Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down Michigan Welfare Drug-Test Requirement

[k4star]

I'm a little undecided on this one. I was on unemployment for a while and i'm not sure if this article/law was applied to those people as well. If it isn't, then discontinue to read on.

As far as unemployment goes, it is incredibly easy to get money from the gov't for doing nothing. You simply check a box that says, "have you been looking for work? Yes or No". You check 'Yes' and Tada! Free money. The reason I doubt that this would do any good for the unemployment boat is that the amount of money you receive for free is directly proportional to your salary when you were fired/laid off/downsized/etc.

The most you could get from the gov't was $330/week. There was a cutoff at a certain salary and anything above that was simply given $330/week. Not bad huh? Here is a link to the chart if you want to see how much you could get for free by sittting on your ass:

http://www.edd.ca.gov/de1101bt3.pdf

Anyway, I doubt that junkies who have a full time job and got laid off are going to be able to maintain their habbit on say...$135/week (based on $7/hr.) if they have to pay for rent. I'm assuming that they have a place to live where they used to recieve their paycheck and whatnot (they are still gonna need a place to receive their unemployment check). Anyway, it really isn't much money at all when you don't make much to begin with. I'm going to make a generalization and say that most junkies don't get paid much more than minimum wage (flame me if you want for that one). I just don't see them blowing it all on drugs and ignoring the rent/utilities payments.

I guess my point is that it is a waste of taxpayer money to test people who recieve unemployment money. There just isn't enough money in it to make a difference. Drugs are expensive and they would go through their weekly checks in one day.

As for welfare....well i haven't had any children yet so i have no input on that. I understand that you can get quite a bit of money from it. But then again, it is free money. If someone is going to give me free money, I think that they should be able to give it to me based on their standards and acceptance criteria (within reason...i.e. - they can't demand sex or something crazy like that). If i want the money (remember it is free), then i had better shape up and clean up to get it.

What if a crack whore goes and get's knocked up and has a kid. She feeds the baby just enough to keep it alive and demands welfare checks. She then blows the other $675 of $700 on crack. How do we prevent this?

 

[Mahan Atma]

But we don't live in a perfect world, do we? Without the balancing test, however, how would we have arrived at the distinctions between the expectation of privacy in a car vs. the home, or exigent circumstances. Much like the fluidity of the first amendment, nothing in the constitution is absolute, it simply can't be. So, perhaps the balancing test is the best option available?

Nothing is absolute, but it is still possible to lay down a bright-line rule. You seem to think it's unavoidable to allow for such things as "exigent circumstances". Nonsense. The Fourth Amendment worked just fine before the Rehnquist Court started carving out exceptions and "balancing tests". It was simply a matter of political pressure from the Nixon administration (and then Reagan) to fight the "War on Drugs".

I guess if you buy into the concept of drugs being the Ultimate Evil that we must fight at All Costs, then you think the Court's exceptions make sense. But a lot of us don't think the Drug War is going to win anyway, and that drugs, in any case, are not worth sacrificing our Constitution for.

Go read the dissents from Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan in all those cases that created exceptions and balancing tests. Before you buy into the party line, you at least ought to see what the opposition said about it.

 

[Dr. J]

But Mahan, don't these exceptions and balancing tests apply to areas other than drugs? Don't these balancing tests apply to any area where certain expectations of privacy are limited? Are you saying balancing tests are bad just when they deal with drugs, or do you think the entire notion if misplaced?

And, I don't buy into the argument you can create true bright-line with the 4th amendment. Since the adoption of exclusionary rule, for example, it is by its very nature subject to specific exceptions. As such, I would think a balancing test would be more desireable, in some cases.

Thoughts?

 

[Mahan Atma]

But Mahan, don't these exceptions and balancing tests apply to areas other than drugs? Don't these balancing tests apply to any area where certain expectations of privacy are limited? Are you saying balancing tests are bad just when they deal with drugs, or do you think the entire notion if misplaced?

I'm talking about the historical forces that drove these exceptions. You have to look at the context in which these changes in jurisprudence took place. Nixon took office, and the "War on Drugs" became a top priority. He started appointing very hard-line judges who would adhere to the party line.

