Editing Drug test (section)

==Legality, ethics and politics==
The results of federally mandating drug testing were similar to the effects of simply extending to the trucking industry the right to perform drug tests, and it has been argued that the latter approach would have been as effective at lower cost.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1086/345584 |title=Drug Testing in the Trucking Industry: The Effect on Highway Safety |author=Mireille Jacobson |journal=Journal of Law and Economics |volume=46 |issue=1 |date=April 2003 |pages=131–156|citeseerx=10.1.1.489.2439 |s2cid=38999582 }}</ref>

Psychologist [[Tony Buon]] has criticized the use of workplace drug testing on a number of grounds, including:

# Flawed technology: The real world performance of testing is much lower than that claimed by its promoters. Buon suggest that tests are probably adequate for rehabilitation and treatment situations, possibly adequate for pre-employment situations, but not for dismissing employees.
# Ethical Issues: Because of the fairly simple ways that an employee can invalidate the test, drug testing must be strictly monitored.  This means that the specimen must be observed leaving the body. Many legal objections currently being raised in the courts about drug testing are pointing to legal requirements of prior notice, consent, due process, and cause.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Buon |first1=Tony |title=Alcohol, drug and other problems in academia |journal=Drugs in Society |date=June 1996 |issue=2 |pages=8–12 |url=https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/ielapa.970100533 |access-date=June 12, 2021 |archive-date=August 10, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240810104539/https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/ielapa.970100533 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Brockett |first1=James |title=Does testing work? |journal=People Management |volume=12 |issue=23 |date=November 2006 |page=13 }}</ref>
# Wrong focus: As has been shown with [[Employee Assistance Program]]s, the focus of management concern should be on work performance decline.  Buon suggests effective management practices are an infinitely better approach to managing workplace alcohol and other drug issues.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Buon |first1=Y. |last2=Compton |first2=B. |year=1994 |chapter=The Development of Alcohol and Other Drug Programs in the Workplace |editor1-last=Stone |editor1-first=R. J. |title=Readings in Human Resource Management |volume=2 |pages=240–252 |location=Brisbane |publisher=John Wiley }}</ref>

[[Tony Buon]] has also reported by the [[CIPD]] as stating that "drug testing captures the stupid—experienced drug users know how to beat the tests".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cipd.co.uk/pm/peoplemanagement/b/weblog/archive/2013/01/29/doestestingwork-2006-11.aspx|title=Does testing work? - People Management Magazine Online|work=cipd.co.uk|access-date=May 9, 2015|archive-date=May 18, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150518082712/http://www.cipd.co.uk/pm/peoplemanagement/b/weblog/archive/2013/01/29/doestestingwork-2006-11.aspx|url-status=dead}}</ref>

From a [[penology|penological]] standpoint, one purpose of drug testing is to help classify the
people taking the drug test within risk groups so that those who pose more of a danger to the public can be [[incapacitation (penology)|incapacitated]] through incarceration or other restrictions on liberty. Thus, the drug testing serves a crime control purpose even if there is no expectation of [[rehabilitation (penology)|rehabilitating]] the drug user through treatment, [[deterrence (penology)|deterring]] drug use through sanctions, or sending a message that drug use is a deviant behavior that will not be tolerated.<ref name=newpenology>{{cite journal |last1=Feeley |first1=Malcolm M. |last2=Simon |first2=Jonathan |title=The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and Its Implications |journal=Criminology |year=1992 |volume=30 |issue=4 |pages=449–474 |doi=10.1111/j.1745-9125.1992.tb01112.x |url=https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/718 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130929162512/http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/facpubs/718/ |url-status=dead |archive-date=September 29, 2013 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

===United Kingdom===
A study in 2004 by the Independent Inquiry into Drug Testing at Work found that attempts by employers to force employees to take drug tests could potentially be challenged as a violation of privacy under the [[Human Rights Act 1998]] and Article 8 of the [[European Convention of Human Rights]].<ref>{{cite web|author = Independent Inquiry into Drug Testing at Work|title= Drug testing in the workplace: Summary conclusions of the Independent Inquiry into Drug Testing at Work|url=http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/foundations/694.asp|access-date= January 17, 2008|url-status= dead|archive-url  =https://web.archive.org/web/20070928073933/http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/foundations/694.asp|archive-date =September 28, 2007|df= mdy-all}}</ref> However, this does not apply to industries where drug testing is a matter of personal and public safety or security rather than productivity.

