I posted this in
this thread in Tilted Living on this topic a while back:
Quote:
There's a difference between using drugs and working under the influence of those drugs. The problem with drug testing is that it does not discriminate between the two.
I think that if there is no problem in a worker's quality of work, there's no need for an employer investigate and find a "problem."
Similarly, if there is a problem in the worker's quality of work, the employer need not be concerned with whether or not drugs are involved -- they should simply demand that they get themselves together or find another job. Is there a difference between one who is incompetent because of drug use and one who is incompetent because of laziness?
Also -- most companies allow their workers to drink outside of work. But they wouldn't want their workers working drunk. As long as a worker can do their work well, I think that companies would better spend their resources elsewhere.
Aside from that, I think that drug tests are an invasion of privacy, and while it may be legal for a company to demand them, I consider it unethical.
And finally, I find drug testing odd because it is usually not comprehensive and can provide incentive for someone to shift from marijuana (usually tested for) to something harder that's not tested for. Example: When I attended a private high school, the administration announced that it would begin random drug testing for marijuana, cocaine, heroin, PCP, and methamphetamine. The result was that the 1/3 of the class that smoked marijuana moved to shrooms, ecstacy, and LSD.
|
I agree that employers shouldn't tolerate "lazy piles of trash," but because they are lazy, not because of their drug use.
I would rather employ someone who smokes at home and does their work well than someone who is substance-free but is still messing around at work.