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]