Should drug testing be legal for the workplace?

[Merlin]

Another interesting point about privacy, is that companies do more than just drug test you. You should be more concerned about what you put on your Facebook, etc account and who is snapping photos of you when you're out having a good time. Employers are now looking at potential hires' social networking accounts to see what kind of person you "really" are. You might have been all clean-cut and professional in that interview, but when the employer goes on to your Facebook account and sees those lovely photos of you high as a kite surrounded by a bunch of trailer trash, don't be surprised when you don't get hired. Technically it is biased to do that type of investigating, but you can't prove they didn't hire you based off that. It is easily written off as any number of things.

One fine example of this is Michael Phelps. A photo of him holding a bong was leaked and he ended up losing multi-million dollar contracts with companies because of it. Whether he actually used it or not is irrelevant. Just the fact that he was holding it was enough for those companies to drop him like a sack of bricks. Companies don't like being associated with drug users. People are fickle creatures and these companies can lose money hand over fist if enough people refuse to buy their products because they are associated with drug users. For them it is better to cut you lose and save face then deal with whether or not you can function on the job. It's a cruel world... and businesses run it.

[Clint]

Taking illegal drugs outside of work is still a crime. More companies should help protect the law and give random drug tests to all employees at periodic times throughout the year. Those who are afraid or opposed of said drug tests are just weak-minded individuals, who are probably addicted to mind-altering and toxic substances, and deserve to be laid off because of such.

[Heartless Angel]

Due to a friendly mod request, there are certain posts I'll not be responding to, as much as I'd love to. Sorry.

But, since we don't want a legal argument (even though half of the opposing argument is based on a persons LEGAL right to privacy), let's talk about morality. Nearly everbody in this thread has confessed to comitting crimes. In particular, people who are against drug testing. Not only have we broken the law, we did so fully aware of it, knowing we wouldn't get caught, and have repeated said offenses because we don't get caught. Now you support making it illegal to catch you comitting this crime, so that you may continue to enjoy the benfits of society, like say, a nice paying job... whilst ignoring that society's laws, and looking to hide behind the law so you can continue to commit your crimes in peace. Morality ftw, right?

Who stands to gain from drug testing being illegal...let's think for just a moment... Criminals perhaps? Assuming you're not violating the law, what reason does one have to complain about pissing in a cup? None really. This is as bad as illegal immigrants opposing the Arizona law. Gee I wonder what could motivate them to do that...

Merlin brings up an excellent point about social networking sites. Employers look at that crap all the time. I'd call that a bigger invasion of one's privacy than a drug test. Sure, that facebook page is publically available, but why would they look at it? To see what you do after hours. According to my opponents here, that's the problem, why have I not heard any complaints about this practice yet? I'm sure we will now that it's been broughtup though.

[Sasquatch]

No, I'm voicing my opinion on black people.

You don't always have to assume that people who reply to your posts in a tongue and cheek fashion are disagreeing with you.

That's my fault for misunderstanding, then -- I thought you were replying with something relevant to the conversation but way off-base, when instead you simply decided to voice your racism. My bad. Even so, an employer cannot make an employment decision based on race/gender/religion/creed/national origin/military status/etc.

Taking illegal substances, funnily enough, is illegal. No one disputes that. But who's job is it enforce the law? The State, and, in a practical expression of this prerogative, the police.

As has been pointed out -- multiple times -- the employer is not testing their employees for criminal reasons. They're not trying to collect evidence on everybody so that they can turn it over to the police and have you arrested. When there's a shooting nearby, it's not a private employer's responsibility nor right to test everybody's hands for powder residue. When there's a break-in nearby, it's not an employer's responsibility nor right to question and investigate where each of their employees was at the time.

What IS their right (and responsibility) is to check to make sure their employees aren't doing something illegal that will affect their job performance. Whether we agree with it or not, the drugs in question are illegal. And some people here are honestly bitching that employers can fire employees for doing illegal things? Really?

