            In today’s society there has been a gradual increase in the use of illegal drugs by many different people and these drugs can not only inflict issues upon those who use them but also those around them, both at home and in the workplace. To try and reduce the use of these harmful substances, the Drug-Free Workplace Act was established in 1988 to help prevent drug and substance abuse and help better workplace safety. The act states that all federal companies will provide drug-free workplaces for their contractors and grantees, meaning those employed will have to undergo mandatory drug testing. The Drug Free Workplace Act came with backlash from those who saw this Act as unconstitutional, but not all businesses have to abide by these rules. Since this act was established in 1988, many small non-federal companies also attempt to keep their work environment safe and drug-free. By doing so the safety and effectiveness of the workplace would benefit the customers and overall productivity.  Since the debut of the Drug-Free Workplace Act, many workplaces have seen a steady decrease in accidents, employee mistakes, and employee absenteeism. Smaller workplaces that perform drug testing see similar changes in their own work environments which are positive results. The range can be from overall attitude and kindness towards other employees and or customers as well as less accidental mistakes that can be potentially dangerous or harmful. Drug-testing in the workplace will be beneficial to creating a safer working environment, help to promote drug abstinence, and ease competition for those who chose to abide by the law by being drug free.

       Drug testing in the workplace helps create a safer work environment by keeping illicit and harmful substances out of the bodies of those employed or seeking employment. There are many different companies that perform drug tests on their employees during the hiring process and many that drug test regularly to check on their employee’s drug usage. Without drugs, the work environment is much safer than a working environment with drug use. A book written about creating a safer drug-free environment by Joel Bennett and Wayne Lehman, titled Preventing Workplace Substance Abuse: Beyond Drug Testing to Wellness, stated once: “…the study found that the average company that used drug testing reduced its injury rate by 51% within 2 years of implementation…” (15). This study was of a standard blue collar workplace in which most of the job involved physical labor as well as understanding and usage of heavy machinery that if not used properly and safely can lead into accidents within the workplace. Many other similar studies of this also showed a decrease of injury rates within the workplace whether it be in restaurants, retail, or while operating heavy machinery. Enforced drug testing helped to promote being drug free to maintain jobs, while further educating helped back the drug tests with reasoning as to why it is beneficial and the results proved positive. Within two years of implementing a new drug free policy, the number of accidents per year halved. These numbers speak for themselves and really show how much safer a work environment without drugs can be.

       Drug testing helps to promote drug abstinence by providing disincentives for those who cannot pass a drug test, the disincentive being either probation or being fired. Most companies will not hire unless the person seeking a job tests negatively for drugs. Some of the world's biggest companies such as Lowes and Target will not hire unless a drug test is passed. This disincentive helps promote the idea of drug abstinence because people do not wish to be fired or lose a potential job due to a drug problem. When working with big equipment or in dangerous areas, one’s own life should be an incentive to stay off of drugs. Drugs end up causing many issues within the workplace. Accidents occur because people’s minds are altered because of the drug’s effects. A good example of how drugs led to a major accident resulting in the death of two workers and injury of another, occurred in Philadelphia. While working on a railroad site, three men were all under the influence of several different mixtures and types of drugs. One man received positive tests indicating he had been under the influence of cocaine whereas the other man killed was under the influence of morphine, codeine and oxycodone (Sisak). The third man, although not killed in the train accident, was substantially injured, and had tests come back showing that he was under the influence of marijuana (Sisak). Because of their reckless choices which further altered their behavior significantly under the influence of extremely harsh drugs, these three men ended up getting themselves killed or critically injured. Had they been drug tested and passed with negative results before being hired by their employer, they would not have been killed in such a terrible accident. If they were drug tested and failed, they would not have been hired in the first place resulting in their lives being saved.

       For people who do not partake in drug use, they are at higher value to federal companies looking to hire because they can pass a drug test. They are also less likely to run into issues with the company due to issues that are connected to drug use such as a causing a disruption in the work environment, mistakes, and absenteeism.  Not only will they have less problems within the company, they will also have less problem with the law and life outside of work. Many companies are looking to hire individuals who do not partake in drugs because it is a federal offense and it leads to accidents because of the effects on the mind. In today’s world, it is getting increasing more difficult to find someone who can pass a drug test (Calmes). In most cases people are usually involved with marijuana, however more harmful drugs such as cocaine and meth are also on the rise in use. Surveys conducted in 1996 show that almost five million people in the United States have used methamphetamine at least once during their lifetime (Eden and Sundsmo). At a job fair in 2016, a heavy equipment manufacturer was searching for people to do work that required people who can be safe and follow company policy and protocol. At the sound of a drug test being administered, the majority of those interested stood up and left the presentation due to realization that they had no chance of receiving the job (Calmes). With just the mention of drug testing, it is easy to pick out the good workers from the ones that might cause companies trouble. When studying the numbers and looking at research conducted on accidents in the workplace a significant portion of it is due to drug abuse (Wall). Every year, the federal government is losing twenty-five billion dollars due to accidents involving workplace drug abuse (Wall).

