have determined
that drug testing is ineffective and possibly even harmful, one
question remains. How much are we as Americans paying to shoot
ourselves in the foot?
The revenue used to pay drug
testing companies and laboratories comes from two main sources:
private industry, and your tax dollar. Private donations to charitable
organizations which promote or advertise drug testing must also
be factored in.
One easy way to get a bottom
line on the cost is to look at the gross revenues reported by
the drug testing industry. In 1990, these amounted to $300,000,000[4].
Needless to say, this figure has gone up in the last two years
as the drug testing industry has continued to expand, but the
important thing to keep in mind is a large portion of the revenue
going into the drug testing effort is given directly to laboratories
[4] and public relations groups [5]. And so, this figure represents
an absolute minimum. In reality, drug testing now costs us well
over two billion dollars annually.
I must also mention that
these dollar figures do not take into account the casualties and
collateral damage inflicted on society by drug testing, which
include job loss due to false positive, social injustice and the
resulting violence, mistrust and alienation of employees, and
loss due to time spent administering and processing drug tests.
All in all, the whole scene is a huge mess.
THE SELLING OF DRUG TESTING
AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Drug testing is sold to employers
the same way a grocer might sell you a can of anchovies. It is
advertised, packaged, and delivered for profit[4][13][14]. In
order to get an employer to buy drug testing, various arguments
are often made to make drug testing look like a good idea[4][5].
We have already seen how these arguments sometimes use government
statistics. Incentives are sometimes offered to help the sale.
These are usually arranged by the government or large, established
organizations. In fact, the National Institute on Drug Abuse established
a toll- free help line to assist employers in establishing work-place
drug testing programs.
Carlton Turner was once the
United States' drug czar (under Reagan.) After this, he became
a very rich man as an advisor for drug testing companies. His
partner, Peter Bensinger is a former head of the National Institute
on Drug Awareness. Another partner was Robert Dupont, also a former
NIDA director. Former White House drug advisor Donald MacDonald
now owns Employee Health Programs, which contracts MROs to drug
testing programs.
It is easy to see how the
connections and authority which these people have held could have
been used in self interest. This presents an ethical dilemma.
It is very possible for such power to be abuse. I am not saying
that all of these people are consciously aware that they are mining
a vein of fear at the expense of the American public, but the
possibility certainly exists.
(The ethics of Carlton Turner,
however, are most definitely poor. In 1986 he was forced to resign
from his post in the Reagan Administration. Before he became U.S.
Drug Czar, he tried to sell fake `paraquat detectors' to marijuana
smokers through the magazine High Times, which could have injured
or killed many people. Before this, he was purposefully obstructive
in his role as the director of the University of Mississippi Marijuana
Research Program, denying many sick individuals good medicine.
In fact, it was Carlton Turner who started the unsubstantiated
rumor -- an ``Urban Legend'' -- that marijuana made your immune
system break down, when he stated in public addresses that smoking
marijuana caused homosexuality *and* AIDS[16].)
SUMMARY
The above has shown that
the reasons which we give for drug testing are not in fact the
reasons we drug test. Drug testing would not fix the problems
of casual drug use in the work-place even if they do exist (and
there is much doubt as to that) -- at least, not as effectively
as other approaches. The actual driving force behind drug testing
is nothing more than an ideology -- one which might not even be
yours! [3]
So, if you test your applicants
or employees for drugs, you are getting bilked. That man with
the plastic cup is not helping, he is simply making a profit off
of your prejudice. You have most likely turned down many potentially
good employees who use drugs in favor of less talented and qualified
applicants who do not[13].
If you allow yourself to
be drug tested, you are participating in the drug testing industry
by contributing to their business. Every time you piss in a cup,
you are pissing on all the people who live in this country who
use drugs -- including many of your friends and relatives, possibly
even your self. Every time you pay your taxes, you are likewise
contributing to this Drug War juggernaut.
