"While almost two-thirds of respondents drug test all candidates, the remainder of companies drug test only candidates for specific positions. The percentage of companies with a policy to test all candidates dropped by 12% since our 2018 survey."
Employee drug testing
"After four straight years of increases, in 2016, urine testing positivity for heroin, indicated by the presence of the 6-acetylmorphine (6-AM) metabolite, held steady in the general U.S. workforce and declined slightly among federally-mandated, safety-sensitive workers.
"Amphetamines (which includes amphetamine and methamphetamine) positivity continued its year-over-year upward trend, increasing more than eight percent in urine testing in both the general U.S. and federally-mandated, safety-sensitive workforces compared to 2015. Throughout the last decade, this rise has been driven primarily by amphetamine use which includes certain prescription drugs such as Adderall®.
(Prevalence of Illicit Drug Dependence or Abuse Among Full-Time Workers in the US)
" Approximately 3 million full-time workers (2.6 percent) aged 18 to 64 met the criteria for past year illicit drug dependence or abuse (Figure 2.3 and Table 2.4).
" Approximately 7.5 percent of 18- to 25-year-old workers had past year illicit drug dependence or abuse. This was higher than among all other age groups studied (26- to 34-year-olds [3.3 percent], 35- to 49-year-olds [1.9 percent], and 50- to 64-year-olds [0.7 percent]) (Figure 2.3 and Table 2.4).
(Prevalence of Heavy Alcohol Use Among Full-Time Workers in the US)
" An estimated 8.8 percent, or 10.1 million, of full-time workers reported past month heavy alcohol use (Figure 2.3 and Tables 2.2 and 2.3).
" Past month heavy alcohol use was related to age. Among younger workers (18 to 25 years old), 16.3 percent reported past month heavy alcohol use compared with 10.4 percent of 26- to 34-year-olds, 8.1 percent of 35- to 49-year-olds, and 4.7 percent of 50- to 64-year-olds (Figure 2.3 and Table 2.2).
(Prevalence of Marijuana Use Among Full-Time Workers in the US)
" An estimated 6.4 percent, or 7.3 million, of full-time workers reported use of marijuana during the past month (Tables 2.2 and 2.3).
" Adults aged 26 to 34 were only about half as likely as 18- to 25-year-olds to be past month marijuana users (8.0 vs. 15.9 percent). Past month use of marijuana was lower with increasing age (Table 2.2).
" The prevalence of past month marijuana use was higher for males than females (7.9 vs. 4.3 percent, respectively) (Table 2.2).
(Prevalence of Illicit Drug Use Among Full-Time Employees in the US, )
" The prevalence of past month illicit drug use among adult full-time workers was 8.2 percent (Figure 2.3 and Tables 2.2 and 2.3).
" Nearly one out of five (19.0 percent) workers aged 18 to 25 used illicit drugs during the past month. This was a higher percentage than among the 26-to-34 (10.3 percent), 35-to-49 (7.0 percent), and 50-to-64 (2.6 percent) age groups (Figure 2.3 and Table 2.2).
(Reported Educational Achievement and Income of Drug Using Versus Non-Using Full-Time Workers)
" Workers with a college education had a lower prevalence of current illicit drug use compared with those without a college education. The prevalence of past month use of illicit drugs was lower among those with higher levels of education than those with less education (college graduate [5.7 percent] vs. less than high school [11.2 percent]) (Figure 2.6 and Table 2.3).
(Prevalence of Employee Drug Testing) "The majority of human resource professionals surveyed in this brief study report that their organizations have a drug testing program; furthermore a majority of those respondents report some perceived benefits in reduced absenteeism and workers’ compensation claims, and increased worker productivity/performance. More than half of employers surveyed conduct drug tests on all job candidates, while only 29% do not conduct drug tests on any job candidates.
(Limited Use, Availability of Impairment Testing) "Collecting information about the performance of impairment testing proved extremely difficult because the field is so small. Only a handful of companies have ever marketed impairment testing systems and there is no list of their names. However, the Institute conducted an extensive networking program based on our contacts in the field that identified what we believe to be every company that has ever marketed impairment tests. There are only 10 such companies. Of these, only 6 manufactured systems for employers.