• 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 Test

Should we have a drug test from every job in America?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 8.7%
  • No

    Votes: 29 63.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 13 28.3%

  • Total voters
    46
  • Poll closed .
I voted no. Because then we would have to scrap liberal arts degrees, as there would not be any professors that were employable. :2razz:
 
All drugs and all other "victimless crimes" should be legalized, and all employers should be allowed to decide for themselves what their hiring and employee oversight practices should be.
 
You have the right to be offended and go look for a job somewhere else. ;)

If an employer thinks it is in their best interest to have being drug free a condition of employment, they should have every right to do so.

.

I didn't argue otherwise, but thanks for playing. :2wave:
 
Exactly, just as it's perfectly valid to ask if an employee is doing drugs.

No, it's stupid to do so unless the job has safety/liability issues that might come into play if employees were doing drugs, or unless they had a reason to believe that a specific employee was doing drugs.

Making people take a drug test as a condition for employment as, say, a waitress or a Wal-Mart greeter is retarded.
 
Making people take a drug test as a condition for employment as, say, a waitress or a Wal-Mart greeter is retarded.

And it probably wouldn't be worth the expense, so the company probably wouldn't do it. However, if the company wanted to, then why shouldn't they be able to?
 
And it probably wouldn't be worth the expense, so the company probably wouldn't do it. However, if the company wanted to, then why shouldn't they be able to?

Because it is an invasion of privacy.
 
As long as the drug test excluded pot. I'm not an advocate of pot, but it's the drug that stays in your system the longest, yet it's the most benign. Meanwhile, if you have a legal prescription for all the crap that hurried doctors hand out like candy, you're okay.

But only for jobs that have the public safety in the hands of the worker.
 
As long as the drug test excluded pot. I'm not an advocate of pot, but it's the drug that stays in your system the longest, yet it's the most benign. Meanwhile, if you have a legal prescription for all the crap that hurried doctors hand out like candy, you're okay.

But only for jobs that have the public safety in the hands of the worker.

I had to research how long pot stays in your system that the average piss test could detect. And it turned out for the occasinal user the limt was 2 or 3 days for the daily usetr it was weeks.
 
Last edited:
That's different. Corporations have shareholders that support the company. They want to know how their investment is maturing and what the executive board is doing to ensure long term financial success. As long as employees are functional and contributing, what they do in their off time is irrelevant.
Drug use does have a negative effect on the man, which could well cause his performance to be ...strange , the next day..
The man working for a corporation for good money should be 100%..
If he must be a drug user, then he can establish his own company.
 
Drug use does have a negative effect on the man, which could well cause his performance to be ...strange , the next day..
The man working for a corporation for good money should be 100%..
If he must be a drug user, then he can establish his own company.

Does your thinking here apply to alcohol too?? It would suck to have his performance being.. "strange" because of a hangover.
 
I think not.
If a man is that concerned with his privacy, he can go off and be a hermit.

Fine I guess you don't mind if your employer places cameras inside your house
 
Then don't go for that job.

Why not if I'm fully qualified and can perfom my duties?

So what if I go home and take couple of tokes at the end of the day in my home.
 
Why not if I'm fully qualified and can perfom my duties?

So what if I go home and take couple of tokes at the end of the day in my home.

Because if they don't want any tokers working for them then that's the company's prerogative.
 
Because if they don't want any tokers working for them then that's the company's prerogative.

Is also the perogative to tell you what you can and can not eat in private home?
 
I voted other. It should be at the discretion of the employer.

Exactly my thoughts.

I'm against drug testing at jobs that aren't related to the public or civil services. As an employer I'd only be concerned with job performance and functionality. If the person works great as part of the team and gets their work done, then what they do in their off time is none of my business.

It's an invasion of personal privacy and should be illegal, just like it should be illegal for corporate powers to invade your personal finances to find out what your credit is like before hiring you. That is none of their damn businesses.

Its not directly their business, unless you allow it to be. However, their business doesn't have to be your business if you don't play by their rules.

In no way shape or form should background checks, credit checks, drug checks, or other sort of things be illegal. If a company wants the position to be contingent on such things that's their right.
 
And it probably wouldn't be worth the expense, so the company probably wouldn't do it.

Not necessarily. Companies do stupid, irrational **** all the time.

phattonez said:
However, if the company wanted to, then why shouldn't they be able to?

I didn't say they shouldn't be able to. I said it's retarded.
 
Last edited:
I find drug tests to be pointless. If I want to smoke pot or do other illegal substances in my spare time, I feel like that is my business. It should only become a problem if it affects my ability to work and be productive when I'm on the clock.

I voted "other", as I believe it should be up to the employer.
 
I am curious to know, for those who support the idea that any employer ought to be able to require a drug test of their employees, how far this principle ought to extend. The idea seems to be that an employer has the right to employ the sort of employee they want, and therefore may justly require a drug test.

How far does this principle extend? Is it absolute? If it is not, why does it extend to cover drug use, especially with regard to jobs that wouldn't have any kind of liability involvement?

For instance, should an employer be able to employ only those whose sexual practices are to their liking? If an employer does not wish to employ someone who has sex with their spouse, should they be allowed to require some test to confirm this?

Should an employer be able to employ only those whose spouse also makes a certain income level? Should an employer be able to employ only those who prefer Shakespeare over Shelley? How about employment only for those who harbor racist beliefs of some sort? Or employment only for people who have a genital piercing?

I'm not really interested in the specific answers to these questions so much as the more general inqury they represent. Again, the idea behind free choice on drug tests is based on a certain principle--namely, that an employer should be able to employ only those sorts of people they want, entailing that the employer can legitimately test the personal practices of the employee. Why does that principle cover, or not, the instances above, or others like them?

Exempt from the discussion are jobs where there is a legitimate practical reason for drug testing, IMO. For instance, someone who has to handle heavy machinery or dangerous equipment should be required not to use drugs.
 
Exempt from the discussion are jobs where there is a legitimate practical reason for drug testing, IMO. For instance, someone who has to handle heavy machinery or dangerous equipment should be required not to use drugs.

Only if they are stoned on the job. If they go home after the job and toke and or drink I have no problem.
 
What is to stop them from doing that? Say a vegan company wants to dictate their employees can not eat meat?
So? It's their company. Just like Abercrombie & Fitch not wanting to hire "unattractive" people. That's their prerogative.
 
Companies should be allowed to drug test their employees if they want. Now I think they should also be required to pay for the testing. And I think there are some jobs that could affect public safety that it should absolutely be a requirement.
 
Back
Top Bottom