FREE ESSAY ON DRUG TESTING

DRUG TESTING

Drug testing is a laboratory procedure that looks for evidence of drug consumption by
analyzing urine, blood, and hair samples. If tested, you must provide a sample in front
of an observer to make sure that it is not tampered with. Samples are then sent to a
laboratory for analysis, after which the employer is notified of the results (Wodell 1).
Exactly who should be subject to the new trend of mandatory drug tests, is the big
question being raised among businesses, schools, athletes and federal government
employees. Businesses feel that random drug testing of their employees will create higher
productivity, save on health care costs, improve employee turnover, prevent less
accidents, and improve job satisfaction. Schools are beginning to test their students in
more and more regions. This time it is not just athletes, but anybody involved in any
after-school activities will be tested as well. Schools feel that testing their students
will give students an excuse to say no to drugs. It has also generated much controversy
among employees of the federal government because employees feel that it is a violation
of their right to privacy.
Today 81% of large U.S. corporations engage in some type of employee drug screening, and
98% of Fortune 200 companies have drug-testing policies. On the other hand, employees are
more aware of their rights. With the heightened awareness of privacy issues in the U.S,
instituting a drug-testing policy can leave a company on shaky legal ground if they are
not careful. Testing agencies claim that this growing trend is working to cut back on
drug and alcohol abuse in the work force. According to one facility in 1987, 18.1% of
those tested showed positive drug use compared to 1997, where only 5% out of five million
tests came back positive. As far as the drugs of choice in these tests are 60% are for
marijuana, 16% for cocaine, and opiates make up approximately 9 to 10% of the positive
test results (Flynn 107).
On the contrary, many employees are not very happy about having to take drug tests and
they are voicing their opinions. A recent study conducted by the LeMoyne College
Institute of Industrial Relations suggests that, mandatory drug testing actually hurts
workplace work place productivity and may promote the abuse of cocaine, booze and other
drugs. The study also implied that these programs reduce employee productivity by as much
as 33%, because it makes workers feel that they are not trusted by their employers.
Lastly, the study points out that because drug tests tend to zoom in on marijuana (which
only stays in the system for six weeks) some are turning to cocaine, and psychedelic
mushrooms which leave little residue in the body (Workplace 1).
Companies putting these testing policies in place must also consider the legal
repercussions involved if they are not careful. Many firms have found themselves in
violation of our Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure, better
known as a violation of privacy. Opponents claim that the tests are too costly,
ineffective, and prone to abuse. Random testing is a risk in many states, but if the
employee is in a position in which drug use could result in the death of an employee or
the death of others, random testing is usually OK. Another way employers are evaluating
the need for a test is by "reasonable suspicion" which could also be a viable lawsuit for
an employee. It is left for the supervisor to determine if a worker is acting improperly
and thus warrant the need for a test. Last year 73% of employees sent to SmithKline for
testing were clean, and could have cases for invasion of privacy, or infliction of
emotional distress (Flynn 109). 
Schools may be going a bit overboard as well. More and more districts are requiring
random drug testing. This time it is not just athletes in line, but also students
involved in any after-school activities. A school in Indiana is requiring that students
produce urine samples to join not just the track team but also the band, and the chess
club. Students must also submit to urinalysis if they want to drive to school. In Cave
City, Arkansas teens must sign up for random testing if they want to go on field trips or
to attend the prom. Private schools are cracking down even harder such as Pope John Paul
II High School in Slidell, La, who plans to test the entire student body starting this
fall (Hawkins 70).
Although drug use is down slightly after six years of steady increase, some 41% of high
school seniors used illicit drugs last year, according to a study by the University of
Michigan. Proponents of the procedure say it will relieve students from peer pressure by
giving them an excuse to say no (Hawkins 70). Students on the other hand feel that the
schools are targeting the wrong kids and testing for the wrong substances. They feel that
the kids who participate in after-school activities are not necessarily the ones doing
drugs. Some of the most popular teen drugs; nicotine, LSD, steroids, and especially
alcohol are typically not targeted because the tests are too expensive and hard to
administer. Because of this loophole in the system, alcohol and "hard drugs" are becoming
the drug of choice at schools that test their students. Basically, the testing process
targets the use of marijuana because it is the most widely used illicit drug. Marijuana
is the only drug that is not water soluble, so it stays in the system far longer than
traces of other drugs. The person who smoked marijuana two weeks ago has a better chance
of testing positive for it than if he used cocaine two days ago ("Why" 1).
