PUT TO THE TEST

When it comes to making job applicants take drug tests, Spokesman-Review
readers are of two minds.

It's an invastion of privacy, the behavior of a police state, an erosion of
the Fourth Amendment, declare some.

No, contend others, public safety and social order trump privacy when it's
being used to conceal criminal activity. If you've nothing to hide, a drug
test is no big deal.

Last month we invited readers to share ideas about how those conflicting
concerns might be bridged. As the excerpts on this page demonstrate, it
seems no bridge is in sight.

A Violation Of Privacy Rights

Michael A. Bender, Coeur d'Alene: "It is very much like Prohibition when
the nannies were in power back in the 1920s. You couldn't stop people from
drinking back then and you can't stop people from taking drugs now. What
you can and have done is create a criminal class that will eventually
defeat this nation.

"When are we supposed to win this war on drugs? We've been fighting the
marijuana war since 1937, and we haven't won it yet. In fact, there are 10
times the number of marijuana smokers today as ever before. All the
government is doing is making our society less efficient and less safe than
it was before, and giving a bunch of jobs to incompetent people who behave
like Nazis with extraordinary legal powers."

Gene Carpenter, Moscow: "One senator in the past would be proud of the
requirement that people be tested for drug use if they wish to retain their
jobs.

"Many will not remember that scores of people lost their jobs because they
would not sign a statement that they were not communist. The present
requiremnt that people in some jobs be tested for drug use is as much an
invasion of personal freedom.

"Sen. Joseph McCarthy's ideas and methods were repudiated by the American
people. The citizens of this day and age need to object to drug testing if
they wish to retain their personal freedoms."

Bill and Joanne Peters, Kellogg: "We believe all drug testing for jobs is
illegal. It goes against the Fourth Amendment.

"The very first phrase, 'The right of the people to be secure in their
persons,' doesn't give any employer the right to force an applicant to take
a urine test. The medical profession and their cavalier and often
inaccurate procedures shouldn't be forced upon so many people for insurance
liability purposes -- and that's what this is all about.

"Let us get back to trusting each other and give the insurance companies
the boot."

David Droll, Coeur d'Alene: "If the employee consistently is tardy or
doesn't show up at all, if the employee shows signs of being on drugs while
working or when public safety is at risk, then I could understand asking
for a drug test -- with the appropriate warrants of course.

"But to require drug testing before a hiring decision is made, or to prove
innocence in order to keep your job -- that's just wrong!"

Gail Somers, Coeur d'Alene: "Testing all to screen out the possible few
actual drug users works upon the polar opposite of the `presumed innocent'
ideal. So I would have to believe that some actual probable cause should
enter any circumstance. (Having a bloodstream is simply not probable cause.)

'Drug Testing Is An Invasion Of Privacy'

Dave Kirkland, Sandpoint:

I feel drug testing is an unreasonable invasion of privacy.

First, it often seems that drug testing is conducted on citizens from the
lowest ranks on up.

Is the president tested for drugs? Are all our law officers and emergency
personnel drug-tested?

If we condone drug testing, persons making decisions for countries and
cities and those handling weapons as part of their jobs should be the very
first to receive urinalysis. In contrast, I hear about high school
students, athletes and laborers of all sorts being tested for drugs.

Second, what are we aiming to accomplish with drug testing? Is it about
safety, or insurance rates?

Striving for safe workplaces and reliable employees is commendable, but I
believe this can be accomplished without drug testing or at least with
modified tests.

The present system is failing because persons may use legal drugs and
illegal drugs that don't show up through urinalysis. For example, many
prescription drugs, cocaine and heroin derivatives may be out of workers'
bodies within a few days or a week.

Finally, our society must distinguish between "soft" and "hard" drugs, if
we hope to reduce problematic behavior. Persons are denied employment
regularly for having THC (tetrahydrocannabinol) from marijuana in their
system, yet they could have used marijuana 30 minutes or 30 days prior to
the test and test positive in either case. They may never cause society
problem one, but they are in violation of archaic policy.

