NCJ Number
106925
Journal
Nova Law Review Volume: 11 Issue: 2 Dated: (Winter 1987) Pages: 647-652
Date Published
1987
Length
6 pages
Annotation
There is little evidence of an imperative need for large-scale urine drug testing of employees. Testing for drug impairment only when there is reasonable evidence of such impairment would be cost-effective and adequately protect the public, employers, and employees.
Abstract
Advocates of drug testing have not produced evidence of a significant problem with drugs other than alcohol in the workplace, schools, and armed services, or that testing will have a major impact on the problem. Large-scale inexpensive testing is not adequate, and adequate confirmatory tests costs two to five times more for each drug requiring identification. A positive result does not indicate that the reported drug was in the person, and the concentrations of most drugs in urine, except for alcohol, cannot be correlated with blood concentrations or with impairment. Alcohol is the most abused drug, and alcohol testing is much simpler than testing for other drugs; it can be noninvasive, inexpensive, and more accurate. After testing for alcohol, it would be most efficient to test for other drugs in the following order: antidepressants, opiates, propoxyphene, barbiturates, and antihistamines. These are the drugs most likely to impair performance. 9 footnotes.