Drug Testing is Not a Violation of Individual Rights
analytical Essay
2678 words
Every day companies lose millions of dollars due to employee drug use. Athletes break world records with gargantuan strength, but not on a fair scale. Drugs ruin the lives of users and cause injury to those who must work with users. Detection by officials is necessary to curb this problem. When does the safety for others violate the rights of drug users? Drug testing, whether in the workplace or on the athletic field, is not a violation of civil rights.
"In 1988, the National Institute on Drug Abuse estimated that 12 percent of full-time employed Americans between the ages of 20 and 40 used an illicit drug" (Goldburg 62). Twenty percent of the 14.5 million Americans who use drugs are employed. This fact has convinced many that drug testing at the workplace should be mandatory (Goldburg 51). Sixty percent of the major corporations in America require drug testing as a condition of employment (Goldburg 50). Steven Mitchell Sack asserts that "Experts estimate that more than 50 percent of the major corporations in the United States now engage in drug and alcohol screening before hiring new employees; such tests are on the rise, particularly in high technology and security-conscious industries" (41). Because of such frequent testing, the number of applicants who test positive is down to under five percent (Sack 41).
Not only do the companies pay the price for drug users, but so does the public. The public pays higher prices due to lost productivity from work-related accidents and job absenteeism caused by drug abuse (Goldburg 51). The average drug user is three times as late as fellow employees and has 2.5 times as many absences (Sack 141). A drug user is five times more likely to file a worker's compensation ...
... middle of paper ...
...earche. July 1991:52.
Goldburg, Raymond, ed. Taking Sides. Guilford, Connecticut: Dushkin, 1993.
Huxford, Andrea. "What You Need to Know About Drug Testing in the Work Place." Netscape. http://www.charm.net/~trade/s/stein/index.html
Levy, Leonard W., ed. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. New York: Macmillan, 1992.
O'Brien, David. "Rx for Disaster." Sun-Sentinel. 14 July 1991: 52-54.
"Policy of Clarkson Construction Company." Pamphlet. No other information given.
Preferred Alliance. "The Road to D.O.T Compliance" Netscape. http://www.preferredalliance.com/
Sack, Steven Mitchell. From Hiring to Firing. New York: Legal Strategies, 1995.
Wornsnop, Richard L. "Athletes and Drugs." CQ Reasearcher. 26 July 1991: 513-519.
Zigarelli, Michael A. Can They Do That? A Guide to Your Rights on the Job. New York: Lexington, 1994
In this essay, the author
- Opines that random testing is the right way to combat drug abuse by athletes.
- Explains huxford, andrea, "what you need to know about drug testing in the workplace."
- Describes zigarelli, michael a. can they do that? a guide to your rights on the job.
- Argues that drug testing is not a violation of civil rights. the average drug user is three times more likely to have an accident, one-third as productive, and has much higher rates of tardiness and absenteeism.
- Explains that many drug tests are legal, especially in the workplace, because applicants have less legal rights to protest such tests.
Related
- analytical
- explanatory
- opinion
- The Unfairness of Drug Testing in Low-Wage Jobsanalytical essayDrug Testing has progressively become very popular in today's low wage jobs. Jobs like Wal-Mart, Sav-on, Block Buster and many burger establishments; where the starting salary is seven dollars and twenty cents an hour requires its applicants to be drug tested before they are hired. Drug testing is based on a blue collar, white collar division.
In this essay, the author
- Explains that drug testing has become very popular in today's low-wage jobs. wal-mart, sav-on, block buster and many burger establishments require applicants to be drug tested before they are hired.
- Argues that drug testing is an excellent tool to maintain a healthy and safe workplace, but it is unfair and unjust to the low wage working class because it targets them.
- Cites two sources that prove that drug testing in the u.s is unfair and unjust. nickel anddimed by barbara ehrenreich and drug abuse, opposing viewpoints by tamara roleff.
- Analyzes how roleff uses the word fascism in her quote to imply that low wage workers are oppressed by the higher authoritarian power.
