Some news from media regarding to the Drug Testing Law in United States:

After several lengthy discussions and public comment at board meetings and two special public forums, Siskiyou Union High School District took no action August 9th on a drug testing proposal for its Weed and Mount Shasta schools.
The issue is still alive, however, as both schools were directed to create committees to further study the issue.After public comment during last Wednesday's regular board of trustees meeting and statements of support for the testing from Weed principal Make Matheson and Mount Shasta principal Jim Cox, superintendent Richard Holmes read a prepared statement outlining the policy.
“The superintendent supports outcomes associated with mandatory random drug testing, reduction or elimination of drug use among athletes or student body officers,” Holmes said. “The implementation and comprehensive understanding of the purpose and follow-up of such a policy needs to be further explored. Therefore, it is my recommendation that the board not take action at this time, but direct the principals to appoint a site level task force to examine the proposed policy and develop administrative procedures for its implementation. In addition, the task force should work closely with the athletic department in their efforts this year to review and revise their athletic codes of conduct.
”The task forces at each school will consist of three parents, three students, two teachers, athletic director, principal and possibly a school nurse and a representative from Siskiyou County Behavorial Health.With some policy differences between the schools, the proposed drug testing would include athletes, student body officers and pep squad members. Students would be chosen at random and tested with an oral swab that would be sent to a laboratory for analysis. The swab test for for amphetamines, cocaine, methamphetamines, opiates, PCP and THC, the active ingredient in marijuana.

A first positive test would result in a two-week suspension from the team, followed by suspension for the season for a second positive test and suspension from that activity for the student's entire high school career for a third positive test.Parents would be notified of a positive result, but law enforcement would not. A counseling component has been proposed and is being explored, but is not currently available. As they have in the past, Matheson and Cox supported the testing.
 
“Despite all our efforts with education and prevention, there is still a problem,” Cox said.
Cox said more study was needed with a consensus reached before implementation. He also noted that alcohol, which parents and others had said they considered a bigger problem than drugs, should be included in the testing.
“I still believe drug testing should be a part of the discussions,” Cox said.Matheson said the district should not “hang our hat on” testing, but it should be one component of “a whole package.”
Matheson said he supported the task force concept but said, “We're missing an opportunity by not doing it now.”
MSHS reported two alcohol incidents with sports team members last year and WHS reported eight drug or alcohol incidents with the targeted groups.
Many citizens who attended previous discussions were at the meeting, expressing their opposition or support.
Among the objections were Constitutional rights of probable cause and equal protection, that removing students from the teams was counterproductive, and that the program unfairly singled out a limited group of students.
“We're casting too big a net to catch too few kids,” said a parent. “We will have a constant cloud of suspicion over a certain group of kids.”
Proponents have said the testing would provide a deterrent by offering the target group a reason to say no, that research has shown testing reduced drug use and that catching a drug problem.
early could prevent greater problems.
One proponent expressed reservations as to what a positive result could mean to a student.
“My concern is that a positive drug test could result in a student being ostracized and singled out,” she said.
Other proponents felt the two schools should have identical policies and that the testing procedures, counseling program and consequences needed additional refinement and study.
Other suggestions have included testing the entire target group at the beginning of each season and drug counseling to entire teams instead of the testing. A wrist ban worn for the entire season would identify students as liable for testing as a way of reminding their peers not to offer them drugs and their commitment to the team.
Board members did not comment on the issue. The previous vote on the first reading of the policy was 6-1 in favor with trustee Lori Harch voting no.

By Paul Boerger
Published: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 12:09 PM CDT

