Should drug testing be legal for the workplace?

[che]

That's where I must disagree with you. The thread is about the legality of drug TESTS, not the drug itself. As long as the drug remains illegal, the test is absolutely justified. When maijuanna becomes legal, it'll be no different than alcohol. It'll be allowed until some idiot fails to enjoy the priveledge in moderation and ****s it up royally for the rest of us.

I don't get what you are saying here. Alcohol is still legal to drink, nobody ****ed that up for us, despite the numerous DUIs that have been issued.

Unfortunately, it's the idiots that laws are made for. A moderately intelligent person knows it's probably not the best idea to go operate complicated heavy machinery while shit-faced, and so they drink after hours. But then you have the overwhelming presence of idiots in the world who'd show up shit-faced every day if you didn't specifically tell them not to. And when one of those morons who can't even stand up straight causes a problem, bam, we get a law that ****s the rest of us. Blame stupid people. LAws and warning labels aren't made for 9999/10000 people who excorcise good judgement and common sense, they're for that one dumbass who couldn't pour piss out of a boot without an instruction manual. Sucks for the rest of us, yeah, but it is what it is.

@the bold of your post: I am a strong believer in the "you're only as strong as the weakest person" mentality.

As for the rest of your post, of course it's illegit to show up at work wasted or high and operate machinery. But you said yourself an intelligent person knows not to do that, and would do it after hours. However, drugs stay in your body for a while, and what happens if that person is never drunk or high at work but they are randomly drug tested? They could be the best working employee at the company and get fired because of the drug test. Even if they weren't high or drunk at work.

[Joe]

I don't know, why bother making murder illegal? Just sentence people who commit it. It kinda has to be a low to justify firing them for that reason, just as you'd kinda need to specify that murder was illegal to have any legal right to punish somebody for it... unless of course you carried out that ounishment by murder... which wouldn't be illegal in that scenario... ok, maybe not the BEST analogy, but you get the idea.

As for computer checks, to be perfectly honest, a place could probably get away with that if they made a big enough deal of it, or had experiences with the problem in the past to use to jutsify it in court.

There's a difference between something being handled by the courts, and something being handled by your EMPLOYER. Your employer's job is Not to look around and screen everyone who may or may not be breaking the law. Your employers job is to pay people to get work done. Once you come to work High, you might be expected (reasonably so) to submit to a test. Random drug testing is simply an invasion of privacy.

Murder is illegal and drug possession is illegal, but it is the job of the Justice and law enforcement system to enforce that, not a private entity's.

[Kooky Spice]

Unfortunately, it's the idiots that laws are made for. A moderately intelligent person knows it's probably not the best idea to go operate complicated heavy machinery while shit-faced, and so they drink after hours. But then you have the overwhelming presence of idiots in the world who'd show up shit-faced every day if you didn't specifically tell them not to. And when one of those morons who can't even stand up straight causes a problem, bam, we get a law that ****s the rest of us. Blame stupid people. LAws and warning labels aren't made for 9999/10000 people who excorcise good judgement and common sense, they're for that one dumbass who couldn't pour piss out of a boot without an instruction manual. Sucks for the rest of us, yeah, but it is what it is.

EDIT: MORE STUPID LAWS!

In Nebraska, it is illegal to drive a covered wagon on sundays. I know, I want to take mine out for a sunday drive all the time, but I restrain myself...

I forget where, but there's a place where it's illegal to tie a giraffe to a telephone pole. I mean, where else are you gonna tie the damn thing, amirite?

In Chicago, it is illegal to refuse to leave a burning restaraunt. And as i mentioned here, most laws are the reuslt of one dumbass... makes you wonder who the genius here was. SIR THE BUILDING IS ON FIRE! EVACUATE! Ahem, can you not see I am trying to enjoy my meal?!

