• 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:
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.
Click to expand...
Some people use marijuana to "compensate for something lacking in their life" but others use marijuana because they like the taste. Dude, have you ever had some tastey sweetleaf? :poke

I don't believe anyone is drinking alcohol just because they like poisoning their liver.

If we became aware of someone having a problem with alcohol, we would check it out.
Click to expand...
Check it out how?
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.
Click to expand...
WTF kind of company do you work for, a bible printer in Ahmish country or something? Talk about tyranny...
 
Slippery Slope said:
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
Click to expand...

Perhaps. Unfortunately it's the sheeple themselves who invite all these invasions. We've become a nation in which many people have little better to do with their time than battle for 'safety' regulations... whether it's anti-drug, anti-drunk driving, anti-smoking, anti-cell-phone-in-the-car... anti this, anti that.

Blame the sheeple. They ask for all this crap.

:doh
 
TOJ said:
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...
Then why do you support them?

Marijuana used to be legal, alcohol used to be illegal... legal or illegal is nothing more than a government category for a period of time. The WHY is the issue you should be most concerned with.
 
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.

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.

..
Click to expand...

Great, now you've made your point on semantics and since you admittedly have nothing of value to add to the subject... :bolt
 
Slippery Slope said:
Great, now you've made your point on semantics and since you admittedly have nothing of value to add to the subject... :bolt
Click to expand...

Part of the fun about participation in public message boards is that we can choose which threads to participate in. And we can choose what our role in each thread will be. I would say my point about semantics has been equally as valuable, if not more so, as your point about my point about semantics. In fact... my point about semantics eventually led to a link to the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, an act that probably has more to do with the point of this thread than much of the emotionally charged, hastily crafted, and pointless posts I've seen here so far.

;)
 
Grateful Heart said:
Part of the fun about participation in public message boards is that we can choose which threads to participate in. And we can choose what our role in each thread will be. I would say my point about semantics has been equally as valuable, if not more so, as your point about my point about semantics. In fact... my point about semantics eventually led to a link to the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, an act that probably has more to do with the point of this thread than much of the emotionally charged, hastily crafted, and pointless posts I've seen here so far.

;)
Click to expand...

I was just funnin ya for being an dictionary nazi. :mrgreen: someone in another thread said "for all intensive purposes" and I soooooooo wanted to say, it's "for all intents and purposes"... :shock:
 
Last edited:
Slippery Slope said:
I was just funnin ya for being an dictionary nazi. :mrgreen: someone in another thread said "for all intensive purposes" and I soooooooo wanted to say, it's "for all intents and purposes"... :shock:
Click to expand...

That's like biting one's tongue when posters confuse the words 'then' and 'than,' or 'who,' 'whom,' and 'that.'

I get that.

I would say that understanding the difference between a double-standard, a hypocritical act, a discriminatory act, an inconsistent act, or an arbitrary act are a little more important to note. But that's just me.

;)
 
Slippery Slope said:
Then why do you support them?

....
Click to expand...
How am I supporting the drug laws. The US lost the so called drug war years ago. They should call in the dogs, piss on the fire, and go home. (the piss on the fire part should probably be done by one of the men folk)

I don't care if people use street drugs or any other drugs for that matter and I have no problem with people being stupid. I just don't want to work with them or have them representing our company.

.
 
Jerry, I must say I am astounded by how much I agree with you. Kudos.

Furthermore, I don't understand why drug testing is necessary if employees are functional members of your workforce. If they start to slack off, then they don't get fired for drug use, but for slacking. If they start acting weird towards other employees on the job, then they get fired for that, and not being high.

I come from a country where routine drug testing does not exist in the corporate community. I agree that this policy would create an atmosphere of authoritarian distrust.
 
Jerry, I must say I am astounded by how much I agree with you. Kudos.

Furthermore, I don't understand why drug testing is necessary if employees are functional members of your workforce. If they start to slack off, then they don't get fired for drug use, but for slacking. If they start acting weird towards other employees on the job, then they get fired for that, and not being high.

I come from a country where routine drug testing does not exist in the corporate community. I agree that this policy would create an atmosphere of authoritarian distrust. What people do at home is none of my business or anyone else's. If they're performing their jobs and not disrupting the work environment, then I don't care what they do.
 
Grateful Heart said:
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

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.

..
Click to expand...

But drug testing doesn't test for a drug free work environment. It tests for drug free personnel. I have no problem with workplaces being drug free. I do have a problem with workplaces monitoring what I do when I'm NOT at work. I can do lines of coke at home and still not break their "drug-free workplace" rule. However, I can't drink coffee at work and maintain their "drug-free workplace" rule. ;)

Nowhere is drug-FREE. They're only free of specific drugs.

And actually, I highly doubt that even. I was only tested upon being hired at one place, never tested again. All I had to do was be "clean" for a couple weeks. After that it was smooth sailing. :mrgreen:
 
TOJ said:
How am I supporting the drug laws. The US lost the so called drug war years ago. They should call in the dogs, piss on the fire, and go home. (the piss on the fire part should probably be done by one of the men folk)
Click to expand...

