1994 AMA Survey: Workplace Drug Testing and Drug Abuse Policies (New York: American Management Association, 1994).
2.
Smith Kline Beecham Press Release, “Smith Kline Beecham Announces Decline in Workplace Positive Drug Tests,” 17 February 1994.
3.
41 U.S.C. §§ 701–07 (1988).
4.
“Failure to Use MROs Continues to Erode the Legal Insulation of Drug Testing Laboratories,” MRO Alert, 5, no. 3 (1994): 4–5.
5.
MarshallEliot, “Testing Urine for Drugs,”Science, 241, no. 4862 (1988): 150–52.
6.
ModellJack G.MountzJames M., “Drinking and Flying—the Problem of Alcohol Use by Pilots,”New England Journal of Medicine, 323, no. 7 (1990): 455–61.
7.
The statement is based on an informal, unpublished survey, which was conducted by the author. Opinions were solicited from five human resources managers in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, in 1992.
8.
Railway Labor Executives v. Skinner, No. 89–16571 (9th Cir. 1991); International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, et al. v. Department of Transportation, Nos. 89–70165, 89–70166, 89–70185, 89–70186, 89–70248 (9th Cir. 1991).
9.
MustoDavid F., “The History of American Drug Control,”Update on Law Related Education, 13, no. 2 (1989): 3–56.
10.
Mark Upfal and Kent Peterson, Letter to the Editor: “Pre-Employment Drug Screening: The Epidemiologic Issues,”Journal of Occupational Medicine, 35, no. 1 (1993): 8–9.
11.
“Procedures for Transportation Workplace Drug and Alcohol Testing Programs (49 C.F.R. § 40),”Federal Register, 59, no. 31 (1994): 7347.
12.
BrayR.M.MarsdenM.E.RachalJ.V.PetersonM.R., “Drugs in the Military Workplace: Results of the 1988 Worldwide Survey,” in GustS.W., eds., Drugs in the Workplace: Research and Evaluation Data Volume II (Washington, D.C.: NIDA Monograph Series No. 100, 1990), pp. 25–44.
13.
ZwerlingCraigRyanJamesOravE.J., “The Efficacy of Preemployment Drug Screening for Marijuana and Cocaine in Predicting Employment Outcome,”Journal of the American Medical Association, 264, no. 20 (1990): 2639–43; and RyanJamesZwerlingCraigJonesMichael, “The Effectiveness of Preemployment Drug Screening in the Prediction of Employment Outcome,”Journal of Occupational Medicine, 34, no. 11 (1992): 1057–63.
14.
FarrageC.M., “Workplace Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs,” in ZenzCarl, ed., Occupational Medicine (St. Louis: Mosby, 1994), p. 1132.
15.
Smith Kline Beecham Press Release, supra note 2.
16.
Author's data, pooled from the Duke University Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine MRO program. The data is unpublished.
17.
Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Administrator, Press Release, August 24, 1992.
18.
StallonesL.KrausJ.F., “The Occurrence and Epidemiologic Features of Alcohol-Related Occupational Injuries,”Addiction, 88, no. 7 (1993): 945–51.
19.
DeLanceyMarci M., Does Drug Testing Work? (Washington, D.C.: Institute for a Drug-Free Workplace, 1994), pp. 62–102.
20.
ZwerlingCraigRyanJamesOravE.J., “Costs and Benefits of Preemployment Drug Screening,”journal of the American Medical Association, 267, no. 1 (1992): 91–93; and NormandJ.SalyardsS.D.MahoneyJ.J., “An Evaluation of Preemployment Drug Testing,”journal of Applied Psychology, 75, no. 6 (1990): 629–39.
21.
“Department of Transportation Proposed Regulations on Alcohol Testing Programs; Drug Testing Amendments,”DOT Transportation Facts, 10 December 1992.
22.
GreschI.E., “Drug Screening in Industry,”Journal of Occupational Medicine, 28, no. 12 (1986): 1239; and RosenstockLindaCullenMark, “Routine Urine Testing for Evidence of Drug Abuse in Workers: The Scientific, Ethical and Legal Reasons Not to Do It,”Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2, no. 2 (1987): 135–37.
23.
“Opiates—Ongoing Ethical and Legal Concerns for MROs,”MRO Alert, 5, no. 3 (1994): 1–4.