Facts about Drug Testing in Schools, Drug Testing in the Workplace
December 3rd, 2006 by ddetox
In a study of high tech industries, researchers found that “drug testing programs do not succeed in improving productivity. Surprisingly, companies adopting drug testing programs are found to exhibit lower levels of productivity than their counterparts that do not… Both pre-employment and random testing of workers are found to be associated with lower levels of productivity.”
It is estimated that the United States spends $1 billion annually to drug test about 20 million workers.
Shepard, Edward M., and Thomas J. Clifton, Drug Testing and Labor Productivity: Estimates Applying a Production Function Model, Institute of Industrial Relations
The American Management Association conducts an annual survey of workplace surveillance and medical testing. In the report issued in 2000, found that employee drug testing was at its lowest level in a decade, practiced by 52% of companies surveyed in 1991, and 47% of companies surveyed in 2000.
American Management Association, A 2000 AMA Survey: Workplace Testing: Medical Testing: Summary of Key Findings
Companies which use Factor 1000, an impairment testing system, find that drug and alcohol use are not the most common reasons for accidents; rather, severe fatigue and illness are more common.
Hamilton, “A Video Game That Tells if Employees Are Fit To Work,” Businessweek
A positive drug test does not indicate whether an employee was impaired or intoxicated on the job, nor does it indicate whether an employee has a drug problem or how often the employee uses the drug. Thus most tests do not provide information relevant to job performance.
Lewis Maltby, Vice President, Drexelbrook Controls, Horsham, PA, as cited in Report of the Maine Commission to Examine Chemical Testing of Employees
“Similar to results for marijuana use, drug testing of any kind and drug testing for cause and suspicion were not significant predictors for use of other illicit drugs among students in grades eight, 10, and 12. Within the high school subsamples, use of illicit drugs among high school male athletes and current marijuana users was not significantly different based on drug testing at the school. Even after controlling for student demographic characteristics, drug testing was not a significant predictor for other illicit drug use in any of the samples.”
“Drug testing of athletes was not a significant predictor of marijuana use by male athletes in high school.”
“Does drug testing prevent or inhibit student drug use? Members of the Supreme Court appear to believe it does. However, among the eighth-, 10th-, and 12-grade students surveyed in this study, school drug testing was not associated with either the prevalence or the frequency of student marijuana use, or of other illicit drug use. Nor was drug testing of athletes associated with lower-than-average marijuana and other illicit drug use by high school male athletes. Even among those who identified themselves as fairly experienced marijuana users, drug testing also was not associated with either the prevalence or the frequency of marijuana or other illicit drug use.”
Yamaguchi, Ryoko, Lloyd D. Johnston & Patrick M. O’Malley, Relationship Between Student Illicit Drug Use and School Drug-Testing Policies,” Journal of School Health
drug testing & employment, drug testing in schools, drug testing in the workplace, drug war facts, employee drug testing, illicit drug use, job performance, marijuana use, pre employment testing, random testing, school drug testing