We could 'What If' this thing for ever if we wanted to.

 

Like I said, I will take the test. If I didn't want to take it I would find another job. Not a big deal to me. The owner of the company has every right to set forth policys about drug and alcohol use. They can affect your perfomance on the job.

On to check points. I think they are a great tool for law enforcement as far as catching people under the influence, and in some cases looking for fugitives and contraban. If the police have probable cause to search my truck, I will let them. I have nothing to hide.

As for my house, if you have a warrent or even just ask politly, I will let a member of the law enforcement community search my house at any time.

Dont get me wrong, I am all about personal freedom. I just dont like to have people that may be under the influence around me at work or on the road. In my mind they are just as dangerous as any other person that wants to harm me.

Driving and working with some one in the situations that I encounter every day is like Russian Roulett if they are under the influence.

I dont hold an office job, never have and never will. If one of my coworkers screws up they can kill me really quick really eaisley. Being under the influence just increases those chances.

Same thing on the road. You car can be a leathal weapon. One mistake and you can kill someone with it, being under the influence makes that mistake much more likley.

The drug tests are just one tool to help keep me safe at work and if they were implimented, on the road.

I dont care if you smoke your self to cloud 9 and drink like a fish. Get out on the roads, or come to work around me while under the influence, then I care.

This is turning into a good debate

 

On the flipside... if there were no drug testing there whould probably be a public outcry that businesses were shirking their responsibilty to ensure the safety of the public.

 

It amazes me that many people don't seem to mind diminishing freedoms as long as it doesn't directly affect their personal lifestyle. Don't they understand how inches can turn to miles once a precedent has been set?

For example, how is the proposal of random drug testing for anyone who drives a car--which means pretty much the entire adult population--not unreasonable search and seizure?

Maybe it's time for a refresher on the 4th Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Secure in their persons. Unreasonable searches. Probable cause. Do you really trust the government so much that you'd give up your rights in exchange for an alleged higher degree of safety? Personally, I'd rather dodge drunks on the highway than become a character in an Orwell novel.

 

Again, what about the employer's right to be free from drug using or drug abusing prospective employees? You're trying to take away their freedom of choice, their freedom to choose not hiring drug users. Bare in mind, you are coming to me for the job, I'm not going after you, forcing you to apply for the job. As an job applicant you know what the job requirements are, and you choose to accept, or not accept them. There is freedom of choice on both sides here.

YOU ACCEPT THE TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT. OR YOU GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Where is the conflict with the fourth amendment in this model?

 

Hi zonkola,

I was getting so steamed about this testing issue Monday that I was going through old threads to read how many of the posters on this thread had been yelling on other posts, "Second Amendment! Second Amendment!".

I'm glad you brought it up.

regards

 

A tool that all too often is used like a Handyman or Swiss army knife by employers - all encompassing, does it all, no need for anything else. It has a tendency of lulling supervisors into a false sense of security.

That's the trouble with these heavy-handed programs. They violate your personal freedoms, and have in effect done nothing to make a safer work environment.

 

Like me. I was there first.


Okay, time to leave this thread again...blood pressure is peaking.

 

Living and working in Cali practically my whole life I shudder to think of the loss of talent in the trades especially if you could remove all the potheads. A significant portion of the hardest working, most common sense geniuses I've known were regular smokers although not when they would be operating equipment. Not only that but some of the brightest people I knew in school were the biggest potheads there. I'm stunned that so many of you haven't been around people like this who function very well in the workplace and life in general and still "do their thing" when on their own time. I've never known a heavy drinker who wasn't undone over the course of years. I have known stoners who are healthy and successful after 20+ years of daily partaking.

These of course is just my subjective observations.

 

I, personally, have no problem with what people do on their own time. But leave it at home for your own time, not mine. When they are at work I expect them to be fully coherent and sober. In my line of business (I manage a valet company), if some one shows up high or drunk and an accident follows, the proverbial crap hits the fan. The valet loses his job, the customer has a wrecked car, the company loses thousands of dollars, and finally I lose my job. Can anyone tell me why I would want some one coming into work stoned??? Probably not. I have been taught to catch these things before they happen, but as stated in my previous post, no one can be 100% accurate.

I think that "random drug tests" should be modified from finding drugs in some one's system to determining whether or not they are under the influence at that time. I know that some drugs stay in your system for months, but you are no longer under the influence the day after use. That is why I think there should be a change in these tests. As far as false negatives, that is unfortunate but it comes with the territory.

Sinjin-- I completely understand what you are saying about long term users, BUT it seems to me that people that have been smoking pot for that long, know a little self control. I'm not worried about them. I am worried about the casual or first time users that do not know how to control themselves.

Billsco-- Do you understand where I am coming from? Can you see why I wouldn't an employee working for me that is stoned? And why I would support some sort of drug testing?

All of my new employees, sign papers saying that they can and will be fired for being under the influence at work. They know what will happen, if they get caught. As far as older employees that didn't sign any papers, we deal with them on a case by case situation.

 

another_ford,

I completely agree.

 

Hi another_ford,

I never want co-workers under the influence either.

BTW, my results came in. That bubblegum-chewing teeny who was talking to his girlfriend on the cell phone, watching football while spinning my specimen in a mass spectrometer made the determination that there were no illegal drugs present.

Can you understand where I'm coming from?

regards

 

What else do you suggest? Group hugs, and hand holding? From a business stand point, the employer is probably most interested in cutting their losses when it comes to doper employees i.e. test positive and good bye. I can't blame them for that. At the same time there should be an "appeals process" in place for employees to contest the results.

Again, I fail to see how this violates anyones personal freedom. You accept the terms of employment, or you do not.

 

You've been to the lab then?

 

merely testing positive for having drugs in your system DOES NOT mean you are under the influence at work.Most drugs stay in your system at least 3 days, and very few drugs get you high for 3 days.how would you feel if your employer wanted to test you for cigarrettes to get lower insurance premiums, and dismissed smokers cause they would raise insurance costs, cause thats coming.
I mean, are you that **** that playing with someones excrement interests you? MY parents taught me to flush that stuff, not play with it.