From: [b--r--e] at [rcf.rsmas.miami.edu] (Charlie Byrne)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.drugs,alt.hemp,alt.drugs
Subject: Drug Testing: GREAT ARTICLE!!!
Date: 2 Dec 1993 15:37:32 GMT

Here is some GREAT ammo for anti drug-testers. This is a wire service
story that appeared in the Ft. Lauderdale Sun Sentinel on 11/30/93.
File this one for future use.
=========================================================================
DRUG USE AT WORK SAID TO BE FALLING

WASHINGTON - Drug use at work is declining, but the reasons are not
yet clear, federal workers said on Monday.

There is not enough evidence to attribute the change to more drug
testing of workers, a shift in attitude regarding drug use or other
factors, said Charles O'Brien, head of psychiatry at the Veterans
Affairs Medical Center and chairman of a committee of the National
Research Council and Institute of Medicine.

"Clearly, workers entering the workforce in the 1990's are likely to
have substantially less experience with illicit drugs that did their
counterparts in the 1980's and late 1970's. However caution must be
used in attributing these changes to specific intervention programs"
the committee said.

The few studies conducted on the effects of workplace intervention
programs were flawed and did not support clear conclusions.

It said employers should carefully examine their programs and try to
evaluate them more systematically rather than throwing money blindly
on the problem.

The committee said a 1990 survey indicates that abuse rates in the
workplace are now relatively low. The survey found that about 7
percent of U.S. workers used an illegal drug during the preceeding
month and about 6 percent abused alcohol.

A 1979 study showed that as much as 14 percent of the population had
used one or more illicit drug in the previous month.

Businesses ought to do a better job determining what works in checking
drug abuse, and studies also should focus on whether occasional drug
use affect productivity, O'Brien said.

The committee also said that nearly $1.2 billion is spent annually on
urinalysis of workers. But there is not much scientific evidence to
show the tests are very good at detecting drug use or dependence.

For example, said Marian Fischman of Columbia University, traces of
marijuana can be found in urine even months after use. There is no
scientific proof that such amounts would affect behavior, she said.

Bryan Finkle of the University of Utah said "urine testing tells you a
very limited amount. It doesn;t distinguish between use and abuse."
The test results have been over-interpreted, primarily by lawyers and
crime-fighters, he said.
=========================================================================
How's this for your newsletter headline:
"Federal committee: Drug testing costly, wasteful, unscientific"