It has become fairly common for employers to demand a hair sample used in
a drug test before considering an applicant for a job. If that person
smoked pot at a party three weeks ago, he or she might not get the position
no matter how qualified, competent, or responsible. However, an alcoholic
who shows up for drunk half-drunk or hung-over will slip through the drug-
screening process. Once they are hired, many employees are subject to
random drug screening, regardless of their performance on the job. Someone
could be a top sales producer for a company but because he or she uses
drugs occasionally on the weekends faces termination. While it is important
to ensure that people are not endangering the lives of others through drug
use, such testing procedures constitute an invasion of privacy and can be
highly intrusive and embarrassing. Except in extreme cases, such as when
the position requires driving a bus, for instance, drug screening by
employers should not be permitted. Unless it endangers the lives of others
or directly impacts job performance, drug use is a highly personal matter
and such information should be allowed to be kept as private as one's sex
Many people would argue that screening employees for drugs is
necessary to ensure productivity and performance. However, most people who
use drugs use them occasionally, recreationally and on the weekends, not on
the job. Their personal life will in most cases not interfere at all with
job performance. Many drug tests are administered even before a person is
hired or when the employee is performing well on the job. The drug use has
no bearing on the job whatsoever. If drug use does not impede job
performance, then it should not be a matter of concern for the employer.
When employers screen their employees for drugs, they neglect to
acknowledge the role that alcohol plays in impeding job performance.
Because alcohol is a...