Discussion of Drug Testing

[rjb]

When I made a denunciation of random drug testing based on the
several ammendments to the Constitution that I think it violates
plus the violence it does to the principles of "Presumption of
Innocence" and "Probable Cause", a respondent suggested that if
I pressed the issue far enough that I would be accused of being
a drug user. Well it hasn't happened to me, but as you recently
have seen Mr Cooper has been somewhat smeared by people who
smugly write "I have nothing to fear, I'm not a drug user,..."
and tacitly imply that if you object to the testing then you
have something to hide. I'm a generally conservative person
but I know tyranny a-comin' when I see it. McCarthy lives !
--

Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}

This is what i think...WHO knows what the Corporate genii up Nawth think ??

[sil...@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu]

Dear Abby ran a letter on drug testing a few weeks ago. Someone wrote
in saying that only people on drugs needed to worry, and Abby royaly
flamed him. Now for an original observation. It may be "worse" in some
ways to have a very accurate test. Suppose 10% of the people being tested
were on drugs, and the test had a false positive rate of 5%. Then, about
1/3 of the people who tested positive were really clean. As long as
everyone realized this was going on, they would have retests using more
accurate tests etc., and hold off taking action until they were convinced.
On the other hand, if the test had only 0.01% false positives, only one
out of a thousand people who tested positive would be drug free. In this
case, the assumption might be made that, since the test was so accurate,
there was no need for a retest, especially if the person did not protest
the results. (I am in favor of requiring the administrator of a drug test
to inform the victim as to the results, otherwise, someone could be barred
from a job for a false positive without them knowing it.) This last
scenario appears to have occured several times in the armed services.

[Pete Zakel]

Another problem with false positive rates in drug testing is that the rate of
false positives normally given is for when the test is done under ideal
conditions. False positive rates may be much higher during one series of tests
than during another. Many factors contribute to false positives (and false
negatives for that matter): sloppiness, contamination of equipment, degradation
of reagents, etc., etc.

There is also the problem of separating people who use drugs and do NOT have a
problem with their work and people who use drugs and DO have a problem with
their work. I've known some people who could do better work completely zoned
out than their colleagues who were completely straight. And do you fire your
most productive employee simply because s/he likes to smoke pot on Saturday
nights?

I feel that a person's job performance should be based on that person's job
performance. If a person cannot perform his/her job properly, whether or not
s/he uses drugs, s/he should be let go. If a person performs his/her job
properly, whether or not s/he uses drugs, s/he should be allowed to keep that
job.
--
-Pete Zakel (..!{hplabs,?}!ridge!valid!pete) (member of HASA)

[Rex Ballard]

In article <1...@akgud.UUCP> r...@akgud.UUCP (rjb) writes:
>
>When I made a denunciation of random drug testing based on the
>several ammendments to the Constitution that I think it violates
>plus the violence it does to the principles of "Presumption of
>Innocence" and "Probable Cause", a respondent suggested that if
>I pressed the issue far enough that I would be accused of being
>a drug user. Well it hasn't happened to me, but as you recently
>have seen Mr Cooper has been somewhat smeared by people who
>smugly write "I have nothing to fear, I'm not a drug user,..."
>and tacitly imply that if you object to the testing then you
>have something to hide. I'm a generally conservative person
>but I know tyranny a-comin' when I see it. McCarthy lives !

>Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}

The Constitutional protections are there to prevent deprivation
of "Life or Liberty or property" without "due process".

If testing could lead to criminal prosecution, then it would
probably be unconstitutional. If instead, it would only lead
to an offer of appropriate medical treatment, then it would
make sense to include tests for diabetes as well as drugs.

The AMA considers alcoholism a desease, and also addiction to
certain other chemicals. If someone were put in jail for having
diabetes and not knowing it, there would be public outrage.
The same should be true for drugs.

On the other hand, once a person is aware they have a problem,
they have a responsibility to do something about it. If the
diabetic knew he was diabetic, knew he was having an "attack"
and still insisted on driving, doing something else that
could threaten the safety of others, he would be negligent
at best, and criminally responsible at worst.

Now the big question is, can a sick person be compelled to
accept treatment? The issue is unresolved. Gov. Lamm
says no, but many others say yes.