Controversy arises over what measures are used to achieve this goal. Advocates emphasize their concerns for workplace safety, increased productivity, protection of property from destruction or theft, and reduced potential liability of employers. Opponents assert that testing is unduly intrusive on the individual's privacy rights and that test results are inherently unreliable and may be misused. An individual's anatomy and bodily functions are endowed with constitutional protection, and any abridgement of that protection must be justified by a compelling Government interest. Neither public nor private interests are absolute. Thus, the interests of both parties must be judiciously weighed to determine the reasonableness of a particular Government intrusion on a constitutionally protected interest. When there is mandatory employee drug testing, any invasion of the individual's right to privacy that is not pursuant to a reasonable suspicion must be strictly limited to critical positions in which the employee's drug-impaired performance presents a substantial threat to the safety of coworkers or the public. Even random testing is warranted by such a compelling State interest, provided the testing procedure is narrowly circumscribed to ensure that utmost reliability and confidentiality. 210 footnotes.