This whole idea of sub-optimal performance is stupid. I smoke marijuana on occasion. Not every week. Perhaps once or twice a month at the most. I'm also riding on not one, but six scholarships.

Hahahahahah. Of course -- most users of illegal drugs are upstanding citizens, right? Except for the fact that, well, using illegal drugs makes them criminals, whether they're convicts or not. Most drug users are geniuses, too! Hell, druggies all have seven-digit incomes and multiple doctorate degrees!

The idea of, "I do drugs all the time and I'm no worse for it" is bogus. Not only is it anecdotal and thus irrelevant, it's also complete and utter bullshit. But go ahead and keep claiming that you're some sort of druggie savant. Let me guess, you drive a million-dollar car and date a supermodel too?

And stop arguing that it's OK if you have signed a contract to do so -- the argument is that that in itself should not be allowed. Just as one cannot make an employee work on public holidays, eat breakfast, brush their teeth, or any other random and illogical expression of employer power.

Can't force you to work, eat, or keep up with your personal hygiene? No, they can't force you to do any of that -- what they can do -- and it's not just their right, but their responsibility to their company -- is say, "unless you follow the rules WE AGREED TO WHEN YOU ACCEPTED THIS JOB, your employment will be terminated."

You don't like it? Don't agree to the rules and take the job. It's just like a dress code or anything else. Prettymuch every job comes with some sort of "code of ethics", or at the very least a written code of acceptable behavior. You agree to abide by that code when you take the job. Where is the thread about, "should it be legal for employers to set a work uniform?" with bitching about how it's your right to wear whatever you want? Or "should it be legal for employers to dictate language?" with bitching about how it's your right to speak whatever language you want and say whatever you want?

Drug users:
- have more to affect their attendance (this is obvious).
- have diminished effectiveness (even if one claims to be a druggie savant, they still don't live up to their potential when they're full of mind-altering drugs -- whether they think they're not affected by them or not).
- are more likely to cause damage to the company's finances and reputation (by screwing something up).
- cause damage to a company's reputation even while outside the workplace (most people don't want somebody that was drooling on themselves last night to do their taxes this morning -- and that's because druggies are more likely to screw something up).
- are disobeying the terms they agreed to when they took the job (don't like 'em? Don't agree to 'em.).
- (last but not least) are breaking the law. Duh.

If I run a company, I have a choice of what my employees do and how they conduct themselves. If they don't conduct themselves the way they agreed to, they will no longer be under my employ. And you're saying I shouldn't have that right?

[Merlin]

Of course -- most users of illegal drugs are upstanding citizens, right? Except for the fact that, well, using illegal drugs makes them criminals, whether they're convicts or not. Most drug users are geniuses, too! Hell, druggies all have seven-digit incomes and multiple doctorate degrees!

The idea of, "I do drugs all the time and I'm no worse for it" is bogus. Not only is it anecdotal and thus irrelevant, it's also complete and utter bullshit. But go ahead and keep claiming that you're some sort of druggie savant. Let me guess, you drive a million-dollar car and date a supermodel too?

Their response to that would be to take one look at Hollywood or the music industry. How much money does Snoop Dogg, Whitney Houston, or Lindsay Lohan have? They make money hand over fist and are or have been heavy drug users. I just figured I'd point it out before the dogs come barking. I do see your point with that though. Celebs are the a very small minority. For the other 99% of the population, being a drug user has quite a few limitations.

[Jin]

That's my fault for misunderstanding, then

Don't worry about it, it happens.

[Meier Link]

Ok so I have a very biased opinion on this matter seeing I have been in leadership before.

I am pro-drug tests, specially in the industry that I am when you are dealing with thousands of peoples lives on a daily basis.

To me they are essential. They is a key factor of fear to keep people from abusing substances while on the job. Some drugs that are out there (legal or not) can still affect people for many hours (if not days) when consumed. I think this is a necessity when working in higher risk fields that deal with peoples lives and over all productivity.

