Arguments against employee drug testing

The evidence linking drug use and workplace difficulties is much weaker than initial estimates. Detractors of drug testing cite that there is almost no scientific data that testing is effective in achieving its goals. The monumental task of drug testing, it is argued, is of potentially greater legal and public relations benefit than benefit to patient safety. A rational and evidence based approach is necessary to ensure optimal functioning of care providers. Drug testing is arguably less important than addressing the performance impact of overnight work, circadian rhythm disruption, and overwork.

Employment drug testing does not necessarily measure impairment, abuse, or intoxication. The presence of a banned substance does not mean that cognitive impairment is present or clinical performance is impacted. Further, routinely used medicines such as decongestants, antihistamines, stimulants, and other prescribed substances can also profoundly impair functioning.

The process of employee drug testing is also intrusive, so evidence of the need is demanded. Testing can provide information about medical conditions unrelated to substance abuse, informing the employer of more than should legally be available. Involuntary drug testing has been called an unwarranted invasion of privacy, a form of social control that influences lifestyle but not work performance.