A war on pee

Many IU students are, like me, standing at the horizon of adulthood. In short, this means applying for a "real job" while at the same time enjoying, for one last semester, the wonders of undergraduate life. \nOne of adulthood's biggest difficulties lies in reconciling the youthful ideals that abound in university settings with the reality of the corporate world. Everyone maintains certain inflexible limitations, often including respect for human life and dignity. Often the case is clear; sometimes it isn't.\nThe biggest dilemma for me regards my willingness to pee in a cup. I am torn between my understanding that such drug testing violates basic American ideals and my practical desire to be employed once I graduate.\nIn the United States, our laws have a tendency to respect a right to privacy. Few would allow a potential employer to perform a dwelling-search prior to employment, yet many don't think twice about submitting to the piss test.\nBut to me, my pee is infinitely more private than my apartment. In addition to illegal drug tests, urinalysis can also determine what diseases the applicant has, his/her basic DNA and, for a woman, whether she is pregnant. I am not paranoid enough to believe companies are in fact using it for said purposes, but I'd rather not present them with the opportunity.\nI am, however, with much trepidation, willing to accept that mandatory drug tests are for the public good in certain occupations (emergency room doctors and commercial pilots, for example) when the smallest decision might mean the difference between life and death. But for the rest of us, drug tests are utterly invasive and unnecessary.\nAfter all, nothing says "welcome to your new job" quite like peeing into a cup in front of a miserable "pee supervisor" from the drug testing company.\nFurthermore, drug testing insinuates that the company you plan to work for wants to be in control of all aspects of your life, and not just the part that takes place between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. \nCurrently, it's difficult to find even a minimum wage company that doesn't first require cursory urination. By 1996, 81 percent of companies had implemented drug testing policies. \nThrough performing such testing, potential employees are inherently treated like potential criminals. It's definitely not good for workforce morale, and it's a waste of money to boot. According to one American Medical Association study, drug tests cost employers approximately $77,000 per positive sample.\nCompanies that manufacture drug tests market them as a weapon in the war on drugs. As we all know, in the rhetoric surrounding the war on drugs, there is no room for conscientious objectors. If you don't believe that drug testing is OK, you must have something to hide. \nGiven the status of the war on drugs and its prominence in current political discourse, it's unlikely there will be any federal legislation in the near future banning mandatory drug testing. It's hard to imagine a time when drugs won't illicit such a galvanizing effect in the political arena, and until then, the only place for conscientious objectors may be the welfare roles.