Knocking out the human lives factor lets focus on productivity. Some people say "who cares if you do it the night before" but what happens when that individual walks into work sober but hung over or dealing with with-draws from the events that happened the night before? Productivity goes down and proficiency goes down which is money lost for the company as a whole. As an employer and as a business stance this is not a good thing seeing profit comes from productivity and trust comes from efficiency.

Even if you are flipping hamburgers at the local McDonald's this still holds true.

Now lets factor in the insurance factor. If some one comes into work hung over or strung out. There is also the liability that person could quite possibly hurt their selves while on the job if they are hung over, stung out or still feeling the affects of what they did the night before. Thus more money coming out of the companies pocket. Insurance premiums go up due to injury by stupidity and it doesn't just affect the injured personnel, it affects everyone that has to purchase their insurance out of pocket. There is just to much risk involved to not RDT people.

In some industries such as the medical field and aviation fields here the states that requires random drug tests and it is to help prevent from people using / abusing while on clock or off clock for such reasons.

It is a profitable investment on a companies part to drug test people and it has probably saved hundreds if not thousands of peoples lives over the years. There is no "what if I did it the night before" because the after affects can still impose ones judgement the day after or days after.

Drugs affect people differently and just because someone might not wake up with a hang over (or ****ed up) on most occasions doesn't mean that there isn't that one instance where that person does wake up hung over and or still ****ed up.

If you want to do it go ahead, I am not saint either, but if you do keep in mind that you chose to do what you did and should also be willing to face the consequences for doing so.

It's almost comparable to: I ****ed a chick (dude) with out a condom and now she (I) is (am) pregnant but I don't think I should live up to the responsibility of being a father (mother). Meaning what happened one night can still affect your life the next day. You should man (woman) up and deal with the consequences.

So in short: I support drug testing and randoms.

Also this statement is not directed to illegal drugs which by all means are illegal and shouldn't be done anyways seeing they are illegal for a reason.

[Alpha]

Maybe I should make something clear. I didn't think I'd have to, but I will. If one is in a job where other people's (or one's own) safety is clearly and easily jeopardised in any way due to the presence of some inebriating substance (irrespective of legality), then of course they should not be allowed to work in such environments. Drug testing would be a natural and necessary consequence of employment in many spheres.

But drugs aren't the only thing that jeopardise safety. Tiredness, hunger, stress, pain, and so on all have a huge influence on productivity. Just today, I found myself sitting at my desk at work staring into space - I had started work at 6am, and it was 11am. I was very tired, and very hungry, after having breakfast at 5am. I haven't had marijuana in over a month now. Yet my productivity was down. What is my employer to do? Take measurements of how I sleep? Of how much breakfast I eat? That's my life; not my employer's. Yes, I readily accept that it would have an impact on my productivity and hence my employer's business. But it is not my employer's business to tell me what to do about it (sleep more; eat breakfast; don't use certain substances). They can talk to me about my productivity, and say that if I don't do something to improve, I'll face the consequences. And I'd say, 'fair enough'. But because it is my life, I can decide how to go about this. Perhaps my solution is to drink caffeinated beverages at work. If so, that's my decision. My employer can't make me do this; likewise, they can't make me not do this. Whatever I do, I'll face the consequences for it, without my employer telling me how to live my own life.

However, as I've stated, this only applies in positions where optimal performance is not necessary. If I was a security guard for instance, adequate sleep may indeed be a necessary condition for employment. There is no black and white, even if you can't see the colours.