Dr. J - Before you go to law school, read this book: "The Brethren" by Bob Woodward. It's all about the change in the Supreme Court that occurred in the 1970's when Nixon came in. It's an inside look at the Supreme Court and how it works. It's also a downright fascinating read, and it will teach you a great deal about how the law works.

Originally posted by Dr. J And, I don't buy into the argument you can create true bright-line with the 4th amendment. Since the adoption of exclusionary rule, for example, it is by its very nature subject to specific exceptions. As such, I would think a balancing test would be more desireable, in some cases.
[/B]

Nothing is absolute, but you can do without many of the exceptions that now exist. Again, go back and look at Fourth Amendment jurisprudence just before the Rehnquist Court. It was quite straightforward, for the most part. You still have to decide exactly what constitutes a search, and when the person has an expectation of privacy, but there weren't all these doctrines that create exceptions in ten different ways.

And it worked fine - Unless you wanted to wage a War on Drugs.

Go look at the cases in which the Court created these exceptions. They're almost all drug cases.

 

[hashish2020]

Not yet



Well, as you know, since students shower together and change together, they already have a lower expectation privacy. But, this is getting off topic.

And, even given Scalia's remarks, drug testing of government employees is legal.

...I dont see where ppl get this idea. I've played endless amounts of school sports...NEVER had a shower there, only when i go home.

In addition, we are FORCED to change together for gym...EVERY student, so therefore how can that apply?

 

[Dr. J]

...I dont see where ppl get this idea. I've played endless amounts of school sports...NEVER had a shower there, only when i go home.

In addition, we are FORCED to change together for gym...EVERY student, so therefore how can that apply?

It goes beyond this. As a condition for your involvement, I'm sure you had to submit to a physical examination, which likely included providing either a urine or blood sample, or both. Coupled with the changing before/after games, showering, etc. (in most, but not all cases), the courts found that athletes, by their very nature, have a lower expectation of privacy.

Under Earls, the court expanded this to cover any student participating in extra-curricular activities. The decision in this case was based on poor legal rational, in my opinion, and was a5-4 vote, reflecting the devisiveness of this issue.

And Mahan,

It was quite straightforward, for the most part. You still have to decide exactly what constitutes a search, and when the person has an expectation of privacy, but there weren't all these doctrines that create exceptions in ten different ways.

And it worked fine - Unless you wanted to wage a War on Drugs.

I disagree. Nothing has been straight-forward about the 4th amendment. It has been, as you know, one of the most debated and "evolving" of the Bill of Rights. One could claim what happened in Mapp was a complete disregard for what was intended, but we still use it today. Perhaps the measures adopted by Rehnquist court would have come anyway, but perhaps in a different form. And, much of the validity of the argument rests on your own personal views of the law, no hard and concrete answer. While you may disagree with it, it's still the legal basis under which we have to operate, like it or not

I look forward to reading that book

 

[DrShrink]

K4star - Its not "Free money". Your participation in society demands this.

No not out of care for the people, because lets face it the right has never really cared for the poor. No it is demanded to ensure you live and hence dont cost them more money. If people start dying governemtns dont get re-elected. Not wise to kill off your citizens if you want to stay in power.

And seems you guys have it pretty easy if its "tick a box" action, though id doubt it. Here down under you have to prove constantly that you are getting to interviews, and put in a certain number of interviews/resumes per week.
Miss a week and they dock your already limited cash.
(And being the nice right wing bastards our government is they are wishing to slash that futher and fine you far bigger)

The aregument for 'balancing tests' in my opinion is not about the fairest option, its about letting the government get <i>some</i> chance to remove your privacy. When theres no balancing test, and especially before the 'special cases' came in, it was always best to side with the privacy issues, go with the 4th amendment (or similar laws elsewhere)
So via wanting the balancing tests, is just a step to giving the government some chance to break your privacy whenever it likes.

Thats all it is.


As for drug testing recipients i dont think they should. And the "suspiscion of drug use warrenting testing" is just bullshit. Still lets them test and try and deny benefits to some.
Thus saving them more money whilst letting you know whos incontrol, who now knows what you do to your insides.

