I read with interest your Dec.  15 article "U.S.  Issues New Rules on Drug-Test Accuracy." The accuracy of the tests is certainly in question, but so is the rationale behind the drug-testing.  Outside of DOT-mandated drug tests, private industry demands even tougher pre-employment drug testing for 75% of minimum-wage and blue-collar jobs, but for very few management or executive jobs.

The Journal of Analytical Toxicology July/August 1997 shows that eating many commercially available health foods can cause a positive test result.  Once you have tested positive for any reason, it is almost impossible to ever clear your good name.

I question whether it is necessary to test every burger-flipper and parking-lot attendant, while politicians are exempt from testing.  I wonder at the rationale for urging the testing of public schoolchildren when their teachers, coaches and other staff members aren't tested ( at least in Oregon ).  Except for DOT-mandated positions, few public employees at any level are drug-tested.

I am not opposed to drug-testing for police and certain positions such as those who operate airplanes, trains, buses and big trucks, but I can see no benefit from the testing of blue-collar workers, while their managers and executives aren't tested.  The poorest segments of our population are the most heavily tested, and that is discriminatory.

Jayson R.  Jones, Swisshome, Ore.