1. ALABAMA Workers' Compensation Premium Discount Act There is a state law that provides a five percent discount to employers who establish a drug-free workplace program in compliance with the act. In order to qualify for the benefit, the program must include a written policy, employee education, supervisor training, resources of employee assistance providers, pre-employment, post-accident, reasonable-suspicion, and rehabilitation and post-rehabilitation drug testing. Employers must have their program certified in advance by the Department of Industrial Relations in order to receive the premium discount.
   Workers' Compensation The state's workers' compensation law may deny benefits if the employee's injury was due to intoxication from the use of alcohol or being impaired by illegal drugs. A "positive" drug test performed in accordance with the U.S. Dept. of Transportation's regulations is considered a conclusive presumption of intoxication and, therefore, a valid basis for denial of workers' compensation benefits. An employee's refusal to undergo a drug test also is a valid basis for denial of workers' compensation if the employer warns the employee, in writing, that such a refusal forfeits the employee's right to compensation under the law.
2. ALASKA Testing must be performed by laboratories certified by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the College of American Pathologists, or the American Association of Clinical Chemists. There are no restrictions placed on the types of testing that may be conducted (pre-employment, random, etc.). The act also permits the use of on-site testing provided the tests are administered by a certified test administrator and the testing products are approved by the FDA.
3. ARIZONA Voluntary Drug Testing Provisions The Arizona "Private-Sector Drug Testing and Alcohol Impairment Act" is a voluntary law which provides legal protection to employers for acting in good faith based on the results of a positive drug or alcohol test provided the employers policy and program meets the requirements of the act. If an employer conducts drug or alcohol testing, all officers, directors, and supervisors must be included.
4. ARKANSAS Voluntary Drug Testing Program This is a voluntary law that provides a premium credit on workers' compensation insurance to employers who implement and maintain a certified drug-free workplace program in accordance with the standards set forth in the Act. The Act is comprehensive and requires various types of drug and alcohol testing in order to qualify for the benefits. Random testing is not required. A comprehensive written policy must be implemented and U.S. Department of Transportation drug testing procedures must be followed. An employer testing employees according to federal rules or regulations is deemed to be in compliance with this Act. Any employee who tests positive for drugs or alcohol or who refuses to be tested for drugs or alcohol may be terminated and forfeits eligibility for workers' compensation in medical and indemnity benefits. (1999) Workers' Compensation The state's workers' compensation law denies benefits when an accident is substantially caused by the use of alcohol, illegal drugs or prescription drugs use in contravention of physician's orders. The presence of any of these in the claimant's body creates a reputable presumption that the accident was substantially occasioned by the use of such substances. An employee may be entitled to benefits if it is proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the substance did not substantially cause the accident.
5. CALIFORNIA On-Site Testing The California Department of Health interprets the state's laboratory licensing law to prohibit any drug test not performed in a certified laboratory or by a licensed physician. Alcohol and Drug Rehabilitation Employers with 25 or more employees must accommodate employees who wish to participate in a substance abuse treatment program, provided the accommodation does not place an undue hardship on the employer. Employees are not entitled to time off with pay for these purposes although the employee may use accrued sick time. Pre-employment, reasonable suspicion and rehabilitation testing are permitted when specific conditions are met.
6. COLORADO A Boulder ordinance places significant restrictions on the types of testing that may be conducted within the city as well as specific testing procedures that must be followed when testing is permitted.
7. CONNECTICUT Drug Testing Connecticut's drug testing law prohibits certain types of testing and includes significant and specific procedural restrictions on the types of testing that are permitted. In general, testing is limited to situations in which the employee works in a "high risk" position or where reasonable suspicion exists.
8. DELAWARE No laws are posted at this time
9. WASHINGTON D.C. No laws are posted at this time
10. FLORIDA Drug-Free Workplace Act The Florida Drug-Free Workplace Act provides that any state agency may test certain employees and job applicants for the use of drugs. The law does not require the testing of employees or applicants, but mandates that any agency which does choose to test do so in accordance with specified methods and procedures outlined in the Act.
11. GEORGIA Drug-Free Workplace Act The Act provides that contractors (and their subcontractors) who receive state contracts in the amount of $25,000 or more must certify that they have implemented a substance abuse prevention program. At a minimum, the program must include a written policy and an employee drug-awareness program. The Act does not address drug testing. Public Employees - Drug Testing The state's law provides that public employees in high-risk jobs may be subject to random drug testing. Refusal to submit to a random test or testing positive results in termination from employment. Ga.
