ork one morning having just snorted a few lines of cocaine in his car. An hour after he arrives he is subjected to a random drug test. However, the test does not show up for positive for high amounts of cocaine because the body has yet to metabolize the cocaine and introduce it to his urine. Another person drinks about half a bottle of rum on Sunday night. The next morning she is hung over and barely able to perform her work. Yet testing her urine for drugs would turn out negative because the alcohol has already been metabolized. However, someone who smokes a joint three weeks ago on a Friday night has his urine tested. That test would show up positive however, because THC, which is the active ingredient in marijuana, stays in the body for at least a month after someone ingests it. Testing is unable to effectively determine if an employee is under the influence of some sort of drug. Instead, it introduces the possibility that the occasional marijuana user who is completely sober every day for work is fired whereas the alcoholic with a bottle of bourbon in the desk drawer and who is constantly drunk is kept in employment. Usually after a test that shows up as positive an employee has to undergo a confirmation test. Even though this employee may test negative the second time this is still damaging to his or her reputation. Supposing that two employees are up for a job promotion and one of them had an initial positive for a drug test even though it was later proved false, the person with the clean record will still get the promotion. Mr. Kopol asserts that “just as people remember the arrest rather than the acquittal people will remember the initial false positive test, rather than the confirmatory negative test” (4). People will still wonder of this person really is a drug addict or not - its human nature.Many employers and proponents for drug testing in the workplace often state how cost effective it is. The o...
