Thread: Is workplace drug testing necessary for the common good?

Is workplace drug testing necessary for the common good?

Is it excessive for the government to do drug testing on people at work or at school?

Or is this the only way we can win the war on drugs and assure safety at the workplace?

THERE ARE ONLY A FEW PROFESSIONA THAT MAYBE SHOULD DO DRUG TESTING. LIKE SCHOOL BUS DRIVER OR PHARMACIST. BUT FOR MOST JOBS IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL TO REQUIRE DRUG TESTING. ONLY A SMALL PERCENT OF PEOPLE DO DRUGS SO IT ISNT FAIR. AND NO TO SCHOOLS. SCHOOLS SHOULD NOT BE TESTING FOR DRUGS. THERE IS NO REASON TO DO THIS. IT IS A VIOLATION OF PRIVACY. FUTHERMORE IT IS DEMEANING TO HAVE TO PEE IN A CUP TO GET A JOB.

WAR ON DRUGS LOL. THE WAR ON DRUGS IS A WAR ON ILL PEOPLE. TAKE THAT ENFORCEMENT AND DRUG TESTING MONEY AND PUT IT INTO DRUG TREATMENT INSTEAD. INCARCERATING ILL PEOPLE WONT CURE THEM. NOT LETTING THEM WORK WONT CURE THEM. TREATMENT IS THE BEST APPROACH. THE FACT THAT WE ACTUALLY PUT SICK PEOPLE IN JAIL FOR BEING SICK IS SAD.

Agreed. Isn't there such a thing called presumption of innocence?

I have no problem with the random drug tests at work, it's a requirement for the job and our nurse does it.
I think anyone receiving welfare should be subject to random tests. If they test positive, they can get the medical help needed. Taxpayer funds are to help people in need not to finance a drug addicts habit.

Originally Posted by PhredE

Agreed. Isn't there such a thing called presumption of innocence?

Does that apply to airline pilots too? Should everybody be exempt on the basis of a presumption of innocence?

Uh, the US Constitution wasn't written to apply to only certain people in certain vocations....

While I understand the importance of ensuring a legal and safe transport system, most people, in fact, most pilots, are not drug abusers.

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental right given by the Founders.

I'll agree to disagree with you on this one.

In Nebraska they did hair analysis....talk about more info than necessary. My husband had one for a job cleaning a cheese factory when it was closed. Sanitizing the equipment and all.

I've had more drug tests in jobs where it was really un-necessary and none in jobs where you'd think it would matter. Heck there's people in the government making decisions that effect our lives and they've been known to go in drunk and under the influence of medication.

I can understand if there's injury, why they might require one so if it's because of the employees drugged state they wouldn't be held responsible....but otherwise I don't think it's necessary. Heck my mom got loopy as all get out from legal prescription, not mind altering medication that was worse than any messed up person I've seen.

I'd be more worried about a drunk roofer than a drunk motel maid.....but I've been tested to get a maids job and know no roofer who ever has. They tested the houskeeping department in a senior living center but not the nurses....the kid at Mc Donalds but not a Senator. There's no rhyme or reason to it.

crazybird - thanks, you added words to what I was thinking but not saying. My experience(s) have been roughly similar.

Being drug-tested to sit in a cubicle behind a computer all day long....? (eg. use no vehicles, no special equipment, etc - it's just an open door to snoop into the privacy of primarily innocent and law-abiding Americans).

If such a program were to carry forward, my one big condition or caveat would be that it be based on prior behavior (eg. previous evidence of a problem). Right now, the rules which govern who/whom can 'inspect' your medical background are loose and fuzzy for the most part (practically speaking, and yes, I do know all about HIPPA)... so if any employer wanted to mess with their employees, all they had to do is force a drug test in a subjective manner (singling-out a particular 'problem employee' for example) as a basis for firing or other action. In fact, if you look at the history of the overall drug-testing practice, you will find no shortage of cases of previous and verified abuses.

Originally Posted by PhredE

Uh, the US Constitution wasn't written to apply to only certain people in certain vocations....

While I understand the importance of ensuring a legal and safe transport system, most people, in fact, most pilots, are not drug abusers.

The presumption of innocence is a fundamental right given by the Founders.

I'll agree to disagree with you on this one.

But isn't random drug testing a condition of employment. Doesn't an employer have the right to take measures to assure the safety of its passengers?

Note also that while Congress is prohibited by the Constitution from passing laws restricting freedom of speech, an employer has the right to restrict employees' speech at the workplace. Do employers have that right, in your opinion?

But isn't random drug testing a condition of employment. Doesn't an employer have the right to take measures to assure the safety of its passengers?

This is not a requirement for most employers. Nor should it be.
For many in the transport and medical/drug-handling jobs, sure, and that's probably reasonable if done objectively. Many more employers do drug tests that are wholly unwarranted (based on job classification, use of equipment, etc) - for most, it becomes a 'trolling' mechanism and or a method to harass and pry into private law-abiding citizen's backgrounds and private medical information. In fact, if you monitor the trend of this practice, you'll see that more companies are beginning to step away modestly in an admission that it 'just doesn't do any good'. The problem people you can identify in other ways, and those same people will go to great lengths to skirt test results.

Note also that while Congress is prohibited by the Constitution from passing laws restricting freedom of speech, an employer has the right to restrict employees' speech at the workplace. Do employers have that right, in your opinion?

I can't honestly say that I'm a fan of either side of that equation. Employment is one thing, free speech quite another.

Sorry, I have to disagree on these. This is one area where I think the ACLU is actually correct.