|
Now, has there been any indication that random drug testing helps cut down on the dangers of drugs?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but most drug tests merely test for marijuana. Cocaine and the more dangerous and addictive drugs don't stay in your system, right?
Barbara Ehrenreich, award-winning journalist and author of Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By In America (Which is a VERY good book , by the way) has this to say:
"There are many claims for workplace drug testing: supposedly, it results in reduced rates of absenteeism, fewer claims on health insurance plans, and increased productivity. However, none of these claims have been substantiated... Studies show that [testing] does not lower absenteeism, accidents, or turnover and... actually lowered productivity - presumably due to its negative effect on morale. Furthermore, the practice is quite costly. In 1990, the federal government spent 11.7 million to test 29,000 federal employees. Since only 153 tested positive, the cost of detecting a single drug user was $77,000. Why do employers persist in this practice? Probably in part because of advertising by the roughly $2 billion drug-testing industry, but I suspect that the demeaning effect of testing may also hold some attraction for employers."
Replace "Employers" with "administrators" and "employees" with "pupils" or "students" and she makes a fine case, I think.
|