Drugs and Job Impairment

There’s obviously more to impairment on the job than merely the use of drugs, be they legal or illegal. An arm sprained playing baseball over the weekend, concern about an ill or dying family member, an argument with a spouse, child or other relative, financial woes, a love affair, inadequate training by the employee or excessive or unrealistic demands by the employer, and so on, all may impair job performance.

When it comes to drugs there must be a realization that many legal ones, such as over-the-counter antihistamines and other preparations may affect levels of consciousness, as well as prescription drugs, among which are hypnotics, tranquilizers, analgesics, narcotics and others. Alcohol is also in the legal group.

Then there are the illegal drugs such as marijuana, cocaine and heroin, to name some. Only for alcohol has there been provided a legal definition of level in the body that equates with impairment and that primarily for the operation of vehicles, airplanes and trains. Even with alcohol, there is no unanimity concerning the precise level that equates with impairment.

It becomes quite clear that there may be impairment on the job because of conditions unrelated to the use of drugs, be they legal or illegal, and that the fact that one can measure a level of drug, be it legal or illegal, does not necessarily equate with impairment. One could argue that any measurable level of an illegal drug is consistent with illegal activity, whether or not impairment exists, and perhaps should be reported to the appropriate authorities.

Furthermore, proposals for, “Random Drug Tests Sought for Almost All Workers,” (Times, April 8) need to consider whether punitive or rehabilitative actions will derive after determination of drug levels defined as consistent with impairment on the job, and who will bear the costs of the testing, and punishment or rehabilitation. If applied on a mass scale, such drug testing at the workplace will necessarily translate into increased costs for all of society with the only assured benefit being for the laboratories and personnel involved in the drug testing and the lawyers involved in the resultant litigation.

This is obviously a very complex issue that needs to be resolved, but it will not be resolved by politicization in the legislative halls, in the courts or in the workplace except badly. The issue requires more than legislators, lawyers, judges, employers or administrators to be resolved fairly, accurately and in a positive manner that benefits both individuals and society as a whole.

SYLVAIN FRIBOURG

Woodland Hills