• 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
TOJ said:
If by buzz you mean intoxication, I've never gotten a buzz from drinking a glass of water. ;)
Click to expand...
I get buzz from aspirin. But I do drink water because I like the way it makes me feel. I drink pepsi for the same reason. And koolaid. And wine.

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

.
Click to expand...
Well you have every right to think that, even if it's flat out wrong. :mrgreen:

They are no more "stupid" and have no more of a "problem" than anyone else who uses legal drugs.
 
When I worked for PeteLien&Sons as a forklift operator, we were allowed to come to our shift or back from lunch with a little booze on our breath. As long as we were never impaired (legally drunk) we were good to go.

We weren't allowed to drink on shift, but I soon learned that was because of the chemical hazard and distraction of actually taking a swig while you had a load in the air than consuming alcohol while operation equipment.

Now smoking was another issue.

Sure no one was allowed to smoke on the grounds (there were no "designated smoking arias" either) due to flammable chemicals, but they flat-out would not higher anyone who admitted to smoking within the last 10 years. If they found out you lied or if you took up smoking, even if only at home, you were fired on-the-spot.

The reason being heath care costs. The company did not want to have to pay it's contribution of a smoker's health care policy.

As for pre-employment drug screening: OSHA requires potential employees of certain professions to undergo a full physical. In my case, my job required me to use a respirator as well as various tools and equipment which could cause chronic injury, so I got the physical and the blood work that came with it, including a drug screening.

PeteLein&Sons never did random testing while I was there, though, precisely because random testing creates distrust. I admire their safety incentive programs and their swift action when an occasional accident did occur.

I learned from them that it's more important to have a corporate culture where everyone supports everyone else being safe then to threaten an anvil dropping on anyone who violate the letter of the policy.
 
Last edited:
TOJ said:
Mind explaining how it is hypocritical?
Click to expand...
I already explained the hypocricy in this post, which was a response to you.

Rivrrat also shares my views and gave her own explanation of the hypocricy in this post, which was also a response to you.

Did you just miss those posts?

UtahBill said:
NO, alcohol has no lasting odor, it is the other ingredients that you smell the next day, and those ingredients are not intoxicating...
Click to expand...
Oh, I guess I've never smelled or noticed what you're describing. But my point still stands. If a company is concerned about testing for marijuana but not equally concerned about testing for alcohol and traffic violations, that is hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
Binary_Digit said:
Did you just miss those posts?
Click to expand...

I know this was addressed to another poster but I'll comment just the same. I don't see how you've explained 'hypocrisy' in any of this.

The definition of 'hypocrisy' is, basically, preaching one thing while doing another. It would be hypocritical, for example, if a company said they allowed no drug use but then did, in fact, hire known drug users.

To target one illegal activity but not others is not hypocritical. It's discriminatory. Two very different things.

You may or may not believe that companies should discriminate between drug use or speeding tickets. But doing so does not make them hypocrites.

..
 
Binary_Digit said:
I already explained the hypocricy in this post, which was a response to you.

Rivrrat also shares my views and gave her own explanation of the hypocricy in this post, which was also a response to you.

Did you just miss those posts?


Oh, I guess I've never smelled or noticed what you're describing. But my point still stands. If a company is concerned about testing for marijuana but not equally concerned about testing for alcohol and traffic violations, that is hypocritical.
Click to expand...
What is your definitation of hypocritical?
 
Binary_Digit said:
I already explained the hypocricy in this post, which was a response to you.

Rivrrat also shares my views and gave her own explanation of the hypocricy in this post, which was also a response to you.

Did you just miss those posts?


Oh, I guess I've never smelled or noticed what you're describing. But my point still stands. If a company is concerned about testing for marijuana but not equally concerned about testing for alcohol and traffic violations, that is hypocritical.
Click to expand...
What is your definition of hypocritical?
 
Last edited:
rivrrat said:
I get buzz from aspirin. But I do drink water because I like the way it makes me feel. I drink pepsi for the same reason. And koolaid. And wine.


Well you have every right to think that, even if it's flat out wrong. :mrgreen:

They are no more "stupid" and have no more of a "problem" than anyone else who uses legal drugs.
Click to expand...
You have your opinion and I have mine. Mine is right though. :mrgreen:
 
"Hypocrisy

1: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion"

hypocrisy - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

Smoking marijuana is illegal.
Speeding on the road is illegal.

If you test for marijuana on the sole basis that it's illegal, but you don't test for speeding tickets on the same basis, that is hypocritical. If you test for marijuana on the sole basis of safety or cognitive fitness, but you don't test for alcohol on the same basis, that is hypocritical. Quite simply, if you selectively apply an arbitrary standard to marijuana that you don't also consistently apply to similar* activities, that is hypocritical. And yes, it's discriminatory too.

*If you can show why (for the purposes of common employment) marijuana and speeding aren't similar, or that marijuana and alcohol aren't similar, then you could disprove my assertion of hypocrisy. But I don't see any logical reason why they should be treated any differently.

TOJ said:
Too much MJ, ya 'spose? :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Ad-hominem ignored. :2wave:
 
TOJ said:
You have your opinion and I have mine. Mine is right though. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

So, is your reasoning for thinking they are 'stupid' and have a 'problem' based solely on the fact that said actions (using illegal drugs) are illegal? If so, can you resolve the inconsistency of said thinking when pretty much all of us engage in illegal activities at some point in time, and many of us on a regular basis?
 
Binary_Digit said:
If you test for marijuana on the sole basis that it's illegal, but you don't test for speeding tickets on the same basis, that is hypocritical. If you test for marijuana on the sole basis of safety or cognitive fitness, but you don't test for alcohol on the same basis, that is hypocritical. Quite simply, if you selectively apply an arbitrary standard to marijuana that you don't also consistently apply to similar* activities, that is hypocritical. And yes, it's discriminatory too.
Click to expand...

I won't try to argue with you whether it's fair or unfair that some drugs are tested for and others are not. That's not the issue for me. Frankly, I don't care.

I'm strictly pointing out that your characterization of this as 'hypocrisy' is incorrect.

Your argument is that companies are hypocritical by not applying the same standard to alcohol that they apply to marijuana. That simply isn't a case of hypocrisy. One is legal. The other is not. And even if that distinction didn't exist... the charge of hypocrisy wouldn't fly. If a company instituted a drug testing program for illegal opiates, but not illegal hallucinogens, and stated that as their policy... that would not be hypocritical.

..
 
Grateful Heart said:
I won't try to argue with you whether it's fair or unfair that some drugs are tested for and others are not. That's not the issue for me. Frankly, I don't care.

I'm strictly pointing out that your characterization of this as 'hypocrisy' is incorrect.
Click to expand...
Ok, thanks for the clarification.

Grateful Heart said:
Your argument is that companies are hypocritical by not applying the same standard to alcohol that they apply to marijuana. That simply isn't a case of hypocrisy. One is legal. The other is not.
Click to expand...
I said it's hypocritical if they test for MJ for safety reasons (not legality) while not also testing for alcohol out of safety reasons. It would not be hypocritical to test for MJ for legal reasons and then not test alcohol (because you're right, those are not comparable when the reasons are legal). Just to clarify what I mean -

Hypocritical:

Testing for marijuana out of safety reasons, but not testing for alcohol.
Testing for marijuana out of legal reasons, but not checking for parking tickets.

Not hypocritical:

Testing for marijuana out of safety reasons, but not checking for parking tickets.
Testing for marijuana out of legal reasons, but not testing for alcohol.

Grateful Heart said:
And even if that distinction didn't exist... the charge of hypocrisy wouldn't fly. If a company instituted a drug testing program for illegal opiates, but not illegal hallucinogens, and stated that as their policy... that would not be hypocritical...
Click to expand...
I don't understand why not. That sounds like a perfect example of hypocrisy to me. Testing for X because (and only because) it's illegal, but not testing for Y even though it's illegal, seems like a perfect example of hypocrisy to me. Because not testing for Y is essentially acting in contradiction to the beliefs established by testing for X. Unless there's some outside factor that's specific to a particular job, of course.

Maybe hypocrisy is the wrong term, and "double-standard" is more appropriate? Even though I think they are close cousins of each other in the end.

What would be a better example of hypocrisy then?
 
Last edited:
Binary_Digit said:
Maybe hypocrisy is the wrong term, and "double-standard" is more appropriate? Even though I think they are close cousins of each other in the end.
Click to expand...

Double-Standard doesn't really fit either. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard"]Definition of Double Standard[/ame]

In the case of drug testing... it would be a double-standard if they tested all employees for drugs, with the exception of executives. One standard for one group. A different standard for another group. That's a double standard.

Binary_Digit said:
What would be a better example of hypocrisy then?
Click to expand...

A better example of hypocrisy would be a company that stated 'We have zero tolerance for cocaine usage and will fire any employee who tests positive for cocaine,' which then knowingly hires cocaine addicts. That would be hypocrisy.