12. HAWAII Drug Testing Hawaii's law includes comprehensive procedural guidelines regarding workplace substance abuse testing. Although the requirements are primarily the responsibility of the laboratory, there are some provisions which directly impact employers. For example, employers who choose to test must use a laboratory that is certified by the Hawaii Department of Health or the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.
13. IDAHO On-site testing is permitted for initial screens but must be confirmed by GC/MS if positive. A workers' compensation premium discount is available to employers who implement and maintain a program in accordance with this act.
14. ILLINOIS Drug-Free Workplace Act Provides that employers who are awarded a state contract or grant must adopt an anti-drug policy and program, and provide a copy of its policy. This law does not specifically address drug testing.
15. INDIANA Workers' Compensation State law denies workers' compensation benefits to employees whose injury or death was caused by his or her intoxication.
16. IOWA Drug Testing The state's drug testing law was amended in 1999 to authorize most types of drug and alcohol testing provided that specific procedural and policy requirements are met. Furthermore, employers who develop implement and maintain programs in accordance with the provisions of the act are provided with immunity against any causes of action arising against the employer for actions taken pursuant to the program.
17. KANSAS Drug Testing While there are no restrictions on the types of testing that may be conducted, there are guidelines governing testing procedures. Certified laboratories must be used and confidentiality procedures maintained. Attorney General Opinion 97-96 (Dec 3, 1993) addresses on-site testing and exempts employers from laboratory requirements relating to on-site tests.
18. KENTUCKY Workers' Compensation State law denies workers' compensation benefits when the employee's injury, occupational disease, or death was proximately caused primarily by the employee's intoxication.
19. LOUISIANA Drug Testing State law places no restrictions on the types of testing that may be conducted, but does provide specific requirements with regard to drug testing procedures (requires DHHS-certified laboratory, use of an MRO, etc.). The statute also provides protection against certain causes of action if the employer establishes and maintains a drug and alcohol testing program in compliance with the act. State law prohibits an employer from requiring an employee or applicant to pay for a drug test. However, an employer may withhold the cost a pre-employment drug test if the employee resigns within ninety days of starting work.
20. MAINE Drug Testing There is a comprehensive statute which governs workplace drug testing in Maine. There are restrictions on all types of testing and specific requirements that must be met with regard to drug testing procedures. All substance abuse programs must be approved by the Maine Department of Labor. Prior to conducting any type of drug testing, the employer must provide employee assistance program or participate in an EAP consortium. Me.
21. MARYLAND Drug Testing State law does not place any restrictions on the types of testing that may be conducted, but does require that specific technical procedures be followed with regard to drug testing. All testing must be conducted at laboratories certified by the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Hair testing is permitted for pre-employment testing only. Md.
22. MASSACHUSETTS No laws are posted at this time
23. MICHIGAN No laws are posted at this time
24. MINNESOTA Drug Testing The state drug testing law includes significant restrictions on the types of testing that may be conducted, and places specific requirements on drug testing procedures and components of the program. An employer may not discharge an employee solely on the basis of a first-time positive drug test. The opportunity for rehabilitation must be offered. Employers may only inquire about an employee's use of over-the-counter or prescription medications after an employee tests positive on a drug test. Minn.
25. MISSISSIPPI Voluntary Drug Testing Law Compliance with the state drug testing law is voluntary. Employers choosing to comply with its provisions are protected from civil liability with regard to their drug and alcohol program and testing. The law permits all types of testing (with some restrictions) and includes specific requirements with regard to testing procedures. Employers choosing to implement a testing program not in accordance with the act are governed by applicable principles of contract or common law.
26. MISSOURI Workers' Compensation State law provides that benefits may be reduced 15 percent if the employee was injured in conjunction with drug or alcohol use or a failure to obey company rules, provided that the drug policy was conspicuously posted, and that the employee had actual knowledge of the rule, and the employer shows that, prior to the injury, it made a diligent effort to inform the employee of the requirement to obey the rule. If alcohol or drug use was the proximate cause of injury, benefits may be forfeited completely.
27. MONTANA Drug Testing Montana's drug testing statute was repealed in 1997 and replaced with new provisions. Drug testing (restrictions apply) is permitted of employees "engaged in the performance, supervision, or management of work in a hazardous work environment, security position, position affecting public safety, or fiduciary position... ." All drug and alcohol testing procedures must be performed in accordance with 49 CFR, Part 40 of the Department of Transportation's regulations. Mont.
