# Are mandatory random drug tests violations of the fourth amendment?



## Nosmo King (Mar 28, 2016)

My company wants to start drug testing this summer.  I am opposed to them on constitutional grounds.  How can I consent to an unwarranted search of the most intimate place I own, my body?

Would you consent if, as a condition of your employment, your company wanted to come into your home, riffle through your check book, peek under your bed, snoop around in your closets and dressers?

I will comply if they present a search warrant and show probable cause.

It's funny how that fourth amendment can be ignored.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> My company wants to start drug testing this summer.  I am opposed to them on constitutional grounds.  How can I consent to an unwarranted search of the most intimate place I own, my body?
> 
> Would you consent if, as a condition of your employment, your company wanted to come into your home, riffle through your check book, peek under your bed, snoop around in your closets and dressers?
> 
> ...



You don't have to "consent" to the drug test. You'll probably have to find a new job, though.


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 28, 2016)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > My company wants to start drug testing this summer.  I am opposed to them on constitutional grounds.  How can I consent to an unwarranted search of the most intimate place I own, my body?
> ...


How can they hold my fourth amendment rights hostage?  The ransom is my job.

Can they tell me to not own a gun next?  How to vote?  Not to post on USMB?  What church to attend?

Where does the erosion of constitutional rights end?


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 28, 2016)

Yes


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Can they search your home looking for stolen company property?

If you don't like it, you don't have to work there


----------



## martybegan (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> My company wants to start drug testing this summer.  I am opposed to them on constitutional grounds.  How can I consent to an unwarranted search of the most intimate place I own, my body?
> 
> Would you consent if, as a condition of your employment, your company wanted to come into your home, riffle through your check book, peek under your bed, snoop around in your closets and dressers?
> 
> ...



Considering it wouldn't be government action against you, but private action, I don't see how the 4th amendment comes into play. 

Now, if they turned around and sent the information to the cops, and the cops arrested you over it, that would probably violate the 4th amendment.


----------



## martybegan (Mar 28, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



Actually without a warrant, no, they can't.


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 28, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...


If they show probable cause.  If they get a search warrant issued by the courts. 

What happened to due process?


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 28, 2016)

martybegan said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > My company wants to start drug testing this summer.  I am opposed to them on constitutional grounds.  How can I consent to an unwarranted search of the most intimate place I own, my body?
> ...


I work for the county.  I'm the Building Inspector.

I don't use drugs, I have a sterling attendance record, I am thorough and competent.

It's not a private company, it's a public sector job.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> My company wants to start drug testing this summer.  I am opposed to them on constitutional grounds.  How can I consent to an unwarranted search of the most intimate place I own, my body?
> 
> Would you consent if, as a condition of your employment, your company wanted to come into your home, riffle through your check book, peek under your bed, snoop around in your closets and dressers?
> 
> ...



*Would you consent if, as a condition of your employment, your company wanted to come into your home, riffle through your check book, peek under your bed, snoop around in your closets and dressers?
*
Testing your urine is less intrusive than searching your papers, effects, home.

Is it unreasonable? You don't have to consent. As others have said, you'd probably have to work elsewhere.


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > My company wants to start drug testing this summer.  I am opposed to them on constitutional grounds.  How can I consent to an unwarranted search of the most intimate place I own, my body?
> ...


If you would not consent to having your home searched, why would you consent to having the most intimate space you own searched?  Isn't your body the most intimate space you own?


----------



## Billy_Kinetta (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> My company wants to start drug testing this summer.



Better lay off awhile, then.



Nosmo King said:


> I am opposed to them on constitutional grounds.



Oppose away.  You have no right to the job.



Nosmo King said:


> Would you consent if, as a condition of your employment, your company wanted to come into your home, riffle through your check book, peek under your bed, snoop around in your closets and dressers?



I consent all the the time to riffled checkbooks, underbed peeks and snooping..

Oh, I'm self-employed. 



Nosmo King said:


> I will comply if they present a search warrant and show probable cause.



