Gov't Workers May Face Drug Test Changes 2 hours, 57 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo! By LEIGH STROPE, AP Labor Writer WASHINGTON - The hair, saliva and sweat of federal workers could be tested for drug use under a new government policy proposed Tuesday that eventually will set a standard for private companies. The planned changes, long sought by the testing industry, reflect government efforts to be more precise in its drug screening and to bypass attempts to cheat on urine-based tests. The testing of hair, saliva and sweat will not be required, but would be available as an option to government agencies that screen workers and job applicants. "We believe that drug testing provides a powerful deterrent to the destructive and dangerous conditions drug use creates," said Charles Curie, administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The agency is soliciting public comment on the plan for the next 90 days. A final rule would be issued afterward. About 400,000 federal workers, such as those who have security clearances, carry firearms, are involved in national security or who are presidential appointees, are tested when they apply for jobs. Some are subject to random drug testing during their employment. Other federal employees are tested only if they show signs of drug use or are involved in a work-related accident, the agency said. But because standards are followed by regulatory agencies who conduct testing in industries they oversee, SAMHSA's action affects about 6.5 million of the 40 million workplace drug tests done each year by U.S. employers. Some businesses have already adopted alternative testing, despite criticism by privacy advocates. But others have held back, partly awaiting government standards. Saliva testing, done using a swab that looks much like a toothbrush but with a pad instead of bristles, is best at detecting drug use within the past one or two days. Hair testing, in which a sample about the thickness of a shoelace is clipped at the root from the back of the head, allows detection of many drugs used as far back as 3 months. Sweat testing, in which workers are fitted with a patch that is worn for two weeks, is used to screen people who have returned to work after drug treatment. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../ap/20040406/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/drug_testing_1
Yet another in the long list of oppressive policies created as a result of our misguided drug policy. I can totally understand drug testing in the case of people who work jobs that bring in an element of public safety, such as pilots, truck drivers, and the like, but testing bureaucrats and desk workers will be as helpful at combating drug use as...well, everything else this prohibitionist system has tried over the past 90 years. On a side note, I had the opportunity (thank you, Netflix) to see "Reefer Madness" over the weekend. It is no wonder the populace got all up in arms regarding mar1juana, given that this movie portrayed MJ smokers as violent rapists who speed through the streets (at 45 MPH...lol) and run after hitting pedestrians only to wind up so totally insane that the only recourse is being sentanced to an asylum for the criminally insane for the rest of their lives. It is worth seeing if you have Netflix.
I would like to think you would have to demonstrate a public risk, or, in the case of sports, an unfair advantage before testing of this sort. If an employee does a good job, and dedicates his 35/40/50 hours a week to his job, he should be free to do whatever the heck he wants on his free time. If that includes drug use, then so be it -- as long as it doesn't affect the performance of his job. If his job perfomance is subpar -- then his manager (not a chemist) should be the one noticing and taking action. The same should hold true for athletes. I couldn't care less if Tayor tokes up after every game -- it doesn't (or didn't seem to ) give him an unfair advantage over other players (as would be the case with steroids). When his perfomance suffers -- then treat him accordingly. Testing in sports should be restricted to performance enhancing substances rather than a test of whose been naughty or nice. I suppose I could accept employee testing for jobs that involve a public risk -- but these test just seem far too intrusive. The principles of civil liberties should superceed the capacity of technology. It's not a matter of the employee having nothing to hide -- but rather of the employer delving in to matters that are none of their business.
Gvt. workers get paid with government funds The gvt. has declared a war on drugs So I can see the point of what the gvt. wants to do, but they have one major problem: The government tends to not have the highest paid, most qualified workers (the public sector pays much more than the gvt. sector). Now if the gvt. sector says they won't hire folks who test positive it could lower the quality of worker they can hire. So I can see both sides of the fence. The gvt doesn't want to support drug use but at teh same time if teh competency level of teh gvt. goes down because of this, I question the cost/benefit of doing it.
Andy if you liked Reefer Madness (I can't believe you're just seeing it for the first time) check out "Assassin of Youth" circa 1936. It's pretty darn funny
I don't see how that is particularly relivant. The gvt has declared a war on terror. Should they be able to randomly tap the phones and seach the houses of their employees (Patriot act notwithstanding)?
Federal workers also pay taxes and give up no rights of citizenship (unless you happen to live in DC).
Gee..what a refund to taxpayers THAT could be. EDIT: I didn't notice it was animated...i'm refering to the gov't spending 12 billion a year keeping mar1juana illegal.