28. NEBRASKA Drug Testing The state's drug testing law permits drug and alcohol testing provided certain technical procedures are followed. A positive test result, refusing to be tested, or tampering with a test specimen are all grounds for disciplinary action including termination. The law applies to employers with six or more employees.
29. NEVADA Workers' Compensation State law provides that workers' compensation benefits may not be awarded when an injury is proximately caused by the employee's intoxication, whether by alcohol or a controlled substance. If the employee was intoxicated at the time of his injury, it is presumed that intoxication was the proximate cause unless rebutted by evidence to the contrary.
30. NEW HAMPSHIRE Workers' Compensation State law provides that an employer is not liable for any injury to a worker which is caused in whole or in part by the intoxication (from drugs or alcohol) of the employee. The intoxication defense does not apply if the employer knew that the employee was intoxicated. N.H. Rev. Stat.
31. NEW JERSEY Workers' Compensation State law provides that employers are not liable for injuries or death "naturally and proximately" caused by an employee's intoxication or unlawful use of controlled dangerous substances.
32. NEW MEXICO Workers' Compensation State law may deny benefits to an employee if the injury was occasioned by the employee's intoxication.
33. NEW YORK Workers' Compensation State law provides that no benefits coverage may be awarded to the employee when injury is occasioned solely by the employee's intoxication from alcohol or a controlled substance. There is a statutory presumption that the injury did not result solely from intoxication.
34. NORTH CAROLINA Drug Testing The state' s drug testing law does not restrict the types of testing that may be conducted, but does require that certain procedures be followed with regard to the actual drug testing process. All testing of employees must be conducted at approved laboratories. Applicants, however, may be tested on site for the initial screen. Positive tests must be confirmed at approved laboratories.
35. NORTH DAKOTA Alcohol or drug testing is authorized when a doctor or employer has a reasonable suspicion that the employee's work injury was caused by the employee's use of alcohol or a controlled substance. A positive drug or alcohol test at or above the levels determined in the U.S. DOT's drug and alcohol testing regulations creates a reputable presumption that the injury was due to impairment from the use of alcohol or drugs. A refusal to submit to a drug test results in forfeiture of all benefits.
36. OHIO Workers' Compensation Premium Reduction Rule The Ohio State Bureau of Workers' Compensation has issued a rule that provides for a five-year phased-in workers' compensation insurance premium reduction that can rise as high as twenty percent. Employers receive different discounts based on the type of drug-free workplace program that is implemented. At the lowest level (six percent), employers must establish a written policy, conduct annual employee education and supervisor training, and conduct drug and alcohol testing ( pre-employment, post-accident, reasonable suspicion, and follow-up). As the discount rises, random testing must be introduced as well as health care coverage for chemical dependencies. Workers' Compensation State law denies worker's compensation benefits coverage to employees who are injured or killed in an accident while under the influence of illicit drugs or alcohol where the intoxication or controlled substance was the proximate cause of the injury.
37. OKLAHOMA Drug Testing The state's drug testing law permits most types of drug testing provided certain conditions are met. The foremost condition is that prior to conducting any drug or alcohol tests, the employer must make an employee assistance program available to employees. The statute also requires that the employer establish a comprehensive policy which explains all aspects of the testing program. There also are specific requirements regarding testing procedures which must be followed.
38. OREGON Drug Testing The state's drug testing law permits all types of drug testing, but does require that all tests be analyzed at state-approved laboratories and in accordance with specific provisions. On-site testing is permitted provided certain conditions are met. The law only permits alcohol testing, however, when the employee consents or there is reasonable suspicion that the employee is under the influence of alcohol while on the job.
39. PENNSYLVANIA Workers' Compensation can be denied if an injury or death was caused by intoxication or the illegal use of drugs. The burden of proof is on the employer. In cases where the injury or death is caused by intoxication, no compensation may be paid if the injury or death would not have occurred had the employee not been intoxicated. PENNSYLVANIA Drug Test Adulteration State law makes it a third-degree misdemeanor to sell or give drug-free urine for the purposes of, or the intent to cause deceitful results on a drug test. The same penalty applies to any individual using or attempting to use drug-free urine for the same purposes.
40. PUERTO RICO Drug Testing State law requires safety-sensitive testing for employees who work in gun shops, who control or manage any train or motor vehicle which transports paying passengers, motor vehicles used to transport cargo on public highways, or vehicles used to transport passengers or cargo by water or air; who are security guards, and those whose responsibilities involve the management or control of drugs and controlled substances, explosives, gases, hazardous materials, and inflammable, radioactive, toxic, high voltage, or similar substances. Most other types of testing are permitted provided certain conditions are met. Employees may not be required to submit to more than two tests per year unless one of the tests yields a positive result. Employers may not terminate an employee for a first positive test unless the employee refuses to participate in rehabilitation. Rehabilitation is required following a positive test. On-site testing is prohibited.