I suppose you could say that the U.S. lost the so-called 'War on Poverty' years ago as well. The 'War on Drugs' was an unfortunate term coined by the Nixon administration, probably as a direct result of President Johnson's 'War on Poverty.'

Drug abuse is a problem, and must be dealt with one way or the other. The answer isn't simply to throw up our hands and walk away... but to come up with an overall strategy that makes sense from all standpoints.

..
 
Grateful Heart said:
I suppose you could say that the U.S. lost the so-called 'War on Poverty' years ago as well. The 'War on Drugs' was an unfortunate term coined by the Nixon administration, probably as a direct result of President Johnson's 'War on Poverty.'
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, we're really good at declaring war on things, very bad at actually carrying through on it. What we've had is a PR campaign on drugs. We talk about it, we don't actually do anything to stop it.

Drug abuse is a problem, and must be dealt with one way or the other. The answer isn't simply to throw up our hands and walk away... but to come up with an overall strategy that makes sense from all standpoints.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If we're going to make a commitment to be against illegal drugs, we need to take steps to eliminate illegal drugs. At the moment, we're not doing a whole lot. If we're going to have a war, we need to be at war. Otherwise, let's not pretend that we're going to do anything, just so politicians have another political patch on their sleeve.
 
We need a war on drugs, not a war on drug users.
 
TOJ said:
How am I supporting the drug laws. The US lost the so called drug war years ago. They should call in the dogs, piss on the fire, and go home. (the piss on the fire part should probably be done by one of the men folk)

I don't care if people use street drugs or any other drugs for that matter and I have no problem with people being stupid. I just don't want to work with them or have them representing our company.

.
Click to expand...
through apathy.
 
Slippery Slope said:
through apathy.
Click to expand...

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language said:
ap·a·thy (āp'ə-thē)
n.
1. Lack of interest or concern, especially regarding matters of general importance or appeal; indifference.
2. Lack of emotion or feeling; impassiveness.
Click to expand...
Mind explaining how thinking the drug laws are counterproductive is being apathetic.

.
 
Here is an interesting story my friend related to me last night. It goes something like this:

He goes to a neurosurgeon because he's got numbness in his right hand. They do an MRI and determine that he has nerve impingement from a car accident. They schedule surgery. He goes to the hospital for a pre-op examination. This examination was actually him sitting in a room with a nurse (an office with the door closed and just the two of them) and she asks questions about his medical history, he gives answers and she inputs them into a form on a computer.

He's a long haired rock musician.

When the interview is over she has him sign an admittance form and then slides a form to him and says sign here for a drug urinalysis.

He is a civil libertarian and asks if everyone has to take a drug test before surgery? She say only people who admit to drug use. so he asks why he needs a urinalysis then. The nurse says, because he admitted to drug use. Confused, he asks when he did that. She says, he said he quite everything in 2003. He says, he told her that he quite smoking cigs in 2003 and she says what about pot or cocaine and he tells her he doesn't use pot or cocaine nor alcohol. He tells her that he wants that question changed to reflect what he actually said. She does and he doesn't have to sign the form. They leave the room and he goes for a blood test and goes home. the next day the anesthesiologist who says he needs to take a drug test. Apparently the nurse went back after they left the room and changed the answer back to say that he used pot and cocaine but stopped in 2003.

He is infuriated and refuses to take the test. The anesthesiologist says he won't perform his job unless he takes one and the surgery is called off. Now his is fighting with the hospital to have them correct the questionaire and remove the info the nurse wrote. The hospital says they won't remove it but they will add a note saying that he disputes the info and that there is no evidence other than the nurses word so it should be considered an error. Now anyone who looks at his medical record (insurance company) will see this on his record.

His wife said just take the test. He says he will not be forced to give up his right to privacy. I think he made an analogy to, if the nurse says he's a pregnant woman should he be forced to take a pregnancy test? Just because the nurse said it?

What do you think?
 
Slippery Slope said:
Here is an interesting story my friend related to me last night. It goes something like this:

He goes to a neurosurgeon because he's got numbness in his right hand. They do an MRI and determine that he has nerve impingement from a car accident. They schedule surgery. He goes to the hospital for a pre-op examination. This examination was actually him sitting in a room with a nurse (an office with the door closed and just the two of them) and she asks questions about his medical history, he gives answers and she inputs them into a form on a computer.

He's a long haired rock musician.

When the interview is over she has him sign an admittance form and then slides a form to him and says sign here for a drug urinalysis.

He is a civil libertarian and asks if everyone has to take a drug test before surgery? She say only people who admit to drug use. so he asks why he needs a urinalysis then. The nurse says, because he admitted to drug use. Confused, he asks when he did that. She says, he said he quite everything in 2003. He says, he told her that he quite smoking cigs in 2003 and she says what about pot or cocaine and he tells her he doesn't use pot or cocaine nor alcohol. He tells her that he wants that question changed to reflect what he actually said. She does and he doesn't have to sign the form. They leave the room and he goes for a blood test and goes home. the next day the anesthesiologist who says he needs to take a drug test. Apparently the nurse went back after they left the room and changed the answer back to say that he used pot and cocaine but stopped in 2003.

