Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
Join us on Pete's couch.
—Guitherisms

DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy, is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
January 2006
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

Archives

Bush uses SOTU to address serious addiction problem

In tonight’s State Of The Union speech, President Bush said:

America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world.

Bush then went on to declare a War on Oil, and pledged U.S. resources to eradicate foreign oil fields and provide aid to governments who assist in seizing oil […]

Kubby asks judge to let him use cannabis in jail

Link

AUBURN — Medical marijuana activist Steve Kubby asked a Placer County judge today to let him use cannabis while he serves a 120-day jail sentence for a drug conviction in 2000. The Placer sheriff’s department said it is opposed to the idea.

Come on, Judge. Shake things up a bit. Say “Yes.”

Workplace Drug Testing

The previous article on workplace drug testing got some discussion going. Say Uncle noted:

Most companies do drug tests because they save 5-10% on their workers’ comp insurance costs. At least, the companies I worked for did. It may be an economic decision and not a drug policy decision.

That was news to me. And disturbing news because it makes it pretty much impossible for a company to waive the requirement if an applicant they really want just says “No.” But sure enough, it’s true — but apparently only in certain states.
Individual states appear to have a wide variety of laws dealing with drug testing in private companies. Here’s a resource from 2003 (I can’t guarantee that these are still accurate), with a short state-by-state description (Here another guide with more detail in each state).
So why do some states give a workers compensation premium discount to companies that implement a drug free workplace program? Misinformation. Pure and simple. The stated assumption is that a drug-free workplace will save both the company and the insurer significantly due to reduction of accidents and lost productivity.
And that misinformation is spread like this:

Business and community leaders were briefed on the 10 most common mistakes employers make at a Johnson County Chamber of Commerce breakfast Thursday.
The discussion was led by Steve Trent and Brent Young, attorneys specializing in labor and employment with the law firm of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz in Johnson City.
Among topics discussed were the Family and Medical Leave Act, drug-free workplace programs, which drew the most attention from attendees, the Older Workers Benefits Protection Act, harassment, termination timing and procedures, the Fair Labor Standards Act, workers’ compensation, solicitation and distribution policies and avoidance of retaliation claims. At least six million Americans abuse illegal drugs, according to Trent. Recreational drug users are five times more likely to file a workers’ compensation claim and 3.7 times more likely to be involved in workplace accidents than other workers.

When this article came out a couple weeks ago, I immediately noticed the suggestive conflation of use and abuse that means it’s best to question the rest of what they have to say. And, of course, attorney Steve Trent of the distinguished law firm of Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, is full of it.
In fact, any time you hear someone give statistics on drug use and workplace safety/absenteeism, they’re full of it, because reliable statistics don’t exist.
In Jacob Sullum’s outstanding article from 2002, Urine — or you’re out, he noted:

My interviews with officials of companies that do drug testing — all members of the Institute for a Drug-Free Workplace — tended to confirm this assessment. They all seemed to feel that drug testing was worthwhile, but they offered little evidence to back up that impression. […]
“Despite beliefs to the contrary,” concluded a comprehensive 1994 review of the scientific literature by the National Academy of Sciences, “the preventive effects of drug-testing programs have never been adequately demonstrated.” While allowing for the possibility that drug testing could make sense for a particular employer, the academy‰s panel of experts cautioned that little was known about the impact of drug use on work performance. “The data obtained in worker population studies,” it said, “do not provide clear evidence of the deleterious effects of drugs other than alcohol on safety and other job performance indicators.”
It is clear from the concessions occasionally made by supporters of drug testing that their case remains shaky. “Only limited information is available about the actual effects of illicit drug use in the workplace,” admits the Drug-Free America Foundation on its Web site. “We do not have reliable data on the relative cost-effectiveness of various types of interventions within specific industries, much less across industries. Indeed, only a relatively few studies have attempted true cost/benefit evaluations of actual interventions, and these studies reflect that we are in only the very early stages of learning how to apply econometrics to these evaluations.”

Let’s take the numbers that our shyster friend Steve Trent is using.
Remember? “Recreational drug users are five times more likely to file a workers’ compensation claim and 3.7 times more likely to be involved in workplace accidents than other workers”
Back to Sullum:

Sometimes the “studies” cited by promoters of drug testing do not even exist. Quest Diagnostics, a leading drug testing company, asserts on its Web site that “substance abusers” are “3.6 times more likely to be involved in on-the-job accidents” and “5 times more likely to file a worker’s compensation claim.” As Queens College sociologist Lynn Zimmer has shown, the original source of these numbers, sometimes identified as “the Firestone Study,” was a 1972 speech to Firestone Tire executives in which an advocate of employee assistance programs compared workers with “medical-behavioral problems” to other employees. He focused on alcoholism, mentioning illegal drugs only in passing, and he cited no research to support his seemingly precise figures.