..
 
rivrrat said:
So, is your reasoning for thinking they are 'stupid' and have a 'problem' based solely on the fact that said actions (using illegal drugs) are illegal? If so, can you resolve the inconsistency of said thinking when pretty much all of us engage in illegal activities at some point in time, and many of us on a regular basis?
Click to expand...
If they need the buzz as you put it, they have a problem. If they don't need the buzz, they are stupid for doing something illegal and potientially harmful to their career and arguably, in the case of hard drugs, to their health.

We don't want the potiential problems and, in our case, have no reason to take the risk.

.
 
TOJ said:
If they need the buzz as you put it, they have a problem. If they don't need the buzz, they are stupid for doing something illegal and potientially harmful to their career and arguably, in the case of hard drugs, to their health.

We don't want the potiential problems and, in our case, have no reason to take the risk.

.
Click to expand...
Soo... if someone derives pleasure from doing something, they have a problem? They enjoy the feeling something gives them, it gives them a buzz (much like aspirin gives me, or like paddling a kayak off a waterfall gives me), and feeling good is somehow a "problem"?
 
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...
Not unless the govt is doing it.
 
Grateful Heart said:
Double-Standard doesn't really fit either. Definition of Double Standard

In the case of drug testing... it would be a double-standard if they tested all employees for drugs, with the exception of executives. One standard for one group. A different standard for another group. That's a double standard.
Click to expand...
You're right, double-standard is not the right term. Thanks for the correction!

Grateful Heart said:
A better example of hypocrisy would be a company that stated 'We have zero tolerance for cocaine usage and will fire any employee who tests positive for cocaine,' which then knowingly hires cocaine addicts. That would be hypocrisy.
Click to expand...
What if the company says, "We drug test because we don't want employees who break the law (marijuana users)" and then they turn around and knowingly hire people who break the law (speeders, parking violators)? Isn't that the same kind of scenario? Why not?
 
An employer has the right to fire you for lots of reasons that seem to make no sense. If they feel that you are a liability, then they should.
A coworker got fired for DWI, and had his license suspended for a fairly short time period, and TRIED to keep that a secret, but failed. Since his job required him to drive a service truck, they fired him. They COULD have temporarily had him do other work, in the shop, but since he was already causing some other grief in the work group, it was a good opportunity for the company to just send him down the road.
Fact is, if you do anything to expose your employer to a lawsuit, your job is at risk, and rightfully so.
 
Employers have the right to be inconsistent and hypocritical, I'm not saying they shouldn't.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is no dictate. The employee is informed prior to his being hired that he will be drug tested. In other words, it's voluntary.

I personally don't believe drug testing is conductive to running an efficient business. It makes no difference to me whether someone is lazy and unmotivated because they're stoned all the time or lazy and unmotivated because that's just the way they are.

The only time drug testing makes sense is when the person is directly involved in a job which may present a safety hazard if he's inebriated. Even then, it still makes little sense because it's perfectly possible for someone to get high at home and be sober at work, just like alcohol.

I do, however, support firing people who get stoned at/before work. (Unless I'm running an art studio for instance, in which case it might actually be beneficial) :)
 
Last edited:
Binary_Digit said:
What if the company says, "We drug test because we don't want employees who break the law (marijuana users)" and then they turn around and knowingly hire people who break the law (speeders, parking violators)? Isn't that the same kind of scenario? Why not?
Click to expand...

I think you're misrepresenting why companies drug test. We have 'drug-free' schools. 'Drug-free' workplaces. There's even a federal act:

Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988

Federal statute relating to drug abuse policies that requires all employers with federal contracts at least equal to $25,000 to certify, as a condition of receiving a federal contract, that the employer will provide and maintain a drug-free workplace.
Click to expand...
Drug Free Workplace

There's quite a bit of pressure on employers to maintain drug-free environments. There is little or no pressure to monitor employees for parking tickets or speeding violations.

..
 
TOJ said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...
Actually, in the 90's in CA. I worked for as small company that got bought by a big company (Corporate Express) and they handed us the form to accept and sign for drug testing. I said no. They said ok, we'll grandfather you in... See how simple THAT was. :cool:

When several of my coworkers heard they asked to have their form thrown out and to be grandfathered in... this time THEY were the ones told no. :rofl
 
Grateful Heart said:
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.

;)
Click to expand...

And if people in this country had any self respect they'd tell these employers to **** off and the practice of being an asshole employer would likely come to a halt. But we're a country of sheeple and if the gubment say it be bad it must be... :doh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom