Is random drug testing a violation of one's Constitutional rights?

[sfecap]

I work in an industry in which Federally mandated random drug testing is imposed.

Is it a violation of my rights?

[arcos]

1. Yes it is!

Remember that now you have the right to privacy... you can be a sodomite... and I guess that you are now able to smoke pot in the privacy of your own home. :smoke:

[jayfish]

3. I Have A Quick Question.

Why would someone who chooses the Darwin fish avatar to represent themselves use a Christian idiom to describe anal sex?

Jay

[arcos]

5. it was sarcasm...

I was making fun of those who think us sodomites are evil.

[jayfish]

10. I Wasn't To Sure.

Sorry for the baiting.

Jay

[unblock]

11. christian idiom?

sodom and gemorrah is actually from the torah, no (prophets, ezekiel)?

though christians are the ones who harp on it, the idiom is actually jewish in origin....

also, i believe there's nothing spelled out about anal sex. i think it's simply consorting with a prostitute from any of the multi-god cults, be they male or female.

[Shanty Oilish]

2. A whole heap of them, of course

Another good question for the presidential contenders on our side.

[madrchsod]

4. yes but

it doesn`t matter. welcome to the drug testing of america. you can be a drunk and unless you`re drunk or have booze on the breath nothing will happen. if you do coke on friday night or even sat, you`ll be good to go monday..but just don`t smoke pot. pot stays in your system in the fat cells( i think) for at least a month. there is a hair test for drugs but it is costly and not reliable.

[sfecap]

8. Actually the metabolite of THC stays only a short time...

...unless you are a "chronic" user. Itt is though, fat soluble...

[unblock]

12. huh?

chronic use changes how it's metabolized, from a short time to a month? i find that hard to digest....

[sfecap]

13. As explained to me by a forensic toxicologist...

The metabolite that is tested for is fat soluable, but the quantity needed to report a positive test will not show after a few days with a non chronic user. (Someone who smokes on a very irregular basis...)

One who smokes regularly will have enough in the fat cells to show positive.

That's the difference. For instance, I could sit in a room full of smokers, inhaling second hand smoke, and probably test negative the next day.

[maggrwaggr]

6. I'd say it depends on the industry

If you're an airline mechanic, no.

If you answer phones, yes.

I once had a temp job at a company that just answered phones and filled orders for computer books. The company did random drug testing. They used it as a selling point to get clients (they did this service for other companies, Microsoft being one of them). They fired some perfectly good employees who failed this test. WHY? Just stupid republican bullshit.

But if you're an airline mechanic, you basically make a contract that says you will do your utmost to be sharp as nails all the time. Lives depend on your NOT being fucked up or hungover.

[sfecap]

7. So...it is OK to violate some peoples rights?

Who gets to choose?

[Devlzown]

9. I worked in casinos for 10 years

and every one of them piss-tested us. What does it matter if, say, a cocktail waitress likes to smoke weed when she goes home? Who does that hurt? Of course it's an invasion of privacy and it's unconstitutional IMO.

[unblock]

14. actually it's a difficult legal question.

you chose to work in that industry and can switch jobs to avoid testing, so the courts don't view this as as much of an invasion of privacy as, say, door-to-door drug tests would be (!)

still, any employer testing for drugs just because he feels like it is bull. there needs to be a compelling need that outweighs the invasion of privacy. unfortunately, the courts find it awfully easy to scrounge up a compelling need. anytime anyone's safety is entrusted to an employee, it's ok to test. anytime anyone's money is entrusted to an employee, it's ok to test. and pretty much anytime the federal government is involved, it's ok to test.

it's crap if you ask me, but that's the prevailing legal view.

[Devlzown]

15. It's just hypocritical as hell.

You know how many of those cashiers at the casino had gambling problems? Did anybody follow them around after work to make sure they weren't a risk? Hell no, that would be invasion of privacy. You know how many of them couldn't get through a shift without taking a handful of Loritabs because they had "back pains?" Why, they have a scrip for that, we can't follow them to the bathroom, that would be invasion of privacy. What's the difference in a drug test and having a camera in your living room? If you fuck up at work, they should be able to fire your ass. Otherwise, they should leave you alone.

[sfecap]

16. It sure is...

I can't easily switch jobs, and besides when I took the job/entered the industry, there was no random drug testing. (There was probable cause, pre employment, and post incident/accident, which are all fair, IMO, and I accepted the job under those terms...)

If it is OK under the logic you related, (quite accurately, I might add...), then is the same logic to be applied to, let's say the Patriot Act?

Sould we permit the Federal Governmant to usurp the rights of the citizens in the name of compelling publc safety? Does that compelling need permit circumvention of a number of very important rights?

[Devlzown]

17. The courts aren't concerned with individual rights.

They're too worried about the rights of the poor, downtrodden corporations who are just trying to give us jobs and make the economy better. And the poor government just doesn't have enough information about all of us. They're just trying to make us safe. Sickening!

[SyracuseDemocrat]

18. No

Your right to privacy does NOT extend to your place of employment. We do not live in an era of slavery, and no one is forcing you to work there. An employer can drug test you hundreds of times a day if he wants to.

[sfecap]

23. So, the Constitution stops at the factory door?

Could your employer strip search you hundreds of times a day?

I would agree that if one accepts employment with the knowledge that random checks are a condition of employment, you are correct.

But...what if that were not the case, and the Federal governmant mandated it in that particular line of work? After let's say 20 years of employment? Is the onus on the employee to just up and quit, or tolerate the illegality of it?

Not arguing, just discussing...

[Devlzown]

24. Your employer does not become your parent.

Does a Mom have a right to root around in her teenage son's sock drawer looking for dope? Sure. He's her child and she's responsible for him. Does an employer have a right to pop a drug test on someone anytime they feel like it? Hell no! You don't have to work there? I don't know what the economy is like where you are, but everyone down here who has a job is damn lucky to have it. Sure, we have freedom. The freedom to starve, be homeless, and be arrested for vagrancy.

[GreenArrow]

19. Drug testing period

is a violation of our rights, Constitutional or otherwise.

[HEyHEY]

20. Depends

I truly think drug testingfor the most part is a terrible breach of rites. But, in the case of say, an Airline Pilot, I think it is acceptable.

[sfecap]

21. I'm an airline pilot. Tell me more.

Why me?

Does it make you feel safer?

Has there ever been an accident in which drugs were a contributing factor?

[Blue-Jay]

22. I'll waffle on this question a bit.

I don't like the idea of random drug tests. That being said, if you have the type of profession where lives are in your hands (pilot, doctor, bus driver, etc...), people should know that you're not high on anything.

[sfecap]

25. I'm a pilot. How would you test me...

To insure that I'm not zonked out while flying?

[Blue-Jay]

28. Honestly,

I don't have the slightest idea, sfecap. I'm only saying that I'd feel safer if I knew you weren't impared while you're doing your job. If there's no way of knowing that without trampling on your rights, I'll just have to take my chances.

My librarian, on the other hand, can be as stoned as he wants to be. It's not like he's going to drop an encyclopedia on anyone's head. At least, I don't think so...

[sfecap]

32. Here's the thing...

Firstly, rest assured that I'm not drug or alcohol impaired when I'm on the job.

Secondly, the biggest safety issue (re pilots) in the airline industry today is fatigue, not drug abuse. (But tht's another thread. :-)

I have no problem wih pre employment or probable cause or post accident/incident testing. Those are all valid and reasonable. But...having to produce bodily fluids without probable cause without notice is warrantless seizure, and no due process. Clearly a violation of the rights we think we have.

[Devlzown]

26. When's the last time you heard of a doctor

being drug tested? Or a judge, for that matter. This is a class issue, pure and simple. If it was about holding the lives of others in your hands, why isn't the President drug-tested? Drug tests are a weapon companies use to weed out -- pun intended -- a certain amount of workers during slumps so they won't have to pay unemployment. They keep the "random" drug tests going until they reach their goal.

[AP]

27. I think eventually drug tests will be struck down on const'l grounds

Laws, depending on the rights they address, have to have some degree of reasonableness and rationality. There's no serious right being infringed with drug use (privacy isn't one of the rights deserving of a high level of protection, like freedom from racial discrimination). Nonetheless, laws infringing on privacy must have some minimal degree of rationality (perhaps a recent bar exam passer, or constitutional law expert can remind me of the test, and where drug use falls, and whether it's an equal protection or due process issue).

Nonetheless, I think drug testing is based on a false premise in just about every circumstance except when its proscribed in the relation to the operation of heavy machinery. Schools say they're testing footballers for pot use because they don't want them to hurt anyone. A stoned football player is LESS likely to hurt someone. And who cares if the loney long distance runner is stoned. And why don't they test for 'rhoids then? And, if drug testing is reducing participation in after school activities and causing more problems than it's solving (the benefits of after school participation way outweighs vs the advantage of keeping a few stoners out of chess club?).

Also, I think people are going to start asking why public money is being given to testing companies, yet not providing any benefits (and, in fact, creating more problems by reducing participation in school activities).

[sfecap]

33. Maybe, but I doubt it.

At least not in my line of work.

Interestingly enough, the US Customs Service employees challenged random testing and won.

...and they are always around all those confiscated drugs. Go figure. :-)

[LosinIt]

29. My toke, I mean take, on the matter

A search warrant is needed in order to search your home. Probable cause is needed to search your car. But, an employer can search your body without any cause. This is wrong.

As far as the argument that some jobs are dangerous and therefore the workers need to be tested: you can be hung over like a bastard and still pass a drug test. If I wanted to smoke an ounce of pot over the weekend that would not affect my performance the following week, but I would test positive and therefore lose my job if I were to be tested.

The biggest factor affecting drug testing today is that it has become a HUGE industry. That means there are lobbying organizations who will push to have more and more industries be subject to testing. Once again, we are being violated by the big corporations.

[sfecap]

31. The industry. Bingo.

A self fulfilling prophesy. And profitcy.

[enki23]

30. nah. unlawful searches and seizures only apply to property

and your body fluids aren't your property. duh.

[Blue-Jay]

34. huh?

Then who does own my piss if not me, pray tell?

[iluvchicago86]

35. Doesent the supreme court case

Schmerber v. US apply here? Cause if the employees working deal with machinery, children, etc, then the company may have the right to test people so that if they mess up on the job they have evidence to use in the trial because the actual "evidence" was only temporary (if it was alcohol it went away quickly) then they would have no means to fire or sue an employee for neglience. But i dunno...im prolly wrong here.

[sfecap]

36. Possibly, but is the testing Federally mandated...

...or is it a condition of employment?

I agree that an employer (non gonvernmantal) has the right to set whatever rules it wishes regarding one's employment, provided that it does not violate legal protections, and is clearly stated to employees as a condition of their employment.

Does the Federal govt have the right to impose laws on *certain* employees beyond the employers conditions? That's where it gets grey...

[iluvchicago86]

37. True...

Damn penumbra!

[zoidberg]

38. Nope

There might be a law somewhere protecting you, but I can't think of any construction of the Constitution that prohibits a random drug test as a condition of employment.

[sfecap]

39. I agree. But...

As a precondition, or as a condition (after the fact) of continued employment, mandated not by the employer, but the government.