He is infuriated and refuses to take the test. The anesthesiologist says he won't perform his job unless he takes one and the surgery is called off. Now his is fighting with the hospital to have them correct the questionaire and remove the info the nurse wrote. The hospital says they won't remove it but they will add a note saying that he disputes the info and that there is no evidence other than the nurses word so it should be considered an error. Now anyone who looks at his medical record (insurance company) will see this on his record.

His wife said just take the test. He says he will not be forced to give up his right to privacy. I think he made an analogy to, if the nurse says he's a pregnant woman should he be forced to take a pregnancy test? Just because the nurse said it?

What do you think?
Click to expand...
Pretty simple. Find another doctor/hospital and this time during the pre-op interview, if there is a dispute, demand to see a supervisor. Just make sure your answers are the complete truth. Knowledge of street drug usage can be critical in the choice of anesthesia technique and selection of agents and drugs.

People, even nurses and doctors, usually form their opinion of you based on appearance and attitude on first meeting. That opinion usuallly affects how they interpret your words. If you look and act like a street drug user, well ...

An anesthesiologist that put you to sleep without requiring adequate testing would be in deep doo-doo if it goes wrong.

.
 
Last edited:
TOJ said:
Pretty simple. Find another doctor/hospital and this time during the pre-op interview, if there is a dispute, demand to see a supervisor. Just make sure your answers are the complete truth. Knowledge of street drug usage can be critical in the choice of anesthesia technique and selection of agents and drugs.

People, even nurses and doctors, usually form their opinion of you based on appearance and attitude on first meeting. That opinion usuallly affects how they interpret your words. If you look and act like a street drug user, well ...

An anesthesiologist that put you to sleep without requiring adequate testing would be in deep doo-doo if it goes wrong.

.
Click to expand...
Did you miss this part "and asks if everyone has to take a drug test before surgery? She say only people who admit to drug use."

Also, where we live there is only one hospital that performs the surgery and only one anesthesiology company. He has already looked into it. Not to mention that since this is in his record now, his insurance rates will probably go up and anyone requesting his medical reacord (another hospital) will most likely want a drug screen due to the error in his record.
 
Last edited:
Slippery Slope said:
Did you miss this part "and asks if everyone has to take a drug test before surgery? She say only people who admit to drug use."
Click to expand...
Nope didn't miss that. What does that have to do with anything. She formed the opinion, for whatever reason, that he might be a drug user and knew there are very serious risks involved if the surgical team is not aware of it. I'm not saying it was fair but in case one has told you, life's not fair.


Also, where we live there is only one hospital that performs the surgery and only one anesthesiology company. He has already looked into it. Not to mention that since this is in his record now, his insurance rates will probably go up and anyone requesting his medical reacord (another hospital) will most likely want a drug screen due to the error in his record.
Click to expand...
Move. Problem solved. Wasn't that easy. ;)

.
 
Slippery Slope said:
His wife said just take the test. He says he will not be forced to give up his right to privacy. I think he made an analogy to, if the nurse says he's a pregnant woman should he be forced to take a pregnancy test? Just because the nurse said it?

What do you think?
Click to expand...


I think the chances of his being pregnant are small enough that he doesn't need a pregnancy test before his hysterectomy.

But the chances of him taking drugs are slightly higher and if there are medical reasons he needs to be screened before being anesthetized, then he needs to take the test if he wants the surgery.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Did you miss this part "and asks if everyone has to take a drug test before surgery? She say only people who admit to drug use."

Also, where we live there is only one hospital that performs the surgery and only one anesthesiology company. He has already looked into it. Not to mention that since this is in his record now, his insurance rates will probably go up and anyone requesting his medical reacord (another hospital) will most likely want a drug screen due to the error in his record.
Click to expand...

This is the part where you sue the hospital and probably the insurance company for everything you can get.
 
TOJ said:
Nope didn't miss that. What does that have to do with anything. She formed the opinion, for whatever reason, that he might be a drug user and knew there are very serious risks involved if the surgical team is not aware of it. I'm not saying it was fair but in case one has told you, life's not fair.
Click to expand...
So you don't see an inherent problem with that? If you admit to past drug use then you must take the test whether or not you are a current user, while a drug user who doesn't say anything can go right to surgery. This begs the question of how the hospital justifies the danger? Not to mention that he didn't admit to drug use, the nurse simply decided that he's probably a drug user which by any standard is profiling and discriminatory. So how dangerous is it for a drug user to have surgery without informing the hospital? Obviously not serious enough to warrant a mandatory test for all surgical patients.

Move. Problem solved. Wasn't that easy. ;)
Click to expand...
That's pretty ridiculous.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I think the chances of his being pregnant are small enough that he doesn't need a pregnancy test before his hysterectomy.

But the chances of him taking drugs are slightly higher and if there are medical reasons he needs to be screened before being anesthetized, then he needs to take the test if he wants the surgery.
Click to expand...
But the nurse said it so it must be true. I'm afraid his word to the contrary just won't suffice. And if the nurse said he has spinal meningitis he should be required to have a spinal tap to make sure? Because a nurse said so? Ever here any stories of whacked out women who make untrue claims? How about nurses?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom