When you type into
Google the term "drug detox", the page will show
the websites of drug detox facilities and websites
advertising products that guarantee they will
enable anyone to pass a drug test.
Obviously, if you need one of these products it is
because you are using a substance that, if
detected, could lead to termination of employment
or even to prison-if using a prohibited substance
is a violation of parole.
A significant number of
people using these tools to falsify drug tests are
addicted to, or physically dependent on, drugs or
alcohol and cannot control their use even though
they will suffer the loss of their job or their
freedom if they don't pass a drug
test. Rather than go through a medical
detox and rehab to handle their drug problems,
they simply continue to abuse a substance that is
likely ruining their life. Yes, the person might
fool the drug test but they still have the
problem-they are using a substance that is either
prohibited by law or by their employer. Who
is fooling who?
Some advocates of the
"right" to falsify drug tests make long arguments
about the unconstitutionality of the drug laws but
unless the courts agree with them, and they
haven't, they are still breaking the law. In
trying to expose the faulty logic of some of his
political opponents who were making unsupported
positions, Abraham Lincoln often used to ask, "How
many legs would a calf have if you called the
calf's tail a leg?" Most people
responded, "Five." Lincoln would respond
"Calling a tail a leg does not make it a
leg." Trying to say that a violation of the
law or of your employment contract is okay does
not make it right.
Assisting people on
parole to fool a drug test may have legal
consequences for the parolee and for the company
selling the tests. For example, if the
parolee who is falsifying his drug tests continues
to be an abuser of drugs and/or alcohol and
someone gets harmed or killed during a drug buy or
while the alcohol abuser is driving, then civil
and maybe criminal liability can attach to the
person and probably to the company selling the
test falsification kit.
Many people who may
not think it is okay for a parolee to falsify a
drug test apparently consider that there is
nothing wrong with people falsely passing a drug
test for employment or continued employment.
They argue that the employer has no right to
require that they live their private life in a
certain manner. If they want to use drugs or
alcohol on their own time, it should be their
business. Besides, they are only fooling
their employer. Why should anyone
care?
If the abuser of
drugs or alcohol did not have an impaired
performance at work, probably most people would
not care. However, it is indisputable that
the use of drugs or alcohol do affect the
employee's job performance and does cost employers
an enormous amount of money. But it doesn't just
affect the employer. The costs of employee
drug and alcohol abuse are passed down to all of
us in the price of the goods the employers
sell. We all pay more because of the
costs to the employer.
Recognizing the
actual direct costs to their business, more and
more employers are instituting "Drug Free
Workplaces." This means that their
applicants are required to pass drug tests before
being accepted for employment and many employers
routinely have their employees take drug tests for
continued employment. Why is this being
done? Because not doing so can literally be
the difference between staying in business or
closing their doors.
According to the
National Survey on Drug Use and Health ("NSDUH"),
in 2005 there were 17.2 million current illicit
drug users aged 18 or older. 12.9 million
(74.8 percent) of these illicit drug users were
employed either full or part time.
If you add the number of
people using alcohol this number swells.
63.2 percent of full-time employed adults aged 18
or older in 2005 were current users of
alcohol. The study defined people with
alcohol problems as binge drinkers and heavy
drinkers. A binge drinker is defined as five
or more drinks on the same occasion (i.e., at the
same time or within a couple of hours of each
other) on at least one day in the past 30
days. A heavy drinker is defined as five or
more drinks on the same occasion on each of five
or more days in the past 30 days.
There were an estimated
52.6 million adult binge drinkers in 2005.
42.1 million (80.0 percent) were employed either
full or part time. Of the estimated
15.4 million heavy drinkers, 12.5 million (80.8
percent) were employed. Altogether
there were 68 million binge and heavy drinkers
that were employed in 2005. When you add in
the estimated 12.9 million illicit drug users,
then the number of U.S. employees who were
impaired in some way was in excess of 80
million.
Of course, this does not
include the millions of additional employees who
are addicted or physically dependent on
painkillers, anti-depressants or benzodiazepines
and which, to a greater or lesser degree, create
the same problems in the workplace as the users of
illicit drugs or alcohol abusers.
The U.S. Department of
Health has sponsored numerous studies to show the
cost to U.S. business caused by substance-abusing
employees. Some of the costs are:
* Employees who are
substance abusers are twice as likely as
non-abusers to have been fired by an employer in
the last year, to have changed employers more than
three times in the last year, and missed two or
more days of work in the past month.
* Up to 40
percent of industrial fatalities can be linked to
substance abuse.
* Substance abusing employees
are 3.6 times more likely to be involved in
workplace accidents and five times more likely to
file a workers' compensation claim.
* According
to the National Council on Compensation Insurance,
nearly half of all workers' compensation claims
are related to substance abuse.
* Substance
abusers are three times more likely to use medical
benefits than other employees.
* 80 percent of
drug abusers steal from their workplaces to
support their drug use.
* Substance abuse is
the third leading cause of workplace
violence.
* Substance abusing employees are 33
percent less productive than their co-workers, and
on average cost their employers $7,000
annually.
In total,
substance abuse costs America's employers more
than $160 billion per year in accidents, lost
productivity and related problems. Remember,
when it costs employers $160 billion this means
that it is raising the prices of what we consume
by at least $160 billion.
However, some employers are
not just firing their employees who have substance
abuse problems. They recognize that these
employees, if they were able to handle their
substance abuse, could be valuable employees
again. More and more of these employers are
asking their employees to tell them about their
substance abuse and let the employers help.
Many of these employers pay some or all of the
cost of a medical detox facility like Novus
and then a rehab facility. When the employee
has successfully completed the detox and rehab
they are brought back to work with no loss of
seniority.
This is a better solution
than losing a qualified employee and condemning
them to continued substance
abuse.
