pposite has been proven true though. In the early 1990’s, the government conducted drug tests on employees in forty different federal agencies. In his article “Drug Testing: the downside of a good technology,” David C. Lewis says that of the almost thirty thousand tests given, one hundred fifty three showed up positive. That means that the cost of each positive test was over seventy six thousand dollars (8). In general, it has been found that companies spend roughly seventy-seven thousand to find one drug user. According to a study conducted by the ACLU, the studies that claim that drug users costs companies one billion annually are based upon “vague comparisons of household drug use and income, with no analysis of actual productivity data” (9). A position that many advocates of drug testing take is that conducting random drug tests creates a more positive work environment. Employees have to worry about less about accidents, since the most cause of workplace accidents are alcohol or drugs. Also, workers are in a more productive workplace. A recent survey of sixty-three Silicon Valley companies though found that drug testing reduces, rather than enhances, worker productivity. Where drug testing is common, employee motivation suffers. A feeling of distrust is created in this environment as employees feel uncomfortable around their management and peers, wondering who may believe he or she may be an addict and say something to the boss, even if its not the truth. Drug testing transforms the workplace into an environment where the innocent are presumed to be guilty until a test declares otherwise. Relationships between employers and employees should be based upon trust. Wanting to work for a company is what increases productiveness. By forcing workers to submit to drug tests, the company is saying that no one can be trusted. A company does not deserve to be able to drug test an employee. By al...