The drug testing industry
is a colossal waste. If you want an improved America, you will
have to stand up and say `NO' to the War on Drugs, as hard as
that may be.
WHAT SHOULD BE/CAN BE/IS
BEING DONE TO REMOVE OR REGULATE WORK-PLACE URINALYSIS
Can we make urinalysis illegal,
or restrict its use in the work place?
Here is where the libertarian
viewpoint which I mentioned in the introduction (Joe) *sometimes*
does a strange flip-flop. I have seen many argue that it is within
the rights of an employer to drug test for on-the-job drug use
on the basis of liberty -- if they want to be stupid and fire
creative and productive employees that is their business. If you
believe this, then you might as well skip the rest of this section,
as it will not interest you -- about the only thing I can say
to you is that things are going to get worse before they get better:
More expensive and accurate hair testing methods detect off-the-job
drug use further into the past[12], and unenforced guidelines
for drug testing accuracy[3][4] and the institution of spot-check
tests[4][14] threaten to allow the work place drug testing situation
to deteriorate to the point where you can be kept off the work
force pending official dismissal of a false positive result[3][4].
A lot can be done to resist
the application of urinalysis and the drug testing industry in
general. One of the easiest things, and the first thing which
must be done, is to convince others that urinalysis is not appropriate.
Urinalysis is applied today mainly because Americans agree that
it is important[2][3]. If it were to lose its popular support
it would go away -- eventually.
For those of you who are
not willing to wait around for that, there are a few more direct
actions which you can take. One of them is to write letters to
community leaders, and to write editorials to local newspapers
and to magazines. If you have had a bad experience with work place
drug testing, tell it to a journalist. If not, the attached sources
should provide you with plenty of ``ammunition'' for an editorial
or three.
Another is to threaten boycott
or other economic sanction against companies who administer drug
testing. This involves keeping a watch on which companies do and
do not drug test. If you have access to e-mail on the Internet,
there is a project which does this, and you can help. Sending
an e-mail message to piss@dixie.com with the pattern ``Send list''
in the subject line will return you a copy of the Great Usenet
Piss Test List. Please get a copy and register your company and
any other company you know about with the list, whether they do
or do not perform urinalysis.
There are a number of protests
which can be effective against work place urinalysis -- strikes,
picketing, etc. The key to making any of these tactics work is
publicity. Nobody will benefit if you risk your employment, health,
or well-being and do not make it into a huge event -- so if you
try any of these tactics, well, first, let me compliment you on
your character and bravery, but secondly and most importantly
milk it for all the 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 goal of work-place
testing is to enhance on-the-job safety and productivity by reducing
drug-related impairment.
...
CHAPTER I, SECTION 1
...
A study of pre-employment
urinalysis results and employment outcomes for 2,500 postal workers
found ...
[see 1 above, and 8 and 9 below]
[3] (*) JOURNAL OF ADDICTIVE
DISEASES, Vol 12(2) 1993 pp. 9-21 ``Barbarians at the Gates''
by Stanley Gitlow, M.D.
...
...President Reagan signed
Executive Order #12564 establishing the goal of a ``drug free''
work-place. It made federal employment illegal for anyone using
illicit drugs on or off the job. By december 1989, over 5 million
Americans required urine testing ... in order to keep their jobs.
... The acceptance of such procedures in the work- place resulted
in their application to non mandated employees as well; this resulted
in the testing of 8 million workers in 1989. This figure was to
rise to 13 million during 1990.
In the meantime, the public
had been frightened by stories of drunken pilots, pot smoking
railroad engineers, and nonfunctional captains of oil tankers.
