Random drug testing on employees is an integral thing we do in our agency.  Once you are notified that you have been selected, you are immediately taken to the testing facility.  Doesn't take long and the immediacy certainly lessens the change of countermeasures.  I have no problem with taking random drug tests for any "safety sensitive" position.  It does have a scientific basis.  Now, should an employee come back hot on the initial test, there is no adverse action at this point.  This test is then subjected to something called a Mass Spec test, which I'm told is extremely accurate. By the way, I just told you everything I know about "mass spec"  Do we ever have anyone who slips through the cracks?  I suppose.  Those that have been caught on this test were (admittedly subjective here) people I had my suspicions about anyway.  My only complaint is that I have been selected 4 times in a year.  prior to that, one time in  just about forever.  Oh well, ain't randomicity great. If I were the king of the world, I would do away with polygraph pre-employment screening. I would assuredly keep drug testing.

dimas wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2005 at 6:39pm:

That would explain the increasing numbers of bald cops I am seeing. 

Mr. Hall is correct in his statement.  It varies from agency to agency, however just as Mr. Hall pointed out, why would it matter unless you have something to hide?


As it is agencies who are having problems with substance abuse in their ranks are using varying methods of testing.  NYPD is now using hair analysis due to the fact that urinalysis is actually quite easy to beat and many drugs have clearance times of a few days in urine.


Ultimately, this depends on the department you apply for and what their protocols are for this.

Contact the agency in question.  Unless you're a recent chemotherapy patient the type of testing should be immaterial, unless you are attempting to hide something...