• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Drug Testing

Is drug testing a violation of the 4th Amendment?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 10.3%

  • No

    Votes: 32 82.1%

  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 3 7.7%
  • Total voters
    39
Zyphlin said:
Problem is this Riv.

At the moment doing illegal drugs is well, illegal. From what I understand ranging from misdemeanor to felony. In general, simply injesting alcohol is not that. A business has an interest in having employee's who are not actively our routinely violating laws that could potentially cause them to become incarcerated by the very nature of the act. While Alcohol can LEAD to such issues, alcohol itself is not grounds for such to happen.

While I do think the logic is a bit flimsy as its not as if we test for other reasons people are violating the law, it is still understandable that it would matter to a business.
Click to expand...
Well, I object to my place of employment monitoring whether or not I do anything illegal while not working. They going to monitor my driving too, to make sure I don't speed? Or what position I have sex in? (depending on the stupid state laws)

Don't get me wrong, I have signed agreements to consent to drug testing. I have been drug tested a few times. I used to use them frequently. I was just careful about it, given my positions as a government contractor. Hell, I even admitted to using on my clearance forms. (got the clearance anyway, btw ;) ) I don't object to the RIGHT of an employer to drug test. I firmly believe in the employer's right to hire/fire whomever they want for whatever reason they want.

That does not mean, however, that I didn't feel it was a violation of my privacy. I just opted to go along with it, temporarily, for my own benefit. LOL Mainly what I object to, like I said, is the fact that it doesn't assess your state of intoxication while at work. What it DOES assess is whether or not you've broken a drug law on your own time. And, quite frankly, I don't think that's any of their damn business.

Also, what Realm? ; )
Click to expand...
Greymane
 
Has drug testing actually lowered the amount of on job **** ups? I seriously do not know, so i am asking it to all who might be more involved in actuary science.

My take on it is this: So long as you have drug testing for employment, there will be a strong market for firms who produce products or services that will guarantee the customer is drug screen proof. I have many union friends who carry a cup of piss in their trucks in case they get injured on the job, and want to be covered by insurance. Although nobody i know has been injured due to being drunk or high on the job, i know of people who have been involved accidents that were freak occurrences, and were forced to pay out of pocket the medical costs, so to avoid being flagged for testing dirty on the job.

Basically they got hurt (broken hand) and had to leave work, and claim it happened at home or what not.

So until it is proven that having a completely drug free work force (even on personal time) reduces the instances of human error based accidents, ill have to say drug tests are a complete waste of time. Especially for teachers and white collar jobs.

I myself would not operate heavy machinery, or work from great heights when high on cannabis, although i would be the first to spark up (not anymore:mrgreen:) after the day is done.
 
I'd say the 4th Amendment clearly doesn't apply here, but I also agree with rivrrat in that its really none of my company's business what I do in my free time. I've been tested before because a) I knew I'd pass and b) the job in question was far more important to me than the principle of my privacy, but I do find them to be invasive and senseless.

If I'm intoxicated on the job, that would be grounds for immediate termination. I have no problem with this. Being intoxicated on the job will clearly affect job performance and depending on your job could be a safety risk to both you and your co-workers. But if I like to light up a doobie on the weekend, I don't see how that affects my job performance. And if it doesn't affect my job performance, its really none of my employer's business.
 
Orius said:
They could be fired though from their job for not submitting to a drug test. What then?
Click to expand...

Then they find another job? Being drug-free is a requirement for employment at a great many jobs. As most states are "at will" employers, they can let you go for anything which does not violate federal anti-discrimination standards. Using illegal drugs is not on that list.
 
Orius said:
Is mandatory drug testing as part of entrance to a job, or random drug testing while on the job, a violation of the 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure?

Explain your answer.
Click to expand...





The 4th amendment restricts government, not private industry.
 
Orius said:
Is mandatory drug testing as part of entrance to a job, or random drug testing while on the job, a violation of the 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure?

Explain your answer.
Click to expand...

You failed to cite the Fourth Amendment for reference.

IMO...depends.

Depends on what drugs, what job, what's done with the test results if taken, and too many other circumstances to make a simple answer possible.

Absolutely not a violation if the job involves operating machinery of any kind, from airplanes to trains to an old Bridgeport mill to a pickaxe. At the minimum the employer is going to be liable for Joe Dopehead ripping his hand off on the mill while high or drunk, let alone the train engineer smoking a joint just before the train derails on the bridge because he missed a signal (that he could have missed when straight).

