All of your links quoted from the same two or three studies. You’d think that some of them would be able to come up with some original material.
yosemitebabe:
They are saying that by analyzing 10 years’ worth of statistics, they couldn’t find a correlation between increased drug testing and decreased drug use. That essentially means that in the real world, drug testing does not deter drug use.
Yes, if you’re concerned that employees will come to work drunk or high, test them at the beginning of the shift. That will be both more accurate and less intrusive.
So you think that my employers should test every day, at the start of every shift?
Glad we got that cleared up!
yosemitebabe:
That’s fine with me… as long as it’s a test that measures present, immediate intoxication or ability to perform the job. Your employer has a right to know whether you’re drunk at work, not whether you were drunk the night before.
Mr.2001, afraid I have to disagree with you on that last point. Your employer does have the right to know if you were drunk the night before. See, there’s this thing called a hangover, which can impair a person almost as much as if they actually were drunk, or stoned.
[hijack] Unless you were drinking margaritas. I’ve never gotten a hangover from margaritas. I think it’s the salt on the rim of the glass and the sugar in the mixer. Keeps your electrolytes from getting screwed up. As long as you drink enough water before you go to bed, you should be fine. The best margaritas are at the Horseshoe. They blend them right there for you, fresh, they don’t come from a machine.
BTW, forget all the “hangover cures” you hear about, especially the “hair of the dog” cure. I have found exactly one that actually works. Get a big glass of water, ten ounces at least, add about a half-teaspoon of sugar and a pinch of salt. Drink it. Repeat unil you can’t drink any more. Hangovers are caused by a combination of dehydration and electrolyte imbalance. This helps with both problems. You can probably at least partially prevent a hangover by drinking this, um, cocktail before you go to bed, but when you’re drunk, you probably won’t think of these things.[/hijack]
agisofia:
I disagree - your employer has the right to know if you are currently hung over, or otherwise unfit for work. A hangover is not a guaranteed natural consequence of drinking.
That’s where “ability to perform the job” comes in. I don’t know if there’s a chemical way to detect a hangover, but a test that measures the basic skills needed for a job would pretty much cover everything.
I think a stance of “your employer has a right to know if you are currently intoxicated or otherwise impaired” is the least intrusive, since it lets you concentrate on the end result instead of private activities that might potentially lead to that result.
Um, maybe I should amend that to read,
Your employer does have the right to know if you were drunk on something other than margaritas last night. 
How about competency testing instead? Though I’m not sure just how that would work for every job. Maybe a general
test of alertness and reaction time? It seems to make a lot more sense to evaluate the mental acuity of the worker. Maybe then if a sharp decrease is observed, then they could look for deeper causes. The problem I have with drug testing is that it intentionally intrudes into off-hours activity, that it drastically lowers the bar on privacy, and that, through it, society in general abdicates its responsibility for dealing with the drug issue to private employers. Don’t think for a minute that the government’s War on Drugs has been successful just because it has reduced the number of middle class suburban pot smokers. What’s happened is merely that many of them have been scared straight by the prospect of losing their livelihoods. Hardcore drug addiction and gang warfare continue in the
inner cities as always.
I’ve never opposed nor denied a drug testing and never will. If I want to apply for the job, I have to be a resposible human being. Drugs can effect your judgement, timing, and reflexes both in a possitive or negative way. The employer has it’s own responsibility of making sure that you will be there when they need you. They also want to make sure that the money that they are paying you does not support a drug habit. Would you pay someone to babysit your kids if you knew that that someone was supporting a drug habit? I wouldn’t. I would rather give that job to a responsible person who really needs it to improve their lifestyle instead of the person who needs the money to destroying it. I can honestly say that I don’t use any form of legal or illegal drugs (excluding aspirin). I will freely allow any company to give me a drug test if it means that I can have a good paying job that promotes a drug free policy. I know that if it came down to wether that company hires a person who is willing to give a drug test and that person who isn’t willing, the first person will get that job. well, I want that job and those of you who oppose drug screenings are only making my life easier. So keep on denying that screening and I’ll just pick up where you left off.
Asianmagik:
So can many other things.
So why not just fire employees who skip work?
“Would you pay someone to babysit your kids if you knew that that someone was buying alcohol?”
“… that someone was buying cigarettes?”
“… that someone was buying junk food?”
“… that someone was buying a fast, dangerous car?”
OK, you can work in the minimum-wage jobs that require drug testing, and I’ll work in the high-tech $80,000/yr jobs where the employees are rare enough that they can dictate their own drug testing policies.
first of all mr2001,
this is a thread about drug testing. not whether employers would screen for the need of a fast car. yes other things and elements can effect your judgement but we are talking about DRUGS, hence the topic of the thread. everybody knows that a death of a loved one or a fight with one or even a car accident can effect your judgement, timing and health but this is not what we are talking about. stay on the ball mr2001. don’t be nitpicking other threads and leaving them with “so will other things”. honestly, i’ve never been drug tested when i applied to work for minimum wage jobs. i.e.- TACO BELL or even UPS which pays $8.50/hr. did you know it costs the company money to fire an employee? “so why not fire everybody”. the company has to pay for the paperwork to be done. they have to pay for the loss income that might have been recover when you are around. and drug screenings cost the company. if you paid you employees $80,000/yr, wouldn’t you want them to do a good job? wouldn’t you want to make sure that they will solve problems correctly and accurately as possible without illegal substances negatively influencing their judgement? i would! if you oppose drug screenings then do so but i’m just telling you that i would have a better chance of getting a better job if we applied for the same possition.
Asianmagik:
If you’re going to say “we need to test for drugs because they can affect your judgment”, you have to support testing for everything that affects your judgment.
If you’re going to say “we have to test for drugs because we don’t want employees spending their paychecks on drugs”, you have to support testing for everything you don’t want your employees spending money on.
$8.50 is minimum wage? Where do you live? 
In my town, the average pay is $8. Looking through the classified ads, I see plenty of lines like “must pass drug screening” in the unskilled/semi-skilled jobs, and hardly any in the skilled jobs.
Of course. If an employee does a good job, solves problems correctly and accurately, and isn’t drunk or high at work, I see no problem in hiring him… no matter what he does at home on his own time. Having a joint on the weekend is not going to cause problems at work.
Assuming you have the same skills I have… suppose we both apply to a software company. I have about 10 years of experience programming but I refuse to take a drug test; let’s say you have no experience but are happy to take the test. Who do you suppose he’ll hire?
I’m betting he’d hire me.
Now, for a semi-skilled job like flipping burgers or (Adam Carolla voice) working around metal, it’s easy to find a replacement. If I apply for the job but I refuse to submit to the screening, the employer can just say “next!” and hire the next guy in line who does submit.
But for a skilled job, the employer is going to have less ability to pry into my personal life - if I walk out of the interview, there might not be anyone else to hire. The employer is going to care about whether I can get the job done.