Reply #117: I agree with you.

[phylny]

My husband works for a large corporation, and they have a well-known zero tolerance for drug use. There is no preliminary test to be hired, but you accept employment knowing that every employee, from the top down, is subject to testing, and employees from the top down ARE randomly tested. The corporation deals with very dangerous commodities and it is vital to have employees who are sharp and clear and able to follow safety rules. Part of the agreement for employment means that you will willingly submit to these tests.

Years ago, during a random drug test, an employee of my husband's was found to have used cocaine. He was offered company-funded treatment, which he took, and went through the program. He knew that part of this program meant that he was more likely to be called up for another test, which he was 1.5 years later. Cocaine was found again, and he was terminated. My husband was heartbroken, because he truly liked this employee, as did I.

If it were possible to ONLY test for drug use that might compromise you ONLY during work hours, then that would be the ideal. Since such tests don't appear to be available, I think that this is the next best thing. It is flawed, but for now it's the best we have.

If an employee comes to work and is somehow debilitated, and does something to hurt my husband or someone else, it would be devastating. I don't want my pilot, the truck driver next to me on the interstate, or the teachers in my kids' classrooms to be impaired. I have been fingerprinted and have had at least two drug tests in different states before being permitted to work with school systems or hospitals. I have never objected.

FYI, employees who appear to be impaired on the job due to fatigue, OTC medicine, or other factors can be sent home to protect everyone else.