Oh trust me I blame stupid people for most of the wrongdoings that happen. Unfortunately that is true but at the same time it starts extremely negative stereotypes that get stamped on every individual that chooses to, for example, smoke weed and drink booze. The main issue that frustrates me is that because of these stereotypes individuals (like myself) who choose to take the high road and be responsible about when to do it, where to do it, and how much to do before it would be best to not anymore for the day, end up getting shit on because it's not "socially acceptable", or some moron did something stupid while on it. I know about stupid potheads. I mean here in Arizona some teens made a young child take a hit off of a bong and video taped it cause they thought it was funny. Not only was I disgusted by this pure act of negligence and idiocy but I actually wanted these people to be hung and shot. I have 3 kids of my own and over the years have learned that there is a time and place.

Btw I roffled so hard at that Piss in a boot comment you made XD. Good stuff! ^_^

[Heartless Angel]

I don't get what you are saying here. Alcohol is still legal to drink, nobody ****ed that up for us, despite the numerous DUIs that have been issued.

Not for me <.< even though I use in moderation and don't show up to work drunk. And some palces will test for alcohol as well, though it doesn't stay in the system nearly as long, so it's not AS big of a deal, but there still have been limits palced on it because somebody was a dumbass at some point in time.

As for the rest of your post, of course it's illegit to show up at work wasted or high and operate machinery. But you said yourself an intelligent person knows not to do that, and would do it after hours. However, drugs stay in your body for a while, and what happens if that person is never drunk or high at work but they are randomly drug tested? They could be the best working employee at the company and get fired because of the drug test. Even if they weren't high or drunk at work.

Part of that goes back to research that shows that even when you're not still wasted, you still aren't operating at 100%, part of it goes back to the fact that it's illegal. If my best employee was a mass murderer, even if he never brought his AK-47 to work, he would probably make people look down on my business just a bit. So some of that is personal. Some people simply don't trust potheads to do complicated things. Most eople who strongly oppose drugs never have done them, and DON'T know that you can still function relatively normally under their influence in most cases.

There's a difference between something being handled by the courts, and something being handled by your EMPLOYER. Your employer's job is Not to look around and screen everyone who may or may not be breaking the law. Your employers job is to pay people to get work done. Once you come to work High, you might be expected (reasonably so) to submit to a test. Random drug testing is simply an invasion of privacy.

Would you consider checking somebody's criminal backgrond before hiring them an invasion of privacy?

[Joe]

Would you consider checking somebody's criminal backgrond before hiring them an invasion of privacy?

A criminal background is public record and accessible by anyone. The chemicals in my urine are not. A criminal record proves a person did something, and when they did it, and can be looked up by anyone at any time. (I should know, I've had to look up my stepfather's record)

I don't have a problem with anyone looking up public record information, as that's not an invasion of privacy. Hence the term "Public" record.

[Heartless Angel]

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.

[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.

[Kooky Spice]

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.

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.

[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.

[midgetbob]

I don't know, why bother making murder illegal? Just sentence people who commit it. It kinda has to be a low to justify firing them for that reason, just as you'd kinda need to specify that murder was illegal to have any legal right to punish somebody for it... unless of course you carried out that ounishment by murder... which wouldn't be illegal in that scenario... ok, maybe not the BEST analogy, but you get the idea.

As for computer checks, to be perfectly honest, a place could probably get away with that if they made a big enough deal of it, or had experiences with the problem in the past to use to jutsify it in court.

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?

This book was written about you.... I promise.


And I'm not being sarcastic............. I PROMISE.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[winterborn86]

Yes I think all workplaces should do drug testing, especially in places like factories and child care places such as schools and clubs.
The reason I think these to work places are important is because machines and drugs don't mix obviously, drugs can effect you in alot of ways and you could probably end up losing a hand.
And child care places should be tested because, I don't know about the rest of you but I don't want a drug addict taking care of my kids, it's why I don't let my sister have the kids alone, because she is a drug user (smokes).
Matt works in a printing factory and I know his do drug testing, not sure ow often tho, but I do know that one guy was fired for showing up as a user after one of the tests.

[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.

[midgetbob]

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?



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.

Actually... first... maybe you should READ the original post. Here... let me put it down for you:

Is it right for companies to drug test their employees? So what if someone wants to smoke some weed when they aren't on-duty? On the other hand, I think if you're high at work and can't do your job properly, your employer should reserve the right to drug test you and fire you if necessary. Sort of a don't ask don't tell policy.

