Drug Test for Government Officials
Drug Test for Government Officials
The phrase “drug testing” indicates the examination of biological products to locate drugs along with their metabolites within the human body. Tests for urine are very common along with hair, saliva and sweat. Breath tests are common in case of alcohol . The impact of the degeneration of society can be felt in recent times in various aspects of the lives of individuals, including the workplace. The use and abuse of drugs has become increasingly common in the workplace in order to cope with anxiety and stress. As a result, employers resort their staff to frequent urinalysis tests to counter the problem by detecting the use of illegal substances. Drug testing is not just a method to understand the ability of an employee to fulfill contractual terms. It cannot be termed as intrusive or harmful. Even though this kind of testing amounts to an imposition on the employees, the interference can be justified if it takes place within the context of employment and does not infringe unnecessarily on the privacy interests. The testing of drugs in the workplace can be both specific and efficient. Drug testing is one of the most effective methods of discovering drug abuse among employees. Apart from offering direct access to details, the results of drug tests do not include irrelevant information. The drug test indicates a certain group of illegal substances
Drug testing in the workplace is necessary to maximize the profits of the corporations by reducing the financial impact of the substance abuse habits of employees. But, the question remains whether such testing is justified in terms of ethics and morality. Arguments against mandatory drug testing include the coercive nature of the drug test and the fact that testing is equivalent to a violation of the privacy level of the employees since it attempts to manipulate the behaviour of the employees within their own homes, outside the legitimate area of control of the employer .But such claims can be counteracted by ethically justifying the practice of mandatory drug testing as a part of the job contract which, in most cases, specifies not only the expectations of reasonable performance of the employee but even the right of the employer to know about it. It is true that knowledge of the drug use of the employee is pertinent to the terms of the employment contract and so, the employer is not wrong to utilize it, and by invoking this right is not in violation of the privacy of the employees. On the other hand, critics cite Kant to emphasize that even though drug testing does not violate the privacy of the employees, it considers humans as means to purely financial ends without improving the quality of life of the several employees being tested . Thus, inconsistencies arise in the substantive valuation of human dignity and worth. However, it can be argued that the negative impact of substance abuse on the mental and physical health of an employee would be much greater than the negative impact of being tested for drugs at the workplace. Further, it is the organization’s right to know if a prospective employee has any habits or addictions that may be detrimental to their performance at work. The prospect of being caught by drug tests conducted by potential employers and being denied a job based on their use of drugs should serve as an encouragement for users to give up the habit.
The empirical evidence pertaining to the efficacy of pre-employment drug testing indicates that such programs may be useful to employers in choosing wisely among job applicants. However, regardless of the magnitude of the correlations between drug use and dysfunctional job behavior measures, the practical effectiveness of any drug-testing program depends on other parameters such as the prevalence of drug use in the population tested. The presence of significant relationships between drug use and workplace performance measures does not necessarily mean that an effective drug-testing program will substantially improve work force performance, and a program that substantially improves performance with some employees or in some job settings may do little to improve performance with other employees or in other job settings. Despite beliefs to the contrary, the preventive effects of drug-testing programs have never been adequately demonstrated. Although, there are some suggestive data that allude to the deterrent effect of employment drug-testing programs, there is as yet no conclusive scientific evidence from properly controlled studies that employment drug-testing programs widely discourage drug use or encourage rehabilitation.