Use Of Drug Testing Research Articles

Drug testing and mandatory treatment for welfare recipients

One province in Canada, Ontario, is considering the use of drug tests for welfare recipients. Those with positive tests could be required to receive treatment and abstain from drug use or risk losing their benefits. Several experts from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) reviewed the scientific strengths and weaknesses of this proposal. Strengths included possible increases in employment and reduced drug use among welfare recipients; however, the group concluded that drug testing of welfare recipients or removal of welfare benefits for people who refuse treatment or relapse is not advisable for several reasons. Drug testing cannot be used to determine substance abuse or dependence, could undermine the client case manager relationship and could be legally challenged as a violation of human rights. Other drawbacks of conditional welfare include possible negative societal consequences (i.e. increased crime and health problems) and disruptions to the treatment population. The whole process is expensive and will likely result in a very marginal increase in employment because drug dependence is not a major barrier to employment.

Drug Testing in the Public Sector: An Interpretation Grounded in Rosenbloom's Competing‐Perspectives Model

In the last few decades, drug testing has become a major policy issue in the workplace, with a host of actors competing to promote their own needs and interests. Employers, for example, seek ways to combat the use and abuse of illegal substances by employees. At the same time, unions and their employees legitimately seek to limit overly intrusive or unfair methods of testing. The courts have also been major players in the policy arena of drug testing, as witnessed by the surfeit of case law setting parameters around what is and is not legal and constitutional in terms of drug testing.In an effort to move the drug‐testing debate forward, this article examines the competing interests in drug testing, interests that ultimately frustrate the courts, policy makers, employees, and their unions from reaching a consensus on the use of drug tests in the public sector. To systematically examine this issue, Rosenbloom's competing‐perspectives model of public administration is applied. The article concludes with policy recommendations for public managers.

'Glue Grant' Boosts Cell Signaling Consortium

The National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) is using a novel funding approach to bind together researchers in cutting-edge fields at many institutions, allowing them to transcend their individual areas of expertise. NIGMS has awarded $5 million a year for 5 years to a group of scientists studying cellular signaling. To speed their findings into the public domain and make them available for use in drug testing, members of the project have agreed to post new results in a public database and forgo some patent and authorship claims.

Drug testing in organizations: Applying Horwitz's theory of the effectiveness of social control

Applying Horwitz's theory of the effectiveness of social control to the case of workplace drug testing, this study seeks to evaluate the conditions associated with the use of compliance strategies to manage deviance. Using a 1991 data set consisting of the first nationally representative sample of U.S. work organizations, the analysis addresses whether the likelihood of drug testing increases as an organization's workforce becomes larger, less stable, and more heterogeneous in terms of race and gender and receives fewer and fewer better employee benefits? Results offer substantial support for Horwitz's central theoretical argument that social factors significantly shape strategies of social control and particularly for the hypotheses that size, instability, and diversity influence the likelihood of drug testing in the workplace. I discuss some of the social and economic implications of the use of drug testing as a strategy of social control, particularly as contemporary workplaces become larger, less stable, and more racially and gender diverse.

Drug testing in the workplace: the allure of management technologies

Discusses US use of drug testing in the workplace, screening employees for smoking, AIDS, genetic traits and reproductive hazards. Attributes this to the costs employers face in insurance, litigation and compensation. Points out that the purpose of drug testing is to circumvent management responsibility for: accidents in the workplace, stress, bad management practices, and disregarding health and safety initiatives. Acknowledges that the tests are harmful and indefensible. Reports that 81 per cent of members of the American Management Association in 1996 conducted drug testing. Claims that screening is the alternative to monitoring – that is screening out individuals who are seen as high risk in some way – yet that misses the point – the focus should be on making hazardous working conditions safe. Indicates that companies may use drug testing as a means of deterring drug users from gravitating towards their organization. Mentions that workplace‐induced stress can lead to substance abuse and that, therefore it is management driven, rather than being a problem the worker brings to the workplace. Quotes a number of company physicians who object to policing drug use. Indicates that drug testing has diverted attention away from health and safety issues and hazardous working conditions.

Drug testing in the criminal justice work place

This article investigates the use of drug testing to combat drug use and abuse by criminal justice personnel. Arguments for and against drug testing are discussed, as well as the current legal status of employees. The implications and future legal trends of drug testing of criminal justice personnel are analyzed.

Frustration effects in procedural justice research: The case of drug-testing legislation

A scenario methodology was used to investigate reactions to negative outcomes resulting from drug-testing procedures. The drug-testing procedures reflected variations in State law governing the use of drug tests in employee selection. Results suggest that individuals responded most negatively to negative outcomes resulting from the legally mandated procedures. Results are discussed as an example of the “frustration effect” observed in the procedural justice literature. Frustration effects were most severe for individuals who were most certain, based on personal knowledge, that the drug test results were inaccurate.

Drug Testing: What Are the Rights of Employees, Employers, and Unions?

Drug abuse in the United States has been a commonly recognized problem in theworkplace for nearly two decades. A joint study by the National Council of Alcoholismand the Research Triangle Institute suggested that the cost of substance abuse to theAmerican economy ranges from $60 to $145 billion annually [3]. A '1985 AmericanManagement Association, study found that approximately 93 percent of all organizationssurveyed faced employee drug abuse Problems [21]. With the problem so pervasive,it is not surprising that as many as 168 Fortune 500 companies have implemented someform of substance abuse screening or testing; and many more have plans to adopt suchpolicies [3].From a union-management standpoint, most collective bargaining agreementsinclude rules providing disciplinary action for use and abuse of drugs; however, issuespertaining to drug usage and drug testing have only recently become components ofcollective bargaining agreements. While it is obviously in the best interest of boththe employer and the employee to identify substance abuse problems, strong oppositionto drug testing of employees continues to exist. The purpose of this paper is toexamine recent interpretations of the law affecting drug testing, particularly where laborunions are involved, and to assess the implications for employers with collectivebargaining agreements who wish to institute or continue the use of drug testing.