Drug Testing In The Workplace
Similarities in the war on Jews and the war on drug users are obvious. An important difference in strategy can be seen, however, in efforts to produce Jew-free and drug user-free economies. The Nazi effort included businesses owned or operated by Jews.
In contrast, drug warriors rarely urge boycott of products or services provided by drug-using business people. Drug warriors continually warn of threats posed to society by drug-using workers, but we hear nothing about threats posed by drug-using business managers or owners. We hear no calls to boycott a car dealership or grocery store run by someone identified as a drug user or who employs drug users.
This silence is revealing. Nazis who made war on Jews and Americans who make war on drug users seek to transfer jobs and personal property to citizens who are more “pure” than others. Unlike Nazis, however, American drug warriors do not seek to alter management or ownership of the nation’s business structure. Individual employers may become casualties of friendly fire, but the drug war bombards workers rather than employers. Such a dichotomy in effort suggests that the drug war is intended as a tool to give employers more power over employees; lives. “It is no longer enough to simply be a productive employee, but one has to be productive in a certain manner, while living a particular and accepted life style.”
Because illicit drug use is incorrectly assumed to reflect rebellious attitudes that make an employee hard to discipline, through urine tests “many managers feel they can infer answers to questions about workers’ personalities and beliefs that cannot be asked openly in interviews.” Moreover, if an employee can be ordered to give up an illicit drug in the name of productivity (regardless of whether off-duty drug use affects job performance), the same excuse allows an employer to forbid workers to use a licit drug such as alcohol. Employers can now fire workers if their body fluids indicate that tobacco has been smoked at home.