Just how effective are the tests given to students? They feel that they are fairly easy
to beat. Teens reportedly add salt, Visine, bleach, or vinegar to their samples, or they
drink gallons of water to dilute their samples. They also may leave cups behind in
bathroom stalls for drug using friends. Items designed to detoxify their systems or to
mask drug use can be purchased from stores such as General Nutrition Company (GNC) as
well. Schools claim to be fully aware of these tricks. In their defense, some test urine
samples for common adulterants. They may even go a bit further and resort to strip
searches to make sure students are not carrying products to distort test results. One
particular school that make an 18 year old female strip to her underwear during a random
teat is the target of a lawsuit. The school claims that they were only following the
testing kit's instructions (Hawkins 71). 
Testing facilities are making out like bandits due to the increasing number of schools
signing up for testing services. Typically the cost per year for weekly random tests of
about 75 students is $70,000. The federal government pitches in to help this exorbitant
cost, but it only amounts to a few dollars per student. Private corporations are stepping
in, but of course there is a catch. Roche Diagnostic Systems, the leader in workplace
drug testing, contributed $100,000 in testing to schools this year with hopes of building
future demand of their services. Coca-Cola bottling company sponsors drug testing in
exchange for a 10 year contract as the school's exclusive vendor of soft drinks. Experts
also forecast that soon new schools will be constructed with special drug testing
facilities built right in, what is this world coming to?
There are many different ways that drug tests are administered. Businesses and schools
many require urine, blood, and hair samples from employees and students. The most common
type of test right now is the urine test, but hair testing is growing fast. Urine tests
cannot test for drugs directly. They test for metabolites, traces of substances taken
before the test which are no longer active in your system, but can still be detected.
Also, traces of legal medicines; cough syrups, nasal sprays, and ear drops can be
confused with those of illegal drugs (Wodell 1).
To date, the most legally defensible "gold standard" for drug testing, is to screen urine
samples with the Enzyme-Medicated Immunoassay Technique (EMIT), and then submit the
positives from this step to Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GC/MS), which in
itself, is a two test procedure (Bina, 122). EMIT is inexpensive and easy to perform, but
could produce problems if adulterates are present in the urine and creates a false
negative. It has been estimated that EMIT is wrong 25 to 35% of the time. EMIT claims
that these results are most likely due to adulteration of the urine specimen. GC/MS is
considered the most definitive method for confirming the presence of a drug in urine.
This procedure is actually the most costly among urine screening, averaging approximately
$200 per sample to test. But, it is the most specific method of testing available, and
the only way for the drug user to beat this procedure is by substitution of the urine
(Bina 123). 
There are three factors that affect whether a urine test will be positive: 1) the amount
and concentration of the drug that is consumed; 2) the amount of time elapsed between
taking the drug and donating the specimen; and 3) the sensitivity of the test used to
detect the drug. Please see Table I below:
TABLE I: HOW LONG DO DRUGS STAY IN THE SYSTEM?
ESTIMATED TIME
DRUG DETECTABLE IN URINE
Alcohol 12 to 24 hours
Amobarbital 2 to 4 days
Amphetamine 2 to 4 days
Butalbital 2 to 4 days
Cannabinoids 2 to 4 days
Occasional Use 2 to 7 days
Regular Use 30 days
Cocaine 12 to 72 hours
Codeine 2 to 4 days
Chlordiazepoxide 30 days
Diazepam 30 days
Dilaudid 2 to 4 days
Ethanol 12 to 24 hours
Heroine 2 to 4 days
Marijuana 30 days 
Occasional Use 2 to 7 days
Regular Use 30 days
Morphine 2 to 4 days
Methamphetamine 2 to 4 days
Valium 30 days 
(Bina 124)
Today many companies are doing what the FBI has been doing for years, using hair follicle
testing as a means of drug screening. Hair follicle testing is a drug testing method that
is perhaps, less demeaning, less invasive, and less likely to be tampered with than the
well-known urine test. Although, it is more reliable than urine testing it has its
problems that need to be addressed. It is necessary for one to understand how hair grows
to be able to understand the testing procedure.
Hair grows within a small cavity known as the hair follicle. Hair growth occurs when
cells divide in the matrix near the bottom of the follicle. This is where tissue and
blood vessels supply food materials and oxygen to the cells so that cell growth can
occur. After someone takes a drug, the drug travels through the blood to cells in the
hair follicle. At this point the drug becomes permanently locked into the cells. As new
hair moves through the follicle and emerges out of the surface of the skin, the drug is
permanently imprinted in the hair. Each instance of drug intake becomes forever recorded
on strands of hair in chronological order of when the drug was ingested into the body
(Brady 60).
The procedure to test the hair for drugs is quite simple. Between 60 and 120 strands of
hair approximately one-and-a-half inches are cut from the scalp. The strands are washed
to remove external containment's. They are liquefied and separate chemical screens are
administers. If a drug or drugs are detected, a second test using gas chromatography and
mass spectrometry is performed to confirm the findings. Hair follicle testing costs about
$50-$65. The initial test results are available in 24 to 48 hours. If the initial
screening reveals the presence of drugs, the results of the second test to confirm the
findings takes another 48 hour to complete (Brady 60).
