Against Mandatory Drug Testing
Proposition of Value: Mandatory Drug Testing
Issue: Whether or not mandatory drug testing results in positive gains or negative losses for the United States in terms of economy and society.
Thesis: The enforcement of mandatory drug testing for employees and welfare recipients results in a more positive and productive society, as well as a developing economy.
The legal roots of mandatory drug testing are found in the common law doctrine of "employment at will." That doctrine states that either party to an employment contract can terminate the contract for any reason, at any time, unless the contract specifies otherwise. As the Court held in Adair v. United States (208 U.S. 161, 175-6, 1908), the employer "was at liberty, in his discretion, …show more content…
With an already growth-stricken job market, it is important for employers to choose their workers wisely. Employees whom have drug or other personal problems can hurt the overall development and profits of a company. 1. According to CNN.com, Drug Testing costs the United States an estimated $200 million a year, but indicates that that number is extremely small compared to the amount of money saved because of the production value it brings to companies. This way, companies view drug testing as an investment in the quality of their employees. 2. Mandatory drug testing prior to employment is an easy way for employers to weed out who is not fit for the job and who is. For example, if an interviewer for a company has a huge stack of people to choose to hire, it's very simple to announce to them that they will be drug-tested so that the number of potential employees will decrease. 3. It can be soundly stated that drugs are bad for all human beings' health, with the exception of doctor prescribed drugs to treat a medical malfunction. A healthy employee has more potential to be more productive than a non-healthy employee. Therefore, drug users have a higher chance to be less industrious and prolific than non-drug …show more content…
Corporations whose operations involve public safety are extremely cautious of drug users because of the fact that it can affect the health of many people in our society. 4. Companies that involve airlines, railroads, buses, electric utilities, construction, etc. have a duty to the public to hire sound and professional employees. It is morally incorrect to have a bus driver, who is responsible for many lives throughout the week, to be on drugs. The companies that employ these people have a responsibility to provide a safe, healthy, and productive environment for their workers and the public. They use drug testing to massively avoid potential problems in the future. 5. According to ACLU.org, nearly half of all major United States companies, including IBM, Kodak, AT&T, Lockheed Martin, 3M, Westinghouse and many more have a sound requirement for drug testing prior to employment. These corporations have extremely large profits and with their existing mandatory drug policies. How is it logical for outside parties to question their use of drug tests on their employees? 6. Companies have the right to do what they wish, and if they decide to invest their own money into drug testing their own employees, there is no wrong in
Issue: Whether or not mandatory drug testing results in positive gains or negative losses for the United States in terms of economy and society.
Thesis: The enforcement of mandatory drug testing for employees and welfare recipients results in a more positive and productive society, as well as a developing economy.
The legal roots of mandatory drug testing are found in the common law doctrine of "employment at will." That doctrine states that either party to an employment contract can terminate the contract for any reason, at any time, unless the contract specifies otherwise. As the Court held in Adair v. United States (208 U.S. 161, 175-6, 1908), the employer "was at liberty, in his discretion, …show more content…
With an already growth-stricken job market, it is important for employers to choose their workers wisely. Employees whom have drug or other personal problems can hurt the overall development and profits of a company. 1. According to CNN.com, Drug Testing costs the United States an estimated $200 million a year, but indicates that that number is extremely small compared to the amount of money saved because of the production value it brings to companies. This way, companies view drug testing as an investment in the quality of their employees. 2. Mandatory drug testing prior to employment is an easy way for employers to weed out who is not fit for the job and who is. For example, if an interviewer for a company has a huge stack of people to choose to hire, it's very simple to announce to them that they will be drug-tested so that the number of potential employees will decrease. 3. It can be soundly stated that drugs are bad for all human beings' health, with the exception of doctor prescribed drugs to treat a medical malfunction. A healthy employee has more potential to be more productive than a non-healthy employee. Therefore, drug users have a higher chance to be less industrious and prolific than non-drug …show more content…
Corporations whose operations involve public safety are extremely cautious of drug users because of the fact that it can affect the health of many people in our society. 4. Companies that involve airlines, railroads, buses, electric utilities, construction, etc. have a duty to the public to hire sound and professional employees. It is morally incorrect to have a bus driver, who is responsible for many lives throughout the week, to be on drugs. The companies that employ these people have a responsibility to provide a safe, healthy, and productive environment for their workers and the public. They use drug testing to massively avoid potential problems in the future. 5. According to ACLU.org, nearly half of all major United States companies, including IBM, Kodak, AT&T, Lockheed Martin, 3M, Westinghouse and many more have a sound requirement for drug testing prior to employment. These corporations have extremely large profits and with their existing mandatory drug policies. How is it logical for outside parties to question their use of drug tests on their employees? 6. Companies have the right to do what they wish, and if they decide to invest their own money into drug testing their own employees, there is no wrong in