DRUG TESTS JUST ONE MORE THING TO PUT UP WITH

Have you ever encountered an issue that you should get all worried about
but just can't?

Drug testing of state employees is such an idea.

Yes, there are civil liberties questions involved. Sure, there are privacy
considerations. Of course, there's a cost-benefit equation that's never
taken into account, not to mention some tough-on-crime posturing whenever
drugs are mentioned. But, judging from the reaction of state employees and
local legislators, people seem to have accepted the idea.

Last week, with no outcry from the ranks, the Department of Juvenile
Justice began asking randomly selected employees for urine samples or
telling them to wear an adhesive sweat patch. DJJ is the only state agency
randomly testing employees for recreational pharmaceuticals - so far.

"Random drug testing of employees is part of our overall effort to raise
the standards, safety and professionalism of the Department of Juvenile
Justice," DJJ Secretary Bill Bankhead said. "Our public employees must be
drug-free and set the right example for young people."

About 5 percent of the department's 5,000 employees will be subject to
random testing each year. Once notified, they'll be given 24 hours to fill
a cup - long enough to get a note from their doctors, if they're taking
anything legal that might look bad, but not long enough to cleanse the
kidneys of any pot residue.

Career Service employees will be given urine tests. Selected Exempt and
Senior Management employees will get the patch, which stays on for five to
seven days.

It would be an over-simplification to say state employees like it; more
likely, they've come to accept drug tests as just one more thing they have
to put up with.

Ex-Gov. Bob Martinez, declaring "you have to be a straight shooter" to work
in his administration, took the first test himself. He passed, predictably,
and went on to become the nation's drug czar after his defeat in 1990.

There was considerable argument in the Legislature, in the late 1980s,
about what should constitute "reasonable cause" for requiring an employee
to be tested. There was also some debate about what "safety-sensitive"
state positions should have mandatory testing.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
aggressively represented employees, in the Legislature and in court, in
working out drug-testing rules. AFSCME negotiated with DJJ, assuring
protections for double-checking positive tests - although the confirmation
tests will be done at the employee's expense.

If they don't work directly with young offenders, drug-using employees will
be offered one chance for treatment. But the department's police and
youth-custody officers will be fired if they flunk a test.

DJJ also requires pre-employment testing for all Senior Management and
Selected Exempt employees, as well as those in law enforcement or other
"safety-sensitive" jobs. And, as in every state agency, employees showing
signs of impairment can be required to give a sample.