Federal Register Document Number 04-7984

Public Comment 8400118

 

July 12, 2004

 

I am writing regarding the currently effective drug testing policy ‘mandated

guidelines’ as well as those to be instituted, which seem to be for all

intents, it may be said, highly lacking.  Disregarding the commonly meddled

with issue of privacy, for I’m sure a good many letters already are written

of this, the policy to be instated seems to be in oversight of several

things.

 

The first is related to the means of testing, analyses of urine.  This

means the applicant, to even be considred for the job, must give forth of

precious bodily fluid, an act which itself should receive compensation if

being done in such an official capacity.  I speak not of mere ‘unreasonable

search and seizure’ (this may or may not be so), but of a religious issue. 

As a shaman initiate, one can absolutely not, under any circumstance, give

forth fragments of one’s body or byproducts of it without the utmost concern

for what is to happen to said pieces.  If you are unfamiliar with Native

American religion, I will give you a short summary, true of other indigenous

cultures as well.  As the body is a temple, so oft have we heard, the

excretions and secretions of it are particular jewels, unique to the whole

person’s essence.  Science verifies this – DNA containing the pattern for

the entire physical being is within each cell.  This makes donating of

urine, saliva, hair, or blood unthinkable.  Each of these substances is

typically used for specific purposes, often medicinal, such as applying

saliva to a wound.  This promotes quick recovery of injury because of the

personal nature of the substance, matching the make-up of the body it is

from.  Furthermore it is now known by many anthropologists, as well as

shamans who trace the lineage of their art back many generations, an enemy

wishing ill upon one need only steal the appropriate substance to make an

effective curse against the donor.  This is well known in New Orleans.  In

the Amazon, even discarded remnants of food found by the wrong one may be

credited as the cause of mishap or even death.  Often also, it is necessary

to store one's own urine for anti-fungal use (for example athlete's foot)

and fasting (to those who can stand the thought).  Therefore, donating such

intimate substances not only to a stranger, but to be passed among people I

will not even meet, would be unspeakably careless.  Besides this, to do so

as many times as would necessary to find a job?  Impractical, and entirely

out of the question to anyone who slightly values their excretions.

However, one constitutionally is not allowed to discriminate in hiring for

reasons other than competence, at least in theory.  So how then to deal with

this obvious discrimination?  Certainly even among common people who do not

object on religious grounds, there are as many who would hesitate to provide

urine or other bodily samples, the violation of instinctual safe practices

being so obvious it is practically common sense, to some.  Iit is not just,

nor constitutional, to deny any of these mentioned an equal chance of

employment and all other opportunities.  Therefore, it is absolutely

necessary that the policies be revised.  The simplest suggestion of course,

merely omitting the tests of those who refuse, yet considering them as

equally valid for employment is not unreasonable, but offends the senses of

those who do not mind providing the very substance of their being for

laboratory work.  Then, perhaps none should be tested for drug presence at

all?  It would seem that an even mediocre institution would function such

that each employee, watching the competence of his or her coworker would

easily notice when intoxication or remaining after-effects thereof affected

the performance of work to any significant degree.  Nonetheless, I hear

complaint that the world is not perfect and standards must be kept.

 

The second consideration then, is that there may be some alternative form

of surveying of applicants and employees which could be instituted.  A great

many cognitive tests, surveys of the reactions, alertness and judgment are

known to psychologists.  A fine line here will have to be drawn, however. 

One will find on examining such matters, that to make the appropriate study

of how drugs affect the mind, it is soon noticed that the effect is either

not always negative, or may be a more marked failure in a sober person of

lesser capacities.  So the question of further discriminatory practice will

have to be addressed here, although it is not a secret that it is more

desirable to hire an intelligent person for management, and a slow one for

drone.  Nonetheless, with only a cursory amount of research, data showing

the effect of various drugs and the outcome of particular tests is found,

and these tests could easily be standardized to the purposes of SAMSHA. 

This more modern method would be a sound replacement in determining

competence and would likely prove ultimately of less expense.  This

consideration is supplemented by another proposal:  a good psychologist in a

company’s hiring staff could probably determine by only an interview whether

or not a person was intoxicated at present, recently, or habitually

indulging in any problematic vice.  Such a ‘review person’ or even board

perhaps, could either be employed at the appropriate local government

office, employed by the company desiring to drug-test (at their own

expense), or could be required to be a third-party, contracted for the

explicit purpose of drug-testing.  The only question remaining would be one

of licensing or appropriately accrediting the authority to make these

determinations, and who foots the bill.  Likely, your agency could profit

from this.  It may not be necessary to have any new credentials provided, in

theory, since psychologists are typically trained in the effect of

substances on the mind and body among their basic studies.  However,

employing more specialized persons could be helpful, or perhaps any person

unaccredited, who had a suitable amount of experience of intoxicated people

and their behavior.  Treatment and recovery specialists would be likely

candidates for this post, and probably ideal since the largest portion of

their job is noting drug use patterns of their patients.

 

Having presented two alternatives to the currently suggested forms of

drug-testing, I conclude that there are doubtlessly others as well, which

would be vastly more desirable than requiring urine, tissue, or other body

parts and by-products.  I am sure this renovation would pose no threat to

SAMSHA as an organization, and would probably make it a more effective and

useful one ultimately.  As a casual letter may be concealed within an

envelope to keep from prying eyes, for many reasons an innocent man might

object to the presently instituted drug-testing policy.  No such person may

be denied the opportunity for employment.  Let this issue be addressed now,

and amend the system, that many years later of strife and the hiring of

attorneys be avoided.

 

In writing this letter I could not be as thorough as I would have liked, but

the work that remains is of course in the charge of those employed to do so.

 

Please consider these ideas and bring them to your peers for the necessary

evaluations.  You take great responsibilities on yourselves now, and will

affect many people's future.  I trust the job is in good hands, and correct

actions will be taken.

 

Sincerely,

 

Ben R. Selker