• 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
Since when does the Bill of Rights apply to corporations? It spells out limitations on the government's authority, not anyone else's.
Since corporations have been given "personhood".

And as much as I consider the practice reprehensible, it isn't the law that needs to step in here. People need to grow some goddamn balls and start telling the corporations that what they do on their own time is their own business.
I totally agree. Regardless of whether you do drugs or not.
 
Well then they may get fired.

If it is for the safety of the work place for that person to not be intoxicated then so be it.

I work for a factory and as part of the conditions of employment, I have to submit to a drug test to get hired.

The particular place that I work at manufacturers items made of rolled mild steel.

Have you ever seen what a sheet of steel can do when it is being unrolled at high speeds? even just handling it can cause you to loose a finger or worse.

Intoxicated people working at my company cause a lot of the accidents.



I can ask for a drug screening before anyone can come into my house but that serves no purpose really.

It has to do with liability and employee safety.
Why not let the free market work itself out? If you lose your fingers on the job because you were intoxicated, eventually only people who do not work intoxicated will be left... :rofl
 
I don't want intoxicated people around my kids. It's a safety issue. My house. If you refuse, you don't come in.
Try it out on a cop if one ever wants to enter your house! :shock:

Sorry officer, you'll have to submit to a drug screen before you can enter, after all, you have a gun and I have children.
 
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...
Do you apply those standards to alcohol, tobacco, paxil, xanax, ambien, diabetes medication... all drugs or just the ones you happen to find offensive?
 
Do you offer to submit to a drug test upon your applicant’s request?
Nope, but then I'm not asking them to hire me. ;)

I do submit to drug testing though, as do all employees who wish to continue working for us.
 
Nope, but then I'm not asking them to hire me. ;)

You are asking to buy their service; you are receiving fair value for your money so you are not in a superior position. Since employment is an agreement among equals, why don't you offer them the same grantee that you request? How do they know you don't abuse drugs before they agree to offer you their service?

I do submit to drug testing though, as do all employees who wish to continue working for us.

Well again, random tests are not a proven way to detect or detour drug abuse. You are fostering a culture of mistrust of and against everyone.
 
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.
It makes a difference in that it is illegal. If they are willingly breaking drug laws to compensate for something that is lacking in their life, what else are they willing to do.

As far as not being able to get the best talent, that has not been a problem. We regularly raid our competition for their best people. In our niche, we are considered by far the best place to work. ;)
 
You are asking to buy their service; you are receiving fair value for your money so you are not in a superior position. Since employment is an agreement among equals, why don't you offer them the same grantee that you request? How do they know you don't abuse drugs before they agree to offer you their service?
Really? I've never run across a prospective employee that I though we had to have at all costs. There are a lot of applicants for any position we have open.



Well again, random tests are not a proven way to detect or detour drug abuse. You are fostering a culture of mistrust of and against everyone.
Oh well. Works for us. No one is forced to do anything. They signed a contract that spelled out our terms and if they don't like those terms they are free to go on down the road.


.
 
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.
No problem. Just fire them. If they were marginal anyway, your done with them. If you want them back offer them their job back if they sign the agreement. See how simple that was. ;)
 
It makes a difference in that it is illegal. If they are willingly breaking drug laws to compensate for something that is lacking in their life, what else are they willing to do.
You're right, a basic respect for the law is an important quality to look for in an employee. But seriously, do you check their historical records for parking tickets too? They're on the same level as far as I'm concerned, as it pertains to the person's suitability at any job position. Why shouldn't they be treated the same? Why should smoking a joint constitute enough disrespect for the law that you don't hire them, but if they got a speeding ticket you wouldn't even blink? I would think speeding should be considered the bigger crime - it shows that they're willing to disregard the safety of others for their own purposes. So why single out smoking marijuana?

As far as not being able to get the best talent, that has not been a problem. We regularly raid our competition for their best people. In our niche, we are considered by far the best place to work. ;)
That's good to hear. I didn't mean you're putting the company at a huge disadvantage or anything, just that you shouldn't be misled by the myth that anyone who smokes marijuana isn't capable of being a valuable employee. Your hiring practices are your own, of course, but I think in the end it just amounts to little more than a warm and fuzzy feeling.
 
