Dear Editor
Re: Queens speech Drug screening tests for illicit substance use.
The centrepiece of the Queens Speech on Nov 17 will be statutory drug testing for anyone arrested. Those with traces of opiates will be locked up without bail. I don't know what will happen to people testing positive to cannabis, but I do know if we continue to follow in the footsteps of the US failed drug prohibition policies this is only the beginning of a creeping invasion into private life - Drug testing in all sections of society.
What are drug tests?
why do we need them? and,
what real purpose do they serve?
Public safety and health are the most common justifications given in favour of drug testing, but are these justifications valid? does it make our skies, roads, workplaces, schools and streets safer?
***Drug testing does not fit well into the government model of therapeutic intervention because drug screening tests fail on their own terms - their greatest shortcoming being their inability to determine impairment at the time the test was taken OR to distinguish between drug users and drug abusers .
Random drug testing is in contravention of the - European Convention of Human Rights Article 3 - 'Nobody shall be shall be subject to.... or to inhuman or degrading treatment....' .
CLEARLY THESE TESTS ARE BOTH INHUMANE AND DEGRADING AND WILL LEAD TO - MASS ACTION OF REDRESS IN STRASBOURG.
I would been interested what our democratically elected officials, the proponents for universal drug screening tests, the candidates for the forthcoming elections for Lord Mayor of London and the Kensington and Chelsea by-election have to say on these issues.
Fifty years ago, US employers introduced Employee Assistance Programs (EAPS) into the workplace because they believed that Helping workers with their personal problems. Particularly with their alcohol related problems - saved the company money in the long run. Typically, EAPs offered rehabilitative interventions to workers who had already exhibited impairment, hoping to prevent their problems from escalating to the point where dismissal was the only viable option.
In the early 1980's the US government and the drug testing industry joining together to persuade the business community that drug testing programs would improve workplace safety, productivity and profits. Cumulating in the US 1988 Drug Free Workplace Act requiring companies with federal contracts in excess of $25,000 to show they have made 11 appropriate efforts" to maintain a drug- free workplace.
In October 1998 the UK government, leading industries and others combined to tackle drug misuse in the workplace. - Placing emphasis on health and safety!
This should be of great concern to everyone because According to a 1999 report by the American Civil Liberties Union - "Drug Testing: A Bad Investment"- major research findings contradict the claims of drug testing promoter s finding little support for most of the drug testing industry s claims. (See - ACUL executive report; editors notes).
In his recent review on drug strategy (1999). Mr. Hellawell places great emphasis on the treatment analogy as opposed to the war metaphor (This idea is not new: US drug tsar Lee Brown said this in 1993, as did US drug tsar McCaffery in 1996).
And, we agree the emphasis should indeed be on treatment. After all, doctors do not arrest their patients and test them for cancer in order to cure them!
FROM: CANNABIS LAW AND DRUG TESTING
THE question of impairment through taking cannabis (or indeed any drug) is far from clear-cut because the presence of metabolites of a drug in the biological body fluids says nothing about the competence of an individual, whether he or she is at work, at school or behind the wheel. This raises interesting questions:
If there is no accepted level of blood concentration for most drugs - including cannabis - how do we define impairment? How could you prove impairment? Since positive tests for drugs are not indicative of impairment, do we need drug testing?
THE inherent possibility of error in drug screening tests for recent drug use is one of concern that escalates in proportion to the consequences of a positive result. One false positive in 100 true positive is insignificant in an incidence survey for research purposes.
One false positive, however, is of great concern if it is a forensic sample from you and your freedom, career, reputation or civil rights hang in the balance.
Drugs test must prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a person deliberately took a substance and was impaired, at the time of the test, however, drug tests are unable to do this. These tests are unsafe, unjust and unfair, and have nothing to do with competence or health and safety.
Positive results of drug screening tests, standing alone. Are not precise enough to supply the formal proof needed for prosecutions such as: Driving under the influence of drugs, or for use in other prosecutions or proceedings - such as disciplinary action by employers, or the denial of a job or which will adversely affect the person being tested.