===United States===
In consultation with Dr. Carlton Turner, President Ronald Reagan issued [[Executive order (United States)|Executive Order]] 12564. In doing so, he instituted mandatory drug-testing for all safety-sensitive executive-level and civil-service Federal employees. This was [[National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab|challenged in the courts]] by the [[National Treasury Employees Union]]. In 1988, this challenge was considered by the US Supreme Court.<ref>National Treasury Employees Union v. von Raab. 86-1879, US Supreme Court, 1989.</ref> A similar challenge resulted in the Court extending the drug-free workplace concept to the private sector.<ref>Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Assoc. 87-15555. US Supreme Court, 1989</ref> These decisions were then incorporated into the White House Drug Control Strategy directive issued by President George H.W. Bush in 1989.<ref>{{Cite journal | doi = 10.1016/0740-5472(90)90047-T | last1 = Miller | first1 = NS | last2 = Giannini | first2 = AJ | last3 = Gold | first3 = MS | last4 = Philomena | first4 = JA | title = Drug testing: medical, legal, and ethical issues | journal=Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment | volume = 7 | issue = 4 | pages = 239–44 | year = 1990 | pmid = 2290186 | doi-access = free }}</ref> All defendants serving on [[federal probation]] or [[federal supervised release]] are required to submit to at least three drug tests. Failing a drug test can be construed as possession of a controlled substance, resulting in mandatory revocation and imprisonment.<ref>{{usc|18|3563}}, {{usc|18|3583}}</ref>

There have been inconsistent evaluation results as to whether continued pretrial drug testing has beneficial effects.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Visher |first1=Christy A. |title=Pretrial Drug Testing: Panacea or Pandora's Box? |journal=The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science |date=1 May 1992 |volume=521 |issue=1 |pages=112–131 |doi=10.1177/0002716292521001007 |jstor=1046545 |s2cid=145609412 }}</ref>

Testing positive can lead to bail not being granted, or if bail has already been granted, to bail revocation or other sanctions. [[Arizona]] also adopted a law in 1987 authorizing mandatory drug testing of felony arrestees for the purpose of informing the [[pretrial release]] decision, and the [[District of Columbia]] has had a similar law since the 1970s. It has been argued that one of the problems with such testing is that there is often not enough time between the arrest and the bail decision to confirm positive results using GC/MS technology. It has also been argued that such testing potentially implicates the [[Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution|Fifth Amendment]] [[privilege against self-incrimination]], the [[right to due process]] (including the prohibition against gathering evidence in a manner that [[shocks the conscience]] or constitutes [[outrageous government conduct]]), and the [[prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures]] contained in the [[Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution|Fourth Amendment]].<ref>{{cite journal |title=The Constitutionality of Drug Testing at the Bail Stage |author=Cathryn Jo Rosen; John S. Goldkamp |journal=The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology |volume=80 |issue=1 |date=Spring 1989 |pages=114–176 |doi=10.2307/1143765 |jstor=1143765 |url=https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol80/iss1/2 |access-date=January 31, 2019 |archive-date=August 10, 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240810104540/https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/vol80/iss1/2/ |url-status=live |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

According to Henriksson, the anti-drug appeals of the Reagan administration "created an environment in which many employers felt compelled to implement drug testing programs because failure to do so might be perceived as condoning drug use. This fear was easily exploited by aggressive marketing and sales forces, who often overstated the value of testing and painted a bleak picture of the consequences of failing to use the drug testing product or service being offered."<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.2307/3551028 |title=The Unconvincing Case for Drug Testing |jstor=3551028 |author=Lennart E. Henriksson |journal=Canadian Public Policy |volume=17 |issue=2 |date=June 1991 |pages=183–196}}</ref> On March 10, 1986, the [[Commission on Organized Crime]] asked all U.S. companies to test employees for drug use. By 1987, nearly 25% of the [[Fortune 500|''Fortune'' 500]] companies used drug tests.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1007/BF01016746 |title=A Critical Review of the Assumptions Underlying Drug Testing |author=Deborah F. Crown; Joseph G. Rosse |journal=Journal of Business and Psychology |volume=3 |issue=1 |date=Fall 1988 |pages=22–41 |s2cid=143525716 }}</ref>

According to an uncontrolled self-report study done by DATIA and [[Society for Human Resource Management]] in 2012 (sample of 6,000 randomly selected human resource professionals), human resource professionals reported the following results after implementing a drug testing program: 19% of companies reported a subjective increase in employee productivity, 16% reported a decrease in employee turnover (8% reported an increase), and unspecified percentages reported decreases in absenteeism and improvement of workers' compensation incidence rates.<ref>{{cite web|title=Employee Drug Testing Study|url=http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/Issues/Vol%205%20Issue%204/Basic-11-22Efficacy%20Study%20Publication%20Final.pdf|publisher=Global Drug Policy|access-date=October 19, 2012|archive-date=March 24, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120324120724/http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/Issues/Vol%205%20Issue%204/Basic-11-22Efficacy%20Study%20Publication%20Final.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>