It makes a difference in that it is illegal. If they are willingly breaking drug laws to compensate for something that is lacking in their life, what else are they willing to do.
What about people who drink alcohol to "compensate for something lacking in their life"? But alcohol is legal, you say? Well then, why did you add the whole "compensate for something lacking in their life" bull****?

Either you feel the way you do because some drugs are illegal - and that is the only thing that matters, or you feel the way you do about ALL drugs - including alcohol, prescription meds, OTC meds, or even coffee.

Anywho... just about everyone breaks the law, even if it's speeding or performing a rolling stop at a slow intersection. Or having sex in positions that are illegal in the county or state they live in. Or possessing sex toys that are illegal in the county or state they live in. Or playing poker with their buds using actual money. Or betting on a football game.

I mean, if you're willing to break the law by playing poker with your buds to compensate for what is lacking in your life, then.. *gasp*... what ELSE are you willing to do?
 
What about people who drink alcohol to "compensate for something lacking in their life"? But alcohol is legal, you say? Well then, why did you add the whole "compensate for something lacking in their life" bull****?

Either you feel the way you do because some drugs are illegal - and that is the only thing that matters, or you feel the way you do about ALL drugs - including alcohol, prescription meds, OTC meds, or even coffee.

Anywho... just about everyone breaks the law, even if it's speeding or performing a rolling stop at a slow intersection. Or having sex in positions that are illegal in the county or state they live in. Or possessing sex toys that are illegal in the county or state they live in. Or playing poker with their buds using actual money. Or betting on a football game.

I mean, if you're willing to break the law by playing poker with your buds to compensate for what is lacking in your life, then.. *gasp*... what ELSE are you willing to do?
Good examples. Surfing online pr0n in the wrong state, and, until recently, getting a tattoo in Oklahoma are a couple of others.

If the law is to be respected, then the law should be respectable. In a way I think it's a civic duty to disobey fascist laws that should be repealed, in the spirit of the Moonshiners and the Boston Tea Party.
 
Last edited:
I mean, if you're willing to break the law by playing poker with your buds to compensate for what is lacking in your life, then.. *gasp*... what ELSE are you willing to do?

Part their hair down the middle :eek:

Oh well. Works for us. No one is forced to do anything. They signed a contract that spelled out our terms and if they don't like those terms they are free to go on down the road.

a8addbd02ba186c22966fbc3e1d073eb.jpg
 
Whatever we may feel is 'right' or 'wrong' about the issue, the fact of the matter is that employers do have, and probably should have, wide and broad authority when it comes to who they can hire and fire and why.

There are a handful of 'protected classes' covered by Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) laws at federal and state levels... race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, among others.

Beyond that, an employer can fire you for just about whatever reason they like. Don't like your attitude? You're gone. Don't like the clothes you wear? Out the door. Don't like the car you drive? See ya later! Don't like smokers, vegetarians, or gamblers? Goodbye!

None of these are 'protected' under law.

;)
 
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?
In most cases, no.
The 4th amendment protects you from actions by the government, not private employers.
 
Whatever we may feel is 'right' or 'wrong' about the issue, the fact of the matter is that employers do have, and probably should have, wide and broad authority when it comes to who they can hire and fire and why.

There are a handful of 'protected classes' covered by Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) laws at federal and state levels... race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, among others.

Beyond that, an employer can fire you for just about whatever reason they like. Don't like your attitude? You're gone. Don't like the clothes you wear? Out the door. Don't like the car you drive? See ya later! Don't like smokers, vegetarians, or gamblers? Goodbye!

None of these are 'protected' under law.

;)
It's not illegal, but it is hypocritical.
 
Part their hair down the middle :eek:



a8addbd02ba186c22966fbc3e1d073eb.jpg
Is that an old picture? I imagined you probably looked something like that but thought you were much older.

