City should rethink random drug testing proposal

Acting City Manager Steve LeBlanc has suggested random drug testing for
some city employees. The City Council should view this proposal
skeptically.

Every action by a government body must pass two tests: The benefits must
exceed the costs, and the action must be justified in light of government's
unique power to compel. Unlike a private entity, government can sieze
assets and restrict liberty, within the limits set by the Constitution.

The rationalization for drug testing is that users of illegal drugs are
more likely than non-users to have accidents, or commit crimes on the job
-- though there is little evidence of this.

LeBlanc was quoted as saying, "I think there is a big problem out there."
Let him demonstrate evidence of this problem. Have employees been arrested
for violating drug laws? Are there accidents, embezzlement, or substandard
job performance? If so, the employees who are at fault should be
disciplined immediately.

Drug testing is not perfect:

* Commonly-used urine tests detect only marijuana, cocaine, and opiates.
An employee actually under the influence of LSD or other drugs could escape
detection.

* Positive results only indicate that the employee used a substance
recently, possible weeks ago. They do not indicate that the person is
intoxicated at the time of testing.

* Statistically, random testing is unlikely to catch users. Approximately
four percent (one in twenty-five) of Americans use illegal drugs regularly.
If ten percent of a population is tested, the odds that all users will
escape detection are less than 1:1.

* Savvy users can pass urine tests using a variety of methods.
The costs of drug testing extend beyond the approximately $50 fee for the
test itself:

* Employees must take time out of their work day to undergo a degrading
procedure.

* Morale and trust are damaged.

* A false positive may subject an innocent person to embarrassment,
unjustified suspicion, and retesting. The city may also be sued for
slander, libel, or civil-rights violations.

The risks imputed to drug users can be avoided by management techniques
already available: financial controls, asset management, and supervisor
awareness of performance problems, including intoxication. These methods
will detect problems caused by alcoholics, compulsive gamblers, and those
who are simply dishonest and criminally inclined. It's not necessary to
presume every employee is potentially guilty of crimes that have little to
do with job performance, to spend more of the city's limited resources, or
to tread on Constitutional rights.

- Jim Casey/Galveston