I have little problem with testing per sae, if conducted by an independent body; in a random and objective manner.
If there is no evidence that problems exist; why then is there a need.
I would be totally against 'targetting' without event. If there is an accident/incedent then there is probable cause to test; such as after a multiple car accident; but the test must test for impairment.
Urine based tests are more a 'history' rather than an impairment test. Saliva and breath tests are more indicitive to impairment.
Tests should be testing impairment and ability to perform, not your lifestyle choices. i.e. your latest trip to holland one month prior to being tested, which has totally nothing to do with your ability to do your job. Yet you could get a please explain; if it's at company level you are more likely to be targetted or tested 'randomly' again.
Bottle of Rum