Hair Tomorrow
The federal government is changing its drug screening guidelines to incorporate hair, saliva, and sweat testing as well as urinalysis. The guidelines apply to federal employees and workers in regulated industries, and other private employers tend to follow them as well. The avowed rationales for the changes are contradictory. On the one hand, the Associated Press reports, the government wants drug testing "to be more precise":
Alternative testing methods would give employers more certainty about the timing and scope of drug usage than is now possible solely with urine sampling, said Robert Stephenson II, an official with the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
That could be particularly valuable in situations like investigations of on-the-job accidents, to determine not just whether an employee uses drugs but if usage occurred recently enough to be a cause.
On the other hand, hair testing will allow detection of drug traces going back several months, thereby making it possible to nab even more people whose drug use has no effect on their job performance. Alternative testing will "really ramp up our ability to increase the deterrent value of our program, which is basically the whole bottom line," says Stephenson.
The bottom line, in other words, is not improving safety or productivity but enforcing drug prohibition--one of the main conclusions I drew in a story on drug testing that appeared in the November 2002 issue of Reason.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
When I got out of High school in 1975 me and my fellow graduates were sure that pot would be legal in a few years. The country seemed to be moving in that direction. Decriminalization had already started in the mid 70's.
What went wrong? Now it seems as though I'll never live to see the innocent plant become legal.
Someone must be profiting from keeping pot illegal. Other then the dealers, I mean.
It's a bureaucratic instinct, like administrative encirclement. The people who are supposed to be in charge of ordering pads and pencils ask for a statement of your objectives for the year so as to improve their planning.
It's not particularly a drug suppression instinct, just a reason that bureaucrats ought to be shot every couple of years to keep them fresh.
Will George Bush have to pee in the cup? He is, after all, a public employee. As a matter of national security, we must do whatever it takes to ensure that the commander-in-chief is drug free. It's for the children!
What's that you say? We should just trust him unless we actually see signs of poor performance caused by drug use? Bah! Nonsense!
I don't get off on watching people pee, but I'd pay good money to see a surveillance tape of W submitting to this degrading practice.
If they could design a drug test with decades-old sensitivity, we might even get to see DEA agents do a "no-knock raid" on the White House. Cool!
The next creation will be a database of people who have failed drug tests, so that employers can pre-screen before even bothering to test. It's coming.
An adoption agency we flirted with a few years ago routinely tested the pregnant girls/women under its wing for drugs and HIV/AIDS. At one point one of the women complained that, since it was so important for the adoptive parents that the birth mothers be drug- and HIV-free, then why shouldn't it be just as important for the birth mothers that the adoptive parents be drug- and HIV free?
Fearing a lawsuit from some knocked-up trailer park hussy, the agency then decided that all prospective adoptive parents contracting with them had to have drug and HIV tests. I showed up at my doctor with the forms to fill out to validate my purity to adopt, and he busted up laughing until he realized I was serious.
Screening for drugs, HIV, even nicotine will soon become commonplace in everything from loan applications to school admissions.
Anyone see the program "Myth Busters" on TLC? Two guys ate a) poppyseed cake and b) poppyseed bagels, in normal proportions. A mail-order drug test indicated a positive for opiates. I wonder how accurate the "official" tests are?
CHRIS: Someone must be profiting from keeping pot illegal. Other then the dealers, I mean.
SinC: In no particular order:
LAW ENFORCEMENT - Close to 20% of all criminal charges are for simple marijuana possession - over 600,000 each of the past four years, and more than for all violent crime charges combined.
Who would you rather bust?
Add in the fact that every single bust carrries potential for property and money seizure, unlike most crimes against persons/property.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN GENERAL - Again, the fact that 20% of criminal cases involve marijuana justify police, booking officers, evidence techs, jailers, baliffs, prosecutors, court reporters, prison guards, probation officers and related support staff.
PHARMACUETICAL INDUSTRY - It's clear that marijuana is an effective remedy for a variety of medical ailments and conditions. For many patients, it's in fact superior to pharmacueticals that are too often addictive and also damage the liver and kidneys, not to mention many other side effects (diaharea, cha-cha-cha!).
Also for many people, it's the most accessible (does't require a prescription) and the most affordable, even given black market pricing.
ALCOHOL INDUSTRY - Lots of people preefer marijuana to martinis.
DRUG TESTING INDUSTRY - As noted in the theme of this Topic Header, it's only marijuana that can be detected after 48 hours in most cases. Even though this detection provides little or no evidence of job impairment, driving impairment, life impairment, it's the vital cog to a multi billion dollar industry.