Enjoy unemployment.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> My company wants to start drug testing this summer.  I am opposed to them on constitutional grounds.  How can I consent to an unwarranted search of the most intimate place I own, my body?
> 
> Would you consent if, as a condition of your employment, your company wanted to come into your home, riffle through your check book, peek under your bed, snoop around in your closets and dressers?
> 
> ...



If the government was doing it, you could maybe make a case of unconstitutionality, but not if a private company is.


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 28, 2016)

Why are so many folks willing to roll over on the Fourth Amendment but fight tooth and nail for the Second?

Aren't rights rights and equally sacrosanct?


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> Why are so many folks willing to roll over on the Fourth Amendment but fight tooth and nail for the Second?
> 
> Aren't rights rights and equally sacrosanct?


Not a good analogy. The county has the right to make you leave your gun in the car or even at home. It's the government doing the drug testing but it's for a job. They may have a good reason, like someone doing something dopey and costing the citizens a bundle. Or it may be a factor for health or liability insurance. 

It isn't like the government is random testing citizens, that would be an issue.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> My company wants to start drug testing this summer.  I am opposed to them on constitutional grounds.  How can I consent to an unwarranted search of the most intimate place I own, my body?
> 
> Would you consent if, as a condition of your employment, your company wanted to come into your home, riffle through your check book, peek under your bed, snoop around in your closets and dressers?
> 
> ...



No it is not a violation of your rights!

If you work for a union you have nothing to fear, even you smoke pot during your lunch breaks..

Silly far left drones!


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 28, 2016)

Iceweasel said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Why are so many folks willing to roll over on the Fourth Amendment but fight tooth and nail for the Second?
> ...


Do you think drug testing by a government agency on their employees is unreasonable search and seizure?

If they issued a warrant and showed probable cause, I would gladly comply.

But I don't want my medical records unsecured.  I don't want my body searched without cause.  I value privacy.

Freedom isn't free.  Protecting freedoms is not the exclusive province of the Department of Defense.  I believe every citizen must fight for their freedoms whenever they are threatened.


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

Absolutely it's bogus, and it's another manifestation of We the People just rolling over on command for this shit.

I've never consented to urine screening in my life and never will.  When a company falling all over itself to get in line with the fascist agenda asked for it, I flatly refused.  They didn't press it any further.

People going along with this sort of intrusion is exactly what enables it.


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 28, 2016)

Kosh said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > My company wants to start drug testing this summer.  I am opposed to them on constitutional grounds.  How can I consent to an unwarranted search of the most intimate place I own, my body?
> ...


I am not a member of a union.  I work as the county Building Inspector.  I have a sterling attendance record, I have NEVER been involved in a workplace accident and I do not use drugs.

I am an American who holds the constitution dear.  Ever read it?  I advise you to start with the Fourth amendment.


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

Iceweasel said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Why are so many folks willing to roll over on the Fourth Amendment but fight tooth and nail for the Second?
> ...



It is impossible to establish a causation between the chemical content of one's blood an d "doing something dopey".  That's utter bullshit.


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Exactly, and in this example -- "testing" everybody -- without any probable cause whatsoever.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



And yet you do not understand that which you read!

You only know far left religious dogma.

If you say you hold the constitution dear then you would never vote far left..

These are just words to make yourself sound noble, but you are hardly noble supporting the far left .

Just suck it up and take the test! Unless you have something to hide..

And you show with each and every post that you do not understand the forth amendment..


----------



## Kosh (Mar 28, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Another far left drone that does not understand he Constitution, only far left religious dogma..


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

rightwinger said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



Not without some reason to believe that property is actually there, no.  What's the difference?




rightwinger said:


> If you don't like it, you don't have to work there




Trut but the real issue is that too many people have just rolled over for this bullshit.  If enough people grew some backbone and stood up to it -- they would back down.  They'd have no *choice*. 

Methinks the Unwashed have a habit of forgetting who's in charge.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



They aren't searching your body, you're peeing in a cup.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


It's a job and they may have good reason to do it like the private sector does. I don't know what you mean by unsecured medical records. If you are a building inspector they are paying you to drive around so they have skin in the game.