 

[rm-rf]

Hey Dr J, have you ever had someone talk to you, ask you why your nervous, and stare at your penis while you piss in a little clear plastic cup so they can examine the contents of your body and make sure you meet their approval? A drug test in any form for any reason is both an invasion of privacy and everything that is un-american.

 

[Dr. J]

Hey Dr J, have you ever had someone talk to you, ask you why your nervous, and stare at your penis while you piss in a little clear plastic cup so they can examine the contents of your body and make sure you meet their approval? A drug test in any form for any reason is both an invasion of privacy and everything that is un-american.

Un-american? Consideing over half of all US companies test their employees for drugs? Where the US government tests its entire military and a large part of its workforce? I don't necessarily think it's unamerican. Suspicionless drug testing may be unwarranted in some cases. However, can you sit here and tell me you don't think members of the military should be drug tested? Or your commercial airline pilots? Or your child's school bus driver? If you can say you think these positions don't warrant a drug test, then I'll buy your argument. If, however, you concede that drug testing is legitimate in some cases, you then (like I do) have the tough decision of trying to balance out the benefits of such testing versus the intrustion of privacy.

As a side note, my own company drug tests using a very non-intrusive saliva stick. Do you contend that the only reason drug testing is a violation is because of the urine sample? If that's the case, switch everyone over to the saliva stick. It's much less intrusive and costs less. Are they as effective....I don't know.

And, yes, I have had to submit to several drug tests in my life. While I think it would be wrong for the government or any company to just randomly stop me and say HEY! pee in this cup, my drug tests have been a requirement for me to engage in something of my choosing. In order to do x, I had to do y. If you don't feel comfortable doing y, simply don't do x. In the case of welfare or extra-curricular activities, this becomes a bit less clear.

 

[psyborg]

I think the government has a compelling interest to know if the people to which they are providing aid (through my tax dollars no less) are dependent on drugs.

They don't seem to be interested whether money is "wasted" on ppl who are dependent on alcohol or tobacco. Wonder why eh?

Hey! wait a minute though. If they they did, and refused welfare to anyone who smoked or drank, and it worked and they all stopped (I know, I know - but just bear with me a moment) the lives saved would waaaayyyyyyy outnumber those saved from illegal drug deaths.

The huge amount of revenue lost from liquor and tobacco tax, and the loss of huge contributions from the manufacturers plus the extra money needed for state pensions could be offset by something like invading some more oil rich arab states (that's not an anti-american people jibe - unfortunately I'm from UK, where Blair is in cahoots with the USA hawks)

P

 

[HighwayChild]

Dr J:
Why are drug tests required at all?
Take the example of an airline pilot - surely you're concerned about the pilots PERFORMANCE in the job, not whether he/she takes illegal drugs. True, taking illegal drugs recently could negatively affect a pilot's performance, but then a lot of the time it won't too. Even if it does affect the pilot's performance, will it be bad enough to cause him to crash the plane? Drug testing doesn't answer any of these questions, it just allows employers to not think, and apply a "drug user" stereotype to the person involved.

There lots of other factors that can negatively influence a pilot's performance and put the passengers at risk - why aren't they investigated too? For all you know the pilot could have gone nuts and murdered his whole family minutes before leaving for work this morning, but pissing in a cup wont tell you anything about that. He might have not got any sleep the previous night, he might have an undiagnosed medical condition... There's plenty of things that can make him a bad pilot - testing his performance would find more of these things than a simple drug test.

Wouldn't it be more effective to test a pilot's performance before every flight? I'd guess that you could do some coordination test, or some flight simulator runs or something.

It just seems to me that drug testing got started in really critical applications, where it was considered a reasonable compromise that the safety of the many outweighed the rights of the individual. Now drug testing is becoming more and more widespread, and the reasons becoming weaker and weaker. There wouldn't be many jobs that couldn't be done badly enough to cause someone death or injury - so are we going to completely sacrifice any rights to privacy in all these cases?

HC

 

[hashish2020]

It goes beyond this. As a condition for your involvement, I'm sure you had to submit to a physical examination, which likely included providing either a urine or blood sample, or both. Coupled with the changing before/after games, showering, etc. (in most, but not all cases), the courts found that athletes, by their very nature, have a lower expectation of privacy.

