MOST DRUG-TESTING IS UNFAIR

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.

While it's heartening to see the federal government finally recognizing
some unfair aspects of drug testing, the whole procedure should be
abandoned. Drug tests can destroy the reputation of those who have nothing
to do with drugs, but may actually encourage the use of more dangerous
drugs by others. Marijuana can be detected by urine tests for weeks after
use; traces of heroin and cocaine can be found for only a couple days. As
the weekend starts, a savvy illegal drug user knows to stick to the hard
stuff. Marijuana never leads to death, as heroin, cocaine and alcohol
sometimes do; but in a professional sense, it's the least safe drug. As
usual, the disastrous zero-tolerance tactics of the drug war aggravate drug
problems while solving nothing.

It's reasonable to implement performance-based testing to confirm or reject
suspicions that an employee may be impaired on the job. Urine tests, on the
other hand, have as little intrinsic value as the fluid anaylzed, unless a
high price is placed on an employer's ability to intrude on the private
life of a worker.

Stephen Young, Roselle, Ill.