|
Why "Drug"
Testing Is Really Just Marijuana Testing – Which Is Counterproductive
January 20, 1998
A point about marijuana prohibition that I try to emphasize is that it is not merely a
failure, but that it is also a counterproductive fraud, actually making the substance
abuse problem worse. This is also true of one of marijuana prohibition’s most
pervasive manifestations – urine testing for "drugs." There are three
reasons why this is true. First, marijuana is virtually the only drug
– licit or illicit – that is not water soluble, with the result that its
metabolites – not the drug itself -- stay in the system far longer than traces of
other drugs. This means that if a person used marijuana two weeks ago his urine is more
likely to test positive for it than if he used cocaine two days ago. It is obvious then
that marijuana use is much more readily detected than the use of hard drugs, which has the
perverse effect of encouraging hard drug use. Is this really what employers want? No, but
it is quite clear that this is what the government wants. (That marijuana is the real
target of the "War on Drugs" will be the subject of another article.)
The second reason that a "drug test" is really just a marijuana test
is that marijuana is -- by far -- the most widely used illicit drug and the one that
interferes the least with job performance. Indeed, there is no evidence that off-the-job
use of marijuana has any negative impact on productivity, in sharp contrast to alcohol and
some other drugs with painful withdrawal symptoms.
When the prohibitionists say that 75% of "drug users" are employed,
obviously most of these are marijuana users. One might think that this would mean that
these people can get and hold jobs, so marijuana use is not a problem. But no! What this
means to the prohibitionists is that these people must be hunted down and subjected to
random testing, because there is no way to tell that they are marijuana users. There is
nothing in their job performance or personal behavior to identify them. The testing must
be random because it means that the government has total arbitrary control over the most
basic bodily functions. A common vulgar expression for having total control over a man is
to say "we have him by his …." Well, they do. And the women, too. That is
an old story, but the feminists seem to accept this, since men are equally oppressed. But
are they?
Finally, there is the simple fact that there are many other drugs for which no
testing is done, notably alcohol and a variety of prescription drugs, many of which can
have very negative impact on performance. In the case of prescription drugs, the Americans
With Disabilities Act or other legislation may protect the employee. This may be entirely
just, but it does not alter the fact that the employee may not be functioning well.
There is another irony in testing for marijuana but not testing for
prescription drugs. When California and Arizona passed laws permitting the medical use of
cannabis, both state and federal officials quickly said that this would make no difference
for workers subject to drug testing. Rising health care costs are one of the most serious
problems facing business today. It is said that General Motors spends more on health care
than on steel. Marijuana costs far less than the pharmaceuticals that are exempted from
testing. Consequently, the effect of the prohibitionist ideology is to require business to
test for a drug that might lower their health care costs, but prohibit their testing for
those that are expensive, interfere with job performance and often do not work as well as
cannabis.
Of course, there is also hair and saliva testing. Hair testing will detect all
drug use for a long period – the life of the hair tested. Manufacturers of these
tests claim that they are much harder to beat than urine tests, but the manufacturers of
special shampoos claim otherwise. Hair tests are not widely used outside of the gambling
industry, which is widely know for its opposition to addiction and concern about the well
being of its patrons. (That is why they give their customers free drinks and make it easy
for people to gamble around the clock, by not having any clocks. Anheuser-Busch uses them.)
Saliva tests would be even harder to beat, but they have the disadvantage of
detecting current intoxication, which would eliminate the use of tests to control off-job
marijuana use. Consequently, these tests are not likely to be widely used so long as
maintaining marijuana prohibition is the real purpose of drug prohibition.
The bottom line, as business people like to say, is that marijuana testing is a
way of dividing business and labor at the expense of both -- while keeping both
subservient to the government’s control over the bodies and minds of its citizens.
That it has the effect of aggravating the substance abuse problem is clearly a price
– or is it a benefit for them? – which the government is willing to
accept. However, there are things that the individual can do.
Union members should demand that their representatives stand up for their
rights and insist that drug testing be only "for cause." This is not something
that affects only "drug-users." Everyone is subjected to the same degrading
tests. Indeed, the non-user should be even more outraged than the users. Moreover, there
is problem of false positives. Test manufacturers claim that their tests are very
accurate, but even a failure of one in ten thousand will cause many thousands of false
positives every year, and there are few of us who would be willing to risk our jobs and
reputations on such a probability. Your chances of being killed in a plane crash are less
than one in a million.
Secondly, employers should be told that random testing is likely to lead to a
unionization effort. In today’s tight labor markets employers have every reason to
try to keep good employees happy. Also, -- anonymously -- give the facts in this article
to your employers. They are really not likely to be ideologues who put following the
prohibitionist party line above their own bottom line, but if they are government
contractors they will not have a choice in the matter.
Finally, be prepared. Just as you shouldn’t wait until you are arrested to
join NORML, don’t wait until you are about to be tested to find out what you can do
to protect yourself and what your rights are under your state laws. (Generally speaking,
for pre-employment testing, you have one right left, to decide whether to hold
the bottle in your right or left hand.) Call NORML at 1-900-97NORML. At $2.95 a minute
it’s a good way to make a small contribution and find out more about testing. (It
appears on your phone bill as "900info".)
It isn’t easy, but it is possible to beat most drug tests. There is
enormous variability in individual results and reactions to products. If you are subject
to testing, plan ahead. Try out different products and procedures. Get yourself a home
drug test kit and practice. So long as your God-given rights are being violated, you have
the God-given right to try to protect yourself. Finally, though, you may have to choose
between your use of cannabis and your present job. If so, you can go to work for yourself
or an enlightened employer. There are many small companies that don’t "drug
test" – perhaps because the boss smokes.
Most important, for the longer haul, write your politicians and your local
media and let them know that you are opposed to random drug testing. It will give them
second thoughts about automatically following the DEA party line the next time there is
new legislation. They’ll probably still vote for it, but it may slow them down. Time
is on our side, but only if we use it. |
Supported