Under Earls, the court expanded this to cover any student participating in extra-curricular activities. The decision in this case was based on poor legal rational, in my opinion, and was a5-4 vote, reflecting the devisiveness of this issue.

And Mahan,



I disagree. Nothing has been straight-forward about the 4th amendment. It has been, as you know, one of the most debated and "evolving" of the Bill of Rights. One could claim what happened in Mapp was a complete disregard for what was intended, but we still use it today. Perhaps the measures adopted by Rehnquist court would have come anyway, but perhaps in a different form. And, much of the validity of the argument rests on your own personal views of the law, no hard and concrete answer. While you may disagree with it, it's still the legal basis under which we have to operate, like it or not

I look forward to reading that book

How many high school sports did you play?

Cuz ure awfully wrong, no blood or urine test in a sports physical, its simply saying basically you wont die or be crippled if you play.

Next thing you know they'll be saying that by using the bathroom you have no expectation of privacy from the walls so therefore they can take your piss. You know what, fuck them. I love my sport, but i will refuse any random piss test.

 

[JerryBlunted]

Dr. J = All the reasons you give for why drug tests should be used are faulty for the simple reason that what you are arguing for is sobriety testing, not drug testing. A field sobriety test reveals whether a person is intoxicated at the moment, a drug test reveals a history of past drug use; in the case of marijuana (the most common positive result) you can test positive 4 weeks or longer after quitting cold turkey.

I agree that I wouldn't want an airline pilot or bus driver buzzed while doing their job, in fact if you are hired by someone to do any job you should do it sober, regardless of the level of danger, because that is what you get paid for. But, what I do when I go home should remain my business alone.

As far as welfare goes, true I don't want to pay to support some crack mother, but honestly I'd rather pay that extra dollar to do my part to help her children even if it means she gets to sit around and get high all damn day. Kicking people off welfare for whatever reason does nothing to address the conditions that have led to their neediness, nor does it ensure that the children will receive a fair shake in life. Welfare is NOT a lot of money, and it does not support a comfortable life in even the most meager of circumstances. It is the least we can do as an affluent society, and I do mean the LEAST. The amount of money we waste on missiles, pork barrel legislation, and black budget guerilla warfare is SOOO much higher that before we even consider making any cuts in social programs such as welfare we ought to seriously consider a little revolutionary swords to plowshares legislation.

America supposedly was founded on grand ideals such as individualism and "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Why then is my pursuit of happiness criminalized? Why should I have to give up my bodily fluids to an unwarranted and warrantless search just to get a job that pays enough to take care of my bills, put a roof over my head, and some food in my refrigerator? Americans work the most hours per week of any country, and now we are slowly losing the right to hold dominion over our remaining free hours. What this trend shows is the slow slide of America from a free state to a police state.

What would you think of hypothetically being required to submit to a DNA analysis in order to get a job? Surely it would help weed out those who are prone to collapsing from heart failure at work, possibly averting some catastrophe in the air or on the roads. And since we already submit to urine tests for drugs don't we all have lowered expectations of privacy already? Why stop at heart defects then? Why not weed out everyone with a below median IQ score? Or how about hangnails? Before too long only blue eyes and blonde hair with a 110 IQ will be able to hold any worthwhile jobs... Obviously I'm being extreme to make a point here, but the specious reasoning used to justify intrusive drug testing in the workplace and in schools can set a dangerous precedent, and in all honesty I don't trust the discretionary abilities of this current bunch of crooks on the Supreme Court, or the executive branch of criminals, and the legislative bodies have grown far too weak to provide any real balance to these branches of our government, currently operating far beyond their capacities to legislate morally or responsibly.

We have a Supreme Court that installed an unelected president into office illegally and wants to overturn women's rights to control their own reproductive functions. Can we trust them to do what is in the best interests of the country? Can we trust them to protect our freedoms which are already being whittled away? Hell no we can't. I don't trust them, I don't trust any asshole in a labcoat telling me to fill this little cup up for them, and I damn sure don't trust the monkey in a suit who is supposedly the ringmaster of this fucked up circus. There may be precedent and there may be legal justification for drug testing, but that DOES NOT make it morally justifiable or in the best interests of the citizens of this country.

