No, I don't think it is. What happens is that we now have the idea that we're going to subject people to highly invasive, privacy-intrusive drug tests on the basis of an assumption, first, that there's some level of at least certainty that the person might have drugs in their system; and second, that if we find the drugs in their system, that provides evidence of impairment. Those are two faulty assumptions. That's simply not the case.
With respect to the idea that we should not allow, for instance, someone to take the stand and say, “I only had one beer”, that has been referred to as getting people off on a technicality. I don't think the right of an accused person to testify under oath that they're not guilty is a technicality. In fact, that's the cornerstone of our judicial system.