We should at least revise our drug testing system to be performance-based,
not simply random. Most importantly, the testing must accurately show the
most detrimental drugs. Our present drug testing practices come down
unfairly on hard-working citizens.

Social Order Outweighs Rights

Dale Snipes, Kootenai, Idaho: "Drug testing is no big deal. If a person has
nothing to hide they should not be intimidated by it.

"It's like showing ID when cashing a check or using a credit card. This
practice helps the honest people.

"My daughter is a cross-country truck driver and has no problem with the
occasional drug test. She feels that if the testing keeps even one bad
driver off the road, it's good for all of them.

"If drug testing keeps even one 'user' out of the public employee system,
we are all protected."

Jan Sarchio, Sandpoint: "You can't get a job at Wal-Mart without having a
urine test. Big deal. If we can 'weed' out some of the dope heads, all the
better.

"Recently, Richard Butler found out just how responsible employers can be
for the actions of their employees. I'd say employers have a need and a
right to know, since the buck, ultimately, stops with them."

Vivian Plank, Post Falls:

"The people pay the salaries of public employees. I believe we should feel
safe and secure that those public employees are not under the influence of
any sort of drugs.

"Testing for drugs ensures that fellow employees are not using drugs, and
when your life is on the line, that can be a real nice thing to know."

George Rekow, Post Falls: "I served in the Navy for 30 years. During this
period the Navy developed mandatory drug testing for all personnel.

"I was always in favor of the policy because it was there for the obvious,
to protect lives and material.

"Those who feel drug testing is an invasion of their privacy should be more
concerned with the gathering of personal and private information by
government agencies than being involved with a program that is designed to
protect the innocent."

David Bray, Spokane:

"It would seem that whatever legal test was devised by the courts to
protect individual privacy failed to consider the extensive collateral
effects of the performance of drug users. When one creates sub-standard
employment conditions because of drug use, individual privacy should be set
aside for the greater benefit of the public body, as well as the health of
the drug testee/public employee."

Ralph E. Hallock, Hayden, Idaho:

"Use of drugs cannot be, in many cases, easily detected visually so testing
is the only reasonable way to determine such use. Failure to do such
testing and restrict users from jobs that might result in injuring or
killing you or me seems just as unreasonable as the use of the drugs.

"Why should we have to wait for something bad to occur before taking action?"

Bonnie Spalding, Sandpoint:

"We've become spoiled children who have lost sight of the purpose of rules
and order. When community/county/state can't set the rules to suit us, the
federal government is expected to step in and take over. Then we scream
some more about too much governmental control. We're becoming a society who
no longer believes in accountability and responsibility."

Marty McCrea, Spokane: "I see very little difference in a urinalysis in
comparison to a background check. They are both intrusive. I feel they are
both necessary and should be mandatory for jobs involving the public's
safety, or any job for that matter.

"The public's rights are being violated when employees are not tested."

Deborah Lawrence Hale, Greenacres:

"The only people who should be tested are people who hold our lives in
their hands."

Recently, some friends of mine were asked to take drug tests to secure
employment as customer support specialists for a local company.

One of them was really irritated because he was tested for marijuana but
not for narcotics. I suspect the reason is that testing for narcotics would
single out people who have legitimate prescriptions for pain killers.
However, does the employer really want a heroin user on staff instead of a
marijuana toker?

For a job like customer support specialist, drug testing seems
unnecessary. If work performance indicates an employee is under the
influence of any substance -- including alcohol, which is not searched for
in most tests -- the employee should be counseled and subject to
disciplinary measures. It doesn't even matter if he or she passes the drug
test.

If the employer suspects an employee is inebriated or stoned, chances are
that employee isn't performing to the best of his or her ability and should
be sanctioned.

The only people who should be tested are people who hold our lives in their
hands -- such as bus drivers, airline pilots, truck drivers. And tests
which indicate current use of mind-altering drugs (including alcohol)
should be the only tests used.

It shouldn't matter to an employer what an employee does on his or her own
time, only what the employee is doing at work.