On January 28, 1972, President Nixon signed into law his emergency spending bill to fight drug addiction which subsequently became known as the "War on Drugs". More than fifty years later, the war is still ongoing with both public and private companies joining in by fighting this battle with on-the-job drug testing. The theory behind the employee drug testing is that the employer can alter the employee's behavior in such a way that they will forego illicit drugs, which will then bring the dual benefits of a safer workplace, and a healthier employee. In some cases, the drug testing is mandatory as a condition of employment and/or continued employment.
Supporters of mandatory drug testing state that the tests are necessary to provide a safe working environment and maintain worker productivity, reliability, efficiency, effectiveness, security, and throughput. Since the tests are non-discriminatory by virtue of the fact that theoretically all employees are subjected to them, this acts thereby as a strong deterrent for illicit drug usage which serves the greater good by diminishing crime, dependency, and other illegal activities which are drug induced. Proponents of mandatory drug testing believe that their ever watchful eye makes therefore for a better workplace and a safer working environment.
Additionally, strict defenders of mandatory drug testing do not believe that there is a Constitutional right to privacy and therefore that mandatory drug testing is always legal and should be supported by jurisprudence in all circumstances. Recent Supreme Court decisions in regards to drug testing have shown that in reference to public safety (such as public transportation), medical professionals, and classified/secure information, that the court believes that the public safety outweighs any complaints or inconveniences of drug testing and therefore that this testing is legal. While there have been some court rulings that have struck down mandatory drug testing in certain circumstances, in the whole, to date, random and mandatory drug testing have been upheld, much to the chagrin of those that oppose these invasive rules.
While it is true that nowhere in the Constitution do we find the words "the right to privacy"--this does not necessarily mean that we don't have an implicit right to privacy. To wit, privacy is protected by the following Constitutional Amendments: I (privacy of your beliefs), III (privacy of your home), IV (privacy of your person and your possessions), IX (retained privacy rights of your person), and XIV (right to your liberty and due process of the law). Mandatory drug tests are normally done with a urine test, which in some cases is supervised by an attendant and therefore necessitates some exposure of one’s genitals in order for the attendant to verify the integrity of said test. Furthermore, urinalysis is capable of revealing the presence of all measurable drugs within your system (whether legal or illegal); and also provides genetic predisposition to certain diseases and can be a de facto pregnancy test for females. Tragically, these intrusive tests in aggregate are not 100% accurate and consequently "false positives" do occur with career changing consequences.
Mandatory drug testing turns United States' jurisprudence on its head from a presumption of innocence to a presumption of guilt unless the test "clears" you. Sadly, it also enables private companies and government agencies to intrusively profile you under the ostensible reasons of worker safety and worker productivity. Quite frankly, this is "big brother" monitoring that dehumanizes us and makes us subservient to corporations and bureaucrats. This represents the falsifying of the American dream and is fundamentally contrary to our expressed rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".