- Analyzes how ehrenreich points out that drug tests are unfair and unreliable, stating that someone with an addiction to other drugs besides marijuana can pass the urinalysis without a problem.
- Opines that urinalysis is not as reliable as employers think it is, since it confuses drugs with illicit drugs.
- Explains that many companies enforce drug testing, but they always go for the cheaper ones.
- Analyzes how ehrenreich uses logos to estimate the percentage of companies that drug test their employees.
- Opines that drug testing should be enforced upon everyone that has a job, and that society should forget about classification, that is dividing the people according to their education.
- Describes the girarte 5 works cited, ehrenreich, barbara, henry and company, llc publishers since 1866, roleff, tamara, and khaled hosseini.
866 wordsRead More - Employee Drug Testing: Fair and Effectiveanalytical essayAnnually in America, billions of taxpayer dollars are spent to pay for the unnecessary expenses caused by drug-impaired employees. Workers whose performances are negatively altered by drug use contribute to losses in business productivity and assist in lowering workplace safety. On average, according to the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA), $100 billion is lost per year due to accidents, decreases in productivity, and other related expenses caused by incompetent, drug abusing employees (“Coalitions”). However, through a thoughtful system, businesses can be protected against the harms presented by deleterious contraband abusers. In an effort to curb staff member drug trends and to protect employee health, public safety, and business interests, drug screening programs should be implemented into company policy and carried out in a constitutionally acceptable manner.
In this essay, the author
- Argues that drug screening programs should be implemented into company policy and carried out in a constitutionally acceptable manner.
- Explains that substance abuse at work can cause serious issues to worker wellbeing and workplace productivity. the national institute on drug abuse found that drugged employees used three times the average non-drug user’s sick benefits and were more likely to file for worker compensation claims.
- Argues that workplace drug inspections are unconstitutional and violate personal privacy. opponents argue that mandatory examinations allow employers to monitor off-the-job drug use behavior.
- Analyzes how the judiciary system has tried to determine the constitutional fairness of drug testing.
- Opines that drug testing should be an accepted form of determining a person's employability due to the scarcity of specific requirements for drug tests.
- Analyzes how the united states customs service has fabricated a fair, coherent drug testing system based on lackadaisical rules.
- Opines that the customs service's drug screening controls are tight, but the system is not perfect.
- Cites berrien, glenn, and dodge, garen e. "employees should not be tested for drug use." cadca.
1649 wordsRead More - Drug Testing in the Workplaceanalytical essay“Welcome to our team Mr. Dave Matthews. Here at Vandalay Industries, we take pride in hiring the highest caliber of workers such as yourself, and to ensure the safety of all our employees in the latex factory, we ask that you pee in to this plastic cup.” While this may not be the best way to bring about a company’s drug testing policy to a new hire, the fact remains that in most every position today, if no urine sample is given, it translates into “no job for you!” Drug testing, a once rare and uncommon policy, is now among many employers a requirement for any new or existing job position. Although seen by some as an infringement on one’s constitutionally granted rights, companies who have adopted these policies say that it works to cut down on company revenue losses, reduces job-related injuries, and offers peace of mind for both employees and consumers alike. Nevertheless, those in opposition to drug testing argue that its costs far outweigh its benefits, saying that drug tests are unfair, unnecessary, and lead to a society where “Big Brother is watching over you” (Jussim 2). Regardless of these unfounded accusations by opponents, the fact remains that drug testing is essential to a safe and productive drug-free work environment.
In this essay, the author
- Opines that drug testing is essential to a safe and productive drug-free work environment.
- Opines that drug testing saves lives by preventing workers from giving up illegal drugs and seeking help through company-provided employee assistance programs.
- Explains that employers lose up to $100 billion annually in lost productivity due to drug use — it costs an employer $25-$35 to test an employee for drugs, according to the american management association.
- Analyzes how the pilot of a child's plane uses drugs on an occasional basis. construction workers are among the category of employees reporting the highest usage rate of illegal drugs, with 15.6% admitting to using them.
- Argues that drug testing is an invasion of privacy and that employers should not be allowed to dictate to workers about off-duty activities.
