Research Paper on:
Unethical: Drug Screening at Work

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
for an invasion of privacy for urine and sweat testing in the workplace as part of a drug free workplace policy, there are many reasons to believe the practice is  unethical. Researchers have long stated there is no proof that drug testing identifies more than a very small number of drug abusers. While opiates, cannabis and the other drugs tested  for often show up in the results, everyday drugs and even tonic water can give false-positive readings. There is also ample evidence that companies use drug screening results to determine  who to employ. For example, if a prospective employee has a low liver reading, this could indicate alcohol abuse, but it also could be unrelated. Certain readings can indicate whether  a prospective employee is a candidate for heart attack or genetic disease the person doesnt even know about. Such candidates are weeded out of the competition even though the drug  tests cannot predict job performance. This also applies to employees already hired. If the employee will increase company insurance costs, a series of steps may be put in place to  remove this employee from company rolls. These are unethical uses of drug test results. Literature Review  George (1997) performed an analysis of 1617 specimens collected from drug screening from 82 separate workplace drug testing sources in the UK to determine whether results supported a continued  need for drug testing to be performed. The researchers were surprised to find that, among other things, specimens were positive for amphetamines, benzodiazepines, cannabis, cocaine and heroin (p. 69). The  results appeared across gender and all age groups, although the prevalence of use was much higher among men than women. Many of the specimens tested positive for cannabis for both