I agree test may be voluntary, but are they truly voluntary when you can refuse the test but consequences will follow? Sounds more like coercion than a request, and the word voluntary is misused. I have not personally taken any tests of this nature for employment, but I do not advocate legislation that encourages any corporation to violate our citizens Civil Rights by giving incentives to corporations who use this kind of testing. This sounds like legislation created to push a moral agenda that works around our fourth amendment rights, to "unreasonable" searches and seizures. I ask again, is it reasonable to take a test that does not prove someone is actually using a drug while at work? Should it be lawful for a corporation to have knowledge of what medication you are on when that information is privledged between a doctor and patient? Is this reasonable? We can trust our physicians, and lawyers, for they can lose their jobs for violation of this priviledge, but if a coworker finds out you are taking Valtrex and tells others in the office you have herpes, what happens to them and that person? The damage is done, and the stigmatism is there! Although this is purely hypothetical and I am aware that most drug tests do not check for use of this drug, they do check for OTC sudafedrine which one may have a cold and not get a job b/c an employer thinks they are a meth. user. The test must be valid to the application, and there are many instances where the tests are invalid. I remember two airline pilots losing their licenses for spiking their coffee with alcohol while flying a commercial airplane, recently. It was not a drug test, but their attitude that revealed their inappropriate use of a legal drug while on the job, when they alerted suspicion with the NTSB personnel at the baggage check. I insert this to show that there are many valid ways that people's behavior can be checked, and will be checked, when it may endanger others. And also, who knows how long they had actually been flying the airliner prior to this, in a possible impaired state, yet a drug test failed to prevent this? Let's also consider that many of us will consume alcohol on the job, at our company Christmas parties, or to toast a big contract or business negotiation. This brings me to the question as to why we have become so uptight about peoples' personal self regarding behaviors off and on the clock, and why we allow government to tell us what we can and cannot put in our bodies? And why is the government allowed to encourage a test that is invalid and is in violation of our fourth amendment right? If this is not of importance, then why did the founding fathers list it in the original ten amendments? I find the hipocracy of this issue and the moral condemnation the focus of these tests and a truly unfair way of routing out the best applicant for a position based on an invalid test. Sure you can tell your future employer you have migraines and that's why you tested positive for opiates. And yes, you can reveal to your employer that you had the flu and are not a meth. addict. The question is, will you be given that chance when someone is trying to select the best applicant over many who have applied, and here is a way to elimanate some extra work? Knowing human nature, I think probably not.