 

[Dr. J]

How many high school sports did you play?

Cuz ure awfully wrong, no blood or urine test in a sports physical, its simply saying basically you wont die or be crippled if you play.

I'm basing this off the rational given by the Court. When I was involved in athletics, I had to submit a urine sample. *shrug*

And, with regard to drug testing people in sensitive positions, it should be well understood that the effects of marijuana, for example, do not stop once a person is done smoking. I saw a test that tested airline pilots ability to react after smoking marijuana. It took them some time (I believe it was 2 weeks, I'd have to hunt down the study) to return to baseline performance.
From my own personal experience, if I smoke weed or decide to roll, it takes many days for me to return to the way I was before.

What if a pilot rolled on a Saturday and had a flight the next Tuesady or Wednesday. Would you trust him to be able to fly the plane effortlessly? And, he may likely pass any drug test given the 3-4 days, but still feeling the effects. Your justification here doesn't make sense.

It just seems to me that drug testing got started in really critical applications, where it was considered a reasonable compromise that the safety of the many outweighed the rights of the individual. Now drug testing is becoming more and more widespread, and the reasons becoming weaker and weaker. There wouldn't be many jobs that couldn't be done badly enough to cause someone death or injury - so are we going to completely sacrifice any rights to privacy in all these cases?

I agree that the justification is getting weaker and weaker when it comes to things such as school drug testing. I don't buy the court's latest decision. However, if I were an employer, I would likely not want employees who use drugs. In order to have the best people working for me, I choose to drug test them. I don't want to have to worry about people possibly stealing from the company, missing work, or causing injury to someone where my company would then be liable. I understand there are some people who use drugs who don't fall into this category. But, I think every employer has the right to a drug-free workplace. If you don't fit that, FIND ANOTHER JOB! Simple...

America supposedly was founded on grand ideals such as individualism and "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Why then is my pursuit of happiness criminalized? Why should I have to give up my bodily fluids to an unwarranted and warrantless search just to get a job that pays enough to take care of my bills, put a roof over my head, and some food in my refrigerator? Americans work the most hours per week of any country, and now we are slowly losing the right to hold dominion over our remaining free hours. What this trend shows is the slow slide of America from a free state to a police state.

Guess what? You have no consitutional right to a job, or to use drugs, that's why you have to give up bodily fluids. If you want a certain job, you have to be willing to make sacrifices to acheive it. In the same way you HAVE to submit to warrantless searches at the airport to travel, you have to submit to certain requirements to get a job. And why do we have to submit to warrantless searches? Because the security risk outweighs the rights of the individual. But guess what? If you don't like the fact that your job drug tests, you have the amazingly wonderful option to find another one. And, private employers are the ones who do the most drug testing, besides the military, and are completely within their bounds to do so. Private employers have an incredible amount of discretion and can, generally, fire you even for suspicion of using drugs.

We have a Supreme Court that installed an unelected president into office illegally and wants to overturn women's rights to control their own reproductive functions. Can we trust them to do what is in the best interests of the country? Can we trust them to protect our freedoms which are already being whittled away? Hell no we can't. I don't trust them, I don't trust any asshole in a labcoat telling me to fill this little cup up for them, and I damn sure don't trust the monkey in a suit who is supposedly the ringmaster of this fucked up circus. There may be precedent and there may be legal justification for drug testing, but that DOES NOT make it morally justifiable or in the best interests of the citizens of this country.

The Supreme Court has done more to protect the liberities of citizens and minorities in this country than any other branch, so be thankful they exist. Miranda, abortion, civil rights are all concepts that have been trampled and/or ignored by the other branches. As far as the election goes, Bush has won virtually every possible recount. Even as a democrat, I concede that Gore would have lost, thus negating your claim about illegally installing a president.

I am not a proponent of drug testing in all cases, at all. I think some people can use in a way that won't have adverse effects. Nonetheless, as someone who has and on occasion still uses drugs, I know that job performance and academic performance are hindered. Do I want my airline pilot to be drug tested? Absolutely. If someone is put in charge of enormous responsibility, I think he should be able to stay away from drugs as a condition of his duties.