I mentioned something else to Joe before, and I said I wouldn't use it, but I will, because I'm interested in how you'll react. It's an extension of the argument in my previous post, but I consider it inferior logic. Oh well, try and refute it:

[Note that this is entirely hypothetical and completely fictional]

What if one goes to work, with their mind on the child pornography that they have, and peruse, on their computer? Assume that they are likely to under-perform, thinking about pornography all day (with my lack of experience in feeling after-effects of drugs (i.e. 'the day after'), I think this is reasonable). What they have been doing is a crime -- a heinous one at that, and one that's probably a damn lot worse than smoking marijuana (afterall, estimates are 50% of NZers have tried cannabis at least once -- how's that for a nation of criminals?*). But does that give employers the right to actually go into their employee's house and search their hard drive (reasonably equivalent to taking someone's urine)? Of course it does not -- this is the role afforded to the police: when they have reasonable grounds to suspect criminal behaviour in one's house, they will obtain a search warrant. This is beyond the capacity and rights of an employer.

Now, if this hypothetical person were to desire a job in early childhood education, then there is every reason to find information regarding crimes in relation to children. Whether this be through a simple criminal record check, or, more contentiously, through a search of one's HDD, there are very sensible arguments why this must occur, and I doubt anyone in these positions would not grant consent.

------------------------------------------

I also want to establish what exactly is being discussed; I think a number are missing the point, or at least conceptualising it in a way that fundamentally differs from my own -- rendering debate pointless. "Should drug testing be legal for the workplace?" is the moot. I see this as a discussion of an employer's alleged right to stipulate that an employee must undertake a mandatory drug test for admission, periodically, and/or randomly. To argue that, "If it's in the contract, and one's agreed to it, then it's OK," is completely missing the point. That is what we are discussing. That is a tautology; no one disputes that. That's what a contract is. What the debate should be centred around (and most of us are doing this), is whether or not an employer should legally be able to make such a condition.

I'd also like to make clear, particularly in response to Unkown Entity, that no one has the right to break the law. I did not state that I have the right to take drugs. I do not. But I am capable of making an adult decision. Technically, people have the obligation to follow speed restrictions on roads. Many do not, and they face consequences (either in terms of an increased probability of having an accident, or in terms of a speeding ticket). To rationalise my own (rather limited) marijuana use, I use it in the company of a small number of friends, in private. Hell, we don't even go outside when we use it. We know we are committing a crime. I'd rather not be, and I support the legalisation of marijuana for a number of reasons (like not providing monetary resources to gangs; I'd like to pay tax on it in order for the government to attempt to internalise any externalities that I do produce; and for there to be a legal age restriction; etc.). I am making an adult decision, and I am fully aware of the potential consequences of my actions. However, outside of work, I am not responsible to my employer. I am responsible to myself, those around me, and in common, to the State. That is where my consequences lie.

And please stop referring to me as a 'druggie'. Chances are I am less likely to become inebriated than most people here. I very rarely drink alcohol, and can count the number of times I have been properly drunk on a single hand. I personally believe that alcohol is a worse drug than marijuana - it's addictive (marijuana is not), it causes many people to become violent (the majority of domestic abuse incidents are attributable to alcohol), and is completely normalised to the extent that people use it (a 'drug') every day, and it is a right of passage to get drunk on most birthdays. It's legal, but its workplace ramifications are probably worse than marijuana. So where's the 'bitching' (Saskatchewan's term) about that?

*Incidentally, this also somewhat refutes the notion of employers not wanting to be associated with 'druggies' -- if 50% of the population has tried the 'drug', then what's the issue?

EDIT: And I don't understand the relevance of this 'Facebook check' thing. First of all, I don't think one's private life is of any business to most employers for most positions (exceptions would be jobs such as the police). Second of all, it's pretty easy to control what information is put on-line about yourself. How would any of my future employers be able to relate this random post on an obscure website to me in any way? With regards to Facebook, I remove photos which I find unflattering of either myself or my friends. I do not put them online. In addition, one can access only the minutest amount of my personal information on Facebook without first being my 'friend'. It's very simple to be privacy-conscious.