... the terrified American people have leaned progressively toward
demanding that their government guarantee each of them the right
to live without responsibility for self or personal risk. In point
of fact, during the past ten years only two commercial aviation
crashes led to the discovery of illicit drug use by the flight
crews: in March of 1983 a cargo aircraft crashed during the night
at Newark and both pilots revealed previous use of THC, and in
January of 1988 Continental Express flight #2286 crashed near
Durango, CO while the non-flying pilot-in-command had evidence
of cocaine. In neither incident did the NTSB establish a causal
relationship between illicit drug use and the accidents. Nonetheless,
within a year of the latter accident almost all of commercial
aviation in the United States was mandated to apply tests of employees
designed to rule out illicit drug use.
... by the Spring of 1988
the government had completed 30,300 random urine tests of their
regular employees. Positive results ... were found in 0.7%. The
direct costs for the first year were $15,000,000 ...
...
Until recently, only testing
for the 5 drugs [or categories] were allowed under law. This,
despite the fact that the
relationship of alcohol ... to accidents had been more clearly
established and the magnitude of this problem in the area of public
safety was far and away greater ...
... our government quite
apparently felt more comfortable writing highly restrictive legislation
for ``illicit drugs''
despite the fact that the magnitude of the public health problem
was minor in comparison to that associated with alcohol.
...
... the MRO finds him/herself
in the position of having to reveal to employers and federal authorities
certain other
medical data which happened to be revealed in the course of the
urine assay, *even though having no connection whatever to the
use of ``illicit'' drugs*. ...
Sadly, it is not incumbent
upon any employer to recommend treatment for an employee with
a positive test for ``illicit'' drugs ... Some MRO's embrace the
whiz quiz in the belief that it offers early detection and therapy,
but in truth the overwhelming majority of companies that become
aware of a positive test simply discharge the employee at the
present time. ...
... The commercial transport
system data reveal a statistically minuscule incidence of what
appears to be drug related accidents. ... If any threat to safety
in the work-place existed, all of our information pointed to the
need to control drinking. ...
...
... A DOT study in May of
1988 stated repeatedly ``No statistical conclusions regarding
the relationship between drug use and...accidents were possible.''
And there were ``...no relevant performance studies of any of
the hard drugs...[but this is] *not critical because use is already
a criminal act. ... the very fact that an individual uses such
a drug indicates a lack of respect for the law that in itself
is prejudicial to safety.'' So ended the major scientific study
which led to regulation by the DOT.*
...
... A well-known physician
from Charter Corporation was quoted on 5/26/89 in American Medical
News that he favored urine testing because it led to earlier diagnosis
and increased likelihood of recovery from addiction. ... even
were it to be true, he failed to mention whether his country should
switch immediately to *mandated* PAP smears and mammogram.
...
... our concern is neither
health maintenance nor safety, but rather morality and control.
If we were not primarily concerned with fixing those ``nonconformists'
'' wagons, we might have embraced the use of cognitive systems
measurements instead of the whiz quiz. There exists hand - eye
coordination tests not unlike those of some video games, by which
real time measurements of the functional capacities of key employees
may be assayed and have been found to detect reliably various
forms of human impairment [resulting from drugs, stress, and fatigue].
The test results were immediately available [real time]. Nonetheless
the DOT safety study dismissed such tests because they cannot
predict the presence of a precise drug or drug level; they did
not even evaluate its potential for safety. Gary Howard, the Employee
Relations Director of Motorola Inc., when questioned about the
use of neuromuscular real time tests, was quoted recently as saying
that they were not even considered and that even if a drug user
were not impaired from off-duty use of drugs, ``We're not particularly
concerned about impairment ... as we are about having a work force
that doesn't use drugs.'' R=82 their desire to use best-in-class
employees, ``Best-in-class people to us don't use drugs. They
don't abuse alcohol either...'' ... Even in those instances wherein
a causal relationship between a drug and an adverse consequence
has been proven [alcohol and accidents; cigarette smoking and
lung cancer], there is good reason to eschew outright legal prohibition.
... Loss of liberties by law, momentarily accepted by society,
leads ultimately to a reactive change. We seem to ``pay'' for
periods in which we even voluntarily give up our freedoms. A more
definitive answer is usually achieved by early education and experience
leading to attitudinal change.
