drug use over a much longer period of time, and is often used for highly safety-critical positions where there is zero tolerance of illegal drug use. standard hair follicle screen covers a period of 30 to 90 days. the growth of head hair is usually at the rate of 0.5 inches per month. the hair sample is cut close to the scalp and 80 to 120 strands of hair are needed for the test. in the absence of hair on the head, body hair can be used as an acceptable substitute. this includes facial hair, the underarms, arms, and legs or even pubic hair. because body hair grows at a different rate than head hair, the timeframe changes, with scientists estimating that drug use can be detected in body hair for up to 12 months. currently, most entities that use hair testing have prescribed consequences for individuals removing hair to avoid a hair drug test. the claim that a hair test cannot be tampered with has been shown to be debatable. one study has shown that thc does not readily deposit inside epithelial cells so it is possible for cosmetic and other forms of adulteration to reduce the amount of testable cannabinoids within a hair sample. legality, ethics and politics the results of federally mandating drug testing were similar to the effects of simply extending to the trucking industry the right to perform drug tests, and it has been argued that the latter approach would have been as effective at lower cost. psychologist tony buon has criticized the use of workplace drug testing on a number of grounds, including: flawed technology: the real world performance of testing is much lower than that claimed by its promoters. buon suggest that tests are probably adequate for rehabilitation and treatment situations, possibly adequate for pre-employment situations, but not for dismissing employees. ethical issues: because of the fairly simple ways that an employee can invalidate the test, drug testing must be strictly monitored. this means that the specimen must be observed leaving the body. many legal objections currently being raised in the courts about drug testing are pointing to legal requirements of prior notice, consent, due process, and cause. wrong focus: as has been shown with employee assistance programs, the focus of management concern should be on work performance decline. buon suggests effective management practices are an infinitely better approach to managing workplace alcohol and other drug issues. tony buon has also reported by the cipd as stating that "drug testing captures the stupid—experienced drug users know how to beat the tests". from a penological standpoint, one purpose of drug testing is to help classify the people taking the drug test within risk groups so that those who pose more of a danger to the public can be incapacitated through incarceration or other restrictions on liberty. thus, the drug testing serves a crime control purpose even if there is no expectation of rehabilitating the drug user through treatment, deterring drug use through sanctions, or sending a message that drug use is a deviant behavior that will not be tolerated. united kingdom a study in 2004 by the independent inquiry into drug testing at work found that attempts by employers to force employees to take drug tests could potentially be challenged as a violation of privacy under the human rights act 1998 and article 8 of the european convention of human rights. however, this does not apply to industries where drug testing is a matter of personal and public safety or security rather than productivity. united states in consultation with dr. carlton turner, president ronald reagan issued executive order 12564. in doing so, he instituted mandatory drug-testing for all safety-sensitive executive-level and civil-service federal employees. this was challenged in the courts by the national treasury employees union. in 1988, this challenge was considered by the us supreme court. a similar challenge resulted in the court extending the drug-free workplace concept to the private sector. these decisions were then incorporated into the white house drug control strategy directive issued by president george h.w. bush in 1989. all defendants serving on federal probation or federal supervised release are required to submit to at least three drug tests. failing a drug test can be construed as possession of a controlled substance, resulting in mandatory revocation and imprisonment. there have been inconsistent evaluation results as to whether continued pretrial drug testing has beneficial effects. testing positive can lead to bail not being granted, or if bail has already been granted, to bail revocation or other sanctions. arizona also adopted a law in 1987 authorizing mandatory drug testing of felony arrestees for the purpose of informing the pretrial release decision, and the district of columbia has had a similar law since the 1970s. it has been argued that one of the problems with such testing is that there is often not enough time between the arrest and the bail decision to confirm positive results using gc/ms technology. it has also been argued that such testing potentially implicates the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination, the right to due process (including the prohibition against gathering evidence in a manner that shocks the conscience or constitutes outrageous government conduct), and the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures contained in the fourth amendment. according to henriksson, the anti-drug appeals of the reagan administration "created an environment in which many employers felt compelled to implement drug testing programs because failure to do so might be perceived as condoning drug use. this fear was easily exploited by aggressive marketing and sales forces, who often overstated the value of testing and painted a bleak picture of the consequences of failing to use the drug testing product or service being offered." on march 10, 1986, the commission on organized crime asked all u.s. companies to test employees for drug use. by 1987, nearly 25% of the fortune 500 companies used drug tests. according to an uncontrolled self-report study done by datia and society for human resource management in 2012 (sample of 6,000 randomly selected human resource professionals), human resource professionals reported the following results after implementing a drug testing program: 19% of companies reported a subjective increase in employee productivity, 16% reported a decrease in employee turnover (8% reported an increase), and unspecified percentages reported decreases in absenteeism and improvement of workers' compensation incidence rates. according to us chamber of commerce 70% of all illicit drug users are employed. some industries have high rates of employee drug use such as construction (12.8%), repair (11.1%), and hospitality (7.9-16.3%). australia a person conducting a business or undertaking (pcbu—the new term that includes employers) has duties under the work health and safety (whs) legislation to ensure a worker affected by alcohol or other drugs does not place themselves or other persons at risk of injury while at work. workplace policies and prevention programs can help change the norms and culture around substance use. all organisations—large and small—can benefit from an agreed policy on alcohol and drug misuse that applies to all workers. such a policy should form part of an organisations overall health and safety management system. pcbus are encouraged to establish a policy and procedure, in consultation with workers, to constructively manage alcohol and other drug related hazards in their workplace. a comprehensive workplace alcohol and other drug policy should apply to everyone in the workplace and include prevention, education, counselling and rehabilitation arrangements. in addition, the roles and responsibilities of managers and supervisors should be clearly outlined. all australian workplace drug testing must comply with australian standard as/nzs4308:2008. in victoria, roadside saliva tests detect drugs that contain: thc (delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol), the active component in cannabis. methamphetamine, also known as "ice", "crystal" and "crank". mdma (methylenedioxymethamphetamine), which is known as ecstasy. in february 2016 a new south wales magistrate "acquitted a man who tested positive for cannabis". he had been arrested and charged after testing positive during a roadside drug test, despite not having smoked for nine days. he was relying on advice previously given to him by police. refusal in the united states federal criminal system, refusing to take a drug test triggers an automatic revocation of probation or supervised release. in victoria, australia the driver of the car has the option to refuse the drug test. refusing to undergo a drug test or refusing to undergo a secondary drug test after the first one, triggers an automatic suspension and disqualification for a period of two years and a fine of aud$1000. the second refusal triggers an automatic suspension and disqualification for a period of four years and an even larger fine. historical cases in 2000, an australian mining company south blackwater coal ltd with 400 employees, imposed drug-testing procedures, and the trade unions advised their members to refuse to take the tests, partly because a positive result does not necessarily indicate present impairment; the workers were stood-down by the company without pay for a week. in 2003, sixteen members of the chicago white sox considered refusing to take a drug test, in hopes of making steroid testing mandatory. in 2006, levy county, florida, volunteer librarians resigned en masse rather than take drug tests. in 2010, iranian super heavyweight class weightlifters refused to submit to a drug test authorized by the iran weightlifting league.