Should drug testing be legal for the workplace?

[Joe]

And a urine screening shows that you did something illegal, epending on the quality of the test it can give a fair idea of how long ago as well, and as of right now, it is legal in the workplace. In every aspect you mentioned just now, drug screening are exactly the same. Especially since, when you apply to a palce that does drug tests, you consent to them when you take the job.

The issue at hand is if it SHOULD be legal. And it shouldn't, for the very reasons I stated in my previous post. Drug testing is an invasion of privacy, and a power that only law enforcement officials should have. I also believe that said tests should only be issued with suspected probable cause or a warrant.

My body is my own, and should not Legally be someone else's business.

[Heartless Angel]

The issue at hand is if it SHOULD be legal. And it shouldn't, for the very reasons I stated in my previous post. Drug testing is an invasion of privacy, and a power that only law enforcement officials should have. I also believe that said tests should only be issued with suspected probable cause or a warrant.

My body is my own, and should not Legally be someone else's business.

Personally I don't think alot of things should be illegal, but they are. And really, what makes them different? One involves piss that belongs to you, and yes, I'm sure you'll miss it when those evil employers take it from you, that's the only real difference here. If I needed a sample of your piss to check your criminal background for some bizarre reason, would you say I no longer had the right to check it?

That is not correct sir. The only test that can give that information is a hair follicle test. It is inconclusive in any urinalysis on the latest time of use only that you have within the last 45 days.

I never specified that the test was urinalysis o.O A folicle test would be considered better quality, yes?

[Joe]

Personally I don't think alot of things should be illegal, but they are. And really, what makes them different? One involves piss that belongs to you, and yes, I'm sure you'll miss it when those evil employers take it from you, that's the only real difference here. If I needed a sample of your piss to check your criminal background for some bizarre reason, would would say I no longer had the right to check it?

I never said employers are evil, and since the urine sample would be used to check a Public Record database in this instance, and not for drugs or other substances that are not a matter of public knowledge, I would consent.

Do you not see the line I'm painting between public record and my private life and body?

[Heartless Angel]

The drugs tehy test for are ILLEGAL. If you commit any other crime in your own home, is it any less of a crime to do so? If you get caught commiting homicide in your basement in your free time, I guarentee you you'll recieve the same punishment as if you did it at work. When checking a criminal record, you determine whether or not the person has committed any crimes. When you screen someone's piss for drugs, you are checking to see if they have committed any crimes. Whether or not it is a crime of a personal nature is irellevant, they are seeing if you have broken the law.

[Joe]

The drugs tehy test for are ILLEGAL. If you commit any other crime in your own home, is it any less of a crime to do so? If you get caught commiting homicide in your basement in your free time, I guarentee you you'll recieve the same punishment as if you did it at work. When checking a criminal record, you determine whether or not the person has committed any crimes. When you screen someone's piss for drugs, you are checking to see if they have committed any crimes. Whether or not it is a crime of a personal nature is irellevant, they are seeing if you have broken the law.

Employers check criminal records to see if a person has been Convicted of a crime, and sentenced by a court of law. In this country you are presumed innocent until proven guilty before a court of law, not until a private entity decides you have broken the law.

There's a time and place to be charged with a crime, and that is via legal means by Law Enforcement. Last time I checked, the local Hardee's was not Law Enforcement, and they weren't charging me with a crime for which my urine was required as evidence.

[Heartless Angel]

I can't even read anymore of this thread. It's filled with responses like this. It's shocking. How is someone who's high and working the counter of a McDonalds or Wal-Mart and if it should be okay that they do get lumped in with deciding if murder is legal or not?

Because, all the other responses which i find equally shocking, are in support of the pothead at McDonalds who is in fact BREAKING THE LAW. The thread is not discussing the legality of marijuanna, but the legality of testing someone to see whether or not they have BROKEN THE LAW. Whether or not you believe the ILLEGAL act in question should be ILLEGAL is not rellvant. By performing said act, you are BREAKING THE LAW. I am attempting to show people WHY an employer would check for these things by comparing it to another law which people look at as a law, rather than a subjective arguing point. Whether or not you agree with drug laws, drugs are ILLEGAL. The company has every right to see whther or not they are employing CRIMINALS. Need I state this any more bluntly?

Employers check criminal records to see if a person has been Convicted of a crime, and sentenced by a court of law. In this country you are presumed innocent until proven guilty before a court of law, not until a private entity decides you have broken the law.

There's a time and place to be charged with a crime, and that is via legal means by Law Enforcement. Last time I checked, the local Hardee's was not Law Enforcement, and they weren't charging me with a crime for which my urine was required as evidence.

Your employer also doesn't arrest you when you show up positive, he fires you. That's his business. He sees that you have broken the law and no longer wishes to employ you. The exact same thing that happens when he looks at your criminal record and discovers that you have broken the law.

[Joe]

Your employer also doesn't arrest you when you show up positive, he fires you. That's his business. He sees that you have broken the law and no longer wishes to employ you. The exact same thing that happens when he looks at your criminal record and discovers that you have broken the law.

The posts here that are in support of the Pothead at McDonalds breaking the law are supporting him because it's his right to do so without his employer's knowledge until such time as he is caught, tried, and convicted by a court of law.

It's none of the employers business what you do in your off hours, legal or otherwise, and saying that it's somehow their right to monitor that is absurd.

There's no denying that marijuana is illegal, the idea is that it's your business until you are legally convicted of possession or use or what have you, not firing you because you allegedly did something.

The difference between refusal to hire over a drug test and refusal to hire over a criminal record is that a criminal record shows that a person has ACTUALLY broken the law, and a drug test doesn't mean squat until used as evidence in order to convict.

[Kooky Spice]

Because, all the other responses which i find equally shocking, are in support of the pothead at McDonalds who is in fact BREAKING THE LAW. The thread is not discussing the legality of marijuanna, but the legality of testing someone to see whether or not they have BROKEN THE LAW. Whether or not you believe the ILLEGAL act in question should be ILLEGAL is not rellvant. By performing said act, you are BREAKING THE LAW. I am attempting to show people WHY an employer would check for these things by comparing it to another law which people look at as a law, rather than a subjective arguing point. Whether or not you agree with drug laws, drugs are ILLEGAL. The company has every right to see whther or not they are employing CRIMINALS. Need I state this any more bluntly?

Heartless, even you (and I know this to be true) are smart enough to see that Murder vs. Drug use is a bit of a stretch. Yes they are both illegal but Using drugs is merely a social discord, whereas murder is morally wrong. I mean weigh it out man.

[Kooky Spice]

Personally I don't think alot of things should be illegal, but they are. And really, what makes them different? One involves piss that belongs to you, and yes, I'm sure you'll miss it when those evil employers take it from you, that's the only real difference here. If I needed a sample of your piss to check your criminal background for some bizarre reason, would you say I no longer had the right to check it?



I never specified that the test was urinalysis o.O A folicle test would be considered better quality, yes?

Ah yes, game point to you this time sir. Sorry out of habit I usually automatically think UA, but then again follicle testing was deemed inconclusive due to the "fact" that hair does not contain any usable source of DNA, also extraction was deemed inhumane.

I can't even read anymore of this thread. It's filled with responses like this. It's shocking. How is someone who's high and working the counter of a McDonalds or Wal-Mart and if it should be okay that they do get lumped in with deciding if murder is legal or not?

\
That's how politicians get away with it my good man.