----------



## Skylar (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> My company wants to start drug testing this summer.  I am opposed to them on constitutional grounds.  How can I consent to an unwarranted search of the most intimate place I own, my body?
> 
> Would you consent if, as a condition of your employment, your company wanted to come into your home, riffle through your check book, peek under your bed, snoop around in your closets and dressers?
> 
> ...



I don't think so...unless your employer is the State. Then maybe.

And probably not even then if its part of your employment contract.


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

Iceweasel said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Where is the probable cause? 
Particularly when it's "mandatory" as a condition of employment?


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 28, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


I didn't break it down to toddler level, sorry. I meant on dope. It should have been obvious?


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

Iceweasel said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



You also didn't challenge my point.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 28, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


Is he being singled out? Sounds like it's for everybody. Probable cause has nothing to do with it. No one is assuming guilt.


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


And what do they do with the urine?  Do they search through it?


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 28, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


I did but I can't talk baby talk for you, sorry. Ask a grownup why drugs can lead people to do stupid things.


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

Iceweasel said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Thanks -- that's _exactly the point._


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 28, 2016)

*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*


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

Iceweasel said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



And you _still _didn't.
Wouldn't it be easier to simply admit I'm right, you're wrong, and walk away in shame?  I'm sure it would save time.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> Why are so many folks willing to roll over on the Fourth Amendment but fight tooth and nail for the Second?
> 
> Aren't rights rights and equally sacrosanct?


you have a fundamental misunderstanding of whats going on dude. So long as you VOLUNTARILY work where you work.....nobody is violating your rights. You are volunteering them. Rights violations are a misunderstood concept by a lot of people these days. Jesus christ.


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 28, 2016)

Kosh said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


Just suck it up and leave your gun at home, unless you want to shoot somebody.


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 28, 2016)

G.T. said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Why are so many folks willing to roll over on the Fourth Amendment but fight tooth and nail for the Second?
> ...


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

Notice it does not say "Congress shall" or "Congress shall not"

It says the rights of the people shall not be violated.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


youre being a dumbass. You either accept conditions of employment or you dont....EITHER WAY, your rights arent violated because you CHOOSE TO WORK THERE. WOW. Does a company who fires you for saying your boss is a **** to her face violate your 1st amendment right? Derpderpderp


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

G.T. said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Why are so many folks willing to roll over on the Fourth Amendment but fight tooth and nail for the Second?
> ...



Not sure what kind of deals you make for salary but in my experience work isn't "voluntary" unless you work for free.



G.T. said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



And if the company suddenly puts you in a fire trap workplace with volatile chemicals and whips you while you work?  Just roll over for it and "accept the conditions", huh?


----------



## Kosh (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Perfect example of a far left drone when shown the facts!

They have to do what everyone else does and they want special privileges, because they are part of the far left religious culture!

Your employer has the "right" to make the work place safe for everyone!

Why do you want to deny that right?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 28, 2016)

A company could  mandate a internal ass screening every year, and it would be constitutional.

So are private sector drug testing venues.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 28, 2016)

Pogo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Another far left drone that does not care about the working conditions of those that actually do work..


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2016)

I cant call my boss a scumkvnt without being fired. FIRST AMENDMENT RIIIIGHTS!! ARGGGHHH!


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 28, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


You're an idiot. Not right. I said there's probably a reason why they need to do it, like drug use causing a problem and you don't understand how drug use could cause a problem.


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> A company could  mandate a internal ass screening every year, and it would be constitutional.
> 
> So are private sector drug testing venues.



"Constitutional" is one thing.  This is less about Constitutional rights and more about the _Human _rights that document is based on.  The _principle_.


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 28, 2016)

Kosh said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


Here's where I see my rights:

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

Show me where you see the right to make the workplace safe by conducting unwarranted searches.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2016)

Pogo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


your o.c.d. for arguing just .....flew right past my give a fuck meter pogo. Whoooo0o0osh, try again next time.


