Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Drug test
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===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 = 239β44 | 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=112β131 |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=114β176 |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=183β196}}</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=22β41 |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>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)