I read with interest your Dec. 15 article "U.S. Issues New Rules on
Drug-Test Accuracy." The accuracy of the tests is certainly in
question, but so is the rationale behind the drug-testing. Outside of
DOT-mandated drug tests, private industry demands even tougher
pre-employment drug testing for 75% of minimum-wage and blue-collar
jobs, but for very few management or executive jobs.

The Journal of Analytical Toxicology July/August 1997 shows that
eating many commercially available health foods can cause a positive
test result. Once you have tested positive for any reason, it is
almost impossible to ever clear your good name.

I question whether it is necessary to test every burger-flipper and
parking-lot attendant, while politicians are exempt from testing. I
wonder at the rationale for urging the testing of public
schoolchildren when their teachers, coaches and other staff members
aren't tested (at least in Oregon). Except for DOT-mandated positions,
few public employees at any level are drug-tested.

I am not opposed to drug-testing for police and certain positions such
as those who operate airplanes, trains, buses and big trucks, but I
can see no benefit from the testing of blue-collar workers, while
their managers and executives aren't tested. The poorest segments of
our population are the most heavily tested, and that is
discriminatory.

Jayson R. Jones,
Swisshome, Ore.