Drug Testing Vs. Blood Analysis

According to Robinson and Jones (2000), “drug testing is a key component of drug court programs because it provides readily available and objective information to the judge, other justice system officials, treatment personnel, and caseworkers regarding a participant’s progress in treatment” (p. 1). Therefore, the drug testing process can encompass many different techniques and several different forms of testing, some considered more accurate than others. For instance, one would think that blood testing for illicit substances would be more accurate than urine testing. Although, completing a urinalysis is more cost effective than blood analysis; blood analysis is the most valid form of drug testing. However, the most common form of drug testing

15), however, greatly unsuccessful, due to the lack of follow through and inability to provide empirical data on drug use. It was not until the 1960’s when large-scale application of drug testing was initiated by the U.S. Department of Defense to assist in dealing with the military personnel returning from Vietnam. (Robinson & Jones, 2000). As a result, policies would begin to develop to determine cutoff levels, which would establish the level of drug concentration within human beings. Robinson and Jones (2000) indicated that by “the early 1980’s, the criminal justice system also began using drug testing, with a number of Federal, State, and local agencies becoming involved” (p. 1). Consequently, by 1986, President Reagan initiated a drug free workplace policy and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) began to federally regulate all drug testing, establishing a more consistent standard, categorizing the various drugs into groups and indicating the appropriate cutoff level to decrease false positives and increase the overall validity of the test. Regardless, of this consistency in cutoff levels, there is still an inconsistency in drug testing overall. What is considered positive in the criminal justice system may be considered negative in the workplace

Primarily due to the testing, providing qualitative results, and the possibility of the test user’s inexperience, the overall results are subjective. This subjectivity allows for the test user to dispute the results, providing more questions than answers. While immunoassay testing that is confirmed with other forms of laboratory test to include gas liquid chromatography or gas chromatography can not be disputed, since each of those tests provide empirical data that is