COOKIES AND ICE CREAM MAKERS - Now if we could only get John Walters, George Bush and Co to transfer their holdings to THESE companies, we would see legalization in minutes.
If there's this plastic thing you can whip out filled with someone else's drug-free urine, how hard will it be (he he) to whip out someone else's certified drug-free hair?
When will it all end?
I remember the McCarthy hearings, and thought they'd never end. They did.
On the other hand, widespread hair testing may eventually prove fatal to preemployment drug testing policies. Even a daily marijuana smoker who refrains for two weeks beforehand and drinks lots of fluids the day of the urinalysis will test negative at the standard 50 ng/mL. Thus, the candidates who get caught by preemployment urinalysis screening will generally tend to be weak-willed or unclever. Testing like this is still a bad idea since it undermines the employee/employer relationship from day 1 - demanding that somebody to pee in a cup generally isn't considered a gesture of respect.
Hair testing, on the other hand, is hard to evade, even for someone who does their research. The result is a much larger group of candidates gets disqualified, including many very competent people. Thus, companies that hair test will be paying more (hair test are substantially more expensive) to exclude candidates who are more competent than those caught by urinalysis - giving a more distinct advantage to competitors who don't drug test.
Follow the money. If the Feds (OSHA) can fine you and the injured can sue you for things that happened to your employees while on the job, then it is in your interest to make sure you have all the "data" you might need to defend yourself.
Mind you, I'm not sayin' it's right.
Drug testing is and always has been a euphemism for IQ testing. I've had to do it several times for a pre-employment screening, occasionally with no more than 24 hours notice. Nothing more is required than a few over-the-counter products to cover up extreme dilution. Every drug user worth their salt knows this.
Hence, I think Matt makes a good point. Hair testing takes things to a new level. The "benefit" to employers may no longer be a benefit since the "smart" thing to do may just be to find a different job.
Unfortunately, when it comes to regulated and government jobs, this is a bit more complex.
We must come up with a way to introduce a bill that prohibits drug testing for government contractors, employees, and "controlled industries." It will probably be defeated. Then, we must introduce a bill that requires drug testing for congress members and senators. Finally, we must publish the list of hypocrites: those who voted against the ending of drug testing for regular government employees, and against the drug testing of legislators. Political groups that wish to end the drug war must then target all of the hypocrites when they come up for re-election. If voters fire enough of them, I think that a message will be sent, and perhaps a lesson learned by those old dogs.
I want to see the end of the drug war, but if that's not to be, then I want our legislators, President, and justices tested as often as the rank and file are. The fact that the ruling class is immune from that kind of outrageous intrusion is what makes them the ruling class and not the public servants they were originally intended to be. When will we fix it?
James-
Normally I'm not of the school of thought that says "Let's make it so that everybody has to endure this unfair law or policy", but, if we're extending everybody to include the jerks who wrote the unfair law or policy, I can make an exception.
I still want to see a no-knock raid on the White House. Wait until Jenna Bush visits her parents, then tell the DEA you heard a rumor that some dude's friend's roommate sold a joint to Jenna Bush. Nowadays that's considered probable cause...
A few years ago, when I couldn't get a job after grad school, I worked for a temp agency for a few months.
As I sat in their office filling out a sheaf of paperwork, I came across the drug-test form I was supposed to fill out: the agency had the right to test me if it ever had suspicions. The paper said the company, and any organization doing the tests, would be held not only 'blameless' but 'harmless' in the event of a mistake.
As I understand it, 'harmless' means that no matter how badly they screw up and how much I suffer as I result, I cannot sue them (or hold them responsible) for anything. So I did not sign the paper, handed it back amidst all the other papers, and started work the next day.
Of course, back then the economy was in good shape and agencies were desperate for educated, reliable workers. Who knows what would happen if I went back there now?
I'd love to stay and chat, but I have to go get my entire body waxed.
For those who thought Slick Willie was first to recently-sully the Oval Office, Bonzo pulled his wang out & peed in a cup in the '80s -- so making prohibitionists comply occasionally (well, once!) with their own rules is clearly no deterrent to stupid boondoggle-laws, and certainly wouldn't stop the minor Bush IMO... When 9/11 happened, I really thought the tax-and-spend drugwar would be over, at least for stupid stuff like pot or natural coca leaves (which might make good drug treatment). Boy was I wrong (but who knows about the treatment-potential of a natural substance that's been used since before Christ!).