Not everyone drug tests. Do you think it helps in all cases, or some, or never?

To specify your idiocy:

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.

So... this thread is actually do you think it's right to test someone. Not legally, just if they should or shouldn't. So... once again you've fallen into the category of:


Though, with how you're arguing about it... I could make a just as arbitrary argument. Them testing to see if you're on drugs is an invasion of privacy. They can use public record to see if you've been convicted of anything - and not hiring you because of that we'll just say is bias-ism and therefor illegal under EO law - but they can't drug test you.

See how redundant we can be if we just assume something? Maybe next time read the post. <3

[Heartless Angel]

Though, with how you're arguing about it... I could make a just as arbitrary argument. Them testing to see if you're on drugs is an invasion of privacy. They can use public record to see if you've been convicted of anything - and not hiring you because of that we'll just say is bias-ism and therefor illegal under EO law - but they can't drug test you.

See how redundant we can be if we just assume something? Maybe next time read the post. <3

Ah yes, flaming. The way you're arguing about it, I feel it nescessary to point out that your statements are a great way to advertise that you have very little to support your position, and must attempt to shift the argument away from it with pathetic attempts at insulting me. And interesting that you'd attempt to back your side with LAW while simultaneously shooting dwon LAW that doesn't support your opinion. Self-contradiction, also the clear mark of a master in the art of debate. And perhaps while on the subject of reading, care to tell me what the fifth word of the title of this thread is? I assume you can count that high, please don't feel you have to prove me wrong. I can start arguing your way from here on, or go back to using actual facts and law to support my position rather than flaming like a 9 year old. Your call.

[Alpha]

Thank you, Joe, for bringing up the point I forgot to make earlier but thought would be bleedingly obvious.

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. The police collect evidence in order to arrest people. Then they are put in a public trial, on the presumption of innocence. The accused enters a plea, then evidence is provided for and against, and a jury of one's peers (representatives of the public), decide whether or not they have committed a crime, based on the presented evidence. A judge decides what evidence is permissible, and interprets the law for the jury to come to a knowledgeable conclusion.

What's missing from this equation? Oh, yeah, private interests. One's employer is not the State. They do not decide what is illegal or otherwise. They must uphold the law -- in other words, ensuring that illegal activity is not taking place on their premises - drug taking, dealing, and in many cases, the operation of machinery while under the influence of drugs. That is the end of their responsibility. If one is breaking the law at work, fine - fire them.

If drugs impair one's performance at work, it should be obvious. And if they do not - which is mostly the case - then on what grounds can they be dismissed, if they have been doing drugs in their own time? Thus, if impairment is clear, one shouldn't even need to be tested for drugs. To do so is invasive beyond an employer's rights. An employee's body is just that. Likewise with an employee's free time. To compare this to murder/letter box smashing/whatever-the-hell-you're-going-to-bring-up-next is stupid, because you're proceeding purely on principle, when you need to step back and think more rationally and apply it to this specific case.

A workplace drug test cannot possibly be more than circumstantial evidence. What if I go to my friends house, and they are (responsibly) using drugs, and I inadvertently breathe second-hand smoke? That could turn up in my blood. Hell, what if I go to a concert, surrounded by stoned teenagers, but I myself am not smoking? In both instances, I have neither got high nor committed a crime. Yet that would be enough for an employer to dismiss me. The police have the responsibility of accurately charging the perpetrators of crime -- employers neither have the capacity nor the right to do the same, unless it happens under their jurisdiction, i.e., at work.

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. I know how to take recreational drugs responsibly. I know it is illegal, and I know I'm taking a risk, but I do it in private, and as long as I do not negatively impact other people, I can't see why I should have to stop. I don't turn up to work high, nor do I study high. I'm high when I get high. If I'm not doing anything illegal at work, there is no reasonable grounds for my dismissal. An employer CANNOT tell me what to do in my free time; my employment contract starts and stops at the door. The State can attempt to dictate what I can do in my free time, but I take that risk on my own mandate.

