As many college students anticipate working as interns this summer, the possibility of being drug tested is very real. For many, drug testing is a normal part of being employed, whether it’s before or after the hiring process. More than half of all employers in the United States drug test job applicants, and only 29 percent don’t drug test at all. The ubiquity of this procedure is not exactly new, but the reasoning behind it has seen a new wave of criticism. I’ll be frank about it: I don’t think anyone likes pissing in a cup regardless of the reason behind it, but when it has the potential to take away people’s careers, it’s a problem for everyone.
The drug testing craze really began when the Reagan administration passed the Drug-Free Workplace Act in 1988 as part of the War on Drugs. Although it was meant for federal workplaces and contractors, it soon became commonplace in the private sector. The testing varies from the standard urine test to hair or blood samples, but these only speak to a drug’s use, not context. Even more notable is that alcohol usually isn’t tested for as part of this screening — urine tests don’t detect alcohol — because its use, even in excess, is not illegal. In this surveillance culture, it appears that it’s less about drug use negatively affecting productivity and more about falling in line with an unsubstantiated fear: personal drug use leading to profit loss. A policy as voraciously invasive as this should be based in scientific study, not wanton paranoia about what your employees put in their bodies.
There is no well-accepted cost-benefit analysis of drug testing employees, and thus the idea of preventing productivity loss through drug testing is far from conclusive. There are still a few occasions where drug testing can be beneficial, however. For those operating vehicles and heavy machinery, or those with access to drugs and medical equipment, drug testing is important because drug-induced altered states in these jobs pose a substantial threat to the workers and others. Additionally, the use of drug tests should not be for punitive purposes, but for rehabilitation. Anyone found abusing substances like opioids does not deserve to lose their source of income. They should instead be presented with opportunities for recovery. That’s where my concession stops, however. In other occupations, employees should only be reprimanded or otherwise punished for their on-the-job behavior and aptitude, not for what they choose to do in their free time.
New York City has recently led the charge in addressing the caveats of drug testing with the City Council’s passage of a marijuana bill. The bill, waiting to be signed by Mayor Bill de Blasio, mandates that private and public companies cannot test their employees for marijuana unless they are thought to be high on the job. Other exceptions include jobs like law enforcement, construction and supervision of children and medical patients. This kind of legislation is the right response to a delay in statewide legislation and will hopefully serve as an example for other major cities around the United States.
The nation is witnessing a wave of changing attitudes on the use of marijuana, and laws and practices are starting to reflect it. At this point in time, marijuana has been legalized for medical use in 33 states and recreational use in 10. Democratic candidates for the upcoming presidential election have also made the federal legalization of marijuana a major part of their platforms. Companies are soon going to be faced with a big decision: Do they keep their obstructive policies, or adapt to a newer, higher world?
Evan Moravansky is a junior majoring in English.