       Another issue that falls into the category of substance abuse is the abuse of alcohol. In many respects, alcohol is considered to be a drug because it distorts the way in which someone can think as well as it can have serious effects on people’s judgment. Alcohol is also known to slow down the reaction times. Urine tests prove to be inefficient in detecting severe alcohol abuse, that of which can be as serious as drug abuse. Drug tests vary with the amount of ethanol that they pick up from each test. This can be difficult for the employers to decide whether it is too much to hire the person. However, alcohol is legal so companies cannot base their hiring just on that sole factor. Alcohol is considerably similar to other drugs, in the sense that it is a substance that can be obtained both legally and illegally, has effects on the mind, can easily be abused, and can be dangerous both to the user and the people around them. Alcoholism is a combination of both a mental illness and physical disease, and it is somewhat common within the United States, and an estimated seven percent of the population have drinking problems. Referring back to the book by Joel Bennett and Wayne Lehman, Preventing Workplace Substance Abuse: Beyond Drug Testing to Wellness, they stated that “drug testing is not sufficient because it generally ignores alcohol use and does eliminate underlying causes for substance abuse” (4). When they state that drug tests are not sufficient enough, they are referring to urine drug tests. Alcohol is abused quite often, it can be a big issue to the user and those around them. Referring back to Bennett and Wayne’s book they state: “many employees with problems do not seek help” (33). Although urine tests cannot account for alcoholism, a hair test can show if someone has alcohol issues (Cooper et al.). Hair tests are also useful in the fact that they can show if people abused other substances, such as marijuana, years in the past (Cooper et al.). Although hair tests prove to be extremely efficient and more accurate than a urine test, they are far more expensive than a standard urine test and the final results take much more time to process than a urine test (Cooper et al.). Companies are working on improving these tests and trying to make them more common around the United States. Even though hair test returns far superior results, they are too inconvenient to be used as effectively as they should be. If hair tests became less expensive and results could be processed faster than alcoholism can be easily detected so that the abuser can find help and prevent future incidents or accidents.

       There are several different arguments against why drug testing in the workplace is a good thing. A lot of times, the argument that drug testing for pre-employment is not enough to completely prevent people from starting drugs after their drug test (Comer). This argument is valid, however most companies that perform a drug test before hiring will occasionally perform more tests at random to check their employees. This is usually written into the employment contract that the employee signs, understanding that the company will have the right to drug test them at any given time. Another common argument against drug testing is that people can easily fake their test results through the use of someone else’s urine. Drug users can also suspend their drug use before they take the drug test before they take it because urine tests only account for several days beforehand (Comer). Both of these issues can be easily solved through two methods, one being random drug testing that is frequently performed and the other is hair testing which is seldom done due to cost, difficulty and time. Many companies already perform extra random drug tests even after a pre-employment test, so many people can be caught off guard and not be able to cheat their way through the test as well as they won’t be able to use someone else’s urine sample. People who begin drugs after the initial employment test are violating company policy and will not be able to flush their system within enough time to successfully pass the test. When it comes to hair tests, you cannot cheat these because it uses a direct sample of your own hair. Unlike urine tests, you will be unable to use someone else’s hair to make yourself pass the test. Hair test also show drug use for up to three years in the past, which means that people who are subject to drug tests using hair samples would have to have been clean for at least two or three years before the hair tests finds no evidence of drug use. In a statement made by Debra Comer, she said that an experiment was tested within a workplace environment where some workers were given drugs to see how it affected them and according to the experiment there were only small changes in their behavior. This change in behavior was seen to not be of any issue or danger. Although these results may be true for this one experiment, this does not mean that for every experiment that the outcome will be the same and this would have to be tested many more times before a theory about drugs in the workplace can be considered valuable to employers. More arguments are such that some states have legalized the use of once previously illegal substances such as marijuana, therefore those states do not have to punish those who use these drugs. There may be some exceptions to these rules in which the state had legalized the dangerous substance, however companies still have federal support when it comes to administering drug tests and punishing those who go against their own policy. One example was with Dish network, when an employee Brandon Coats was fired from his job for the use of medical marijuana in Colorado (Barcott). This issue was taken to state court which ruled in favor of Coats, and then to Supreme Court in which it favored Dish Network (Barcott). Dish is a nationwide company, and because there are still many states that still have marijuana, both medicinally and recreationally, illegal Dish was able to fire Coats for violating national law (Barcott). A final argument that those who are against drug testing in the workplace pose is that it can be considered unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy of those who are drug tested without consent. The key in all of this is the idea of consent, without consent it is not legal however in almost all circumstances consent is given through contracts signed with the company upon employment. The contracts signed give away some rights of the employee when working under the company, and because of it, drug testing is not an invasion of privacy.

       Drug testing should be enforced in every work place due to the positive impact it has on employees, customers, and the lives of everyone involved. An increase in productivity is what every company and employers want to see. Drug testing is a constitutional act, due to the contract signed, and the permission given by the employee at the beginning of their career. Injuries have occurred due to drugs in the workplace. They can be as simple as cuts from knives in restaurant workers or critical injuries with people operating heavy machinery. Not only can injuries happen, but attitude and kindness is affected as well. Studies have proven and shown that attitude of people on drugs compared to people who are sober are significantly different. The people who are sober react more positively and happy to be around compared to employees on drugs. It is seen that not only one type of drug has impacts, but all can be dangerous to the environment shown by the two men killed in Philadelphia. Multiple experiments have been done to assure citizens of the United states that drugs have a large impact on behavior and mood changes, as well as overall function and reaction times. Drugs do affect the brain by interfering with the communication system and neurons. If the neurons are not working correctly then the way that they send, receive, and process information is skewed. Overall, all points directly correlate to reasons why drug testing will be beneficial and should be implemented in all companies in the near future. 
