Disagreements happen because of the belief that drug test are used to protect and save lives and to improve the environment that the person is present in. Even though this may be true, others believe that mandatory testing is unjust and biased towards certain people. Controversy arises when the people that have to take the tests are chosen. While the controversy may center on the validity of the act, the real problem is that the effects of implementing

Another major concern that is brought up in this debate relates to the issue of privacy. Many industries have begun to eliminate the tests for fear of driving away desirable employees. Employees feel that their right to privacy is being taken away. In extremely competitive fields, such as computer programming, employers are increasingly afraid of losing prize job candidates and are concerned that requiring a urine sample could cost them a coveted employee. In an article by the ACLU called, "Report Calls Employee Drug Testing a Bad Investment," even employers who conduct the tests generally have no idea whether they are benefiting from them. "'Most employers never measure whether a drug testing program is working,'" says Eric Greenberg, director of research for the American Management Association (ACLU 15). He noted that a drug test does not necessarily predict whether the employee will use drugs on the job. "What you're really testing," he said, "is whether someone is smart enough and strong enough to stay clean while they are conducting a job searching." In opposition to this, Munro and Krauss, say that employees are one issue and welfare recipients are another, testing them is perfectly acceptable. In their argument they rebut the comments of Greenberg and Charles Webster, with the Urban League of Bergen County, New Jersey. Webster says that, "it is unreasonable to invade the privacy of the welfare recipients by screening them for drug use..." unlike the testing of employees because getting a job is a voluntary undertaking. (Munro and Krauss). But, the editorialists are quick to point out that the American public is not forced to accept welfare. The unfortunate usage of the word "entitlements" over the past 30 years to describe various federal income-transfer programs, Americans have largely forgotten that participation in them is an entirely optional affair. I question the validity of the argument the ACLU makes. Yes, there are people who can go about their jobs cheating the system, but there also those that are so heavily influenced that they would not be in the right mind to figure out how to get clean. It could be that Munro and Krauss's point seems to hold up better. For instance, if one of the conditions of regular employment is that employees not take drugs, then an employer had the right to test for compliance to endure that they are getting what they pay for. This is needed so that the job gets done. Likewise, if the government is paying for ones living expenses, it can be interpreted that that person ought to comply with the government's stipulations to their policy.

In this debate, the foremost issue raised relates to the constitutionality. The claim usually made by opponents of mandatory drug testing is that such screening represents unreasonable search and seizure of the person, prohibited und

Some common words found in the essay are:
, Munro Krauss, Applicants Drug, Cato Institute, Munro Krauss's, Calvert Institute, Club Taylor's, Judge Blocks, Eric Bukovinsky, Union ACLU, drug testing, welfare recipients, mandatory drug, munro krauss, mar 2000, mandatory drug testing, calvert institute, school athletes, testing school athletes, drug testing school, testing school, amendment constitution, judge blocks, issue mandatory drug, 1999 27 mar,
Approximate Word count = 1909
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page double spaced)