Mandatory drug testing

DEFINITION: Testing for the presence of illicit substances in individuals’ bodies as a condition of employment, school attendance, or participation in sporting competitions.

SIGNIFICANCE: As illegal drug use was increasing in the United States during the 1980s, the US government first established mandatory drug testing for individuals in the military and then quickly expanded such testing to include all federal employees. As it became apparent that employees whose bodies were drug-free were less likely to have on-the-job accidents, to use sick time, or to perform poorly at work, increasing numbers of government and private-sector employers instituted mandatory drug testing for employees.

Mandatory drug testing in the United States began on September 15, 1986, with the federal government, when President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12564 to establish a drug-free workplace. Based on this executive order, Congress passed the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, which in turn led to the establishment of mandatory guidelines for federal workplace drug-testing programs. The law requires that all federal employees be completely free of illicit drug use, even when they are not working.

Mandatory drug testing in the United States was originally applied to employees of the federal government only, but many state governments and private employers soon also instituted drug-testing laws and regulations. Mandatory drug testing is divided into federally regulated and nonfederally regulated testing; testing that is not federally regulated includes that done by private businesses, sports organizations, and schools. In the time since mandatory drug testing was first regularly used in the United States, a number of different devices and techniques have been employed to carry out the testing, some with more reliability than others.

Federal Guidelines

Guidelines for drug testing of federal employees were established by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) in September 1994. At the time these guidelines were established, SAMHSA was under the direction of the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The guidelines involved testing for only five specific categories of drugs, known as the NIDA 5: cannabinoids (that is, marijuana and its metabolite, THC), cocaine, amphetamines (including methamphetamine), opiates (including heroin, codeine, and morphine), and (PCP). The SAMHSA guidelines permit testing laboratories to report quantitative results only for these drugs, but many laboratories offer additional testing for drugs such as synthetic painkillers (for example, oxycodone), benzodiazepines (including Valium and Xanax), and barbiturates. As many of these drugs are medically prescribed, false positives have occurred in which individuals test positive for these substances despite having legitimate access to them.

Whatever the drug being tested for, the SAMHSA guidelines call for an initial test known as a screening test. If the results of this initial test are negative, they are reported as such, and no further testing is done. If the initial results are positive, a follow-up test, known as a drug confirmation test, is done to verify or disprove the original findings. According to the SAMHSA guidelines, the confirmation test must be conducted on the initial sample using a technique that is completely different from the one used in the original test. All confirmation tests must be equal to or greater than the original tests in sensitivity.

Substances Available for Testing

Various substances obtained from the human body can be analyzed for the presence of drugs or their breakdown products (metabolites). Although it has been found that analysis of blood yields valid and reliable results, blood testing is rarely used to determine the presence of drugs because of the invasive nature of such testing. Urine drug testing is probably the most commonly used screening technique. Procedures for collecting urine samples for analysis must ensure that the persons to be tested are indeed the sources of the urine and that no substitutions have been made. Also, the samples obtained must be pure and undiluted.

Increasing numbers of drug screens are being conducted with samples of saliva, as the samples are easily collected, cannot be altered, and yield valid and reliable results similar to those obtained through blood testing. Detection of drugs and their metabolites in saliva is possible immediately after drug use and for up to three days following use. Sweat drug screens involve the use of patches that are applied directly to the skin for ten to fourteen days; this technique is rarely used because of security and detection issues. Hair testing provides reasonably accurate results; such testing can reflect drug use for a period of at least three months prior to testing.

Uses of Drug Testing

Many employers conduct mandatory drug tests of potential employees as a condition of employment prior to hiring. Because such a preemployment test is done only once for each person and at a predictable time, the person to be tested may simply avoid drug use for a specified period prior to that time in order to test negative.

Some employers also conduct random drug testing of employees, testing various persons at unpredictable times, making it difficult for drug users to avoid detection. This procedure is both the most effective use of drug testing as a deterrent to drug use and the most controversial. Many critics have argued that random drug testing constitutes an unreasonable invasion of privacy. The US Supreme Court addressed this issue in 1989, ruling that random drug testing is legal for federal employees. Subjects must truly be chosen randomly, however; specific individuals cannot be targeted. An alternative to random drug testing for all employees is “for-cause” testing, in which individuals are drug tested only when their actions raise questions about possible drug use.

The least common application of mandatory drug testing is known as postincident testing—that is, drug testing that is required for individuals involved in workplace accidents or other incidents. It is often beneficial for an employer to prove that an individual was or was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time a problematic incident occurred.

The legalization of marijuana throughout many US states in the twenty-first century complicated the process of drug testing for employers due to the fact that a larger percentage of the workforce was now legally using marijuana. As a result, many employers in states where marijuana had been legalized began choosing not to drug test employers unless stipulated by federal law. In 2022, in conjunction with the growing number of states that had legalized marijuana, President Joe Biden announced that his administration had begun to review the government's classification of marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug in an effort to reform federal law surrounding marijuana use. At the same time, President Biden issued a pardon for those who had been federally incarcerated for simple marijuana possession.

Bibliography

Aeppel, Timothy. "Legal Cannabis Poses a Quandary for U.S. Companies Screening Staff for Drugs." Reuters, 7 Oct. 2022, www.reuters.com/world/us/legal-cannabis-poses-quandary-us-companies-screening-staff-drugs-2022-10-06/. Accessed 31 Oct. 2022.

Belenko, Steven R. Drugs and Drug Policy in America: A Documentary History. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2000.

"Drug Testing." National Institute on Drug Abuse, Nov. 2023, nida.nih.gov/research-topics/drug-testing. Accessed 15 Aug. 2024.

Husak, Douglas N. Drugs and Rights. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Liptak, Kevin. "Biden Pardons All Federal Offenses of Simple Marijuana Possession in First Major Steps toward Decriminalization." CNN, 6 Oct. 2022, www.cnn.com/2022/10/06/politics/marijuana-decriminalization-white-house-joe-biden/index.html. Accessed 31 Oct. 2022.

Jenkins, Amanda J., and Bruce A. Goldberger, eds. On-Site Drug Testing. Totowa, N.J.: Humana Press, 2002.

Karch, Steven B. Workplace Drug Testing. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press, 2007.

Tunnell, Kenneth D. Pissing on Demand: Workplace Industry Drug Testing and the Rise of the Detox Industry. New York: New York University Press, 2004.