Drugs

Testing for fairness.

I’ve had a bit to do with drug testing from an employers perspective and I have a view or two. In the business I ran until recently we implemented random drug and alcohol testing group wide. That involved hundreds of people.

In the immediate business I led, this implementation led to much consternation. A very high proportion of the team had a close relationship with alcohol, cannabis and some with P.

Before the testing programme began we lost several team members who made the decision that there was no way they would survive random drug testing. Interestingly, they were some of our best and most industrious workers.

As the programme got underway, we heavily emphasised that what we were doing was part of our commitment to their health nd welfare and that of their teammates. This of course was partly true, but it was also a lot to do with being good compliant corporate citizens.

One of the things that struck me as being patently unfair from the start was the fact that we had essentially four groups to deal with. First were the people who neither drank nor indulged in illicit drugs. Second were the people with mental health issues that had them medicated and not thrilled about divulging that information. Third were the drinkers and fourth were the cannabis smokers.

Clearly, the first group were almost gleeful in their righteousness and bounced down to the bus for testing. The second group were terrified of the bus and more of having their emotional frailties exposed. The third group became very confident because they learnt that alcohol passes through the bloodstream very quickly. This meant that they could choose to get pissed up the night before and by 10am the next day, they could pass a urine test.

The final group were in a complete bind. This group were made up of people who had chosen to use cannabis as either a social lubricant or to mitigate stress, anxiety or depression.

This group had the most to fear. While a skinful of booze became irrelevant the next day, a single puff on a joint was almost guaranteed to lead to a “not negative” test result and a five day standdown and the indignity of being required to enter into a “rehabilitation” contract including drug counselling.

Now, I am not some massive supporter of cannabis use. I smoked like a chimney in my youth and then stopped when it no longer suited me. What I am a massive fan of is fairness, justice and equity.

I worked with these people every day and I can state with absolute certainty that the cartoon impression of drug effects on people is not accurate. Some of my most diligent, dependable and hard working people were my cannabis smokers.

What became apparent to me was the inherent unfairness of urine testing. It favours alcoholics and punishes recreational cannabis smokers. While we are on the case, this has nothing to do with the pending referendum because as far as I am concerned, we should be vigilant in the workplace about not allowing people to work whilst impaired by any substance or liquid. A Yes vote on this subject would not have any effect on what we are talking about here. Impairment is impairment.

My regret is that we embarked on a testing regime that would lead to the loss of a number of our best people because of their lifestyle choices. It is sad and disruptive.

Recently I have learned about an alternative to urine testing. Saliva testing. It provides the opportunity to balance the field of sensitivity between drugs and allows avoidance of penalising recreational cannabis users in ways that threaten their ability to do worthwhile jobs.

When you care about fairness, stuff like this matters. There are probably others but I have seen https://www.drugwise.nz/ do this and wish I had heard of them before.

If you are finding your current drug testing regime is having a negative effect on your workforce, have a think about trying something that is fairer on all and meets all the government standards. After all, drug and alcohol testing is meant to be about workplace safety, not controlling the lifestyle decisions of private citizens.