[4] (*) CONTEMPORARY DRUG
PROBLEMS, Spring 1992 pp. 1-26, ``The business of drug testing:
technological innovation and social control'' by Prof. Lynn Zimmer
and Prof. James B. Jacobs.
...
This expansion of work-place
drug testing could not have occurred without important advances
in drug testing
technology. ...
In an important sense, it
was the availability of the new technologies that stimulated employers'
interests in workers' drug use. Prior to the 1980's, to the extent
employers thought about a ``work-place drug problem,'' their concern
was with alcoholics and drug addicts, not casual drug users. Only
after it became possible to detect casual users did employers
begin to focus on them. Thus drug testing should not be seen as
a ``technological fix'' for a preexisting problem, but as a technological
innovation that helped redefine the problem it initially promised
to solve.
The redefinition of the
work-place drug problem to include casual drug users did not just
``happen.'' It was actively promoted by the drug testing industry,
which stood to profit from it, and by the federal government,
which had a powerful commitment to a zero-tolerance drug policy.
The media also contributed by publishing the economic costs and
physical threats posed by drugs in the work-place.
...
Improvements in drug testing's
accuracy and reliability led more employers to implement testing
programs; as demand expanded, so did the drug-testing industry.
Recent (1990) estimates are that drug testing grosses over $300
million a year, but this figure refers only to the equipment and
chemicals produced by pharmaceutical companies. Drug testing's
increased popularity also benefits laboratories that conduct the
tests as well as numerous other businesses that provide goods
and services to the pharmaceutical companies, the laboratories,
and employers.
...
Recently pharmaceutical
companies also began to market on- site testing kits that do not
require any machinery. Keystone Diagnostics' KDI Quick Test, for
example, selling for $6.50, uses a modified immunoassay technology
that allows drugs to be identified through a color-code system.
Lacking both the sensitivity and specificity of automated immunoassay,
testing kits are unlikely to capture a large segment of the work-place
testing market, but they might appeal to parents who wish to test
their children for illicit drugs.
...
By 1988 employment drug
tests accounted for about 5% of the laboratory industry's $5 billion
in revenues, and industry experts expected that figure to double
the following year.
...
... The federal government
remains committed to work-place drug testing as a strategy in
the war on drugs, and Congress keeps expanding the number of private
sector workers who are covered under federal guidelines. The drug-testing
industry vigorously markets its product to employers, and through
the American Drug Use Testing Association it lobbies at the state
and federal levels for legislation that will expand its markets.
With many organizations, drug testing has become institutionalized,
with administrative, legal, and medical staff who now have a stake
in its perpetuation. Thus whether or not it delivers on its promises
to employers, drug testing is likely to remain a common feature
of the American work-place and to play an even more important
role in the long search for effective social controls over the
use of psychoactive drugs.
[5] THE NEW YORK TIMES, July
7th 1993. Advertisement by the Partnership for a Drug Free America,
(these advertisements are donated at a cost of around $17,000
a piece to the PDFA by the New York Times, I am told. No source
is presented for the claims that follow.)
``Drugs can devastate your
small business. Illegal drug users are absent more frequently
than other workers.''
``They file more insurance
claims, they cause injuries on the job, and they're less productive.''
``You lose. Your employees
lose. Your customers lose.''
``You can't afford drug
abuse. You *can* afford to do something. Drugs Don't Work.''
[a telephone number is given
for concerned employers to call.]
[6] ``Behavioral and Biological Concomitant of Chronic Marijuana
Use'' U.S. Army study, 1974 by Dr. Jack H. Mendelson. Official
summary as quoted in CONTEMPORARY DRUG PROBLEMS (Volume and date
unknown, but it is on page 449.)
...
