The Pros And Cons Of Drug Testing

As drugs such as marijuana continue to legalize, the United States of America jeopardizes the safety of the citizens. Today, people have a construed belief that drugs allow a person to become more intellectual. Because of this distorted view of drugs, both teens and adults are relying on drugs to accomplish their duties such as their jobs. To guarantee the safety of the employees, the government enforces the “General Duty Clause” of the OSH Act of 1970. Under the OSH Act of 1970, companies are responsible in creating a better working environment. As much as employees disagree with drug testing, drug testing helps create a better working environment.

First, drug testing can help employers detect drug abusage to prevent hiring impaired employees

They will become easily tired or risk the chance of fainting due to lack of oxygen exchange in the muscles. For example, a coach would not want to hire a player who fatigues too easily in game. He would rather have a player who is in top physical condition. Lung damage is just one consequence of marijuana usage. In addition, what people do not know is that marijuana has serious psychological effects on a person’s brain. In “Health Effects of Marijuana,” the the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse concludes that marijuana impairs learning and memory skills. Any kind of impairment while working is detrimental to job

What companies need to realize is that the money saved from drug testing surpasses the cost of implementing these test. Factoring the cost for a drug test, Cholakis and Bruce realize that urinalysis cost $150 per test. In addition, according to Cholakis and Bruce’s research, it concludes, “return on investments on an effective drug-testing program averages 100 times the cost of the program.” Analyzing these two factors, companies can realize how investing in a drug testing program can benefit financially over time.

One of the ways drug testing helps financially over time is by lowering the amount of worker’s compensation claims. Cholakis and Bruce’s research on a highway contractor states the following statistics: In the year before the more-vigilant safety program was implemented, the firm had 19 reportable workers ' compensafion claims. Only seven claims were filed the next year, three were filed in the second year and none were filed in the third year (Figure 1). The contractor 's safety and human resources director attributes the drop in claims to less drug use on the job, driven by use of on-site drug testing. "Testing became less of a hassle," the director says. "Before, it was an issue of having to have a restroom available, messing around with a testing cup and dealing with disposal items." This contractor administers pre-employment, post-accident and reasonable-suspicion