This article explains how the link between drug testing and drug treatment was forged, how it has been implemented in the workplace, and speculates on its organizational implications. Part I argues that widespread drug testing in the core institutions of American society would not have been politically possible without forging an explicit link to drug treatment. The authors identify the key variables which account for the link between testing and treatment, including public opinion, employer self interest, collective bargaining agreements, the precedent and influence of Employee Assistance Programs, and developments in the law of the workplace. Part I1 describes how the link between drug testing and drug treatment has been implemented in the workplace, including the emergence of new organizational units, roles, and inter-organizational relationships.Part I11 examines the organizational dilemmas created by the testingheatment linkage.Since the mid-1980s, drug testing by means of urinalysis has moved from the periphery of American society where it was used principally to monitor and control prisoners and participants in drug abuse programs to the center of American society where it is employed to identify and deter the use of psychoactive drugs by millions of working and middle class persons in the workplace and diverse other contexts. By 1988, nearly 20% of Americans were employed in firms with drug testing programs, and in large corporations drug testing had become the norm. Nearly 60% of firms with more than 5,000 employees had drug testing programs. Many of these only test job applicants. However, 61.7% test employees as well.' The federal government runs the largest workplace testing program, subjecting over a million workers in "sensitive positions"-1 7% of its work force-to random testing.In explaining why and how drug testing has become so prominent, it is important