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.

[midgetbob]

Again you failed to actually READ what was written. Let me quote and bold it for you.... again.

Though, with how you're arguing about it... I could make a just as arbitrary argument.

You wanted to use Law, when LAW had no place in the argument. So using your methodology, I created my own diatribe of ridiculousness. As for what my opinion is on the subject... again, if you would have READ anything, you'd have seen it. I'll go ahead and elaborate here in hopes it sticks this time.

I don't think you should be on drugs and in the military serving active duty.

I don't think if you're currently at work and have the potential for people's lives based off a decision you make - ie doctors for example - should be allowed to be under the influence WHILE WORKING. Simply give someone a test as they get to work, most of them can be done super fast.

I don't think companies should require a drug test in order to be hired. If someone is messing up at work, gets hurt and it's found they were on drugs? Well, now the company is in the position to fire them for it... and the person doesn't get the insurance from Worker's Comp. So they screwed themselves. If someone wants to do drugs, let them. It's their life - sans the 2 exceptions I mentioned earlier.


Oh Alpha...

[Heartless Angel]

What's missing from this equation? Oh, yeah, private interests. One's employer is not the State. They do not decide what is illegal or otherwise. They must uphold the law -- in other words, ensuring that illegal activity is not taking place on their premises - drug taking, dealing, and in many cases, the operation of machinery while under the influence of drugs. That is the end of their responsibility. If one is breaking the law at work, fine - fire them.

And it has been shown that the presence of mind altering substances in one's body, even after the immediate effects are no logner evident, can impair a person. So by your own words, that is grounds for dismissal.

If drugs impair one's performance at work, it should be obvious. And if they do not - which is mostly the case - then on what grounds can they be dismissed, if they have been doing drugs in their own time? Thus, if impairment is clear, one shouldn't even need to be tested for drugs. To do so is invasive beyond an employer's rights. An employee's body is just that. Likewise with an employee's free time. To compare this to murder/letter box smashing/whatever-the-hell-you're-going-to-bring-up-next is stupid, because you're proceeding purely on principle, when you need to step back and think more rationally and apply it to this specific case

Thinking rationally, in the case of a stoner who is obviously high at work, if we did things that way, said stoner would argue that an employer has no evidence of the presence of the drug, correct? So how do we get around this? Oh! Here's an idea! BY TESTING THEM.

I know it is illegal, and I know I'm taking a risk, but I do it in private, and as long as I do not negatively impact other people, I can't see why I should have to stop.

Need I even remark? I mean, really? If you commit the crime, you'd best be prepared for the consequences, all that needs be said. If you want to take that rsik, fine, that's your choice, don't whine about it when somebody decides to punish you for that choice.

I don't turn up to work high, nor do I study high. I'm high when I get high. If I'm not doing anything illegal at work, there is no reasonable grounds for my dismissal. An employer CANNOT tell me what to do in my free time; my employment contract starts and stops at the door. The State can attempt to dictate what I can do in my free time, but I take that risk on my own mandate.

However, you can't argue that that employer does NOT have the right to dictate what chemicals may be influencing you while on the job. He tells you you can't come to work with THC in your bloodstream, that's his call. You chose to smoke a bowl last night knowing the next day you would in fact be violating this regulation. You made your choice, you accept its consequences.

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

Alright, I'll agree to stop using law that supports my side because you don't like it if you and everyone else on your side also agrees to stop bringing up any legal evidence that supports your side instead of mine. Because that totally makes for a fair debate. Try again. You're right, an employer can't FORCE you into it just because he's your employer. But if you sign a contract agreeing to it, you'd better believe you can be held to it. You don't like the terms, you don't sign it. I'll drop my points as soon as you drop all of yours.

