Some thoughts on drug tests - and should cops have them?

Several random thoughts on drug testing...

Sweating Drug Tests & Performance Anxiety  

I think that 90% of the value of a drug test is the threat of the test itself.  I always got paranoid some years back when I had to take drug tests, even though I never (NEVER, even in college) tried illegal drugs, not even a joint.  So, why was I nervous?  Because I let my father (a physician) prescribe things for me.  About twice a year, I'd be at his house and have a symptom, and he'd toss a few pills at me and tell me to take those, and I'd get better.  Then, 3 months later, I'd be going in for a drug test and they'd ask me to list all medications.  Um, geez, they were yellow?  Yeah, that used to freak me right out, because what if the drug test showed something positive?  In particular, since my dad was an allergist, and I have had allergies, might he have given me a steroid or something with ephedrine that might look like a meth derivative?  Well, it never actually caused a problem, and all of my tests have been negative, and I've never abused drugs, so my conscience is clear... but it still didn't stop me from sweating bullets before a test.  Oh, and the worst was at Cincinnati Bell, where the matronly nurse stood there and watched me intently, and not from an angle that protected my privacy by any means.  The focus of her eyes were not on my face.  Talk about performance anxiety!!!  So, yeah, drug tests stink.

Costs of drug tests

In bulk, a mouth swab drug test is pretty cheap, under $1.  I know a Top-25 US bank uses those on employees who don't handle cash or guns, as their pre-employment screening (or, at least, they used to).  If it gives a positive, then they go for the more expensive urinalysis.

Should police be subject to random drug tests?

Definitely, police should be subject to random drug testing, for multiple reasons.  First, they are authorized to use deadly force and are armed.  Because of that responsibility, they should be tested to ensure that they are not impaired.  A random drug test, which could be administered at any time, should keep them clean and free of drugs.  Secondly, police operate motor vehicles, sometimes at high rates of speed.  In my own company, anyone who is paid to drive a commercial motor vehicle is subject to random drug tests, and I think that's a fair test when they are being paid to drive a vehicle, and the policy prohibits drug abuse.  Third, police utilize judgement and uphold the law. If they are addicted to drugs, they are corruptible, and lose partiality.  Fourth, they cannot utilize their judgement impartially and fairly if they are impaired.  Finally, and most importantly, police are in contact with drugs as part of their job, as well as large amounts of cash at times when performing a drug-related arrest.  Because of this, it is important for them to be ensured to be without corruption from this contact, and for the public to know that they are not being corrupted through this contact with drugs and cash.

On False Positives - should industry create a 0% False Positive Test?

I think having a 100% fail-safe drug test would be too expensive.  I'd be happy with a drug test that has a 0.5% false positive and 0.01% false negative... and anyone who tests positive is on administrative leave and immediately required to do a more elaborate test, with a second positive result leading to suspension pending further investigation.  Two mostly accurate tests, in my opinion, are better than the exceptionally high expense of a 100% fail-safe test.  If you know going in that, in a 1000 person police department, you're going to have, on average, 5 false positives, then you've removed the stigma of an initial positive result.  The odds of having a second false positive on the retest of those 5 is exceedingly small.