There are several advantages to hair follicle testing over urinalysis. For one, they are
not fooled by consumption of excessive fluids prior to the test. The test also has no
window of detection because hair creates a historical pattern of drug use unlike any
other procedure. It cuts down on the embarrassment factor because you don not have to be
observed while going to the bathroom, or carrying out the obvious cup. It also does not
require any special handling, storage, shipping, or refrigeration.
Although hair follicle testing has its benefits, like the rest of the procedures it has
its problems too. First of all, it is very expensive. It costs three times more than
urinalysis, because it is still in its early technological stages. It may also cause
discomfort because the preferred method is to pluck hair out of the head in order to get
intact hair roots. If the root of the hair is not present, very recent drug use (five to
eight days) cannot be detected. The last factor is inconsistent hair growth rate. The
"average" growth rate is this procedure is considered to be a half-inch per month, but
that may not be accurate. Some people's hair may grow faster of slower than the average.
This difference is crucial in determining when the person consumed the drug (Brady 61).
Although hair follicle testing seems to be the most accurate way to test for drug use,
there is much debate over the accuracy of it because of the difference in the way hair
reacts with the environment. It is feared that African-Americans are subject to false
positive results. This issue has been brought to the House Judiciary Committee due to
several cases of job discharges blamed for what employees call false-positives (Kean
32).
Hair testing may also be under fire in several racial discrimination law suits.
Apparently, in August 1998seven Chicago African-Americans say they received erroneous
hair test results when applying for the Police Academy. All seven have filed complaints
of racial discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The complaints
are currently under investigation, and the group is considering suing both the city of
Chicago and Psychemedics, the testing facility. The procedure is said by some to be
inaccurate and to give false positives disproportionately to African Americans. Also,
blonde hair, dark hair and dyed hair react differently thus creating questions of equity
among ethnic groups and genders. A study released by the National Institute of Drug Abuse
shows that dark, coarse hair of many African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians is more
likely to retain external contamination, such as drug residues absorbed from the
environment. Black hair retained drugs at a rate up to fifty times higher than the white
hair (Kean 34). Hair testing facilities insist that hair samples are washed thoroughly to
remove the hair surface, which totally eliminates any external environmental contaminants
before testing.
There may also be a reason that no hair testing has been federally certified, and
Psychemedics has refused to disclose its testing and analysis procedures to the
scientific community. In 1998, Sergeant Duane Adens, an African American was discharged
from his fourteen-year job at the Pentagon for allegedly failing a hair test. Adens was
six years away from retirement when two agents from the Army's Critical Investigation
Division asked him to testify against an associate of his, who had been accused of
stealing. Adens refused because he had no knowledge of the crime. He was later threatened
with his job due to the refusal, and given a urine test which he passed. Three months
later Adens was forced to provide samples of his pubic hair for drug testing. He was
never given an opportunity to sign off on the hair to identify it as his own, and much to
his surprise it came back positive. Seven urinalysis tests had been taken over the course
of a year and a half, and all came back negative. The sergeant's attorney requested a DNA
test to verify the identity of the hair, and the U.S. Army denied his request. Because of
the hair-test results, Adens received a bad conduct discharge and was robbed of something
he had worked hard at for fourteen years of his life (Kean 35-36).
Hair testing opponents also argue that the test is unfair because it can expose genetic
information contained in DNA, such as hereditary defects or a predisposition to certain
diseases. Opponents are worried that this data may be used to their disadvantage by
insurance companies, as a way to deny them coverage. Companies could also use this
information to bar promotions because someone may be likely to suffer a major illness
later in life (Curry 163). 
In conclusion, I would like to point out that companies and schools who are considering
implementing a drug testing policy must be very careful and follow all of the rules. The
policy should prohibit the use, possession, sale or transfer of illegal drugs in the
workplace, and more detailed policies will prohibit all of these on or off company time.
The company must also give the employee the ability to explain any positive results. In
some states, employers are required to accommodate an employee's request for unpaid time
off for rehab (Flynn 107). Usually it is in everyone's best interest to allow an employee
time for rehabilitation because if a good employee is saved, everyone benefits.