Is the dweeb some low-life clerk in a dead end shoe sales job in a mall? Could be. Then again, the employer isn't a government agency, and the strictures of the Constitution don't apply to his business activities. He's certainly free to run his business as he sees fit. It's his business. The government probably wouldn't be able to use such test results to prosecute the dweeb, though.
 
UtahBill said:
Drug users should not be allowed in ANY position of safety or security. They cannot be depended on to provide either. If I am paying people to work for me, I want them working, not thinking about getting their next fix....even if their using is on their own time...
Click to expand...

What about if the guy routinely gets drunk out of skull in his off hours but his on the job performance is satisfactory?
 
All I can say is that I am glad I don't work for anybody else. :rofl

I run my own company and I do as I damn well please. If I wanna go fishin' on a Tuesday, I do. If I wanna have a fatty at the bonfire next weekend, I will. I tell ya one thing, working for myself, I have the coolest boss in the world. :mrgreen:
 
Orius said:
Is mandatory drug testing as part of entrance to a job, or random drug testing while on the job, a violation of the 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure?

Explain your answer.
Click to expand...

No as it is stated in the hiring contract whether drug testing is done or not. The employee has the right to walk away if they find those terms unacceptable.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Businesses owned by thousands of people…
Click to expand...
I will repeat: the 4th Amendment concerns government.
It’s a “chain” to bind government.
UtahBill said:
What private businesses do you speak of?
Click to expand...
How does your post concern the 4th Amendment?
 
peepnklown said:
I will repeat: the 4th Amendment concerns government.
It’s a “chain” to bind government.
Click to expand...

I don't care about the 4th Amendment. I care about non-accountable authority figures having the power to dictate what private citizens do in their own private homes on their own private time.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
I care about non-accountable authority figures having the power to dictate what private citizens do in their own private homes on their own private time.
Click to expand...
I agree.
I was talking about the 4th Amendment in my above post thus, wondering how your post concerned the 4th Amendment (so I guess I didn’t).
 
I agree the 4th has nothing to do with this, but I think it's hypocritical for a company to test for MJ out of "safety" reasons, but not test for alcohol.
 
Binary_Digit said:
I agree the 4th has nothing to do with this, but I think it's hypocritical for a company to test for MJ out of "safety" reasons, but not test for alcohol.
Click to expand...

They do, and it is simple. If you smell like you have been drinking, you get to go get tested. A coworker had a few beers at night, and still smelled a bit the next morning. She was told by a member of security that they could smell alcohol. Thing is, you can't. The smell is from other ingredients, and that smell persists long after the effect of the alchohol is gone. The smell comes out your pores as well as breath.
I could tell one of my coworkers, in the morning, whether he had beer or wine with his evening meal. Different smells......it was easy to a teetotaler like me....
If you drink at night, shower in the morning, use cologne or perfume, and use mouthwash...
Don't drink the mouthwash, some of it is 40 proof....:2razz:
 
Orius said:
Is mandatory drug testing as part of entrance to a job, or random drug testing while on the job, a violation of the 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure?

Explain your answer.
Click to expand...

It's not a violation because you agree to it in order to receive something from a private entity which you are not entitled to under the law.

Having said that, even though drug testing is not a civil rights issue, I still think pre-employment drug screening should be don away with. Pre-employment drug screening has not proven itself to be an effective way to detect or detour drug abuse. Also, pre-employment drug screening frames the nature of the professional relationship between employer and employee as one of distrust.

Drug testing in schools has not proven itself to be an effective deterrent, either.

I fully support drug testing in the event of an industrial accident, because at that time there is reason to suspect drug abuse, however random and pre-employment drug tests are ineffective if not harmful to various relationships.

[ame=http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=study+finds+that+drug+testing&aq=f&oq=]study finds that drug testing - Google Search[/ame]
 
Orius said:
Is mandatory drug testing as part of entrance to a job, or random drug testing while on the job, a violation of the 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure?
Click to expand...
The 4th Amendment applies only to government searches. Moreover, contract law undeniably grants to the employer to include such testing as a precondition of employment, making the employee's acceptance of employment an acceptance of such testing as part of the contract. Per the contract, consent to the testing is necessarily assumed. Thus not only is there no violation of the fourth amendment, there also is no violation of any putative right of privacy.
 
