Mike S. said:
For starters, that 50% of his current workforce of 130 people were using drugs even after given a 45 day advanced notice of the test so they could get clean before being tested. And that 75% of new hires flunk. That shocks me. Doesn't it shock you -- or am I too naive?
I'm not easily shocked.
Depending upon the socio-economic status and educations of the tested population, I would expect more or less positive "hits" for drugs..
Many folks are unaware how long testable residue remains in the human body after using a banned substance. Lots of bad information out there that one can drink vinegar and invalidate a test. Some users think they are immortal, invulnerable, and invisible - they are too far gone to care whether they beat a test or not. Some folks may look for a way to get on an organization sponsored and paid rehab program and deliberately "use" to trigger the test.
I wouldn't be surprised at alcohol tests, either. Acquaintances tell me of folks smoking on smoke-free work sites. What does it all mean?
In my opinion, it means some work sites may have to perform more rigorous testing than others. There is no worksite from the executive suite down to the landscaping crew which does not have folks who abuse drugs. For brief periods, cocaine and "crystal meth" users may even appear to be sharper and more alert than a non user. Similarly for folks who have bipolar disorder, which can also be disastrous in a workplace.
Without going into the legal issues, but only to raise the question in the reader's mind:
"Is someone who still has sufficient trace amounts of marijuana, cocaine, opium, methamphetamine, etc. to show up on a test any more impaired than the person who is stoked up on LEGAL sudafed cold medicine (which contains a stimulant similar to methamphetamine) or sleepy from Benadryl, taken for allergies (similar to alcohol or opium in inducing sleepiness and slowed reaction time)?"