DRUG-TESTING POLICIES CAN IMPEDE OUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY

The Line Between Private And Public Should Be Reinforced

In March, the 9th Circuit Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for
employers to require pre-employment drug tests, maintaining that such
policies were in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Because the trial
involved an applicant for a position in an Oregon library, its
ramifications extend to all public, non-safety oriented jobs in
Oregon, as well as Nevada, Alaska, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana
and Washington, all of which are under the jurisdiction of the 9th
Circuit Court.

A quick Google News search reveals that similar policies are being
debated around the country. Most prominent are the proposed random
drug tests in public schools, which would require students to submit a
urine or blood sample. Most of these policies apply to student athletes.

Such policies raise an interesting question - how far should
institutions, such as public places of employment or schools, be
allowed to delve into the personal lives of people like students or
potential employees?

The history of court rulings involving drug-testing policies reveals
an interesting trend. According to the National Organization for the
Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), courts generally ruled against these
policies until the mid-1980s. The courts maintained that if drug tests
were required without reasonable suspicion that an individual was
using drugs, they were in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

However, NORML notes that toward the end of the 1980s and into the
1990s, a period characterized by domestic policy under the influence
of the War on Drugs, courts began to uphold random drug-testing
policies. In a 1995 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld a Washington
school district's right to test athletes for drugs regardless of suspicion.

In an effort to combat drug use, courts began to rule in favor of
random drug testing with or without reasonable suspicion that the
individual was using drugs. This allowed for random drug tests of
students and pre-employment drug tests that act as screening for
potential employees.

The problem with such policies is that they blur the line between an
individual's privacy and what they are forced to disclose to their
school or employer.

Drug tests are inefficient in determining whether an employee or
student is under the influence of drugs while at work or at school
because some drugs metabolize quickly, while others remain in one's
system for months. Therefore, the results of drug tests more
accurately predict whether or not the individual in question has ever
used drugs, instead of whether they were intoxicated while working or
attending class.

It could be argued that a place of employment or a school has the
responsibility to ensure that its employees or students refrain from
drug use. But is that the place of these institutions? Is it
justifiable for your boss or your principal to police your private
life?

I would posit that the answer is no, because what one does in their
private life might not apply to their performance in work or in
school. If drug use were to cause problems on the job or hinder
academic performance, such evidence would provide reasonable suspicion
for a drug test.

Even if the employee or student did not use illegal substances, drug
tests are quite invasive, and out of respect for employees and
students, they should not be required without warrant.

Additionally, allowing such policies might set the precedent for
policies that broach one's privacy in other aspects of his or her
life. Thus, drug-testing policies apply to all of us, even if we are
sure we would pass them, because it is important that we protect our
right to privacy.

The 9th Circuit Court's recent ruling was one step towards the
affirmation of individual privacy. Future trials will have remarkable
impacts on our national definition of privacy.