The possible variations involved in drug screening tests render the task of the general acceptance of a presumptive level of impairment for cannabis practically impossible, therefore, any standard levels of presumptive impairment become meaningless in practical application.
Drug screening tests are useful only as a tool of surveillance.
Drug screening tests cannot prove or disprove the offence of using drugs.
Drug screening tests provide no evidence or information as to their effects on an individuals ability or performance.
Drug screening tests cannot establish the date or time of use. (It is possible that the same individual could test negative on drug screening test in the morning and positive in the afternoon) without consuming cannabis during the interim.
If an individual has used cannabis only very recently, he or she will probably test negative on a drug-screening test because the cannabis has not reached their urine, irrespective of any suggestion of impairment.
(Cannabis Law and Drug Testing is available Price £5. 00 incl. P&P from CLCIA (Essex) 25 Aetheric Rd, Essex CM7 2NW)
Driven by an industry-led panic that drug use is common -- even epidemic -- in America's workforce, employers today require tens of millions of American workers from all walks of life -- most of whom are not even suspected of using drugs -- to pass a urine test to get a new job or to keep the one they have. Most employers, however, have never examined their programs to see if the investment is paying dividends through decreased accidents and absenteeism, and increased efficiency and productivity. The American Management Association reports that less than 10 percent of its members with drug testing programs have ever conducted a cost-benefit analysis. Furthermore, respected scientific institutions such as the National Academy of Sciences have looked at the record and found little support for most of the drug testing industry's claims. This special report by the American Civil Liberties Union presents an analysis of ten years of research and empirical evidence on drug use among workers, its impact on work performance, and whether drug testing is an effective tool for identifying drug abusers in the workplace. Our conclusion: the major research findings contradict the claims of drug testing's promoters:
Based on results from the federal government's drug testing program, a study estimated that it costs $77,000 to find one drug user "Lost productivity" studies claiming that drug users cost businesses up to $100 billion each year are based on vague comparisons of household drug use and income, with no analysis of actual productivity data "Junk science" fuelled the growth of drug testing through the drug industry's promotion of unsubstantiated claims and phantom research.
A recent survey of 63 Silicon Valley companies found that drug testing reduces, rather than enhances, worker productivity The moderate use of illicit drugs by workers during off-duty hours is no more likely than moderate off-duty alcohol use to compromise workplace safety
Given the weight of the scientific evidence, the ACLU challenges employers to reconsider drug testing and look at alternative solutions which are more cost effective and do not raise the same privacy and fairness problems. The solutions include:
· Impairment testing of workers
in safety-sensitive positions
· Wider use of Employee
Assistance Programs that can make appropriate referrals to substance abuse
programs
· Supervisor training to
identify, confront and refer impaired workers to Employee Assistance Programs
· More stringent reference
checking
The ACLU is sending Drug Testing: A Bad Investment to CEOs, union officials and human resources professionals, urging them to consider these less intrusive alternatives to urine testing as a condition of employment. "We have always believed drug testing unimpaired workers stands the presumption of innocence on its head and violates the most fundamental privacy rights," ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser says in the report. "Now we know that sacrificing these rights serves no legitimate business purpose either."
A .pdf version of the report can be read at:
http://www.aclu.org/issues/worker/drugtesting1999.pdf
ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor, New York, 10004-2400, USA
Printed by CLCIA, 63 Peacock Street, Norwich, Norfolk, NR3 1TB, UK
http://www.ccguide.org.uk/index.html
Drug screening tests for recent illicit substances are a creeping invasion into private life Arbitrary and irrational, they say nothing about competence or impairment..
In the words of: (Commander John Grieve, Criminal Intelligence Unit, Scotland Yard, 1997).
"If the (drug) problem continues advancing as it is at the moment, we re going to be faced with some very frightening options. Either you have a massive reduction in civil rights, or you have to look at some radical solutions. The issue has to be, can the criminal justice system solve this particular problem?"
A good starting point
PLEASE RAISE THIS ISSUE FOR DISCUSSION
Sincerely
Don Barnard