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

Iceweasel said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



What I understand is linear time.  When you start screening everybody --- *before *any incident has happened --- then you have no basis for your screening.  That's what we mean by "probable cause".


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

G.T. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Why should I try again when I just proved the point?
When you lose your keys and then find them ---- do you keep looking?


----------



## Kosh (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Yes I know you far left drones cut and paste your religious dogma!

The employer has the right to make sure the work environment is safe, even safe from those that abuse alcohol and drugs! So they can make it safe for everyone. Please show the law that prevents the employer from making a safe work environment..


----------



## Kosh (Mar 28, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



You do not understand anything beyond far left religious dogma as you keep proving every time you post on these subjects!


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 28, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


And I said they likely do have a reason. Like a payout for somebody doing something stupid on drugs. Many over the counter drugs are a problem for operating machinery. 

What gets me is anyone thinks it's OK for private companies but somehow government jobs should be exempt.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> Here's where I see my rights:
> 
> 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
> 
> Show me where you see the right to make the workplace safe by conducting unwarranted searches.


They find the requirement reasonable. Duh. Find another job or accept it.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2016)

Pogo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


you proved no point...you made a quibble over minutia and then posted a non sequitur. Call your boss the n word and dont get fired, give it a shot bro(i dont care if your response is something about not having a boss or your boss is your best friend). P.s. drug testing policy is along the same lines as fire safety, dont try and figure out why.....it might hurt.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 28, 2016)

Iceweasel said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



The power of the unions!


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 28, 2016)

Kosh said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Yeah, good point. That and they think they are a cut above the average Joe.


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

G.T. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



Uh... no Sparkles, I extended your point to its obvious conclusion to expose the flaw in it.  Your point was to go "yes master, may I have another".  I say that's obsequious and enabling.  You say "Obey", I say "Grow a pair".

And your puerile attempt to draw a false comparison with the "fuck off, Boss" thing completely fails.  That's not intruding on anybody's privacy.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2016)

Pogo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


no, idiot. Its not. Its (in you dumbass' dichotomy) a "1st amendment right violation." Thats your asinine view, not mine. And saying employment isnt voluntary because you are being paid...  no dumbdumb. That was quibbling over minutia because I used the term "voluntarily" as opposed to "its free will," and you waste time making dope nit picks that are meaningless to the conversation and all it does is serve to make you look like an arrogant jackass. Sort of like crying about 4th amendment rights when you enter employment at under your own "free will" to begin with.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Yes, they search through it.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 28, 2016)

Pogo said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > A company could  mandate a internal ass screening every year, and it would be constitutional.
> ...


The principle of what?  There is no human right against being drug tested by your employer.  I wish my professors at university had been drug tested.


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

G.T. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



I haven't brought up any "rights violations", First or Fourth -- that's your own strawman.

As I already articulated we're talking about a *Human *right -- the one the Fourth, First etc are based on.  And I'm simply saying people in general should grow a spine and refuse to put up with this bullshit.  You on the other hand seem to want everybody to just bend over for it.

That's your thing but I just won't swing that way.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2016)

Working there on your own free will is not bending over, it's making a choice to abide by the terms of the relationship in exchange for currency....and...NOBODY IS FORCING ANYONE so.....boogy woogy woogy the thread premise is daft.


----------



## Valerie (Mar 28, 2016)

i'm leaning toward G.T. on this one, though it is a tough question...

simply put, the OP deems the cause 'not probable' because of his past performance and inside knowledge of his own habits.

but the state sees his job position differently and indeed has 'probable cause' because they have a responsibility to public safety.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 28, 2016)

If it's legal in the private sector it has to be legal in the public sector.


----------



## Valerie (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> I work as the county Building Inspector.



probable cause exists because the nature of the job involves public safety...


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

Valerie said:


> i'm leaning toward G.T. on this one, though it is a tough question...
> 
> simply put, the OP deems the cause 'not probable' because of his past performance and inside knowledge of his own habits.
> 
> but the state sees his job position differently and indeed has 'probable cause' because they have a responsibility to public safety.



