<<I have difficulty in seeing how a drug screen applied to ALL employees
implies
that they are being treated like scumbags>>

I have difficulty in seeing how you don't see that!    Do you or have you
employed people personally?   When I employ someone I put a hell of a lot
of effort into finding the right person--are we right for each other?  If I
feel I can trust someone enough to employ them and he/she can trust me
enough to come work for me then I really cannot see how periodically
checking that person for drug abuse is going to contribute anything
worthwhile to our relationship.  
Taking this off at a tangent---as GPs we read various articles and listen
to various lectures on summary dismissal of staff.  "The following offences
are to be regarded as punishable by summary dismissal...."  Blah blah blah.
 MY approach to some employee doing something weird, awful and off the wall
is certainly NOT  to dismiss someone who has proved her worth maybe  a
dozen times a day for three or more years;  my approach is to find out
exactly what has happened to make that person do that weird thing. 
Remember, we are not talking about society being at fault for
welfare-scrounging delinquents,  we are talking about someone I trusted
enough to employ in the first place and in the second, trusted enough to
keep on for months or years and to handle lots of sensitive work.    
Anyway, experience in my practice over the last few years has shown my
approach to work much better than the hang-em-high alternative.   I think
anyone who actually tries out the mutual-trust-and-respect way will agree
that it works better but it takes commitment and time and effort.   
Back to drugs---self-destruction by illicit chemicals is, as it happens,
much more common in very poor areas with high unemployment. Inner cities
etc.   Self-destruction  by anything other than alcohol is certainly not
that common in the professional classes. Personally,  I would be far more
tolerant of someone with a moderate coke habit which does not interfere
obviously with his job than I would be of the heavy drinker who is fit for
damn all until Wednesday each week after his weekend binge.  Here in
Ireland (and I am talking not just about rural N Ireland but also about
Dublin where there is a  HUGE IV drug problem mainly heroin) the demon
drink is the big drug you have to watch, not the occasional middle-class
twit who can't resist the needle. 
My view is that drug screens on employees implies that they are all guilty
until proven innocent.  

<<that he wouldn't risk his job for some nose candy ;-) knowing that he/she
could be tested anytime.>>
What you are saying is that the ONLY thing (or at least the biggest thing)
stopping that employee abusing drugs is the risk of being caught. 
Personally, I don't want to hire people without a good work ethic or
professional conscience.    Do you feel that doctors should all be tested? 
We have the awful stress, we have the knowledge to get high safely and we
have the means!. Personally I feel that such an action would be an insult
to our professional ethic and dedication.  Just like I feel the same should
apply to any professional service person, manager etc.   I wonder if the
partners in that accountancy firm (back at the start of this thread) are
likewise screened?  
Not wanting to extend this too much but I also believe that ALL employees
should be trusted to do their work well until proven otherwise; this debate
started on accountants so I have tried to keep it in that arena but the
same basic principle applies to anyone you work with.
Regards
Declan
 


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%