My first question is, should people be drug tested?

What about random testing?

What about testing for injury on the job?

I feel people should not be randomly drug tested. If they use drugs and are injured on the job, you'll find out then and they won't have a claim. If they aren't doing their job well due to drugs, they need to be fired anyway drug issue aside. If they are using drugs and do their job well, what's the problem?

Drug testing in schools?

I don't agree with this at all. I can't think of any reason why this would be neccesary.

Your thoughts?

There are certain jobs that require clear thinking in order to perform them adequately. Police officers, pilots, drivers, and many other professions, where the operator in question has more to consider than his own personal high. At some times, there are other lives on the line, and I don't know about you, but I wouldn't feel secure having my life in the hands of a heroine addict. Want to board an airliner piloted by a crack-head? Somehow I doubt it. Drug test a truck driver after he crashes through a house and kills a family of five? Do you think that might be a little too late?

Also to be considered... If you're running a business, let's say a retail store, would you want to have somebody who just "shot-up" dealing with your clients? I'm guessing not.

As far as kids in school, if a teacher suspects that a child is doing drugs, they should do something about it. Catching a problem early can prevent it from spinning out of control.

There is no "right" in this country to use illegal drugs. There is, however, an obligation to protect the people of this country from unnecessary harm. Don't think your drug should be illegal? Fight it in court or in the political arena. But drug testing, like it or not, must stay.

Here comes the libertarian side of me...

We have this funny little thing called the 4th amendment. As far as I know it still says

Does that or does that not extend to my urine, hair, skin and breath (and whatever else big brother can use these days)? I'm not giving up any of it without a court order (and lengthy appeal if necessary) or by gunpoint.

I have a lot of other issues with what you've said, Stefan, but I need to leave it there for now

While I agree that there are jobs that have to be performed by people who are not impaired, there is no constitutional "right" to be protected from your own stupidity.

It could be a political battleground between jobs that do and those that do not require drug testing. But no on testing students.

Jaime- If someone was going to work for me, a condition of that employment is that he/she doesn't use drugs. That is my right as an employer. (And as you know, I'm NOT a big proponent of employers' rights.) If he/she doesn't care for my policy, they're perfectly free to find another job where the employer doesn't care if they're "baked", and continue using forever. In my case, I'm statistically likely to sustain damages in the form of frequent mistakes, and possible accidents causing injury or death to themselves or others if I hire them, so why wouldn't I take measures to prevent that? And again I would pose the question... Would you want to board a plane being flown by a crack-head?

Your argument does, however, apply to testing in schools or other government drug testing that does not relate directly to employment needs, and I'll concede on that point.

That's a ridiculous question. Who would answer yes to that?

Your argument to protect your business sounds all nice, but I am getting REALLY sick of this "preemptive everything" attitude that has been on the rise in this country.

Iraq might have WMD, let's attack them first.

Terrorists might come in our country, let's revoke the rights of all Americans and enact the Patriot Act.

High school girls might get pregnant, let's give them condoms.

OK. Sorry. I'm ranting. That won't get us anywhere.

It's just that the amendments are NOT to be taken lightly. They REALLY mean something.

What kind of "warrant" or "probable cause" can one have for drug testing without prior suspicion of drug use?

I do agree that it is the employers right to know if their employees are on drugs. But if a person gets high over the weekend, how does that affect their work on Monday? Or does it? And just because pot shows up in a urine test on Monday does not mean that the person is "high." There has to be a line drawn here. The employer has every right to make sure a person is not under the influence at work, but the current system sure seems to me like invasion of privacy. Granted the drugs tested for are illegal. The place I work does random drug tests, and they way I see it is, "Do I like getting high more than I like my job?" No I don't, so I make a decision.

I know.
I do understand where you're coming from with your argument, and as I said, I concede that no government, federal, state, or local should be drug testing without a probable cause, except in cases when they're going to employ someone.
On the other hand, that same right that protects you from the government doing it, just doesn't apply to an employer who requires that their workers be drug free. A perspective employer, public or private, has the right to do this to ensure safety, and protect from other losses which I mentioned in my last post. Is it invasive for perspective employers to do this? I would have to say no, because everyone is perfectly free to decline to take the test, and apply somewhere else.

I also agree with you that the pre-emptiveness of our society is getting out of control, except for one thing... I see no problem with making condoms available to teens to aid in prevention of unwanted pregnancy... But that sounds like it should be a different thread.

Another angle is this,



What about people whose jobs require them to be on call during the night or weekends?

On call is not the same as off the clock. If someone is off the clock it is none of their employer's business if they smoke a little pot on their own time.

I had to have a drug test 3 months ago when I started this new job. I had no problem with it. I think though Stefan, if you interviewed someone who was strung out on cocaine, herion etc. Just by looking at that person you would know he/she was stoned without having to have a drug test. Just my thought.

I agree with SF in regards to drug testing and companies. If an employee doesn't like the policies of an employer, let him find another company whose policies he likes. The Constitution has nothing to do with how companies are to be operated.

I disagree. The Constitution protects citizens. Period. It very well does extend to companies or the equal protection clause would not be cited so often in support of Affirmative Action (I could come up with a number of other examples, but I don't want to stray too far out here).

No company has the right to seize any part of my person without warrant or probable cause.

So I will ask everyone again: What kind of "warrant" or "probable cause" can one have for drug testing without prior suspicion of drug use?

From my take, the Constitution protects citizens from the government, not non-governmental companies.

Strange Jaime hearing this from you, I thought libertarians want less government intervention. What right does the government have on how to tell businesses how they should run?

Employees are not being mistreated in any way with a companies drug testing. They should have received all the terms of employment upon the hiring process. If an employee doesn't like the policy, he is not forced to join the company.

I have no option but to agree with Jaime's postings throughout this thread. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution has everything to do with how a company may treat its employees. And that Amendment is clear and unequivocal. To answer Otseng's question, for example:
The government has every right to protect its citizens from violations of their security without probable cause. And the government has every right to tell businesses that they may not violate that security - and, indeed, to take action against such companies if they do violate those rights. Were it not for all the hype surrounding the phony War on Drugs, such testing would never have been allowed in this country. Certainly our Founders are turning cartwheels in their graves at the very thought.
Yes, they most certainly are. They are being subjected to illegal search and seizure - without warrant, without probable cause, without support by oath or affirmation. Drug testing is unquestionably unconstitutional.

When I first moved to Florida, I applied for a job with a computer graphics company and was told that their employees underwent mandatory drug-testing. I told them that I would not undergo any such tests without a warrant. The guy interviewing me (one of the owners) waved his hand and said, "That's okay - the drug tests aren't for people like you anyway." When I asked what he meant, he lowered his voice and informed me that I was white. I think that speaks volumes about drug tests in this country - I guess they just sorta help balance out affirmative action, huh?

The guy called and offered me part-time work a few days later, btw, and I told him I couldn't possibly do graphics work without being stoned - but said I could recommend a couple of black designers I knew who had never touched drugs in their lives. He hung up.

**Jaime stands and applauds**

Good for you, Wertz!

For most of my short-lived professional career, I have worked for attorneys. Most of them tend to be pretty apt on the law.

I have never once been asked to take a drug test...but of course, why should they? They know what the Fourth Amendment means. Additionally, They have no prior suspicion of drug use. I am a stellar employee. If I wanted to go home shoot-up, snort up or inhale it's NONE of their business as long as I remain the stellar employee they hired.