.
 
What about people who drink alcohol to "compensate for something lacking in their life"? But alcohol is legal, you say? Well then, why did you add the whole "compensate for something lacking in their life" bull****?
...
Some people use alcohol to "compensate for something lacking in their life" but others drink alcohol because they like the taste. I don't believe anyone is smoking MJ just because they like sucking smoke into their lungs.

If we became aware of someone having a problem with alcohol, we would check it out. Our people socialize with customers and, if they were getting drunk in those situations, we would absolutely fire them.

BTW, we also do not employ smokers.

.
 
Some people use alcohol to "compensate for something lacking in their life" but others drink alcohol because they like the taste. I don't believe anyone is smoking MJ just because they like sucking smoke into their lungs.
Everyone drinks, smokes, snorts, eats, etc because they like the way it makes them feel. They like the way it tastes (that's a sensation... that qualifies as liking the way it makes them feel). They like the fact it relaxes them. They like the buzz. They like that it wakes them up. Whatever their reasons are for drinking coffee, or alcohol, or snorting lines, or eating good food, or smoking joints, or popping pills, or taking allergy medicine... they all boil down to they like the way it makes them feel. There's really no other reason.

As such, I don't get why you separate out certain people who like the way it makes them feel 'this' from others who like the way it makes them feel 'that'. Drinking alcohol is drinking alcohol, smoking pot is smoking pot, drinking coffee is drinking coffee, taking pain meds is taking pain meds. Reasons for doing it are quite irrelevant.

If we became aware of someone having a problem with alcohol, we would check it out. Our people socialize with customers and, if they were getting drunk in those situations, we would absolutely fire them.
As you should. And you should do the same with other drugs too.

BTW, we also do not employ smokers.
As is your prerogative. I wouldn't give a **** if you said you only hire white people with red hair. That would be your prerogative, as far as I'm concerned. But don't pretend it's because you really think one group is somehow smarter than the other. At least be honest about your reasons for discrimination and that they're based on stereotypes and ignorance.
 
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.


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.


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.

NO, alcohol has no lasting odor, it is the other ingredients that you smell the next day, and those ingredients are not intoxicating...
The only way to tell by smell, is when they barf in your car....:2razz:
 
Everyone drinks, smokes, snorts, eats, etc because they like the way it makes them feel. They like the way it tastes (that's a sensation... that qualifies as liking the way it makes them feel). They like the fact it relaxes them. They like the buzz. They like that it wakes them up. Whatever their reasons are for drinking coffee, or alcohol, or snorting lines, or eating good food, or smoking joints, or popping pills, or taking allergy medicine... they all boil down to they like the way it makes them feel. There's really no other reason.
If by buzz you mean intoxication, I've never gotten a buzz from drinking a glass of water. ;)

As such, I don't get why you separate out certain people who like the way it makes them feel 'this' from others who like the way it makes them feel 'that'. Drinking alcohol is drinking alcohol, smoking pot is smoking pot, drinking coffee is drinking coffee, taking pain meds is taking pain meds. Reasons for doing it are quite irrelevant.


As you should. And you should do the same with other drugs too.


As is your prerogative. I wouldn't give a **** if you said you only hire white people with red hair. That would be your prerogative, as far as I'm concerned. But don't pretend it's because you really think one group is somehow smarter than the other. At least be honest about your reasons for discrimination and that they're based on stereotypes and ignorance.
I think the drug laws are stupid. I also think those who use street drugs are either stupid or have a problem.

.
 
Do you apply those standards to alcohol, tobacco, paxil, xanax, ambien, diabetes medication... all drugs or just the ones you happen to find offensive?

I made my point as clear as I could, if you are getting something ELSE out of it, get your head clear and re-read my posts...:shock:
 
If by buzz you mean intoxication, I've never gotten a buzz from drinking a glass of water. ;)

I think the drug laws are stupid. I also think those who use street drugs are either stupid or have a problem.

.

Life is hard enough without handicapping yourself by using drugs that make you unemployable.
 
Back
Top Bottom