Drug Screening
				 
                  Today, many employers are administering drug screenings as part of  the interview process. Years ago, drug screenings were primarily given  for those applying for a government or medical position. However,  because large amounts of people are drug users, several small  businesses are beginning random drug tests. Drug screening is a topic  of debate. For the most part, the population has a positive view of  random drug testing. Of course, this does not benefit habitual and  occasional drug users. For example, there are individuals who  occasionally use marijuana; however, they do not have a drug problem.  Random drug screening may result in these people's losing their jobs.  
                  On the other hand, random drug screenings is a great method for  determining individuals with a serious drug problem. Some regular drug  users have the ability to function on a daily basis. Thus, their  problem remains concealed. Still, some drug users are prone to steal  and lie. Most employers do not want to hire individuals with a drug  problem. To combat the problem, some employers choose to include a drug  screening with the interview. If an applicant successfully passes the  screening, they are a good candidate. Even if an applicant is hired,  they may still be subjected to random screenings.  
                  Drug screenings are administered by an employee or applicant  providing a bodily sample. This sample might include hair, saliva,  sweat, blood, or urine. The most common samples are urine and blood.  The downside is that these samples are only able to detect drug use  that occurred within the last 72 hours. For a more detailed drug  screening, some employers and agencies may request a hair sample. Hair  samples may detect drug use for up to six months. Nonetheless, most  employers and agencies do not review pass three months. Sometimes, drug  screening results are inaccurate. If this occurs, re-taking a drug test  may prove beneficial.  
				   Disclaimer: Cliff Schaffer does not personally endorse or support any of the comments made within the writings of this article.
				   
				   | 
                  | 
                
                  Library Archives
                  Schaffer Library 
                   
                    
                   
                     
                      |