41. RHODE ISLAND Drug Testing The state's drug testing law places many restrictions on workplace drug testing. The law permits testing only "if the employer has reasonable grounds to believe based on specific aspects of the employee's job performance and on specific contemporaneous observations, capable of being articulated, concerning the employee's appearance, behavior or speech that the employee's use of controlled substances is impairing his or her ability to perform his or her job;". An employee may not be terminated following a first positive drug test unless he or she refuses rehabilitation. Employees must be referred to a rehabilitation program following a positive drug test result. Additional procedural requirements also exist.
42. SOUTH CAROLINA Drug-Free Workplace Act State law requires that every individual or business receiving a state grant or state contract for $50,000 or more must implement a drug-free workplace program in accordance with the state Drug-Free Workplace Act. Requirements include establishing and distributing a written substance abuse policy to all employees and establishing an employee drug education awareness program. SOUTH CAROLINA Drug Test Adulteration It is unlawful for a person to: 1) sell, give, market, distribute, or transport urine with the intent to defraud a drug or alcohol screening test, 2) attempt to defeat a drug or alcohol test by substituting or spiking the sample with an adulterant, 3) adulterating a urine or other bodily sample with the intent to defraud an alcohol or drug test, or 4) possess or sell adulterants which are intended to be used to adulterate bodily samples for the purpose of defrauding a drug or alcohol test.
43. SOUTH DAKOTA Workers' Compensation State law provides that an employee may be disqualified from receiving workers' compensation benefits if his or her injury or death was due to willful misconduct, including intoxication or the illegal use of drugs.
44. TENNESSEE Workers' Compensation Premium Reduction Program State law provides a five percent reduction on workers' compensation premiums to employers who establish drug-free workplace programs. Requirements include a written policy statement, a resource list of EAP’s and other rehabilitation programs, and drug and alcohol testing. A positive drug test result conducted in accordance with the U.S. DOT's drug and alcohol testing regulations provides a conclusive inference that the injury or death was due to the influence of a controlled substance. Refusing to submit to a blood or urine test following an accident may also result in denial of benefits.
45. TEXAS Workers' Compensation State law requires that employers with 15 or more employees who maintain workers' compensation insurance adopt a policy designed to eliminate drug abuse in the workplace. The employer must distribute a written policy to each employee. The law does not require an employer to implement a drug testing or rehabilitation program. TEXAS Drug Test Falsification State law provides that it is illegal to manufacture, deliver, own, or use a substance or device designed to falsify drug test results.
46. UTAH Voluntary Drug and Alcohol Testing Act This law provides that no cause of action may be brought against any employer who establishes a drug and alcohol testing program in compliance with the act. Employers are specifically authorized to conduct any type of testing in order to maintain the safety of employees and the public or to maintain productivity and quality of services and products. If a testing program is implemented, all management personnel must also be subject to testing. The law requires that specific requirements be met with regard to drug testing procedures.
47. VERMONT Drug Testing The state's drug testing law significantly restricts workplace drug testing. Pre- employment testing is permitted provided that ten days notice is given and it is conducted in conjunction with a physical examination. For-cause testing also is permitted if the employer has probable cause to believe that an employee is under the influence of drugs while on the job. Employees testing positive must be given the opportunity to participate in an EAP. The law also includes comprehensive requirements relating to drug testing procedures.
48. VIRGINIA Drug-free Workplace Act Requires all public bodies to include in every contract over $10,000 the following provisions: 1) the contractor must provide a drug-free workplace for the contractor's employees, 2) s/he must post a statement explaining the drug-free workplace policy and the consequences for policy violations, 3) s/he must state in all solicitations or advertisements for employees that the contractor maintains a drug-free workplace, and 4) She/He must include the drug-free workplace clauses from this Act in every subcontract or purchase order over $10,000 so that the provisions are binding on the subcontractor or vendor.
49. Washington
50. WEST VIRGINIA Workers' Compensation State law may deny workers' compensation benefits to an employee or his dependents if the employee's injury or death was due to intoxication.
51. WISCONSIN Workers' Compensation State law may reduce compensation benefits by 15% if an employee's injury results from intoxication or the use of a controlled substance. The total reduction may not exceed $15,000.
52. WYOMING Workers' Compensation State law denies benefits to an employee who is injured or killed in an accident while intoxicated or under the influence of a controlled substance not prescribed by a health care provider

