In contrast to the right of privacy argument, this paper examines the claim that because corporations are responsible for harm committed by employees while under the influence of drugs, they are entitled to test for drug use. This argument, referred to as the "ought implies can" argument, has considerable intuitive appeal because it seems to bypass the issue of privacy rights by focusing on the nature and conditions of responsibility rather than on rights. Despite its initial appeal, however, the argument does not succeed in circumventing claims of privacy rights. Even responsibility for the actions of others does not entitle employers to control their behavior. Employers must still look to rights, among other things, to determine what type of control is morally permissible. In addition, the "ought implies can" argument rests on unjustified assumptions about the connection between drug testing and the prevention of drug- related harm. 29 notes