About this blog

Drug testing is an ineffective, unreliable, and inexcusably invasive form of security theater forced on the American people based on deliberately skewed data, public ignorance, and moral panic, and it continues operating on those frauds to this day, mostly because those of us who are aware of the facts must live in fear of being targeted as addicts. This blog is intended to raise public awareness of the real facts about drug testing that the testing companies don't want you to know, and to provide some tools to the public by which they can raise awareness while maintaining anonymity. I will also be accepting guest posts, if anyone has a story about drug testing injustices they would like to get out anonymously, or if anyone just has something to say against drug testing in general.

Monday, August 26, 2013

What the movie "Compliance" tells us about drug testing

Have you seen this “Compliance” movie yet? It’s based on a true story about some creep who would call up various low-wage workplaces, mostly fast-food, pretending to be a cop and got managers (and in this case, the manager’s fiancé) to strip-search female employees, starting off with a claim that a customer was accusing said employee of theft (that she reached into the customer’s purse on the counter and stole money out of it) then claiming that in reality they were “under investigation” regarding “drug crimes”, and that they were simply too busy at that particular employee’s apartment searching for drugs to come and take her into custody and search her themselves. It’s an interesting insight into the mentality of the common person to bend to the commands of authority, almost a live-in-the-wild confirmation of the findings of the Milgram experiment.

I’ve heard people express surprise that anyone could fall for such a ruse or that this could even be real. What surprises me, though, is that this should surprise anyone at all. This is a major flaw in human psychology, as evidenced by Milgram, but it’s also an inevitable result of our failed Drug War and in particular an inevitable result of drug testing culture.

Now be honest, we begin our employment relationship with an employer insult to our integrity and an outright statement of distrust—a direct accusation, in fact an a priori conviction, of criminal activity, of committing a drug crime. Apropos of nothing, with zero cause to suspect you of such behavior, they assume before the fact that you are a drug user and they convict you without evidence or a trial. The employer then insists that you must exonerate yourself of these a priori criminal convictions before they will hire you—not that it will afford you an ounce of trust or respect, of course. And the biggest insult is that to exonerate ourselves, they demand we submit to a highly unreliable and incredibly privacy-invading search and seizure of highly intimate bodily fluids and trust them—devoid of any legal recourse on our part and devoid of any government oversight or regulation of the testing company-- effectively expecting us to afford them a gargantuan amount of trust in response to their overt declaration of distrust toward us. Even as they distrust and disrespect us and tell us so to our faces by asking for a drug test without suspicion, they expect us to trust them to not use our specimen for anything other than the stated purpose and not to, say, screen us for protected conditions like diabetes, pregnancy, or heart problems they don't want on their insurance. And remember, they expect us to trust them absolutely to behave properly even as they receive zero oversight from the law, have zero accountability for their actions regarding drug testing, and can do as they please.

What I'm saying is that drug testing culture has created an automatic master/slave relationship between employer and employee. The employer begins the relationship by demanding a drug test without cause—essentially telling the potential hire that the company is worthy of utmost trust and respect and that the employee is worthy only of distrust, disrespect, and abject contempt, and is little more than a criminal by default until they “prove” themselves innocent of any crime.

This becomes even worse when the company in question commits random drug testing on their employees, because that takes the initial pre-employment drug testing insult and extends it to the entire duration of employment. In that case, you are now perpetually a criminal in the eyes of your employer, deserving of neither trust nor respect, and you must submit your intimate sample to them and trust them with that sample infinitely more than they trust you. And moreover, you will NEVER, as long as you work there, be able to exonerate yourself on any level. No matter how many times you submissively urinate for them, you will always continue to be a convicted criminal subject to invasive search and seizure, you will always be untrustworthy and beneath your company's contempt while your company demands constant godlike trust and infinite surveillance over your body and life as the sole method to ensure that you are being “good”. You will never be exonerated, you will never be worth of trust or respect, you will always be a filthy criminal in the eyes of your employer as long as you work there. It's no wonder that random drug testing causes lower productivity rates. Even people who support drug testing or don't think about it one way or another know subconsciously that these things are true, and it's hard to want to work very hard for an employer who holds you in open contempt and believes your flesh is company property and not your own.

Which brings us to “Compliance” again. Finding a non-drug testing company in Ohio (where the film was set and the original incident occurred) has become like finding a needle in a haystack, and even if you're just saying “do you want fries with that” you're expected to piss on command for the “honor”. Even in companies that don't drug test, the pro-drug testing mentality and culture (and the witch-hunt mentality that goes hand-in-hand with it), there is always knowledge that your employer has that idea that you are probably a drug user, that your employer is being bombarded with drug testing industry propaganda without any challenging points of view to show what a load it is, that your employer is being told the lie that not drug testing means that their entire workforce is made entirely of drug users by definition, that your employer is looking at you cockeyed every day suspecting you of criminal activity because of that propaganda, that adversarial relationship with your employer and the fact that at any moment your company might give in to the evil and jump on the privacy-invading wagon.

So, given those facts, given the high likelihood that this girl was forced by that manager to piss in a cup before being hired, why is it surprising that that manager or any manager would force that employee to strip when ordered to do so by a voice on the phone claiming to have authority over them? And why is it surprising that that employee submitted to that treatment, after having already submitted to a practice that creates an undeniable subconscious understanding that even what you have between your legs is not your own but is corporate property to be searched at the corporation's whim? Few people even know their rights anymore, either regarding the government or their employer. Far from being surprising, the was actually the inevitable result of the mentality of drug testing that has gripped this benighted country throughout the drug war.

Don't believe me? Well, notice that when the manager begins to doubt and ask some questions, what does the police impersonator say? Well, he tells her the “real” reason he's having her strip-search her employee isn't just some random claim of theft from an unidentified customer, it's because she's involved in DRUGS. And at that point, you see the manager's face harden and she no longer has any questions, any doubt, or any mercy or sympathy for her now-naked subordinate. This treatment no longer seems out-of-line or unreasonable—because before she hired this girl, without a single hint that this girl could be involved in drugs, she likely forced this girl to pull down her pants and provide her with an intimate sample from the inside of her body to “prove” she wasn't, so it sounds reasonable to her unreasoning drug-testing culture brain that, having a confirmed conviction by the word of an unverified police officer on the phone, that she should be asked to strip-search this “drug user”. The moment he brought up “we're investigating her for drugs”, she was his pawn and this girl became the clear enemy, deserving of neither dignity nor respect, and as for rights...well, it was well-established in both manager's and employee's minds upon the pre-employment drug test that the employee has no rights, especially where drugs are concerned.

Now think about that. Really consider that.


That should make your blood run cold. If it doesn't, you are too far gone to see how far gone this country is, and you are part of the problem.

No comments:

Post a Comment