Drug Free Workplace Program Template

Acting drug screen testing law and human rights.

If you like a few pints in the evening, beware of the urine test when you clock on next morning, advises

I magine you are a prison officer. It is your birthday and, in the early evening, you invite a few friends and family to your home for a small celebration. You drink four pints of lager, or the equivalent in alcoholic "units". You nevertheless go to bed at 10.30pm and you report to work at 8am the following morning.

Reasonable enough? Most of us would think so. But, if the Home Office has its way, you would be liable to disciplinary action. Because, under an extraordinary document from the Home Office, "The Draft Policy on Alcohol and Drug Misuse in the Workplace", which is rumoured to be the model for future policy by the government towards the millions employed by or contracted to the public sector, you would be forbidden from drinking more than seven units of alcohol (about three and a half pints of beer) in the 16 hours before you start work. And you would be banned from drinking any alcohol at all in the eight hours before going on shift. Managers would be able to order you to take breath tests to detect the presence of booze, and to demand samples of urine for drugs tests at any time. For five days a week, your employer will be watching you, in effect, in the pub or restaurant or at your dinner table, and wagging an admonitory finger when the bottle is passed.

The Home Office document provides a glimpse of the world that looms before us. Nobody objects to the principle that prison officers and others should be banned from drinking and taking drugs at work, nor that they should be punished if they turn up for duty under the influence of alcohol. It is only when you see how the definition of what constitutes being under the influence has been stretched that you begin to realise what is happening. Work is being used to reform manners.

From the Olympics to the personnel departments of mundane companies, drugs testing is exploding and creating new instruments of surveillance. Since 1995, 323,000 troops have been tested--a mere 1 per cent were found to be positive. (Let us not forget that British soldiers were given amphetamines in the Second World War, and scarcely an army in history has gone into battle without taking large drafts of Dutch courage.)

The Institute of Employment Rights estimates that about 250,000 employees are tested regularly at work, and it expects many more to be tested in the future. In occupations as diverse as flying and forensic science, urine examinations -- known as "piss-and-dip tests" to initiates -- are commonplace. John Courtis, of the recruitment specialists Courtis and Partners, told the Guardian that "Would you permit us to arrange a test for possible substance abuse?" is becoming a killer question at job interviews. (You can scarcely expect to be hired if you reply with a "no".) Away from the office, Surescreen Diagnostics of Derby is offering parents a [pound]24.99 drugs-testing kit for use on their children, comprising a urine cup, test strips and, hygienically, gloves. It promises a full back-up service if the litmus papers turn a funny colour.

The Home Office and its various agencies, predictably, are in the forefront of this crusade. Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, is giving the police powers to test every suspect brought to a station.

Particularly rigid and demeaning are the controls that the Prison Service plans on the 300 people recruited from drug advice charities to persuade prisoners, with the gentle arts of counselling and therapy, to kick their drugs habit. Governors will have the right to demand urine samples from the charity workers to check that they are free of drugs. The recruits have been told they will be escorted from the jail to a laboratory. They will be allowed to pee in private, but must remove their jackets and coats and leave all bags outside to avoid the ever-present danger of samples of uncontaminated urine -- from a friend or helpful neighbour, perhaps -- being smuggled into the loo.