JMR
Pre-Rant Disclaimer: I don't believe that HIV status has any effect on a person's ability to be a good parent. Nor do I think that being "drug free" makes for a better parent. However...
"An adoption agency we flirted with a few years ago routinely tested the pregnant girls/women under its wing for drugs and HIV/AIDS. At one point one of the women complained that, since it was so important for the adoptive parents that the birth mothers be drug- and HIV-free, then why shouldn't it be just as important for the birth mothers that the adoptive parents be drug- and HIV free?
Fearing a lawsuit from some knocked-up trailer park hussy, the agency then decided that all prospective adoptive parents contracting with them had to have drug and HIV tests. I showed up at my doctor with the forms to fill out to validate my purity to adopt, and he busted up laughing until he realized I was serious."
Good grief. What are you saying here? That a woman who gives her child up for adoption does not have the right or obligation to make sure her child is placed with the best parents (by her definition) possible? That any woman who gives her child up for adoption is a "hussy" and most likely, gasp, poor??? How dare she expect the potential parents of her offspring meet any of her guidelines. She should just be glad that there are people willing to take her
"trailer park" child off her hussy hands and ask no questions. Sheesh.
Perhaps the doc was laughing for a different reason. Maybe he was laughing at the idea that someone who labels unwed mothers knocked up trailer park hussies (what, trailer trash too concise or too gender neutral?) would actual adopt one of those children? I know I laughed. And, Tom from Texas, if you did adopt one of those kids, do you tell them that their mother was a knocked up, trailer park hussy or are you hoping they'll figure it out for themselves?
Oh sorry, topic? I think we lost our chance to stop drug testing in the 80s. Now it's assumed that if you refuse a drug test, you must be a druggie.
"Rights? What are these things you call 'rights', grandma?"
"Well, in my day, you didn't have to piss into a cup in order to get a low-wage, demeaning, futureless job."
Who knew the late 80s were going to be the good old days, huh?
What if I shave my head? Will they just take hair from my back? That would be pretty cool with me, I need a good back shaving.
Anyone want to take a bet that once this program is instituted, many cops and firefighters across the nation will be losing their jobs? I imagine that once the public commenting begins for this issue, these groups should be vocal.
Now I am curious how Rush Limbaugh will be responding to this on his talk show. I won't be listening, but if anyone else is, please let the rest of us know!
They can have all the hair on my palms.
I'm sure there are many employers who share libertarian views on drug testing, but who go along with it anyway to reduce their insurance premiums. My experience is that they generally ignore their own threats to randomly test, and instead use common-sense methods to "weed" out stoners who are irresponsible enough to get high on company time.
Hey, if the hair samples come back negative, they can always be used for voodoo curses.
What went wrong? Now it seems as though I'll never live to see the innocent plant become legal. Someone must be profiting from keeping pot illegal. Other then the dealers, I mean.
Here is the plain and simple truth of what went wrong: the Baby Boomers started having kids and switching from "free love" mode to "protect the children" mode. That's really all of it. Yeah, sure, a lot of people make money off the war on drugs; a lot of people would make money off of legalizing drugs, too. The massive profits of alcohol prohibition didn't stop it from being re-legalized.
Anyway, I wouldn't worry too much about it. Drugs, prostitution, selling your organs for money, cloning humans for parts... all these things will be legalized once the Baby Boomers start retiring, and the government needs to come up with tax revenue and cheaper medical care to pay for those deadbeats' extended lifespans.
Now it's assumed that if you refuse a drug test, you must be a druggie.
From a libertarian perspective: you have a right to refuse to be tested. Your body is your own.
Also from a libertarian perspectice: you have no right to a job. An employer may opt not to hire you, or to fire you once you've been hired, for whatever reason he chooses, and "you refused to take a drug test" is one of many such reasons.
Developments during the 80s that made it legal for a company to "force" you to take a drug test were not an invasion of your rights, or my rights. They were a restoration of your employer's right to freedom of association.
True. I seem to recall Henry Ford had some of the same beliefs regarding employee rights.
Personally, I consider companies that engage in pre-employment drug testing for things like, oh, working at a video store a bad choice for employment. It just seems like lazy management to me. Or even management that doesn't believe they can trust their own judgment in regards to hiring. Not to mention the effects of a false positve can have. So I've made a deal, I won't piss in no cups, and no company that requires it will hire me. I just think it's a damn shame this is what it came to in America.