- Explains that opponents of drug testing use the argument that a test can give false results. the chamber of commerce asks employers to give those who test positive for drugs rehabilitation.
- Argues that drug testing is not to seclude people from society or to say that they are bad people, but to maintain a drug-free work environment for all.
- Cites allison, wes, "closing the loop; agencies, businesses push for drug tests in the workplace."
- Cites newsbank school library collection, dobson h.s., mesa, az, 25 nov. 1999.
- Cites grimsley, kirstin. "like it or not, here’s the cup." washington post 10 may 1998.
- Analyzes nelson, albert, and dobson, h.s., in "those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear from drug tests."
- Explains why companies use the hair testing method for drug screening in the workplace.
1840 wordsRead More - The Pros And Cons Of Drug Testingexplanatory essayAs 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.
In this essay, the author
- Explains that the united states of america jeopardizes the safety of the citizens by legalizing drugs such as marijuana. teens and adults rely on drugs to accomplish their duties.
- Explains that drug testing can help employers detect drug abusage to prevent hiring impaired employees in the work force. employers want to hire employees who are capable of accomplishing their job.
- Explains that marijuana is deeply inhaled, the smoke retained in the lung longer than tobacco smoke, and because it contains many of the same toxic elements, there has been persistent concern about its possible effects on the respiratory system.
- Explains that jobs that require high physical labor will be too difficult for affected employees. lung damage is just one consequence of marijuana usage, and marijuana has serious psychological effects on a person’s brain.
- Explains that drug testing benefits the workforce by preventing drugs from affecting job performance. the oral fluid-based method gathers results quickly compared to urinalysis.
- Opines that drug testing creates a better workforce by supporting companies financially. cholakis and bruce realize that urinalysis costs $150 per test, and return on investments on an effective drug-testing program averages 100 times the cost.
- Explains that drug testing helps financially by lowering the amount of worker's compensation claims. cholakis and bruce’s research on a highway contractor states the following statistics.
- Explains 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.
- Analyzes how employers can see the positive influence of drug testing on worker's compensation claims.
- Explains that by reducing compensation claims, companies save a significant amount of money. according to fay, if the united states postal service mandated drug testing before 1987, $105 million would have been saved by 1991.
- Explains the benefits of drug testing in a company's employees, performance, and finance.
1142 wordsRead More - Random Drug Testing vs Employees' Privacy Rightsexplanatory essayA. Court Cases Affecting Privacy of Employees and Drug Testing in the Workplace 1. Supreme Court cases affirming drug testing a. Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives Association 109 S.Ct 1402(1989) b. National Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 109 S.Ct. 1384 (1989) 2.
In this essay, the author
- Opines that we should only test the most critical jobs that are for the safety of the public.
- Explains bennett-alexander & hartman's employment law for business, 3rd edition, irwin mcgraw-hill publishing.
- Quotes sheree r. curry, "big brothers want a close look at your hair" fortune.
- Explains that privacy and drug testing have gone hand in hand since president george bush instituted the drug-free workplace act in 1988.
- Explains that lab testing is accurate and employers can rely on the results. hair analysis has a wide detection window where urinalysis can be altered or changed easily by health supplements.
- Opines that the employee's rights are protected by the fourth amendment protection against unreasonable searches. the employer has an absolute right to determine whether someone is sufficiently healthy for a job.
1476 wordsRead More - Legalization is Not a Realistic Alternative to the War on Drugsanalytical essayFor years, the issue of legalization has been an increasingly controversial subject. Millions of dollars are spent annually in the War on Drugs causing many to wonder if this fight is cost-effective or if an alternative such as legalization would be more realistic than current efforts in drug prevention. Opponents state that with legalization would come an increase not only in availability, but also with everything associated with that availability. This includes suffering of users and their loved ones, death of users and innocent alike, increases in health-care costs, cost to employers, drug-related crimes, and increases in various other social, economic, and emotional costs. On the other hand, advocates argue it is pointless to continue to ignore the presence of drugs in society. They feel society must acknowledge the now-illegal narcotics as it has with alcohol and tobacco. Legalization would result in purity assurance, labeled concentration of the product, obliteration of pushers, obliteration of drug crime, savings in expensive enforcement, and significant tax revenues. Both sides of the controversy are confident with the credibility and effectiveness of their respective arguments, making it necessary for society to ask itself whether legalization of narcotics is a realistic alternative to current prohibition and the war on drugs or if legalization would result in more negative consequences than positive.
In this essay, the author
- Argues that legalization of narcotics is a realistic alternative to current prohibition and the war on drugs.
- Explains that the harrison narcotic act of 1914 restricted the use of opiates, such as morphine, heroin, and cocaine, to medicinal purposes. prohibition was the result of nonpartisan public outcry over the negative effects of unrestricted drug use.
- Analyzes how advocates of legalization, such as steven duke and albert gross, argue that the drug market is already saturated with legal and illegal drugs.
- Analyzes the argument made by legalization advocates that getting current alcohol abusers to switch from abusing alcohol to narcotics would be beneficial to society.
- Quotes robert dupont, a clinical professor of psychiatry at georgetown university and former director of the office of national drug control policy.
- Explains that there has never been an experiment in the united states regarding the effects of legalization of drug usage.
- Explains that theodore vallance, a professor at pennsylvania state university, is among the most respected proponents of legalization.
- Analyzes how vallance claims drug prohibition makes it profitable for criminal organizations to supply them and leaves addicts with no source of supply but criminals.
- Compares lynch and blotner's argument that legalization would lead to an increase in violent crimes such as murder, child abuse, and suicide.
- Argues that legalization advocates don't understand why narcotics are labeled as illegal when, as they claim, they are no more harmful than legalized drugs.
- Explains that cocaine is an "all-american drug" with few life-threatening side effects. snorting cocaine gives the user a twenty minute high which is immediate, intensively vivid, and sensation enhancing.
- Explains the benefits of legalization for society, including drug purity assurance, a decrease in alcohol abuse, and proper pre-natal care.
- Analyzes how the opponents of legalization present three points as to how it would affect society: drug abuse is not a victimless crime; families are destroyed by drug use; prenatal medical care can benefit babies of drug-using mothers.
- Opines that legalization isn't the answer to the war on drugs, since there is no catchall positive that could arise from it. prohibition was put into effect for the good of society.
- Analyzes duke, steven b., and albert c. gross. "legalizing drugs would not increase drug abuse."
- Opines that legalizing drugs would not lead to a reduction in drug use.
- Analyzes olson, william j., "the legalization of drugs would be harmful to society."
- Opines that the legalization of drugs would benefit society. the war on drugs.
- Explains trebach, arnold s. legalize it? debating american drug policy.
- Argues that legalizing drugs isn't a statement that drugs are good, but it's equating once-illegal drugs with "harmless" legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco.
- Analyzes how international experiments support lynch and blotner's claim that legalization would not lead to a reduction in crime.
- Explains that doctor james a. inciardi refutes proponents' claims that narcotics are relatively harmless by citing factual scientific evidence.
- Analyzes how legalization would affect funds used for programs involving drugs.
4848 wordsRead More - Brave New World Vs. U.Sopinion essay"DrugFacts: Nationwide Trends." National Institute on Drug Abuse. NIH, n.d. Web. 13 Nov 2013. .
In this essay, the author
- Analyzes how huxley predicted the world in 1932 but in a less realistic manner. in brave new world 80, he predicted drug addictions, advanced life, and the lack of emotions.
- Analyzes how the hatcheries decant babies and artificially fertilize the eggs into a test tube. artificial insemination doesn't cause so many babies to be born but it helps impregnate those with complications.
- Opines that huxley was right about the social classes, which have always been going on but not as much as in today society.
- Analyzes how huxley's idea of the world shows that there is more sexual openness and that is even shown through the children when he tells them they should participate in "games."
- Opines that death isn't mourned over or thought about like it used to be. in brave new world, people don’t feel any kind of emotion.
