For many years, the issue of mandatory drug testing on the job has come under fire and been the topic of debate. Those who are against it believe that it is a violation of privacy that goes beyond what should be deemed acceptable(Wistotsky, 1993). They feel it is demeaning and accuses someone of using drugs with little proof that they are. While many employers do try to push the limits of privacy by listening to telephone conversations and reading emails, the use of mandatory drug testing should be something that is respected from two vantage points. Mandatory drug testing allows the reduction of liability to the employer and it discourages drug use among employees.
             There are to occasions in which mandatory drug testing by an employer is acceptable. The first is when the person is offered the position. The second is anytime there is an accident that involves an employees on the job.
             In the first instance mandatory drug testing before allowing one to work in one's company is simply common sense. If a company is going to invest hours and dollars in recruiting, hiring, training and educating an employee that company should have the right to know it is not investing in someone that has a substance abuse issue(Gips, 2006).
             Mandatory drug testing of all potential employees can rule out those who are not able abstain from drug use even during a job search.
             Once a person is hired, many companies provide benefits and those benefits often include the right to counseling and rehabilitation paid for at least in part by the employer. Because of this it behooves the employer to screen for drug users before hiring anyone so it can cut its cost by avoiding the hiring of someone who uses drugs.
             The second instance that mandatory drug testing on the job should be acceptable is if an accident occurs. Anytime an accident occurs while an employee is on the job the company runs the risk of being sued by
             ...