Workplace Drug Screening Opinion Paper Essay Example

over-the-counter codeine medication. Additionally, the presence of six-acetyl-morphine, which is a unique indicator of heroin use, may not definitively confirm prior drug usage as it is temporary (Forrest, 1997).

According to Forrest (1997), detecting cannabinoids in urine after cannabis use can last for several days, and distinguishing between active and passive exposure is impossible. Even those who do not use cannabis may have traces of cannabinoids in their urine after being around others smoking the drug. Burlington (1998) notes that hair testing presents additional difficulties. It is uncertain how much drug exposure is needed to detect measurable levels in hair, and environmental exposure may also impact results. Moreover, the same test markers or reagents may react differently with different hair types and ethnic groups.

To ensure reliability, drug screening tests must meet three main criteria: (a) FDA approval and legalization, (b) dependable sample collection systems for nonprofessional settings, and (c) safe and secure systems to prevent mix-ups and ensure proper labeling of all samples (Burlington, 1998). Despite meeting these criteria, workplace drug screening still raises significant legal and ethical concerns. Employers can implement various types of drug screening programs including pre-employment testing for job applicants, random testing that catches employees off guard on test day, periodic testing at intervals throughout employment, or voluntary testing without job decision consequences (MacDonald, Wells & Fry, 1993). Random and periodic tests are typically used in high-risk professions like driving or medicine.

Employers may choose between voluntary and mandatory drug testing in the workplace to improve safety and productivity. Nevertheless, it is crucial to assess the legal and ethical consequences of implementing mandatory screening. This approach could infringe on constitutional rights like privacy

protection under the Fourth Amendment, affecting both current and potential employees' reasonable expectation of privacy. Employers must base their suspicions of employee drug abuse on objective facts and reasonable inferences drawn from them.

According to Bible (1988), drug screening in the workplace can impede with the right to privacy. The ethical implications of drug testing in the workplace are complex and multifaceted, encompassing privacy, autonomy, conflicts of interest, and intrusiveness. MacDonald, Wells, and Fry (1993) note that observing the process of urination during urine testing procedures is particularly problematic. In light of the difficulty in resolving both the ethical and legal issues of drug screening in the workplace, employers should refrain from randomly testing employees for drug abuse. Instead, drug screening should only occur when there is reasonable suspicion and for a limited set of high-risk professions that impact the safety of others, such as drivers and civil aviation professionals.

Drug screening is gaining acceptance as a way to reduce workplace injury, low productivity, and absenteeism. Employers have numerous screening options to choose from, including urine, hair, and sweat tests. However, there is limited research on the reliability of drug screening and it remains a topic of ethical and legal debate.

Employers should refrain from conducting random drug screenings on employees, except for a few hazardous professions like drivers and civil aviation professionals where regular drug testing is necessary.