The Sound Mind of an Employer

When I took the TASP test (now the THEA test), I was presented with a question that I still muse over today. The writing portion of the test asked me to write a persuasive essay in a pro or con format on the topic of employee drug testing. Should employers have the right to test their employees for drug use? Is employee drug testing jeopardizing American constitutional freedoms, or is it an employer's privilege to know whether or not they are paying drug users? It is a difficult question and I imagine that the country is fairly split on the issue. What side would you choose?

Personally, I can see the two sides of the issue in equal perspective. As I enter the perfect age for employment, I can imagine the frustration of having to consent to frequent drug testing at my workplace. I would most certainly feel that my freedom was being infringed upon if I was forced to prove that I am drug free at the expense of my job. After all, I do not use narcotics nor will I ever, is it reasonable for my supervisor to accuse me of something that I have never done? Isn't reasonable suspicion required by law before an authority can conduct a personal search?

I am sure many people have lost their jobs over employee drug testing, whether it be from the use of drugs or refusal to submit to what they perceive as an unreasonable search. I am sure that many personal freedoms have been trampled upon and I am sure that many innocent people have been indirectly accused of breaking the law. However, these wrongs might be overshadowed by the advantages that employee drug testing can give to employers and to the public. Shouldn't the public be able to willingly trust that the local businesses are being administered by sober individuals? Is it too much to ask for the reassurance of employers that could know what type of people are maintaining their businesses? Personally, it frightens me to wonder whether or not semi-truck drivers, who use the same roads that my friends and my family travel on, are high on narcotics or intoxicated.

If I had to pick one side of the issue, I would place my opinion in the favor of the concerned employers around the country. It is more of a right for a supervisor to know whether or not their staff workers use drugs than it is a right for an employee to claim infringement upon their constitutional freedom. After all, a person is not actually forced to take a drug test, he or she could always work elsewhere. An employer has no choice but to trust the word of the staff and to hope that wise choices are made.

Perhaps my views are still young and I need more life experience to make wise and useful decisions. I realize that there are so many things that I have yet to learn, and I am eager to learn, but I refuse to accept that there is a limit to political thinking. I think that every informed person can, and should, spend a good amount of time contemplating the world around them, and to a great extent in this country, that means involving oneself in our government. However, I always make sure that I give my complete thought to the topics I argue and avoid rushing my choices. Most of the time I have a difficult task in deciding to support just one side of an issue. For as with so many things in life, I have discovered that all issues that affect our world today are shaded gray, filled with endless possibilities and conclusions. How can we choose? Don't ask me, I have my hands full with my own thoughts.

Contact