Binary_Digit said:
I agree the 4th has nothing to do with this, but I think it's hypocritical for a company to test for MJ out of "safety" reasons, but not test for alcohol.
Click to expand...
MJ is an illegal substance, alcohol is not. Moreover, random alcohol testing poses a challenge, as alcohol can show up as a result of medical conditions such as diabetes, as well as from taking certain over-the-counter (i.e., legal) medications, even if one does not consume any form of spirits.
 
UtahBill said:
They do, and it is simple. If you smell like you have been drinking, you get to go get tested. A coworker had a few beers at night, and still smelled a bit the next morning. She was told by a member of security that they could smell alcohol. Thing is, you can't. The smell is from other ingredients, and that smell persists long after the effect of the alchohol is gone. The smell comes out your pores as well as breath.
I could tell one of my coworkers, in the morning, whether he had beer or wine with his evening meal. Different smells......it was easy to a teetotaler like me....
If you drink at night, shower in the morning, use cologne or perfume, and use mouthwash...
Don't drink the mouthwash, some of it is 40 proof....:2razz:
Click to expand...
LOL thanks for the mouthwash tip!

I would think if you smell like alcohol the next day, then you're probably still under the influence to some extent and pose a hazard on the job. On the other hand, marijuana can be detected up to 30 days after consumption, long after any intoxicating effects have worn off. My point is, the detection of marijuana is not evidence that the person was actually under any dehabilitating effects of marijuana at the time of the test. It's not evidence that they were smoking on the job or came to work high. So if a company is going to piss test me on a Thursday and fire me for a joint that I smoked on the previous Saturday, believing that they are thwarting some sort of hazard or liability, then there's no reason why they shouldn't be equally concerned about employees who drank alcohol over the weekend too. And if they're not, it's hypocritical.

celticlord said:
MJ is an illegal substance, alcohol is not.
Click to expand...
1. Technically drugs are not illegal, they are illicit. (Illegal to have without a licence, which is never issued.)

2. If a company wants to verify their employees' integrity and respect for stupid laws, that's fine, but it's not the employer's responsibility to enforce laws.

3. This argument is circular logic because the only reason why companies drug test in the first place is because they're illicit.

celticlord said:
Moreover, random alcohol testing poses a challenge, as alcohol can show up as a result of medical conditions such as diabetes, as well as from taking certain over-the-counter (i.e., legal) medications, even if one does not consume any form of spirits.
Click to expand...
And marijuana can show up 30 days after consumption, which I would consider almost as much a false positive as your examples because it says nothing about the state or capacity of the person while actually on the job.
 
We don't use drug testing to tell us whether an employee is on drugs while working. We use drug testing as an indicator of intelligence. If someone is stupid enough to use street drugs, we don't want them working for us. ;)
 
TOJ said:
We don't use drug testing to tell us whether an employee is on drugs while working. We use drug testing as an indicator of intelligence. If someone is stupid enough to use street drugs, we don't want them working for us. ;)
Click to expand...

Do you offer to submit to a drug test upon your applicant’s request?
 
TOJ said:
We don't use drug testing to tell us whether an employee is on drugs while working. We use drug testing as an indicator of intelligence. If someone is stupid enough to use street drugs, we don't want them working for us. ;)
Click to expand...
If that's your business model and it works for you, then that's great. But I have to say I think it's a very closed-minded and stereotypical approach to screening applicants. Some of the most capable and ambitious professionals I've worked with turned out to be occasional marijuana smokers who keep it a closely guarded secret because of the social taboos. If you're willing to occasionally trade good talent for arbitrary labels then that's your company's choice, but I would wager that you're actually screening for people who don't know how to pass a urinalysis, and that right now you have MJ smokers working for you who are doing a great job.

If a company actually believes that smoking MJ is any indication of intelligence, then maybe that's not the best place to work for anyway. I can see blatant problems in that reasoning that would make me concerned about the judgment of thier leadership.
 
Orius said:
Is mandatory drug testing as part of entrance to a job, or random drug testing while on the job, a violation of the 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure?

Explain your answer.
Click to expand...
I voted "other".

If your employer tells you before you are hired that a drug test is required and that you may be randomly tested then it is not a violation, IMHO.

If your employer decides to start a testing program while you are already employed and requires you to submit or face termination then I would say it is a violation.

I would also say that they must test for Alcohol and prescription drugs as well though, otherwise it is discriminatory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom