Drug testing boom at work
On current trends within two years it will be almost
impossible for recreational drug users to get a job with larger
companies. Drug testing at work is probably the single most effective
weapon we have against adult substance abuse. It is a proven,
low cost strategy which identifies those needing help, reduces
demand, cuts accidents and sick leave, improves attendance and
increases productivity. (Half page feature by Dr
Patrick Dixon, Director Global
Change Ltd, originally published in the Times 5/11/98 but
even more sharply relevant today).
Yet drug testing is (or rather was) highly controversial:
it penalises users with positive drug tests that can bear little
or no relation to work performance, encourages knee-jerk dismissal
and discrimination at interview. It costs money, invades privacy
and smacks of authoritarianism.
Despite all this, almost overnight it has become fashionable to
talk of testing millions of people at work for both alcohol and
drugs. Just over six months ago the idea seemed so extreme that
the government cut it out of the White Paper altogether - with
small concessions for prisons and roadside.
In a dramatic policy shift, drugs czar Keith Halliwell
and government Ministers have started encouraging drug testing
by employers. They are following a quiet revolution, largely unreported
because firms have been scared of drug tests by bad publicity.
The government's own Forensic Science Agency alone
carried out over a million workplace drug tests last year, with
a rush of interest from transport, construction, manufacturing
and financial services industries. Last month the International
Petroleum Exchange joined London Transport and many others in
random drug testing.
This stampede to test follows spectacular drug testing
success in America when many had declared the mega-war against
drugs all but lost. The drugs industry accounts for 8% of all
international trade according to the UN. Education, customs, police,
crop destruction and prison sentences have failed to deliver so
drug testing has become highly attractive, even at the cost of
civil liberties.
80% of all large companies already spend over £200m
a year testing for drugs at work, affecting 40% of the US work
force. By 2005 up to 80% of all workers will be covered by drug
tests.
But Britain also has a significant and growing problem
with addiction. 8% of men and 2% of women in Britain abuse drugs
or alcohol, costing at least £3bn a year in accidents and absence
alone.
Every office, factory, train operator, airline,
construction company and hospital is affected with serious risks
to public health and profitability. Workplace drug testing in
America is being forced on employers for economic and safety reasons.
Drug companies that don't test will go bust. Their insurance premiums
will go through the roof.
US studies show that substance abusers (including
alcohol) are 33% less productive, three times as likely to be
late, four times as likely to hurt others at work or themselves,
five times as likely to sue for compensation, and ten times as
likely to miss work.
When the State of Ohio introduced random drug testing
they found absenteeism dropped 91%, there were 88% less problems
with supervisors and 97% decrease in on-the-job injuries. These
results are so striking that many companies are now screening
job applicants.
One plastics company realised many workers were
taking amphetamines to keep awake after they lengthened shifts
to twelve hours. Staff found tell-tale powder residues and scratch
marks on equipment. They estimated
that 20% of the workforce were taking drugs. After random drug
testing was introduced drug-taking fell to negligible levels.
A Wisconsin cardboard factory was contacted recently
by their insurers who were worried about high levels of injuries.
Random drug testing was introduced and accidents fell 72% the
following year, with an 80% decrease in days lost as a result.
Health and safety will be the driving force at first
in the UK. Take doctors: a recent report in the Lancet revealed
that 37% of male junior doctors were using cannabis and 14% cocaine,
amphetamines, barbiturates, LSD, ecstasy, magic mushrooms or other
substances. The figure for women was 12%. But that's just the
ones willing to admit it.
The BMA's own figures suggest up to 10% of all doctors
may abuse either alcohol or illegal drugs, including cocaine,
crack and heroin. That's almost 10,000 doctors, treating perhaps
200,000 patients every day. Do you want to be operated on by a
surgeon who is suffering from withdrawal? In an operating theatre
with two anaesthetists, a consultant and two junior doctors there
is a 50% risk that one of the team is a substance abuser.
I am appalled at the irresponsibility of the BMA,
who have long been opposed to random testing of doctors. They
say we are sensible enough to come forward for help, and those
that don't are informed upon. Both these claims are complete fiction,
judging by the vast gap between numbers with dependency and the
few who have been identified. The BMA's resistance to random testing
of doctors is scandalous and no doubt will be over-ruled soon.
We will never know how many have died under the
knife of an intoxicated surgeon or as a result of a physician's
drug-clouded mind. Doctors don't like admitting errors, even in
court long after the event, by which time
evidence of substance abuse has vanished.
If you're too drunk or doped to drive, or drive
a train, you shouldn't be operating - nor working a crane or cement
mixer for that matter. Nor should you be defending someone in
court nor making huge financial decisions on which other people's
future will depend.
Testing is cheap. Breathalysers cost £40 with virtually
no running costs while £30 urine tests for drugs only have to
be carried out on a few to be effective. For example, London Transport
tests just 5% of drivers a year.
That means each worker is checked on average once
every twenty years. Hardly a mass invasion of privacy, yet more
than enough to be a powerful deterrent. In America positive test
rates have fallen from 13.6% to 4.9% in a decade. This is a method
that works.
However random testing is barbaric unless introduced
sensitively as part of a comprehensive package of education and
access to confidential treatment. The primary aim should not be
to sack, but to discourage abuse, offer help, to treat. The most
effective programmes are those where the workforce approves a
humane, compassionate and fair anti-drugs policy. However those
who place others lives at serious risk must expect to face
the consequences.
There are many unresolved problems with testing:
for example cannabis tests are almost useless with positive tests
weeks after use. What blood levels are acceptable for illegal
drugs? Who should be tested? How often and what action should
be taken?
Some argue for tests only where performance is poor.
But by then a fellow worker may have lost an arm, a leg, an eye
or a hand - a patient her own life. The aim of testing is to prevent
mistakes, not to allocate blame
after the event.
One thing is clear: drug and alcohol testing will
continue to spread fast regardless of government support, as the
most practical and cost effective way to strengthen existing drugs
and alcohol policies at work. It will be
introduced well or very badly. Either we take hold of the issue
now or the issue will take hold of us.
The
Truth about Drugs by Dr Patrick Dixon was published by Hodder
September 1998 and deals comprehensively with issues relating
to prevention and treatment - price £7-99. The book has
generated wide media coverage - TV / radio / press since launch,
particularly over drug
testing at work. Latest MEDIA
and PRESS interviews.
Read
The Truth about Drugs book NOW - free online book
Chapter
on Drug Testing
Links
to hundreds of drug-related resources