... The behavioral and biological concomitant of chronic marijuana
use were studied in a group of heavy and casual users under controlled
research ward conditions. Assessments of operant work performance
revealed that most subjects showed no impairment in motivation
to work for money reinforcement even when they smoked a large
number of marijuana cigarettes. Some dose related decrement in
performance was noted following days of heavy marijuana smoking.
However, these decrements were probably not biologically significant.
No changes were observed in a large series of physical and laboratory
assessments following marijuana smoking. The only significant
changes were those related to vital capacity (lung function) and
these changes may be more closely related to the processes of
smoking per se than to the pharmacological actions of marijuana.
No changes in testosterone level were observed following chronic
marijuana smoking. Significant weight gain was associated with
marijuana smoking. Marijuana also appeared to influence a number
of complex social and psychological factors associated with personal
interaction. No evidence was obtained that marijuana produces
any significant adverse effects on cognitive or neurological function.
[7] (a newspaper article
which has been clipped with no reference appended -- I will try
to find the reference if anyone is interested. JPM is the source
of the 90% marijuana positive estimate.) TESTING EMPLOYEES FOR
DRUGS By Barbara Presley Noble.
``It is a sacred cannon
of belief of the urine testers that drug users have higher accident
rates, increased rates of litigation and medical claims,'' said
Dr. John P Morgan, a professor of pharmacology at the City University
of New York Medical School. ``The claims are always stated. They
are simply not documented.''
Dr. Morgan, who is writing
an academic review of research on work place drug testing, said
most people who test positive for drugs are occasional marijuana
users. ``No data indicate they are bad workers. They are no different
than anyone else,'' he said.
[8] JAMA, November 28, 1990
Vol 264(20) pp. 2639-2643 ``The Efficacy of Pre-employment Drug
Screening for Marijuana and Cocaine in Predicting Employment outcome.''
...
We recognize that a number
of potential confounding factors might be associated both with
the risk variables of marijuana and cocaine use and with the outcome
variables of turnover, absenteeism, accidents, injuries, and discipline.
Potential confounders included age at hire, gender, race, job
classification, smoking status, exercise habits and alcohol use
or abuse.
...
DRUG TEST RESULTS
Demographic Characteristics Negative Marijuana Cocaine Other
Sex M 65.7% 73.7% 60.0%
65.9%
F 34.3% 26.3% 40.0% 34.1%
Race White 90.1% 88.4% 83.6%
90.9%
Black 5.6% 11.1% 16.4% 7.3%
Asian 4.4% 0.5% 0.0% 1.8%
Smoker 30.7% 47.7% 40.0%
45.4%
Non-smoker 69.3% 52.3% 60.0% 54.6%
...
In our study, we have not
been able to control for the possible confounding effect of alcoholism.
A substantial body of literature suggests that alcohol abuse correlates
with the abuse of other substances. Other literature suggests
that alcoholics have poor employment outcomes. We did not obtain
alcohol levels in the test urine samples. Also, we did not administer
any validated alcoholism questionnaires because we did not think
they would provide accurate information in the context of a pre-employment
examination. ...
...
The findings of this study
suggest that many of the claims cited to justify pre-employment
drug screening have been exaggerated. Drug users have been reported
to be involved in 200% to 300% more industrial accidents, to sustain
400% more compensatable injuries, and to use 1500% more sick leave.
We found that those with marijuana positive urine samples have
55% more industrial accidents, 85% more injuries, and a 78% increase
in absenteeism. For those with cocaine-positive urine samples,
there was a 145% increase in absenteeism and an 85% increase in
injuries. These findings could be used to reevaluate ... the cost-effectiveness
of pre-employment drug screening.
[9] JAMA, November 28, 1990 Vol 264(20) pp 2676-2677 ``Pre- employment
Drug Screening'' by Eric D. Wish, Ph.D
...