- Opines that brave new world's characters don't care because they pop a couple of somas and are back to not feeling any emotions or anything for that fact.
- Compares the united states and brave new world in terms of the government's control.
- Opines that the utopian society huxley wrote about isn't far off, but we're letting more profanity and nonsense into our lives and even our children's minds.
846 wordsRead More - Drug Tests Are Unconstitutionalopinion essayDrug Tests Are Unconstitutional Our government has chosen to ignore our rights as citizens. Random drug tests on student athletes violate the right to privacy. Random drug testing violates our personal rights in the Fourth Amendment in the Constitution. The amendment states that U.S.citizens should be protected against unreasonable search and seizure.
In this essay, the author
- Opines that random drug tests violate the fourth amendment, which states that u.s. citizens should be protected against unreasonable search and seizure.
- Explains that students might not join athletic teams because of the consequences that might occur, it might encourage students to do drugs that won't appear on the drug test, and it will also cost the school a lot of money.
- Quotes sandra day o'connor, a u.s. supreme court justice, who believes that random drug testing violates privacy.
- Explains that a student's right to privacy is protected by performing drug tests only on those who can be reasonably suspected of using drugs. random drug testing damages relationships.
- Argues that drug testing young people when they aren't suspected of using drugs sends the message that they're not to be trusted. millions of students who participate in interscholastic sports have given the school no reason whatsoever to suspect they use drugs.
- Opines that it is not right to make students who have never done drugs to submit to an unreasonable drug test. many student-athletes will want to get around the random drug testing.
- Opines that random drug testing would cause an even worse drug problem in schools. random testing might encourage schools to be more selective in which students they test.
- Opines that random drug testing is not cheap. it costs between 15-30 dollars per drug test. ohio ended its policy after spending $70,000 to test 1,473 students.
- Argues that drug testing is a waste of time and money. the school budget already is tight, and there are many other approaches to stop drug use.
- Opines that it should be the parents' decision to drug test their kids if they are under the age of eighteen.
602 wordsRead More - The drug control policy of the United Statesopinion essay“Office of National Drug Control Policy.” The White House. USA, 1 Dec. 2011. Web. 8 Dec. 2011. .
In this essay, the author
- Opines that the obama administration should commit more government resources to protect against illegal use of drugs by youths and provide help for recovering addicts.
- Opines that the current situation of drug control in the united states is imperfect and inadequate.
- Opines that the government must implement an effective program that educates about drug use, promotes safer activities, and treats former addicts.
- Argues that the united states needs to commit more resources to protect against the use of illegal drugs by youths and provide help for recovering addicts.
- Opines that the united states should commit more resources to protect against the illegal use of drugs by youths and provide help for recovering addicts.
- Explains that more us teens use pot while fewer see it as ‘great risk’; teen alcohol use declines. the effective national drug control strategy 1999.
- Explains manchikanti, laxmaiah, "national drug control policy and prescription drug abuse: facts and fallacies."
1414 wordsRead More - Sports and Illegal Drug Useopinion essayIllegal drug use has a harmful effect on our nation’s economy and overall health, but in the sports arena, the question is raised about who is responsible for regulating drug use, and whether professional leagues have a responsibility to help in regulating drug use among participating athletes. Because drug use has harmful side effects, because using drugs to enhance performance is unfair, and because professional athletes have the potential to influence young people's decisions professional sport leagues should better regulate drug use among the athletes that represent their league.
In this essay, the author
- Opines that professional sports leagues should better regulate drug use among the athletes that represent their league. illegal drugs have harmful side effects, enhance performance, and influence young people's decisions.
- Explains that anabolic steroids are used to enhance performance but have serious and sometimes life threatening side effects.
- Opines that professional leagues have a responsibility for promoting good health among their athletes and should adopt practices which cause athletes to steer away from drug use.
- Opines that professional leagues should take a bigger role in regulating athlete drug use because of the influence professional athletes have on young people.
- Opines that major league baseball has set a good example for other professional leagues to follow.
647 wordsRead More