According to [[United States Chamber of Commerce|US Chamber of Commerce]] 70% of all illicit drug users are employed.<ref>{{cite web|title=EAP Employee and Supervisor Drug Education|url=http://www.usuhs.mil/chr/doc/EAPDrugFree.pdf|publisher=USUHS.mil|access-date=October 22, 2012|archive-date=June 12, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130612073442/http://www.usuhs.mil/chr/doc/EAPDrugFree.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> Some industries have high rates of employee drug use such as construction (12.8%), repair (11.1%), and hospitality (7.9-16.3%).<ref>{{cite web|title=Substance Abuse in the hospitality industry|url=http://asbtdc.ualr.edu/drugfree/hospitly.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090216184651/http://asbtdc.ualr.edu/drugfree/hospitly.htm|url-status=dead|archive-date=February 16, 2009|publisher=Arkansas Small Business Development Center|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

===Australia===
A person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU—the new term that includes employers) has duties under the work health and safety (WHS) legislation to ensure a worker affected by alcohol or other drugs does not place themselves or other persons at risk of injury while at work. Workplace policies and prevention programs can help change the norms and culture around substance use.<ref>{{Cite web |last=NSW |first=SafeWork |date=2018-09-10 |title=PCBU |url=https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/about-us/glossary/glossary-acordion/pcbu |access-date=2022-10-21 |website=SafeWork NSW |language=en-AU |archive-date=October 21, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221021172712/https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/about-us/glossary/glossary-acordion/pcbu |url-status=live }}</ref>

All organisations—large and small—can benefit from an agreed policy on alcohol and drug misuse that applies to all workers. Such a policy should form part of an organisations overall health and safety management system. PCBUs are encouraged to establish a policy and procedure, in consultation with workers, to constructively manage alcohol and other drug related hazards in their workplace.  A comprehensive workplace alcohol and other drug policy should apply to everyone in the workplace and include prevention, education, counselling and rehabilitation arrangements. In addition, the roles and responsibilities of managers and supervisors should be clearly outlined.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Work-Related Alcohol And Drug Use |url=https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/1702/workrelatedalcoholanddruguse_afitforworkissue_2007_pdf.pdf |access-date=October 21, 2022 |archive-date=October 21, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221021172721/https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/1702/workrelatedalcoholanddruguse_afitforworkissue_2007_pdf.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>

All Australian workplace drug testing must comply with Australian standard AS/NZS4308:2008.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Department of Health {{!}} Australia: POC testing for drugs of abuse |url=https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/qupp-review~qupp-aust-poc-test-drug-abuse |access-date=2022-10-21 |website=www1.health.gov.au |archive-date=October 21, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221021172714/https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/publications/publishing.nsf/Content/qupp-review~qupp-aust-poc-test-drug-abuse |url-status=live }}</ref>

In Victoria, roadside saliva tests detect drugs that contain:<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://adf.org.au/insights/roadside-drug-testing/|title=Roadside drug testing|website=adf.org.au|publisher=Alcohol and Drug Foundation|access-date=2015-07-18|archive-date=August 21, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170821085324/https://adf.org.au/insights/roadside-drug-testing/|url-status=live}}</ref>
* THC (Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol), the active component in cannabis.
* methamphetamine, also known as "ice", "crystal" and "crank".
* MDMA (Methylenedioxymethamphetamine), which is known as ecstasy.

In February 2016 a New South Wales magistrate "acquitted a man who tested positive for cannabis". He had been arrested and charged after testing positive during a roadside drug test, despite not having smoked for nine days. He was relying on advice previously given to him by police.<ref name="abc.net.au2016-02-02-man-caught">{{cite web
 |url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-02/man-caught-drug-driving-days-after-smoking-cannabis-acquitted/7133628
 | title =Acquittal of man caught drug-driving nine days after smoking cannabis throws NSW drug laws into doubt
 | last1 =Knowles
 | first1 =Lorna
 | last2 =Branley
 | date =2 February 2016
 | publisher =Australian Broadcasting Corporation
 | access-date =2 February 2016
 | quote =A spokeswoman for NSW Roads Minister Duncan Gay said roadside tests were followed up with lab tests and 97 per cent of tests matched. She said the research they had indicated drugs were only detected in a person's saliva for 12 hours after being ingested.
 | archive-date =February 3, 2016
 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160203045716/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-02/man-caught-drug-driving-days-after-smoking-cannabis-acquitted/7133628
 | url-status =live
 }}</ref>