MA's comment above says it all. Drug testing is a way to intimidate and coerce workers, and it only works because people need their jobs more than their self-respect. Art's response to her post sums it up perfectly, if management can't tell who the substandard workers are without a drug test then it's management that isn't doing its job. If drug use doesn't affect work performance then there is no point in testing for it. If it does, it should be measurable by the normal evaluation process. What drug testing gives the employer is a reason to fire an unwanted employee when other methods cannot be utilized.

I voluntarily gave up my occasional recreational pot smoking 23 years ago when I applied for a job which required security clearances. My employers were aware of my use and I was given time to to get the residues out of my system. This was all done within legal and security guidelines and laws in place at the time, and although my new position required non-use, it was not a requirement for my general employment. I got the job. I have remained a non-user since that time because I know that in my field the employnent with intelligence or law enforcement is always a possibility. The same protocol was observed when I applied for work with the Central Intelligence Agency. (They made me an offer, I turned it down.) But the point is, it was voluntary. I was not coerced, and in return, I felt comfortable with being forthcoming and honest with my management.

Drug testing is a process inherently prone to error, either in the technical testing procedure itself, or in the administrative processing of the results. All tests, for a variety of reasons, can give both false positives AND false negatives. This means nothing to the employer, occasionally losing a drug-free employee is a small price to pay for getting rid of the bulk of your drug users. The bugaboo of drugs creates an environment where a challenge to the results puts the burden of proof on the testee, not the tester. We have no way of assuring both the test and the results are handled properly. For the employer, who sees his staff as a commodity, interchangeable industrial components, this means nothing. To the individual who sees his career and livelihood crushed, it means everything.

If my employer feels he has the right to look at my urine or my blood, then I should have the right to look at his correspondence, tax records and his books. After all, employees are entitled to work in an honest and ethical workplace which abides by all applicable laws.