I'll venture into the fray!
I've implemented a number of drug testing regimes as part of Government initiatives (ie, new programs that require regular drug testing)....
Generally speaking, there are a number of different test methods, mouth swabbing the cheaper of the lot and most common in workplaces.... But there are also urine test kits which can detect substances on the spot, so the samples don't need to be sent off to a lab.
These are ok, but from an industrial relations point of view, they can sometimes give a false reading, so QF (in the interests of being a good employer) should have a verfication process in place if the employee wishes to dispute the result. This can include a blood test which is generally more accurate than urine.
There are pro's and con's with drug testing in the workplace - at the end of the day you shouldn't be impaired at work but on the other hand compulsory drug testing in the wider community is usually only carried out on offenders who have it as part of their bail / release / order conditions.... So its a difficult balance, where does performance at work and regulating personal choice start and end?!
I don't know, I'm not an ethicist!
