RANDOM DRUG TESTS ERODE OUR PRIVACY

Personal privacy and civil liberties are essential to the success of
a democratic society. Any public policy that erodes those values must
be weighed very carefully.

Random workplace drug tests, which infringe on privacy, can be
condoned only when a strong case can be made that they are necessary
for on-the-job and public safety. A proposed ordinance for mandatory
random drug testing of all Chicago employees from aldermen on down
doesn't meet that test.

We can accept the justification for random drug testing of bus or
truck drivers and police officers. The dangers to the public are
obvious if a driver or officer is under the influence of drugs. A
drug test becomes preventive medicine.

We even recently defended a CHA proposal to require random drug tests
for residents of public housing. Just a small number of drug addicts
in a housing development can destroy the quality of life for the good
people who - and this is the crux of the issue - have nowhere else to
go. The city has a moral responsibility to make sure public housing is safe.

But if we prize our civil liberties, we have to draw a line
somewhere. To randomly test all city employees - who already must
pass a drug test to be hired - would mess with their personal
freedoms for insufficient gains. Yes, it can be hard to draw the line
- - would 911 dispatchers be included? But to the best of our
knowledge, nobody has ever lost their house because some drug-addled
clerk in the recorder of deeds office wrote the wrong number on a form.

The aldermen behind the proposal, Edward M. Burke (14th) and Pat
O'Connor (40th), hope random drug testing will reduce payouts for
accidents and workers compensation. Burke compares drug tests to
lighthouses: You never know how many accidents they prevent.

But random drug testing would open a can of worms that doesn't need
opening. If the city discovers that scads of city workers have traces
of drugs in their system not from smoking joints on the job but from
doing so over the weekend, would they be fired?

We can't argue with the desire to cut costs. But the erosion of
personal privacy exacts a far bigger price.