Positivity Rates by Testing Category
Testing Category 1998 1997 1996 1995
Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workforce 3.4% 3.5% 3.6% 3.4%
General Workforce 5.0% 5.2% 6.4% 7.5%
Combined U.S. Workforce 4.8% 5.0% 5.8% 6.7%
(Johnson)
EXIBIT 1
(Johnson)
EXIBIT 2
Positivity Rates By Testing Reason 
(For Federally Mandated, Safety Sensitive Workforce)
(More than 650,000 tests from January to December,1998)
Testing Reason 1998 1997
For Cause 15.3% 14.4%
Periodic 1.4% 1.9%
Post-Accident 4.3% 4.3%
Pre-Employment 3.8% 3.8%
Random 2.7% 2.9%
Returned to Duty 4.8% 5.9%
Positive Rates By Drug Category
(For Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workforce, as a percentage of all such tests)
(More than 650,000 tests from January to December, 1998)
Drug Category 1998 1997
Amphetamines 0.25% 0.30%
Cocaine 0.78% 0.73%
Marijuana 1.87% 2.0%
Opiates 0.49% 0.53%
PCP 0.05% 0.04%
Positive Rates By Drug Category
(For General U.S. Workforce, as a percentage of all such tests)
(More than 5 million tests from January to December, 1998)
Drug Category 1998 1997
Amphetamines 0.20% 0.26%
Barbiturates 0.38% 0.35%
Benzodiazepines 0.55% 0.59%
Cocaine 0.91% 0.90%
Marijuana 3.17% 3.4%
Methadone 0.06% 0.07%
Opiates 0.50% 0.50%
PCP 0.01% 0.01%
Propoxyphene 0.29% 0.27%
(Johnson)
EXHIBIT 3
Positive Results By Drug Category
(For Federally Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workers, as a percentage of all positives)
(More than 650,000 tests from January to December, 1998)
Drug Category 1998 1997
Amphetamines 7.1% 8.1%
Cocaine 22.3% 20%
Marijuana 54.7% 56%
Nitrites 0.32% NA%
Opiates 14% 15%
PCP 1.6% 1.2%
Positive Results By Drug Category
(For Combined U.S. Workforce, as a percentage of All Positives)
(More than 5.7 million tests from January to December, 1998)
Drug Category 1998 1997
Amphetamines 4.0% 4.9%
Barbiturates 3.0% 3.0%
Benzodiazepines 3.4% 3.9%
Cocaine 17.6% 16%
Marijuana 59.2% 60%
Methadone 0.36% 0.41%
Methaqualone 0.0007% 0.0002%
Nitrites 0.63% NA%
Opiates 9.7% 9.4%
PCP 0.37% 0.34%
Propoxyphene 1.7% 1.6%
Rates By Testing Positivity Reason
(For General Workforce)
(More than 5 million tests from January to December, 1998)
Testing Reason 1998 1997
For Cause 25.3% 26.7%
Periodic 4.9% 5.2%
Post-Accident 6.4% 6.8%
Pre-Employment 4.6% 4.7%
Random 7.3% 8.3%
Returned to Duty 7.2% 6.1%
(Johnson)
EXHIBIT 4
EXHIBT 5 (Johnson)
(Johnson)
Exhibit 6
Bibliography
Anderson, Sean. "Individual Privacy Interests and the Special Needs 
Analysis for Involuntary Drug and HIV Tests." California Law Review 
January 1998: 119-177.
Bina, Chris. "Drug Testing 101: Detecting Tainted Samples." Corrections 
Today October 1998: 122-127.
Brady, Teresa. "Bad Hair Days." Management Review February 1997: 59-61.
Curry, Sheree. "Big Brother Wants a Closer Look at Your Hair." Fortune 
June 23, 1997: 163.
Flynn, Gillian. "How to Prescribe Drug Testing." Workforce January 1999: 
107-109.
Hawkins, Dana. "Trial by Vial." U.S. News & World Report May 31, 1999: 70-
72.
Johnson, Thomas. "Drug Testing Positvity Rates Down 65% in Past Decade."
SmithKlein Beecham March 16, 1999: n. page. Online. Internet. 5 August 1999.
Available:drugs.indiana.edu/drug_stats/home.html
Kean, Leslie. "More Than a Hair Off." The Progressive May 1999: 32-36.
Levy, James. "Stress at Work." Baltimore Business Journal February 24, 
1997: 17-20.
Peck, Jeanne Peck. "Workplace Drug Testing Now a Fact of Life." The 
Orlando Sentinel January 19, 1998: 20-23.
Shoop, Bob. "Mandatory Drug Testing Violates Rights." USA Today August 
1996: 15-16.
"Why Drug Testing is Really Just Marijuana Testing." Marijuana News 
January 20, 1998: n. page. Online. Internet. 19 July 1999. Available: 
marijuananews.com
Wodell, Russell. "The Facts About Drug Testing in the Workplace." B.C. Civil
Liberties Association (1997) n.page. Online. Internet. 4 August 1999. 
Available: bccla.org/positions/privacy/drugtest.html
"Workplace Drug Testing May Actually Promote Drug Use." The Globe Daily 
(1999)n. page. Online. Internet. 19 July 1999. Available: globedaily/ 
content/ 112398.