... factors suggest that pre-employment drug testing may have
limited potential in the United States. First, employers should
remember that a single positive urine test provides limited information
about a particular employee's level of drug use. ... Furthermore,
lifestyle issues may contribute to an employee's drug use as well
as to his or her poor job performance. Unfortunately, a medical
review officer-type review is not required for firms testing private
sector employees, and job applicants may be denied positions on
the basis of a single positive test result, without their knowledge
and without the right of appeal.
[10] THE NATION September
24 pg. 300 BELTWAY BANDITS by David Cobs
War Profiteering. Back in
June, before Saddam Hussein was even a glint in the eyes of depressed
military contractors, entrepreneur Max Franklin, a former analyst
for I.B.M., placed an ad in DEFENSE NEWS, a trade weekly. ``The
arsenal of Democracy Won the Cold War,'' the copy read. ``Can
it Win the Drug War?'' To find out, readers were invited to attend
a three-day conference featuring officials from the Pentagon,
Congress and government agencies who would detail ``Industry Opportunities''
arising from the $10.6 billion anti-drug budget. ``Can you afford
to miss it?'' Franklin's add asked.
About 200 representatives
of aerospace and computer companies decided they could not --
not even at the cost of $950 a person.
[11] MASSACHUSETTS LAW REVIEW,
Spring 1990 pp 38-42, ``Search and Seizure -- Drug Testing'' by
David A. Grossbaum
[12] (*) ADDICTION 88, pp
163-166 1993; ``Hair analysis for drugs: technological breakthrough
or ethical quagmire?'' by John Strang, Joseph Black, Andrew Marsh,
& Brian Smith
...
While it may be politically
attractive to concentrate on illicit drugs, it ignores the reality
that it is the use of alcohol and nicotine and not illicit drugs
which constitutes the greatest threat to safety and productivity
in the work place. The resources used in drug screening programmes
might usefully be redirected towards education and rehabilitation
based initiatives which address all the issues surrounding the
use of drugs and alcohol in the work- force. Directing resources
towards the new and expensive technology of hair analysis is a
retrograde step.
[13] (*) THE MILBANK QUARTERLY,
Vol 69, No 3, 1991 pp 437-459 ``Social Behavior, Public Policy,
and Non-harmful Drug Use'' by Charles Winick
...
One conclusion of the literature
on mood-modifying drugs like heroin and cocaine is that their
regular nonmedical use will almost inevitably lead to bleak personal
and social outcomes. My article suggests that the conventional
picture of uniformly negative consequences of regular drug use
is not supported by the data.
...
... in a statewide study
of all the narcotics addicts who could be located in Kentucky
... more than nine-tenths of the males receiving drugs legally
were working effectively at established occupations. An improvement
in work pattern typically followed an addict's securing a stable
drug source, suggesting that this facilitated or caused improved
work situation.
...
... One ophthalmic surgeon
noted: ``With Demerol, I can do three or four perfect operations
a day. It builds up my resistance and makes it easier for me to
concentrate when I am working double shifts and just couldn't
keep up with it. The drug help a lot.'' A trumpeter said: ``With
the heroin, I could feel and look cool and reach and hold the
sound I wanted.'' A warehouse worker stated: ``It's a very slow
and long day, taking plumbing parts out of bins. Without the drugs,
I couldn't make it.'' A television cameraman observed: ``I can't
make a mistake on the job. I work a lot of overtime and the drugs
make it easier for me to concentrate.'' No doubt other factors
in the lives of these study subjects contributed to the relatively
prosaic character of their drug habit and enhanced their ability
to work: licit occupations, structured schedules, and participation
in conventional family and community activities.
...
William S. Halstead, the
father of modern surgery and a founder of Johns Hopkins Medical
School, was cocaine dependent until the age of 34, when he turned
to morphine, on which he probably remained continually dependent
until his death at age 70. He was professionally active and medically
creative during his whole life.
There are no reports demonstrating that addicted physicians are
more likely to commit malpractice than others. Indeed, the country's
largest program for addicted medical professionals reports that
a physician's professional activities represent the last aspect
of his or her life to be affected by drug dependence. Drug-using
physicians typically have successful and active primary care practices
... some addicted physicians were described as ``the best doctor
in town''
...
