The threshold question in any discussion of drug testing is whether the United States has a drug problem of such magnitude that drug testing is required to control it. Proponents of drug testing maintain that drug abuse is a serious social and economic problem and also cite the social costs of drug use. On the other hand, critics of drug testing claim that the problem of drug abuse is exaggerated and that individual constitutional rights are violated by drug testing programs. The constitutionality of drug testing raises fourth amendment issues, particularly interpretation of the search and seizure provision. The Federal Government entered into drug testing on a comprehensive scale as a result of President Reagan's 1986 Executive Order. Corporations have joined Federal and State governments in the war on drugs, encouraged in part by the Federal Drug Free Workplace Act which requires recipients of government contracts and grants to establish policies for a drug-free workplace. Compulsory drug testing activates the individual's privacy rights under the fourth amendment, and a major constitutional issue is whether the urinalysis test constitutes a search under the fourth amendment. Individual judicial decisions over the past decade involving challenges to government drug testing can be classified in three groupings: (1) urinalysis testing is a constitutional search and seizure where there is probable cause or where a reasonable basis exists for individual suspicion; (2) random urinalysis testing is a constitutional search and seizure even without probable cause or individual suspicion; and (3) random urinalysis is an unreasonable search and seizure in the absence of individualized suspicion. Overall, evidence indicates that courts, legislative bodies, and administrative agencies are still in the process of assessing the implications of drug testing. The best solution lies in balancing legitimate public interest claims against constitutional concerns for individual privacy. 32 references and 4 notes