U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Urine Testing: The Battle for Privatized Social Control During the 1986 War on Drugs (From Images of Issues: Typifying Contemporary Social Problems, P 207-221, 1989, Joel Best, ed. -- See NCJ-124897)

NCJ Number
124903
Author(s)
W J Staudenmeier Jr
Date Published
1989
Length
15 pages
Annotation
This paper examines the 1986 claims supporting employer drug testing, the reaction to testing, and major issues in the controversy.
Abstract
The major categories of employee urine testing conducted by employers are applicant screening, selective screening based on a suspicion of drug impairment on the job, random urine screening, and periodic testing of the general employee population. During 1986, claims supporting employee drug tests came from several sources in the private and public sectors. Supporters of testing made claims about the scope and nature of the general drug problem, the scope and nature of the work-related drug problem, and the effect of testing on these two problems. The core of the opposition to employee drug testing came from organized labor and the American Civil Liberties Union. The main issues in such testing are the effectiveness of urine testing for drug use, the nature and effects of drug abuse, and employees' privacy rights. Whether or not urine testing deters illegal drug use remains to be seen, but it is having other significant social effects. Persons face discrimination in hiring decisions based on test results, often without their knowledge. Employees must choose between being fired or giving up their privacy by submitting to testing under the observation of another employee. The employer may discover drug use unrelated to job performance or a medical condition (by detecting the drug used to treat the condition) of which the employer was unaware. 3 notes, 27 references.