 

[surrealthoughts]

dr j is a perfect example of what someone mentioned before...

begin drug testing kids from an early age and they wont have many expectations of privacy when the get older.

and yes i am also glad i dont live in america.
and no its not because of what the so called 'anti-american people' say. its because of what the american people (or mainly politicians) say.

 

[surrealthoughts]

I agree that the justification is getting weaker and weaker when it comes to things such as school drug testing. I don't buy the court's latest decision. However, if I were an employer, I would likely not want employees who use drugs. In order to have the best people working for me, I choose to drug test them. I don't want to have to worry about people possibly stealing from the company, missing work, or causing injury to someone where my company would then be liable. I understand there are some people who use drugs who don't fall into this category. But, I think every employer has the right to a drug-free workplace. If you don't fit that, FIND ANOTHER JOB! Simple...

case in point.

best people = those who do not use drugs?

people who use drugs are more likely to
1. steal from the company??
2. miss work??
3. cause injury to other people??

every employer has the right to a drug-free workplace??
people are getting less individual rights
companies are getting more rights

im blown away by the fact that you firmly believe an employer should naturally have so much power and control over peoples lives ... takes the corporate culture/corporate slave to a whole new level.

 

[JerryBlunted]

Estimates place marijuana use at around 30% of our population. Are you trying to tell me 1/3 of our population does not deserve to have good jobs because the employers have a right to not hire them?

If there were a lot of alternatives I would agree that you should simply find another job, but have you been on the job market lately? Our economy is in the shitter and unemployment is very high. What is more important: should a company be able to squeeze more and more profit from its increasingly unhappy workers or should the rights of the workers (citizens) of this country come before the corporate bottom line?

What I see happening in America is a slow erosion of our formerly affluent way of life. Most middle class families need two parents in the workplace, creating a generation of latchkey children as well as numerous domestic problems such as high divorce rates, drug use, school violence, etc. America is so motivated to achieve the bottom line that we no longer attend to the "human factors" first. The growing disparity between rich and poor, along with these other infractions of privacy and civil rights are becoming more all pervasive as time goes on, especially under this current administration.

And about being fired merely for the suspicion of using drugs, isnt that a lot like how they used to fire people on suspicion of being gay, or burn women on suspicion of being witches? I agree the other examples are more egregious, but the underlying mentality is the same.

I'm not arguing that there aren't legal justifications built into our system for the government and the private sector to trample on your privacy, freedom, and other rights.... but at the same time as I said before just because something is legal does not make it right. Law does NOT equal morality or ethics.

Employees should be judged on job performance alone. If a pilot cannot complete a field sobriety test, fails simulator training, etc. then he shouldn't be in the air. If a cashier can't ring up chili con carne then he should lose his job too. But neither of them should have to submit private bodily fluids just to prove they are on the up and up. I've applied for the most trivial jobs such as supermarket clerk, manager of a small video store, etc. and was forced to submit to urinalysis. How the hell does that help them tell how I am going to do my job? On the other hand, I bet most corporate executives, directors, etc. don't have to pee in a cup four times a year.

Another problem is that while private sector employees are often the ones doing drug testing, for many it is not a choice. Insurance companies force companies over a certain size to perform drug testing in order to be certified. My father's construction company was going to be forced to begin drug testing by their insurance company despite a perfect work safety record, but then after September 11th our rates were raised so high because the insurance company took a loss in the Trade Towers that we ended up being dropped from the policy. Drug testing averted and what a happy ending, right?

And back to your assumption that drug users are the ones stealing, having accidents, etc. At our company two of the four owners use marijuana, and the majority of our workers do as well. If drug users are more likely to be problems you would expect at least one of us to have fucked something up in these years, and yet our record is impeccable. Nobody has stole anything, no one has been seriously hurt, no structural flaws or design bloopers. This is because we use marijuana AFTER work. During the workday sobriety is more than expected it is absolutely essential to our safety and performance.

Dr. J = I seriously disagree with your assessment of two weeks to return to baseline after smoking marijuana. You sober up within hours.... however metabolites do remain imbedded in your fat cells. Was the test about whether THC metabolites were present in the bloodstream or was it a test of sobriety? I'm curious to know.

