Drug tests for employment

[Nikia]

Talk of legalization and decriminalization won't do any good if drug users are shut out of gainful, legal employment. The Bush administration encourages employers to test employees both before job offers and during the course of employment by multiple methods.
In my opinion, drug testing is an invasion of privacy, discriminatory, and unfairly gives businesses the right to dictate what an employee does on his or her own time. For certain types of work, like jobs requiring transportation of others or heavy equipment, the safety concern may be justified. For certain jobs which may dictate other off duty behavior, such as a police officer, I could see the justification also. For most jobs, I feel that off duty drug use has nothing to do with a job. Employees who perform their jobs poorly or who are obviously under the influence can be fired. Potential employees are interviewed, provide references, and sometimes also undergo background checks.
I think that hair testing is especially discriminatory not only because it does provide more positives for people with certain types of hair or longer hair, but it also can provide positives for drug use far after drug use. A person may have chosen to cease drug use privately or after being laid off and be shut out of employment oppurtunities for several months or more even if they are not a current drug user.
Blood testing is bad because many people have problems with needles. I read an article stating that over 10% of Americans avoid going to doctors because of this fear. Another 10% go to doctors but who have serious concerns like passing out. Many more tolerate needles but have serious reservations about going through with it for any non medical necessary reason. If all American employers tested employees this way, would a severe phobia of blood drawing be considered a disability.
Urine testing is unfair because it targets user of the least harmful illegal drug, marijuana. Occaisional users of marijuana will likely fail randomn drug tests while occaisional cocaine users will not. A non addicted user of cocaine, which tests positive for about 3 days, will likely have enough time to abstain after they are notified of an interview with a company who preemployment tests. A marijuana user may not have enough time to abstain since they may test positive several weeks after use.
Drug use may be illegal, but in some states marijuana possession is a very minor crime. In Ohio, possession of a small amount is a civil citation, like a traffic ticket. In many situations, people jailed for minor crimes are permitted by the state and their employer to participate in work release. Why is the crime of drug use singled out by employers for grounds of firing? Why do employers conduct an active investigation of their employers for this crime and not others?
Drug use is a health issue. Although it is true that some employees work may suffer because of drug use, that is not the case in all users nor is it really employers business. Employees work performance may suffer from a variety of other health and personal probelms. They may choose to inform their employer of their problem and expect not to be fired because of the disabilities act or they may choose to keep their condition private. That also brings up the issue of medical privacy in drug testing. Some employers tests for drugs that are legal with a prescription. This may force employees to reveal that they have severe anxiety problems, for example if they test positive for Xanax and like drugs.
I rarely see this issue being discussed. I think that this is important, especially with the poor economy. Potential employees have less choices as far as finding employers who don't test. Marijuana users are also stereotyped as unmotivated and lazy, a stereotype that the government and employers are encouraging by excluding them from employment.