And over to John Morgan’s article in the Kanasa Law Review: The ‘Scientific’ Justification for Urine Drug Testing

In 1987 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives, by Mark de Bernardo of the United States Chamber of Commerce: ‘recreational’ drug users are 2.2 times more likely to request early dismissal or time off… 3.6 times more likely to injure themselves or another person in a workplace accident, 5.0 times more likely to file a worker’s compensation claim.

Morgan worked for some time to track down the Firestone numbers:

After a number of calls and queries I received a two page document from Firestone’s Medical Director, E. Gates Morgan. The report apears to be an in-house newsletter. In it, a Mr. Ed Johnson is interviewed about the Employer Assistance Program (“EAP”) at Firestone. There are some statements pertaining to absenteeism, but these are not documented, and more importantly, refer only to a few alcoholics who have been served by the Firestone EAP. The statistics generated (if these calculations based on alcoholics were actually made) have nothing to do with drug users, recreational or otherwise.
The statistics cited about absenteeism and workers’ compensation claims may have been derived from interviews with alcoholic workers enrolled in the EAP at Firestone. These people were not identified by urine testing for alcohol, but were referred because they or others perceived that their lives were falling apart. They, unlike workers randomly tested for drug use, were dysfunctional. To use them as a justification for testing unimpaired workers is like demanding that all workers have mandatory periodic rectal temperatures taken because a case of tuberculosis was found in the workplace.

It’s clear that these are the same numbers that our shyster is promoting. But is he just clueless? Has he been duped? Or is there more to it?
What about his venerated law firm Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC and their relationship to biotechnology and drug testing companies, including the one where Baker Donelson “Secured portfolio of US and foreign patents for startup drug-testing company that is now the exclusive testing facility for three state governments.”?
Hmmm…
So on January 16, I wrote to Steve Trent, and the David Yawn, Media Contact at Baker Donelson, and Managing Editor John Molley of the Johnson City Press, and Gary Mabrey, President of the Johnson City Chamber of Commerce. Nobody responded.
I guess they like their misinformation.

His Cup Runneth Over With Annoyance

Matt Welch is now at the Los Angeles Times:

THE NEWSPAPER you are reading has been lovingly compiled by hundreds of humans who urinated into plastic measuring cups for the privilege of bringing it to you. I gather this is not widely known among readers, judging by the reaction from those I’ve told. “Why would […]

Practicing medicine without a license

If you missed the 60 Minutes piece on Richard Paey — in prison for being in pain — you can view part of it here. John Tierney follows up with a story about the prosecutor who put him away. A disturbing portrait of a man who appears to think that he’s just doing his job […]

An editorial for our Latin America policy

This editorial in the Lima (Ohio) News nails it:

Morales’ popularity in Bolivia does have a great deal to do with U.S. drug-control policies, which have disrupted traditional agricultural patterns and customs in South America without reducing the flow of cocaine. The war on drugs undermines civil society in Latin America, promotes violence and corruption, […]

Steve Kubby update

Steve Kubby (who was extradited from Canada) is now in jail in the United States waiting for his hearing tomorrow. He is unable to take marijuana, of course, and even though they are giving him Marinol, it doesn’t do the job. Here’s an alert that will let you help keep the public pressure up. Here […]

Counting Inmates – A Census Controversy

Tomorrow’s Washington Post has an article by Zachary A. Goldfarb: Census Bureau, Activists Debate How and Where to Count Inmates. This has become a pretty important issue, since the U.S. has 5% of the world’s population, but 25% of the world’s prison population. While prisoners do not have a vote, their numbers add to the […]

Law Enforcement Against Prohibition video

Definitely take the time to see this outstanding video produced by Common Sense for Drug Policy and featuring members of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP). After you’ve seen it, download it and show it to all of your law and order friends who are resisting your efforts to convince them that prohibition is wrong. Do […]

New Mexico Senate Lectures Drug Czar’s Office on Proper Behavior

I attended the medical marijuana hearing in the Illinois legislature last year, when we had high hopes that were dashed by the sudden appearance of Drug Czar John Walters, who spoke his usual lies, and caused legislators to whimper and crumple. It appears that New Mexico Senators are made of sterner stuff. They’re also considering […]