Actually it can work, and that’s the scary part. At least to me it’s scary, and I don’t use illegal drugs. It’s scary on principle.
The way it you make it work is to shift enforcement to the private sector, via insurance companies and employers. The likelihood and fear of getting caught by a random drug test, and losing your health insurance and/or livelihood, is far, far greater than the remote chance of actually getting busted and going to jail for having a half-ounce of grass in the kitchen drawer. And as employees or insurance customers we have no right to challenge policies of this sort.
What do you think happened to all those middle class pot smokers in the 1970s? They got scared straight because they needed their jobs.
Perhaps, in the UK, we are more relaxed about things, but if people lost their jobs due to drugs tests then there would be a heck of a lot of vacancies - a good chunk of upper and middle management would be wiped out.
Actually I expect they are. I’ve always got the impression that most people at least try some of the milder stuff. I’ve always thought I was something of a freak for not even being interested. Or drinking or smoking, either - not that I see much difference.
Ono hit it. You have to define what you mean by “futility.” They have had little proven effect on supply or demand. But they have been incredibly effective means for increasing government spending and advancing “law and order” and “prison industry” platforms.
We already do stand for it. Pre-employment drug testing is the norm here, and employers generally have the right to run random drug tests, or drug tests for cause. There’s no Constitutional issue, you’re just liable to not be hired or lose your job if you don’t comply.
I’m not absolutely against employer drug testing. I believe that people should be sober while at work, but given the nature of some drugs and some drug testing methodologies, the tests don’t really determine whether you are sober now, but, for example, whether you had a couple tokes 10 days ago.