 

[psyborg]

I'm not from USA and just curious about these tests. I believe from my readings on the subjects, that it takes longer to recover from alcohol intoxication than from cannabis, and that if some tobacco smokers don't get a smoke they get nervous/lose concentration/experience withdrawal symptoms. Both these situations must affect work performance and especially safety.

It seems from the previous posting sthat we are not talking legality here for the most part, but sobriety.

So my question is, do these drug tests test for alcohol and tobacco, and are tobacco smokers prevented from smoking during working hours or must they prove they have enough cigarettes to see them through their shift so they don't mess up?

Psyborg

 

[Dr. J]

Psyborg,

You raise an interesting point and let me toss this out. My job also tests blood alcohol content. What if a person has a legally drunk BAC, but could still perform his or her job at a satisfactory level? If a commecial airline pilot or nuclear reactor employee is such a drunk that it takes so much liquor just to function, but the amount necessary puts his BAC way above what someone else would be falling down drunk, do you fire him, or keep him on even tho he can perform his duties while legally drunk?

jerryblunted,

Have you ever smoked weed? From personal experience, if I get bombed on bong rips all night, I am in no way shape or form "normal" in a few hours, let alone the next day. Sure, if you take one hit off a pipe, you'll likely be what you think is normal, but study after study has shown that marijuana has long-lasting effects, much longer than a few hours, especially the more one smokes.

You are making a moral argument while mine is a more legal one, so let me pose this question: If you had a choice to put your family on a commericial jet with a pilot who 5 days days ago rolled his nuts off and IMd some K, versus someone who didn't use drugs, who would you pick, given that the pilot would likely test clean on any drug test? If you pick the former you are only fooling yourself. You may say that, well, as long as he could perform at his normal level, sure. But, the problem with drug use is that you can never know how much it impairs you. Why take the risk of killing hundreds of people in the name of getting high?

The real purpose of drug testing is not to invade privacy, but to ensure that people don't use drugs because they know they'll get caught. If you don't drug test, you leave open the possibility of someone coming into work fucked up, missing a shift, etc.

If there were a lot of alternatives I would agree that you should simply find another job, but have you been on the job market lately? Our economy is in the shitter and unemployment is very high. What is more important: should a company be able to squeeze more and more profit from its increasingly unhappy workers or should the rights of the workers (citizens) of this country come before the corporate bottom line?

Of course the job market is tough. Employers want the best of the best, so naturally they would have a desire to weed out (no pun intended) those people are, on the whole, more likely to cause problems. I mean seriously, would you want to have someone working for you who had a nasty coke or meth habit? I know I sure wouldn't, espeically in times like these where I would want my business to succeed.

There are many moral reasons to oppose drug testing, I agree. Should drug testing be used for every job? Absolutely not. Do employers have the right to do so? You bet they do. I think it's shitty that my boss thinks that if I want to smoke a bowl every now and then it's going to interfere with my job. BUT, I'm not so opposed to it as to quit. If it really bothered my that much, I would quit, so I don't bitch, which is why I fail to see the other side in this case. If you WANT to work certain jobs, you have to meet certain conditions, you have to be willing to give up certain things in order to work. If getting high is that important to you, then maybe you need to either reevaluate the role of drugs in your life, or simply find another job where it doesn't matter.

 

[JerryBlunted]

jerryblunted,

Have you ever smoked weed? From personal experience, if I get bombed on bong rips all night, I am in no way shape or form "normal" in a few hours, let alone the next day.

Have I ever smoked weed? I'm tempted to not even answer that question. Yes I smoke weed all the time, and I still manage to function quite well in an intellectually demanding atmosphere, as well as drive a car with a perfect safety record and perform physically draining and dangerous work. If you stay up all hours of the night smoking ridiculous amounts of pot you probably will feel a little funky the next day, but your average user does not do this. One joint a day is more on line with what regular pot smokers will partake.

What kind of measures are you citing as examples of performance degradation related to marijuana? Are they real world examples, tachioscopic discrimination tasks, word memory tasks, etc?