Other rules for the charity workers may seem less controversial. Anybody convicted or released from a custodial sentence in the past five years or who has had a conviction at any time for the supply of drugs will be banned. For maximum-security jails, the restrictions are tighter. No drugs worker will be admitted if he has any drugs offence on his record. Yet many of the best counsellors available are reformed junkies who can share with addicts accounts of their struggle from dependency, in the manner of saved sinners at a revivalist rally.

In other words, the soldiers in the war against drugs are to be treated as potential traitors. "We are not at all happy," said the director of one charity, who did not want to be named for fear of losing his government contract. "We're not seen as professionals who can be trusted."

Harry Fletcher, a spokesman for the probation workers' union Napo, said that staff were preparing a legal challenge to the Home Office's draft document on drink and drugs at work-- "although we would drop it if Jack Straw closed all the bars in parliament". Like everyone else these days, Fletcher is threatening to hit the government with the Human Rights Act. I suspect he won't get far. The judiciary has never intervened to protect the privacy of workers or to limit the growth of surveillance.

The judges' indolence in the face of searches of intimate body fluids without a warrant is unfortunate, because there is plenty of evidence from the United States -- where, like so many other government policies, this idea originated-that drugs and alcohol testing is not merely intrusive and insolent, but also junk science. Workplaces in the US have become giant public conveniences awash with urine samples: 400 of the Fortune 500 companies take the piss from their staff; about half the workforce is routinely tested.

There is little pretence that testing is about anything other than social engineering. A survey of 63 companies in Silicon Valley found that urine testing reduced productivity -- cowed workers took out their resentment by dragging their feet. Nor is it only staff with sensitive tasks who are monitored. The poor in Florida must pass a drugs test before they can receive what meagre benefits are on offer.

"I waited for the attendant to turn her back before pulling down my pants," one woman reported to the American Civil Liberties Union, "but she told me she had to watch everything I did. I am a 40-year-old mother of three: nothing I have ever done in my life equals or deserves the humiliation, degradation and mortification I felt."

Tests reveal more than the presence of drugs. The police in Washington DC admitted that they were secretly examining the samples of their women workers to see if they were pregnant. Analysis of locks of hair can also be used to find out if the employee is suffering from Aids, cancer, epilepsy or heart disease.

Yet these forms of surveillance cannot prove that you are unfit for work. They detect "metabolites" -- inactive traces of a drug that may have been taken weeks earlier -- while missing cocaine that has just been snorted and has yet to enter the bladder or drift into the scalp.

There are good grounds for suspecting that many of those who test positive are innocent. Both the Civil Liberties Union and the US National Academy of Sciences have warned that the drugs-testing business's claims to infallibility are worthless. Users of anti-inflammatory drugs have found themselves condemned for taking marijuana, while the poppy seeds in bagels have the unpleasant side effect of labelling their eaters as heroin users.

Moreover, countermeasures to drugs surveillance are now on the market. There are gums and teas that claim to purge customers' systems of all traces of illegal consumption; shampoos that remove evidence of inappropriate substances from your hair; and the Whizzinator, which comes with a toxin-free urine sample and heat pads to ensure that it can be delivered to your investigators at body temperature.

It is easy to depict their producers as enemies of a good society. Who, after all, would want to be in the hands of a plastered pilot? Yet a stoned or drunk worker can be spotted without the need to import expensive technology. The motive behind the testing boom is not solely a desire to guarantee public safety, nor the legitimate expectation of employers that their staff be bright-eyed and able to work; it is the disciplining of private life.

For Britain gormlessly to follow the US without a national debate or inquiry into the reliability of testing by the government's medical officers is pathetic, if predictable. But at least it will have the unintended consequence of debunking a line of cant that has been far too popular of late.

Apologists for the status quo such as Charles Handy and Charles Leadbeater spent much of the 1990s opining that liberated knowledge workers had taken up their portfolios and walked to a new freedom. The rise in wage inequality --now at its greatest since records began in the 1880s -- was justifiable because employees had been as empowered as company bosses.

The security cameras and the e-mail, telephone and internet monitors have been a rebuke to these burblings for years. But I think that the spectacle of employees being ordered into dingy toilets, where the water supply has been cut off to prevent dilution of samples, and being told to piss into a glass by a gawping supervisor may at last force these gentlemen to hold their tongues.