[Merlin]

Where I work, safety is top priority. Even if you so much as don't wear a pair of gloves to throw a cardboard box in a trash can, that is grounds for a write-up at the very least, based on the fact that what you are doing has the possibility to become a workplace accident. In a safety culture, there are enough rules to fill a dictionary-sized book in order to protect people from being hurt, from hurting others, and to ensure that work is being done as prescribed. There are times when I think the rules are a bit over-the-top (such as reporting to medical if you get a paper cut as it might get infected and your finger falls off), but hey... as unlikely as that event is to occur, it could happen and their ass is covered (and your finger is saved).

It's like the label on the side of many drugs telling you not to operate heavy machinery, etc because the drug may impede your ability to do so. Whether or not your particular body can handle the effects or not is irrelevant. If a drug has been shown to impede an individual if it is in the system (at any level) I feel a company has the right to remove you from the workplace. If you can smoke two quarts of marijuana and come in the next day perfectly fine, then more power to you. The guy next to you that smoked one blunt is mumbling about Smurfs invading his underwear. It isn't necessarily fair to lump both into the same category, but as far as an employer is concerned, it is better to be safe than sorry.

On the grounds of it being an invasion of privacy, I can concur that it definitely invasive. On the other hand, I believe it is a necessary evil in this case, as drugs can impede you whether you are aware of it or not. Just because you think you are fine doesn't mean you are. Your personal opinion of your current mental state is not empirical evidence. People on drugs claim they are fine all the time, even when they can't walk a straight line. How are employers supposed to know that you can smoke 2 quarts of weed and still function? They don't. Rather than take the risk that you can't, they terminate you.

I would also like to point out that I used to be an assistant store manager for McDonalds so I have first-hand experience working with people who had gotten high the night before as well as people who got high on their break. While it is obviously a small sample, I have seen the effects these drugs have on people's ability to function in a job. I could tell someone was off their game by how they were performing their job (as I was right next to them for hours on end). Whenever an individual was high the night before, his/her performance suffered. The person was completely unaware of it but I could tell. I didn't have to drug screen them to know. Now in a larger company, your boss isn't glued to your ass all day so it's a bit harder to know someone is underperforming... so they rely on drug screenings. I personally would rather deal with a drug screen than to have my boss sitting in my cube all day watching me or running excessive statistical queries on everything I do to see if I am performing at 100%. It's bad enough having a project manager who honestly DOES need to smoke some weed so he'd calm the fudge down. Project managers love to be all over you about things that aren't supposed to be done anytime soon. Got it done yet? How about now? Now? Is it done? HELLO??? Are you working on it? Now? Is it done?

So for me, if I can do a drug test and not have to deal with MORE people hovering over me, then I'll take it. But that's just me.

[OceanEyes28]

Just as a side note... some of you are getting a little too emotional about this and need to calm down. Be civil to one another. Maybe try making reasons for your argument rather than just reasons against another person's. Especially if that reason against is, "Obviously you can't read" or "Well you're just an idiot." No need to be rude. Make your points, refute arguments, whatever. But try your best to be respectful.

It would be best if you didn't respond directly to my post; simply carry on your debate with it in mind.

[Unknown Entity]

I don't take drugs, and I rarely drink, so it doesn't really apply to me - drug test me, and the results will be squeaky clean.

However, I do agree that what you decide to do in your own time is your own business. That's private, and I guess as long as it stays at home and is not effecting your work, then it shouldn't be a big issue.

Saying that, I wouldn't want someone working for me who spends all of their pay on drinks, drugs, or someone who whacks off to child porn (I'm not making a connection between drugs/alcohol and child porn, btw, just saying that not all the things you do in private are things others will like). That's just a personal preference to secure the welfare of my company - I wouldn't want the public to associate drunks or illegal doings with my name. Also, as for cursing? Curse, as long as it's not a direct cuss at another employee or around customers.

Also, one or two people have mentioned that it's their right to get stoned if they want. Umm... right. You don't have the right to get stoned - you have the right to make a decision to get stoned if it's within the law of your state or country. I mean, if it's illegal to smoke pot in your area, then the only reason to not take a drug test is if you'd broken the law. What makes you think you deserve that job if you broke the law?

At the end of the day, if you don't like drug testing, either A) Don't take the drugs, or B) Get yourself a new job. Simple.

So... I'm all for it.