[QB]
You are making a moral argument while mine is a more legal one, so let me pose this question: If you had a choice to put your family on a commericial jet with a pilot who 5 days days ago rolled his nuts off and IMd some K, versus someone who didn't use drugs, who would you pick, given that the pilot would likely test clean on any drug test? If you pick the former you are only fooling yourself. You may say that, well, as long as he could perform at his normal level, sure. [/QB]

If neither pilot tests positive for drug use how would I even know which plane to take? Someone who 5 days ago rolled his nuts off and IMed K would test clean on a test, so what is the point of testing then? To catch those damn hippies smoking their marijuana, huh? Could it be that marijuana use was originally stigmatized due to its association with social "undesirables" such as blacks, Mexicans, jazz players, beatniks, etc.? Could it be that we still hold prejudices against such "undesirables" that leads us to wage a war on their drug of choice?

You make the argument that the point of drug testing is to ensure that people don't use drugs, however it does not prevent most drugs of abuse from being used since they are water soluble and pass through the system within 3 to 5 days. The only drug that is reliably screened against is marijuana, the least harmful of them all.

You keep going back to the point of airline pilots and the spectre of innocent blood in the name of getting high, but the fact is the VAST majority of people who are forced to submit to drug testing are NOT pilots or in any other sensitive profession. Once again I'd like to ask what the problem with using a field sobriety test instead of a drug test is? If a pilot is 1 1/2 weeks past their last drug binge and it truly is affecting them then that detriment will be observable with the sobriety test.



[QB]
The real purpose of drug testing is not to invade privacy, but to ensure that people don't use drugs because they know they'll get caught. If you don't drug test, you leave open the possibility of someone coming into work fucked up, missing a shift, etc.
Of course the job market is tough. Employers want the best of the best, so naturally they would have a desire to weed out (no pun intended) those people are, on the whole, more likely to cause problems. I mean seriously, would you want to have someone working for you who had a nasty coke or meth habit? I know I sure wouldn't, espeically in times like these where I would want my business to succeed.[/QB]

So you think drug testing will stop people from missing shifts? I guess only potheads call in sick to work, huh? Besides, what drug do you think is implicated in most on the job accidents and most sick days? It isn't marijuana, nor coke nor meth. It is alcohol, which is legal and rarely tested for. Besides, once again you fail to mention that cocaine and methamphetamine are very difficult to test for using standard urinalysis due to their water solubility, thus you aren't screening out the coke fiends and the meth addicts, you are screening out the pot smokers.




[QB]
There are many moral reasons to oppose drug testing, I agree. Should drug testing be used for every job? Absolutely not. Do employers have the right to do so? You bet they do. I think it's shitty that my boss thinks that if I want to smoke a bowl every now and then it's going to interfere with my job. BUT, I'm not so opposed to it as to quit. If it really bothered my that much, I would quit, so I don't bitch, which is why I fail to see the other side in this case. If you WANT to work certain jobs, you have to meet certain conditions, you have to be willing to give up certain things in order to work. If getting high is that important to you, then maybe you need to either reevaluate the role of drugs in your life, or simply find another job where it doesn't matter. [/QUOTE]

If there are so many moral reasons to oppose drug testing than why do we allow it to be used then? Because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. This is supposed to be OUR country, so we should have legislation that reflects OUR compelling interests. Obviously, in the real world people don't matter as much as money to the economic-pimps we all are forced to prostitute ourselves to.

Besides, for the most part it isn't a matter of WANTING to work certain jobs. What type of jobs do you think are drug testing? A lot of the shittiest, most menial jobs are the first ones to institute drug testing. Jobs I have personally had experience with either firsthand or vicariously that drug test: video store manager, supermarket clerk, lumber yard attendant, construction laborer, etc. etc. These are jobs that normal, blue collar people take not because they want them, but because they need them. Why should the guy cleaning the septic tank be forced to piss in a cup to prove he is drug free? Why should the teenager checking out my rented DVD be forced to piss in a cup?

If drug testing was a reliable way of screening out unfit employees I would be for it in limited circumstances. But it is not a reliable way, and it primarily discriminates against blue collar users of a relatively harmless plant. I think the fact that the working class is more likely to vote or speak out for socially progressive issues is at least an important part of why things are done this way.