Abstract
This paper explains that statistics show that drug abuse and alcoholism are real problems in the American work force. The author points out that many employers value drug testing before employment so that potential drug abusers will be eliminated as part of their workforce. The paper relates whether or not employers should require drug testing before hiring employees and the degree to which D the outcome of drug testing should affect the decisions managers make in the selection of employees.

From the Paper
"U.S. Depart. Of Labor statistics show that one in every 12 employees uses illegal drugs and one in 10 has an alcohol problem" (Gillian 46). Should employers require drug testing before hiring employees? Why? Why not? Does the outcome of drug testing affect the decisions managers make in the selection of employees? These are logical questions that many employers face in the selection of new employees. Managers are affected by the results of pre-employment drug testing and often they base their decisions on who to hire based on these results. What Is the Importance of Drug Testing? Why should managers care if people use drugs or alcohol as long as they do not use them at work? Why should managers use drug testing in choosing whom to hire?"

Tags:drug, testing, employment

Abstract
This paper presents the reasons that Desjardins and Duska state for rejecting drug testing in the workplace. The paper points out that, for some people, drug testing in the workplace may be a way to avoid the adverse effects caused by illegal drug use, such as theft and decreased proficiency on the job; however, Desjardins and Duska rejects the validity of this statement. The author of this paper accepts this rejection.

From the Paper
"Drug testing prior to and during employment is becoming an ordinary aspect of the workplace. Desjardins and Duska indicate that it is commonly believed that this testing does not violate privacy, as long as a contractual need is met by such testing. However, Chapter Four argues that it is rarely justified to test any applicant or employee, in any job capacity. Refuting the First Argument The first argument for drug testing in the workplace is that it may be a way to avoid the adverse effects caused by illegal drug use. Some of these effects include cost increases due to theft and decreased proficiency on the job. The first argument, according to Desjardins and Duska, is not valid because only a certain level of performance to which employers are entitled."

Tags:drug, testing, workplace

Abstract
Drug testing in the workplace became a growing practice in the face of information showing the prevalence of drug use, especially for certain sensitive positions and dangerous industries. The practice increased with the belief that preventing drug use would have a business benefit by reducing potential medical problems, liability, lost work days and so on. This paper discusses the increasing use of drug testing in the workplace and the concerns raised about privacy, especially the privacy of those who weren't using drugs but were tested just the same.

Tags:drug, testing, workplace

Abstract
The debate over the drug testing of employees presents us with competing rights - the right of the employee to privacy vs. the right of the employer to test employees for drug use - that shape our determination of the ethics involved in such cases. This essay argues the thesis that drug testing is ethically justifiable only in the most narrow of conditions, and then only in certain occupations.

Tags:drug, testing, ethics

Abstract
The paper that follows looks at whether or not baseball's new policy vis-a-vis drug testing is justified from a moral point of view. After looking at the issue carefully by examining the contours/features of the new policy, this essay concludes that the new major league drug testing policy is justified from a utilitarian perspective because it does help baseball overcome the image problem it has (this means potentially more money at the till and therefore benefits everyone in general).

From the Paper
Baseball and Drug Testing The paper that follows looks at whether or not baseball's new policy vis-a-vis drug testing is justified from a moral point of view. After looking at the issue carefully by examining the contours/features of the new policy, this essay concludes that the new major league drug testing policy is justified from a utilitarian perspective because it does help baseball overcome the image problem it has (this means potentially more money at the till and therefore benefits everyone in general). Unfortunately, in practice, the new testing process is not serving its utilitarian aims because of its poor administration. At the same time, the

Tags:baseball, drug, testing

Abstract
The question of the ethical issues involved in employer's applying drug testing in the workplace is complicated by the employee's right to privacy. This essay argues that the employee right to privacy radically limits the range of employer options in regard to drug testing quite apart from other considerations such as effectiveness and legality. However, in sensitive jobs where potential harm to others is an issue, the moral right to privacy of an employee may itself be limited.

Tags:drug, testing, rights

Abstract
This paper presents an analysis of Fine, Harney and Reeves 1996 study which focused on drug testing in government workplaces and its affects on workers. The study intended to demonstrate whether or not the drug testing policies of government offices supported the right to privacy of the individual, or if individual rights were cast aside by the employer in order to address business concerns.The results of the study are detailed, with statistics highlighting various conclusions.

From the Paper
"Fine, Harney and Reeves (1996) conducted a study that was focused on drug testing in government workplaces (p. 30). The study intended to demonstrate whether or not the drug testing policies of government offices supported the right to privacy of the individual, or if individual rights were cast aside by the employer in order to address business concerns. Fine, Harney and Reeves (1996) found that approximately 18% of the government offices that participated in drug testing programs formulated their drug testing procedures with a concentration on preserving..."

Tags:drug, testing, workers

Abstract
For the regular employee any use of drugs is considered an immoral act and therefore, deemed reason enough to negate their right to privacy. To that end, this essay argues that there is no justification for violating an employee's privacy in favor of drug testing because the relevancy of the information is determined by the employer's profit motive which is used to determine the ethical grounds for testing.

From the Paper
"For the regular employee any use of drugs is considered an immoral act and therefore, according to Michael Cranford, provides the employer with justification to collect and use that information and as such, has been deemed reason enough to negate their right to privacy (112). In contrast drug use by athletes is viewed a potentially profit enhancing behavior. While not conclusive examples, these ideas certainly identify a vast chasm between interpretations of what justifies an employer's rights based on two different types of employees."

Tags:profit, drug, testing

Abstract
This paper examines the high cost to employers of employee workplace substance abuse. The author points out the need for effective substance abuse prevention programs and challenges such programs present. The paper evaluates the effectiveness of drug testing as a policy.

From the Paper
"Due to absenteeism, accidents, medical-liability and healthcare expenditures, substance-abusing employees cost employers more than ... billion annually Obviously, substance-abusing employees represent a major problem.

Tags:drug testing, drug-free workplace, employees, employers, ACLU, privacy, substance abuse, health care, public policy

Abstract
This paper briefly discusses pretrial drug testing and its ability to predict pretrial misconduct and failure to appear. The paper explains how it is being used in many places but the results are still inconclusive as to its predictive power.

From the Paper
"Though the results for pre-trial drug testing as a predictor of pretrial misconduct or failure appear to have so far been inconsistent, I do think they should be mandatory. I think they should be carried out at weekly intervals on pretrial defendants because a) they may pick up users in need of treatment and b) if these defendants know that they are going to be tested regularly perhaps it can curb their drug use and give them a period to 'dry out' particularly, if the consequences for testing..."

Tags:pre-trial, drug, testing