acy. The purpose of this research is to research and investigate evidence on the pros and cons of drug testing in the workplace. Such information will be useful in the development of effective substance abuse prevention programs in the workplace. It will also help employers understand the critical need to develop such programs. Despite the billions of dollars in preventable costs associated with substance abusing employees, Hersch (et al.) reports ôvery few workplace-based primary or secondary substance abuse programs exist.ö
Legal mandatory random drug testing in the workplace is a political policy issue. Those who favor such practices argue that employers have every right to expect employees to remain sober on the job. This is particularly true for occupations where safety and security are primary concerns. Nevertheless, opponents of random mandatory drug testing do not dispute the right of such employer expectations. However, they argue that mandatory random drug testing does not accomplish this goal because its results are often misleading. As Niznik argues, if an employee tests positive ôall it proves is that you likely put a buzz on, someplace, sometime.ö Despite the costs of employees who abuse substances, opponents argue this type of information is ônone of your employerÆs businessö if you are sober in the workplace.
The legislation that evolved the Drug-Free Workplace Act was Executive Order 12564, signed by President Reagan. The Act made it illegal for any federal employee to use illegal drugs in or out of the workplace. Many states followed suit. A unified workplace drug testing policy does not exist. Despite the random nature of drug testing from state to state, its use by employers continues to increase. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is opposed to random drug testing, finding the process of urinalysis both ôunfair and unnecessary.ö The ACLU argues that these kinds of tests are...