[Heartless Angel]

I'd also like to make clear, particularly in response to Unkown Entity, that no one has the right to break the law. I did not state that I have the right to take drugs. I do not. But I am capable of making an adult decision. Technically, people have the obligation to follow speed restrictions on roads. Many do not, and they face consequences (either in terms of an increased probability of having an accident, or in terms of a speeding ticket). To rationalise my own (rather limited) marijuana use, I use it in the company of a small number of friends, in private. Hell, we don't even go outside when we use it. We know we are committing a crime. I'd rather not be, and I support the legalisation of marijuana for a number of reasons (like not providing monetary resources to gangs; I'd like to pay tax on it in order for the government to attempt to internalise any externalities that I do produce; and for there to be a legal age restriction; etc.). I am making an adult decision, and I am fully aware of the potential consequences of my actions. However, outside of work, I am not responsible to my employer. I am responsible to myself, those around me, and in common, to the State. That is where my consequences lie.

I also support the legalization of marijuanna, even though I don't use it, mainly for the gang funding issue. I mean really, you'd think at least the U.S. government would've learned something from the catastrophe that was Prohibition... apparently not... As for the last bit, I can't agree there. The effects are still present when you come to work tomorrow, at that point in time, it becoems your employer's busniess. If yur boss came to your house after working hours and asked you to piss in a cup for him, then yes, that would absolutely be an invasion of privacy, but when you're on the clock, he has the right to see what's influenceing you.

And please stop referring to me as a 'druggie'. Chances are I am less likely to become inebriated than most people here. I very rarely drink alcohol, and can count the number of times I have been properly drunk on a single hand. I personally believe that alcohol is a worse drug than marijuana - it's addictive (marijuana is not), it causes many people to become violent (the majority of domestic abuse incidents are attributable to alcohol), and is completely normalised to the extent that people use it (a 'drug') every day, and it is a right of passage to get drunk on most birthdays. It's legal, but its workplace ramifications are probably worse than marijuana. So where's the 'bitching' (Saskatchewan's term) about that?

Can't argue with that, alcohol is just as bad in the workplace. Honestly, I think they should test for that too. Even though it would be detrimental to me, I would fully support an employer's descision to test for it.

EDIT: And I don't understand the relevance of this 'Facebook check' thing. First of all, I don't think one's private life is of any business to most employers for most positions (exceptions would be jobs such as the police). Second of all, it's pretty easy to control what information is put on-line about yourself. How would any of my future employers be able to relate this random post on an obscure website to me in any way? With regards to Facebook, I remove photos which I find unflattering of either myself or my friends. I do not put them online. In addition, one can access only the minutest amount of my personal information on Facebook without first being my 'friend'. It's very simple to be privacy-conscious.

It's also pretty easy to control what chemicals show up in a urinalysis. By not taking drugs to begin with. But you choose to ignore that route, and must be prepared to accept the consequences of doing so.

[Merlin]

Pshaw... that is nothing. I have a desk job and I had to go through a urinalysis test, a blood test, a breathalyzer, an eye test, hooked up to an EKG, and a few other tests... so honestly anyone complaining about having to piss in the cup should be grateful. I can also be subjected to these tests at random times. The woman in the cube next to me was randomly selected 3 times in two weeks(and yes she's clean). If you want to talk about overkill and what is necessary, you should talk about what is required for a government job. Honestly, I'd take pissing in a cup any day. Of course, I'm not a drug user so there you go.

[Cheesevixen]

No one forces anyone to get a drug test in these situations. They ask you. You either do it or you don't. One way you MAYBE don't get the job, and the other you definitely don't get the job. I believe it is THEIR company so they can ask almost anything they want from a potential employee in order to keep the image they want to have. My only issue is drug testing for pot. I don't think that's entirely right seeing as it doesn't leave your system for such a long time, and it's not the worst thing in the world to do. I know people will say "well if you're stoned you cant do your job". Unless I see studies I am not going to weigh in on that. However, as a casual smoker than only smokes maybe 1-2 every three months and NOT much at all I don't think it's quite fair.