(4 of 7)
But can testing produce similar results in civilian life? And is the deterrent worth the loss of privacy? The public seems to think so, thanks no doubt in large part to Reagan's advocacy. A whopping 72% of people questioned in a New York Times/CBS News poll published last week said they would be willing to be tested. But there is fierce opposition too, and not all of it from professional civil libertarians. The union representing 1,500 Boston policemen has filed suit to block a plan by Commissioner Francis Roache to begin unannounced random tests of all cops, on the grounds that the tests would violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches.
Constitutional qualms will probably impel the Administration, when it spells out a new policy for federal employees later this month, to make tests mandatory only for those in "sensitive" or "critical" jobs where drug use could damage public safety -- air-traffic controller, for instance. All other federal workers will most probably be asked to submit to "voluntary" tests. Critics argue that such a system would involve enough pressure so that the tests would not be truly voluntary or that they would be worthless because only those who are clean would sign up.
In private business, opponents of testing insist that mass urinalysis is an unwarranted invasion of the privacy of people who have done nothing wrong. To prevent switching or doctoring of urine samples, a supervisor must watch closely while the specimen is being passed. Even worse, it is widely estimated that some of the cheap tests now in use yield up to 20% "false positives," raising the threat that many people who do not use drugs will nonetheless be denied employment -- while drug users who manage to stay clean for a few days before a test beat the system. Advocates of testing counter that false positives can be diminished by subjecting all urine that shows signs of drug use to further, more sophisticated examination. But those retests can cost $100 each, and many employers may not want to pay the price. The cost of administering such tests to even a sampling of 10% of the total labor force would exceed $1 billion. Nonetheless, testing seems certain to continue its explosive growth for months and perhaps years to come, if only because so many people are stumped for any other way to check drug abuse.
DRUG TREATMENT
Long and Costly
Drug addicts are sick people who need treatment. With that statement there is hardly any quarrel. But what kind of treatment, and who will provide it? The answer to the second question, at least, is only too clear: nobody is providing enough treatment to come near meeting the demand, let alone the need.