Should drugtesting be commonplace?
Or should it be allowable only for specific occupations?

I for one consider it to be an infringement upon common rights.
Testing positive for an illicit substance doesn't necessarily mean that one is currently under the influence or impaired by that substance. All that it means is that there are traces still in the system. It's very different to an alcohol test.

Different tests can procure different results. For example: A urine test will not show a positive result where a hair sample may.
The objective in the workplace is only to ascertain if the employee is currently impaired in their task. Anything else is none of the employers business.
That being said, employers readily condone the most treacherous enemy of workplace safety, which is lack of sleep.  
I recently missed a random swab test only because I'd left the building. If I had've been asked to provide a sample, I would've told the prick to go swab his asshole.

amadd - you hav a good point here

Quote:


if they want workplace performance, they should also for alcohol, lack of sleep, emotional problems.
From the CEO downwards. CEOS's make decisions MUCH more far reaching than labourers.

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 20^th, 2010 at 9:50am:


Yes, like who can be made redundant to finance their latest (lack of) performance bonus.

There are quite a few professions where I agree with mandatory drug testing..airline pilots for instance.

Amadd wrote on May 20^th, 2010 at 4:55pm:


You mean computer based impairment testing?  It doesn't work.
Drug and alcohol testing in the workplace serves one purpose only - as a deterrent. It's not the primary method of detecting impairment. The primary method is observation by peers.  

The number of casualties on the road in Australia in 1974 was around 3800. By 2001, that figure had halved while the number of cars on the road had doubled.

The reason - people changed their attitudes to drinking and driving.

If you look at the trends, you can see where RBT was brought in in the various states.

What drug and alcohol testing doesn't do is to test for impairment.
A baseline study was conducted on pilots using a flight simulator. None had been drinking. The errors rate was 10% (the criterion was task completed without error). After 6 standard drinks, and a blood level of around 0.1, the error rate increased to 89%. After a rest period of 14 hours and no further drinks, the alcohol levels had dropped to below the detection limit. At that point, the error rate was 68%. If anybody wants references to the study, I can provide it.  

The conclusion is that blood alcohol level is not a guide to impairment level.

Do I think that drug/alcohol  testing should be required for high risk workers? Yes,  as a deterrent.

At my place of work, we conduct random testing. It's totally random unless a positive result is obtained. That person is then subjected to targetted testing for a period of time.

We also do pre-employment medicals which include blood based drug testing. Even if not impaired, traces of THC indicate a possible drug habit. Anybody returning a positive result is denied employment because they are not considered worth the risk of employment.

An an example our criteria for a negative result are alcohol - zero detected and THC <4 ng/100ml.

The drug testing includes Cocaine, THC, benzodiazepines, amphetamines and Opiates.

Our last work based injury was in 2004.  It's a high risk industry.

Quote:


Yes the primary method has always worked very well. Nobody wants to be working alongside somebody who is a danger to others whether they are under the influence or not.

Quote:


So are you now saying that is does work?

mozzaok wrote on May 22^nd, 2010 at 4:41pm:


Well it depends on the drug, but every drug has some unique effect on impairment depending on whether they are stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens etc . Small amounts of cannabis can actually improve the response time.

IMHO, the worst class of drug for impairment is benzodiazepines (sedatives), and some antihistamines can be just as bad.  

Even Oxytocin has an impairment effect. Don't drive when you're madly in love 

Quote:


If you control for these innovations and progressions in design but not for a shifted attitude towards drink driving, how much would things be different to how they are now?

Quote:


But what if after repeated testing, or testing at different times, a 10% constituted of different pilots from that initial 10% is found to fail as well? I think that's what Muso was getting at; everybody is going to fail at some point in time.

Recommendations by The Privacy Committee of New South Wales

October 1992.

Recommendation 1:


Unless specifically authorised by legislation, workplace drug testing should only take place when:


i.  a person’s impairment by drugs would pose a substantial and demonstrable safety risk to that person or to other people; and

ii.  there is reasonable cause to believe that the person to be tested may be impaired by drugs; and

iii.  of drug testing to be used is capable of identifying the presence of a drug at concentrations which may be capable of causing impairment.



Recommendation 2:  


Workplace drug testing should be prohibited by legislation other than when:

i.  a person's impairment by drugs would pose a substantial and demonstrable safety risk to that person or to other people; and


ii  there is reasonable cause to believe that the person to be tested may be impaired by drugs; and


iii  the form of drug testing to be used is capable of identifying the presence of a drug at concentrations which may be capable of causing impairment.



Recommendation 3:


Workplace drug testing that is permitted should be subject to procedural standards, set out in legislation, to protect the privacy interests of those who are tested.


http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SGeBBfS43ZAJ:www.lawlink.ns...