Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Drug Screening
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Science and Technology
Google
Victoria Silverwolf
Is the trend towards drug screening (urine tests and such) as a requirement for employment a good thing or a bad thing?

Some would say that this is helpful, by keeping people from engaging in activities which could negatively influence performance in positions of responsibility. Others see this as a degrading intrusion of privacy.

Coward that I am, I always undergo drug screening without protest. (I have never used illegal substances of any kind; perhaps this influences my decision to go along with it, although it really shouldn't.) I tend to feel that it's a waste of time at the cost of human dignity.

Does it make a difference whether the employer is private or public? Whether the position is one in which the public is at risk from an impaired employee?
Google
Kisov
I work with drugs, guns, and money (among other things) all day at my job (evidence technician). . .so you would think that I would definitely be subjected to a drug screening. But, the city I work for has realized that in my profession my trustworthiness and honesty are the most important factors. So instead of any drug test I was subjected to a lie detector test instead. Talk about an invasion of privacy! I would rather take 20 urine test than have to do one more lie detector test.

As to your question, I feel that it should not make too much of a difference between a private or public profession. . .I feel that urine should be tested, but only for dangerous addictive drugs, I do not feel that marijuana is in that category. Also, if a person is doing drugs and therefore can't do their job effectively, then they should just be fired. . .end of story. My one amendment to that is people who are in a position that they have peoples lives in their hands. . .in that case, I feel that drug testing should be mandatory.

-Kisov
gandalfh
It is a good thing. We don't need drug users in our work force.
seeker
Interesting topic , we as workers would not want drug users on the job. it is a danger for all who are involved with the worker. although the user should have the opportunity to rehabilitate himself.

this also brings into question the validity of the drug test. it has been proven that poppy seeds eating as little as 2 hr before and as much as 3-days before a test will show a positive result in the drug screen.
it seems to me that such a faulty test that can be damaging to ones career should be banned until a full proof test could be made.
Cyan
QUOTE
Interesting topic , we as workers would not want drug users on the job. it is a danger for all who are involved with the worker. although the user should have the opportunity to rehabilitate himself.


It's only a danger if someone is using drugs while on the job. If drugs are effecting a person's ability to function effectively, the employer should be able to see that without a drug test and act accordingly. It's not that difficult to tell if someone is under the influence, and it should be treated in the same way that we treat alcohol. If a person wants to use responsibly on their own time, so be it.
Google
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2021 Invision Power Services, Inc.