A 46-year-old practical
nurse was observed driving his fairly new car to a Harlem crack
house while parking his other car near his co-op apartment. ...
Among the other regular users at the crack house were social workers,
a
maintenance man, and other healthy looking people with conventional
jobs.
...
Upper-income users may find
it easier to get drugs fromOB physicians and powerful people could
have access that is not possible for others. Narcotics Commissioner
Harry J. Anslinger, the leading foe of narcotics maintenance,
secretly authorized the use of maintenance for specific persons
on a number of occasions. Thus, in the 1950's he maintained influential
United States Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, who was a political
ally, on morphine for years.
...
Studies in different societies,
both economically advanced and underdeveloped, and involving a
range of substances, have documented the use of habituating drugs
by persons who are effective workers.
An investigation in Thailand
found that some hill tribes reported that opium enabled them to
function and it was not unusual to see a villager who had been
addicted for 30 to 40 years and was still working actively.
In Jamaica, where ganja
plays a significant role in social and economic life, the drug
often facilitates the accomplishment of work by individuals and
groups. ... users generally feel that ganja enhances their ability
to work by promoting strength and stamina. Supervisors agreed
that the ganja helps workers in the arduous job of reaping sugar
cane.
Dutch cocaine users not
only used it while functioning effectively on the job, but typically
worked while under the influence. American observers at national
meetings of the Dutch ``junkie union'' have been surprised at
seeing members injecting heroin and then chairing the meetings
with facility and skill.
A report by a British investigator
concluded that a substantial proportion of the addicts receiving
heroin at English clinics in the late 1960's could be characterized
as stable, with high employment, legitimate income, and no hustling.
...
Other cultures provide clues
that, without repressive laws, adult users may be able to regulate
their own behavior and decide for themselves what constitutes
appropriate use. The Dutch study of cocaine users, for example,
demonstrated that a significant proportion of the samples experienced
periods of increasing use. For others, cocaine use became so problematic
that they abstained, either for long periods of time or entirely.
So long as our government policy is based upon the assumption
that nonmedical drug use is destructive, we cannot develope substantial
knowledge of the factors that enhance such effective self-regulation
of use.
[14] JOURNAL OF ADDICTIVE
DISEASES Vol 12(2) 1993 pp 43-56 ``Laboratory Tests for Rapid
Screening of Drugs of Abuse in the Work-place'' by Richard H.
Schwartz, MD; H. Westly Clark, MD; and Patricia S. Meek, PhD
ABSTRACT: The use of rapid,
on-site drug detection devices is reviewed. These tests permit
the detection of various psychoactive substances in urine, and
are easily used by nonskilled personnel ... The tests have potential
use in the emergency room, doctor's office, drug treatment program,
and the work place. ...
[15] U.S.A. Today side-bar, and a front page article, also in
U.S.A Today on the last week of July, entitled ``Is the War on
Drugs Racist?'' (eventually I will find an exact reference for
this one, too.)
MINIMUM FEDERAL SENTENCE
FOR A FIRST OFFENDER
Powder Crack
Amount Cocaine Cocaine
----------------------------------
5 grams Probation 5 years
50 grams 1 year 10 years
500 grams 5 years 11 years
5,000 grams 10 years 17.5 years
Note: defendants serve 85%
of sentence. There is *no* parole.
PERCENT OF DEFENDANTS BY
RACE `92
Powder Crack
Cocaine Cocaine
----------------------------------
Black 27.1% 91.5%
White 32.1% 3.0%
Hispanic 39.9% 5.3%
Other 0.9% 0.2%
[16] (*) ``Official Corruption:
Carlton Turner'' (pp 84,85) and other chapters in ``The Emperor
Wears No Clothes''; HEMP/Queen of Clubs pub. by Jack Herer.
|
