JUST SAY NO TO DRUG TESTING

UK companies should resist the urge to introduce routine screening of
employees

Take it from the US: drug testing programmes do more harm than good. The
case for testing employees, students and those applying for government
benefits may seem obvious: testing can deter people from using illegal
drugs; it can catch those who are breaking the law; and it can help detect
those who are using drugs and make sure they are treated or punished.

But logic has led to a massive expansion in testing throughout the US -
starting with employees, then athletes, and now students and others.
Millions of Americans regularly give specimens so employers or school
authorities can determine whether or not they have taken a drug. Many do it
without a second thought.

Will Britain follow our lead and embrace drug testing? I hope not.

In most cases, drug testing represents a snake oil solution for both real
and non-existent drug problems. The real push for drug testing in the US
stems not from any scientific evidence or cost-benefit analysis but from an
industry that is making a fortune. Go to any conference of human resource
professionals and the aisles will be full of salesmen touting the benefits
of drug testing. Some are retired drug warriors or drug enforcement chiefs
pursuing their old campaigns with new and more profitable tactics.

Missing are the people who may point out that drug testing is a costly and
counter-productive programme for most employers. But they have no product to
sell.

In 1994, a committee of the National Academy of Sciences compiled and
analysed research on the subject in a report entitled Under the Influence?
Drugs and the American Work Force. The committee of distinguished medical,
legal and business experts concluded that "the data . . . do not provide
clear evidence of the deleterious effects of drugs other than alcohol on
safety and other job performance indicators". It urged companies "to be
cautious" because "there are very few empirically based conclusions that may
be reached concerning the effectiveness of drug testing programs".

The report should have given many companies pause for thought, but few
senior managers saw it because the academy does not promote its findings. No
one bothered to send copies to every chief executive in the US or to make
copies available at conferences. But now, finally, a summary of the report
and the arguments for and against drug testing is available in a report by
the American Civil Liberties Union entitled Drug Testing: A Bad Investment.
Every chief executive and HR professional in Britain and the US should read
it.

So what is wrong with drug testing? First, it is both over- and
under-inclusive. It is over-inclusive in that millions are tested in order
to detect tens of thousands - and most of these are marijuana users. But it
is also under-inclusive in that drug testing easily becomes a substitute for
good management, distracting attention from other things - emotional
distress, physical illness, poor morale and so on - that can impair an
employee's performance.

Most drug tests expose marijuana users - both because marijuana is the most
commonly used illicit drug in the US and because it remains detectable for
much longer than most other drugs. It is not clear why employers want to
test for marijuana, since most of the evidence indicates that the work
performance of marijuana smokers is no different from that of non-marijuana
smokers. If Americans were to disqualify from office anyone who has ever
smoked marijuana, at least one of the leading candidates for president would
have to withdraw from the race and Congress and the courts would be much
diminished. Roughly half of all Americans between 20 and 50 would be barred
from public office.

One can understand that employers want to identify those who are potentially
a danger to themselves and others in the workplace. But most drug testing
reveals more about what a person consumed the previous night than about
whether their work is impaired. It also sets up a bizarre incentive: if you
want to get drunk on a Friday night and still pass a urine test on Monday,
smoking a joint would be foolish, while cocaine and alcohol would be a
"safer" choice of intoxicants.

A friend of mine runs a business with a few dozen manual labourers who spend
much of their time on the road, working long hours and then unwinding in
motels at night. The law requires my friend to test any employee with a
commercial driver's licence for drugs. His greatest concern is alcohol,
which is more problematic than marijuana when it comes to driving,
anti-social behaviour and dependence. His staff know that smoking a joint on
Monday night is more risky than getting drunk for three week nights if there
is a drug test on Friday.

There are other problems too: "false" positives that result from poppy seed
bagels, edible hemp products and some over-the-counter drugs; the expensive
farce of offering "drug treatment" to responsible marijuana users; the
opportunities forgone because many decent people refuse to take jobs that
require drug testing; and the waste of hundreds of millions of dollars on
ineffective testing programmes.

But the greatest problem is the slippery slope of drug testing. In the US we
began by testing military personnel and airline pilots. Now we are testing
millions of office workers and the testing industry even has children in its
sights. It is unclear when and where the people will finally say "enough".

Americans have failed to draw the line on drug testing, to the detriment of
their civil liberties and economy. Britain would be wise not to follow its
lead.