Well, at least if they are going to use the impaired argument, then
   they test for alcohol, its a much more common source of workplace
   impairment than coke or smoke.  Also, if they are going to use the
   economic argument (lost days increased disability pay) then test for
   tobacco, since cigarettes contribute to everything from increased
   incidence of colds and bronchitis to increased likelihood of heart
   attacks.

   If they are simply checking to see if an employee is a potential
   no-goodnik, then they had best check other equally vague indicators of
   that sort of behaviour.  Child out of wedlock? Divorced? Single
   parent?  Use seatbelts? Jaywalk?

   Look, a company needs good people at least as badly as good people
   need a place to work.  If they are simple enough to eliminate a
   potential employee because of some previous minor infraction, then
   putting aside the moral and legal issues, its their own economic loss.

   Eric Siegel
   [log in to unmask]