Should drug testing be legal for the workplace?

[Heartless Angel]

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.

Pretty ballsy to complain that the employer chooses NOT to turn you in to the police and use that as evidence to convict you, legally speaking they would be within their rights to do so. Personally I'd count my blessings that I'm ONLY being fired rather than arrested when caught in the act of comitting a crime. Call it an implied settlement deal. You get out of my place of business and don't come back, I don't take this to court.

If I caught you stealing from my cash register, but didn't have a security camera or any other witnesses, odds are I would not be able to convict you in a court of law. Would you call me unfair for firing you anyways?

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.

Don't take me the wrong way there, I'm not saying the two are anywhere near equal in severity. But in this argument, majority of arguments in favor come from people who use these substances, therefore breaking the law, whose main reason for their belief is usually their own opinion on the substance. This generrally causes people to completely ignore the fact that it's still illegal; and we'll end up arguing about the legality and morality of weed instead of drug screening.

[Kooky Spice]

Pretty ballsy to complain that the employer chooses NOT to turn you in to the police and use that as evidence to convict you, legally speaking they would be within their rights to do so. Personally I'd count my blessings that I'm ONLY being fired rather than arrested when caught in the act of comitting a crime. Call it an implied settlement deal. You get out of my place of business and don't come back, I don't take this to court.

Actually that is considered hearsay, also no employer can release any doctor related documentation due to the fact that if they had those in his/her possession the Doctor/Radiologist has just f*cked up big time cause that violates doctor patient confidentiality laws. The Radiologist is only allowed to pass on the info of weather or not the test came back positive, no documentation involved. Therefore the manager has no proof and only the justice courts can subpoena that info but only if it pertains to big case. Also just in case anyone was wondering it is NOT illegal to have it in your system just to possess it that is why the charge is called "possession".

Don't take me the wrong way there, I'm not saying the two are anywhere near equal in severity. But in this argument, majority of arguments in favor come from people who use these substances, therefore breaking the law, whose main reason for their belief is usually their own opinion on the substance. This generrally causes people to completely ignore the fact that it's still illegal; and we'll end up arguing about the legality and morality of weed instead of drug screening.

I don't mean to misunderstand or put hidden agendas behind what you say. I'm just saying that it would be nice to hear drug use not compared to such an extreme crime such as murder or rape or something to that nature.

[Joe]

Pretty ballsy to complain that the employer chooses NOT to turn you in to the police and use that as evidence to convict you, legally speaking they would be within their rights to do so. Personally I'd count my blessings that I'm ONLY being fired rather than arrested when caught in the act of comitting a crime. Call it an implied settlement deal. You get out of my place of business and don't come back, I don't take this to court.

If I caught you stealing from my cash register, but didn't have a security camera or any other witnesses, odds are I would not be able to convict you in a court of law. Would you call me unfair for firing you anyways?

It's not an employer's job to collect evidence for a criminal case in court, that is the police's job. So no, I would not need to count any blessings, as again, the employer's job is not to take you to the police and have you charged for a crime. I'm not entirely sure that employer collected drug screens are admissible as evidence in court. Circumstantial evidence, at best. False positives can occur as well.

If I were caught stealing from a cash register, of Course I'd be fired. Doing something detrimental to the business or against the law while AT WORK is easily grounds to be fired on. Just like if I were caught blazing a joint AT WORK.

Again, what a person does ON THEIR OWN TIME, legal or not, is not for an employer's knowledge or benefit.

[Heartless Angel]

It's not an employer's job to collect evidence for a criminal case in court, that is the police's job. So no, I would not need to count any blessings, as again, the employer's job is not to take you to the police and have you charged for a crime. I'm not entirely sure that employer collected drug screens are admissible as evidence in court. Circumstantial evidence, at best. False positives can occur as well.

If I were caught stealing from a cash register, of Course I'd be fired. Doing something detrimental to the business or against the law while AT WORK is easily grounds to be fired on. Just like if I were caught blazing a joint AT WORK.

Again, what a person does ON THEIR OWN TIME, legal or not, is not for an employer's knowledge or benefit.

Except the THC still shows up in your blood AT WORK. It's still there. You might not be totally baked, but you still have a substance in your system, which is known to impair you even after the immediate effects have worn off. But since apparently you missed the point of my statement about stealing from the register, let's try a new scenario... Let's say, after hours in the middle of the night I catch you breaking into my house. I lack evidence to convict you of the crime, do you expect to have a job tomorrow anyways?

And on another note entirely; you never HAVE to consent to a drug test. Similarly your employer doesn't HAVE to continue employing you now that you've given him probable cause to believe you're a drug user for refusing to consent to said tests. Whether it's a standardized law or not doesn't matter when you enter an agreement with an employer. If one of his conditions for hiring you is that you submit to random drug screenings, deal with it. Morally right, wrong, or otherwise, if you agree to it, it's perfectly legal. There is ABSOLUTELY nothing illegal about proposing an agreement with even the most ridiculous terms. If someone accepts the terms, it's legal. So if we're talking strictly about legallity, game, set, and match. You agreed to it; unless you can prove you were insane at the time of the agreement, it's legal. If you didn't agree to it, fine, I don't hire you. End of story. When you're working for me, you're on MY time, not yours. By your own words, What I do on MY time is none of your business. That includes any random drug screening I decide to do on my employees, who once again, I remind you, have consented to this the moment they took the job.