Increasing numbers of Americans are being required to submit to drug tests at work and at school, with limited proven effectiveness.   Prof. Mitch Earleywine returns this week with an analysis of this controversial practice.  After reading Prof. Earleywine's comments make sure to tell us what you think in our Discussion Forum.

One of my students had to provide a lock of hair to get a job at a local video store. I guess they’re afraid she might come to work high and stack ‘Titanic’ in with the comedies.

Over 80% of major U.S. firms test for drugs. Opponents of employee drug testing view it as a degrading experience that qualifies as an illegal search and seizure. They also argue that the costs of testing outweigh the benefits.

Why do employers bother? They assume that drug users will not do a good job. Intoxication on most jobs would likely impair performance, though some workers report improved manual labor after smoking marijuana (Carter, 1980).

One study found that firms that test for drugs are actually less efficient than those that don’t.  Employees can’t work while they’re off peeing in a cup. The whole process is also hard on morale. The truth is, very few people actually use illicit drugs while they are at work.

A study of the federal government’s $11.7 million drug testing program tells an expensive story. Given the large number of abstainers and the price of the tests, identifying a single drug user cost $77,000. That’s not a typo. $77,000. Most government employees don’t make that much in a year.

Proponents of drug testing programs argue that the tests deter drug use in these federal employees. It’s just not true. The rate of drug use among federal employees parallels the reported rates of drug use in the nation. Government workers are just as likely to use illicit drugs as other folks. Obviously, the tests do not deter consumption.

Many people dislike drug testing in the workplace and take extreme steps to undermine its efficacy. A small industry has developed in reaction to widespread drug testing. This industry sells products designed to enhance the chances of testing negative despite drug use. A number of shampoos purportedly mask drug use for the hair test. Data suggest that they may decrease concentrations of drug metabolites in hair, but a single administration will not bring them to undetectable levels (Rohrich, et al., 2000).

Several compounds added to urine may create false negatives, but laboratories now test for them. Drug lore suggests false negatives increase with the ingestion of various herbs, cranberry juice, vinegar, mineral oil, lemon juice, or diuretics. These approaches also have no empirical support except for effusive urban legends (Coombs & West, 1991).

These games of cat and mouse simply waste money. Employees have to spend their earnings to trick the drug tests. Employers have to spend profits for complicated tests designed to avoid trickery. They could have devoted all that attention and effort to better work.

What can employers do instead? Focus on job performance.

Anybody whose work is suffering can receive appropriate feedback and employee assistance. Individuals in positions that require optimum performance to ensure safety (like air traffic controllers) can complete brief cognitive tests prior to the beginning of work. Supervisors can send impaired workers home whether their deficits stem from intoxication, fatigue, or illness (Maltby, 1999). Supervisors should discuss expectations with people who consistently do poor work.

Ultimately, it’s not about who’s using drugs; it’s about who’s doing a good job.

References

Carter, W. E. (1980). Cannabis in Costa Rica. Philadelphia: Institute of the Study of Human Issues.

Coombs, R. H. & West, L. J. (1991). Drug testing: Issues and options. New York: Oxford University.

Rohrich, J., Zorntlein, S., Potsch, L., Skopp, G. & Becker, J. (2000). Effect of the shampoo Ultra Clean on drug concentrations in human hair. International Journal of Legal Medicine, 113, 102-106.

Maltby, L. L. (1999). Drug testing: A bad investment. New York: American Civil Liberties Union.