Pubdate: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 Source: Chicago Sun-Times (IL) Copyright: 2011 Sun-Times Media, LLC Contact: http://mapinc.org/url/5QwXAJWY Website: http://www.suntimes.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/81 Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/testing.htm (Drug Testing) RANDOM DRUG TESTS ERODE OUR PRIVACY Personal privacy and civil liberties are essential to the success of a democratic society. Any public policy that erodes those values must be weighed very carefully. Random workplace drug tests, which infringe on privacy, can be condoned only when a strong case can be made that they are necessary for on-the-job and public safety. A proposed ordinance for mandatory random drug testing of all Chicago employees from aldermen on down doesn't meet that test. We can accept the justification for random drug testing of bus or truck drivers and police officers. The dangers to the public are obvious if a driver or officer is under the influence of drugs. A drug test becomes preventive medicine. We even recently defended a CHA proposal to require random drug tests for residents of public housing. Just a small number of drug addicts in a housing development can destroy the quality of life for the good people who - and this is the crux of the issue - have nowhere else to go. The city has a moral responsibility to make sure public housing is safe. But if we prize our civil liberties, we have to draw a line somewhere. To randomly test all city employees - who already must pass a drug test to be hired - would mess with their personal freedoms for insufficient gains. Yes, it can be hard to draw the line - - would 911 dispatchers be included? But to the best of our knowledge, nobody has ever lost their house because some drug-addled clerk in the recorder of deeds office wrote the wrong number on a form. The aldermen behind the proposal, Edward M. Burke (14th) and Pat O'Connor (40th), hope random drug testing will reduce payouts for accidents and workers compensation. Burke compares drug tests to lighthouses: You never know how many accidents they prevent. But random drug testing would open a can of worms that doesn't need opening. If the city discovers that scads of city workers have traces of drugs in their system not from smoking joints on the job but from doing so over the weekend, would they be fired? We can't argue with the desire to cut costs. But the erosion of personal privacy exacts a far bigger price. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom