Personal privacy !

The ever growing need to screen people for drugs that effect their safety on the job has raised the issue of personal privacy.  It is claimed that what a person does on their days off is " none of their employers business ". This is not a complete rejection of drug testing, but a move to restrict this testing to oral swabs instead of urine tests.

There is a big difference in what each of these tests will reveal.   Oral swabs will return information on that persons sobriety and whether many drugs have been recently ingested, while a urine test will delve far deeper - and will detect the distant presence of most stimulants over a much longer period - in some cases - months.

A person who smoked a "joint " at the start of a long weekend will undoubtedly be drug free when they restart work after that holiday, but a urine test will tell the boss that this employee is a recreational drug user - and that may have an influence on employment decisions.

The attitude of the Fire Brigade Employees Union (FBEU ) on suggestions of drug testing is critical of the urine test option on the basis that it is selective - and that if FBEU members are to be tested, then similar tests should apply to doctors, lawyers and the general spectrum of professions that serve the public.

They do have a point.   Drug testing is usually aimed at those whose job involves public safety.  It is  essential that train drivers who drive trains with thousands of passengers remain drug and alcohol free in contrast to car drivers, who pose a lower risk of mass deaths, but such concern does not extend to doctors who are administering deadly drugs to big patient numbers ?

Testing of car drivers raises a sore point with many people.   The breath test performed roadside is simple - and quick !   If you are below .05 - you are on your way.   The drug test takes a much longer time, and if the result detects the use of Marijuana even days previously - you are not allowed to drive for twenty-four hours while a sample is sent to a laboratory.      In most cases, this test comes back negative for driving impairment - but once again the state is delving into an area of personal privacy.

It is now a fact of life that a big percentage of the population use some form of recreational drugs on an occasional basis.  Marijuana use is widespread and we are creeping closer and closer to ignoring prosecution where small amounts are involved - and they are deemed to be for " personal use ".

Alcohol testing has been with us for a long time but roadside drug testing is still in it's infancy.  As a result, it is time consuming and has the ability to deliver mixed results.    Hopefully, in both driving and industry - tests will be developed to give a similar instant reading as happens with alcohol - and then there will need to be a level of detection to instantly decide between " legal or illegal " content - just as now happens with that roadside breath test.

Until that happens, we will see ongoing battles between the unions and the safety experts on how far testing can go when measured against every persons right to personal privacy !