That isn't a probable cause though.  Probably cause would be if NK got busted for going on a rampage while hopped up on Goofballs, and his employer got wind of it.



Valerie said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > I work as the county Building Inspector.
> ...



Non sequitur.


----------



## Valerie (Mar 28, 2016)

Iceweasel said:


> If it's legal in the private sector it has to be legal in the public sector.





...only a handful of states ban testing that is not based on individual suspicion: Montana, Iowa, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Minnesota, Maine and Connecticut permit not-for-cause testing, *but only of employees in safety-sensitive positions.* These laws also require confirmation testing, lab certification and test result confidentiality.

Hawaii, Louisiana, Maryland, Nebraska, Oregon and Utah regulate drug testing in some fashion; Florida and Kansas protect government employee rights,* but not those of private sector workers.* Only in California, Massachusetts and New Jersey have the highest courts ruled out some forms of drug testing on state constitutional or statutory grounds. The ACLU is now continuing our efforts to protect workplace privacy rights. 

Workplace Drug Testing


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

G.T. said:


> is not bending over, it's making a choice to abide by the terms



Nothing needs to be added.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2016)

Pogo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > is not bending over, it's making a choice to abide by the terms
> ...


Oh youre too tough, 4got


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 28, 2016)

Valerie said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > If it's legal in the private sector it has to be legal in the public sector.
> ...


Fascinating. You left off the "as of 1997" part.


----------



## Valerie (Mar 28, 2016)

i wasn't sure how updated the state info was...


----------



## idb (Mar 28, 2016)

My objection to mandatory workplace drug testing is that it doesn't test for impairment...only that you've used drugs.
That should be no business of the employer.


----------



## Valerie (Mar 28, 2016)

feel free to add more info, if you can...  

my point in response to your post was, it clearly depends on several factors.


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

idb said:


> My objection to mandatory workplace drug testing is that it doesn't test for impairment...only that you've used drugs.
> That should be no business of the employer.



Excellent point.  One I've often made on this topic but neglected here.

If one's job involves, say, critical motor skills, testing specifically for execution of those skills could expose periods of insufficient such skills, whether that was based on substance... lack of sleep.... some medical condition, or some mental condition or whatever.  The presence of some substance may or may not be a causation.

Of course ------ taking that approach would presuppose that the obiective actually *IS* "safety", but  obviously that's not the objective.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 28, 2016)

idb said:


> My objection to mandatory workplace drug testing is that it doesn't test for impairment...only that you've used drugs.
> That should be no business of the employer.


The drugs they test for impair you. Jesus, this isn't rocket science.


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

Iceweasel said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > My objection to mandatory workplace drug testing is that it doesn't test for impairment...only that you've used drugs.
> ...



Not necessarily.

Again -- you could test for *actual *impairment, whether that's a result of some substance, lack of sleep, sickness, whatever. 

But that's not what they're doing --- because actual "impairment" isn't what they're looking for.  If it were, the same fascist employers would be requiring proof that the employee got enough sleep.


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 28, 2016)

Kosh said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


My "dogma" is the actual text of the Fourth Amendment.  Are you not familiar with the constitution?


----------



## Kosh (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Your religious dogma comes from being a far left drone and not understanding the Constitution!

So you have no evidence to support your claims other than a far left religious view, because you want unsafe work environments!


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 28, 2016)

Kosh said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


My evidence is the text of the constitution.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Mar 28, 2016)

idb said:


> My objection to mandatory workplace drug testing is that it doesn't test for impairment...only that you've used drugs.
> That should be no business of the employer.


Work place safety?  Business provided health insurance?  Need to think this again.


----------



## idb (Mar 28, 2016)

Iceweasel said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > My objection to mandatory workplace drug testing is that it doesn't test for impairment...only that you've used drugs.
> ...


Yes they do.
But, what's the relevance of detecting cannabis in your system 28 days after you've used it?


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2016)

Like it or not, a company that drug tests is not Violating anyone's rights unless you are forced to work there. Also, and another like it or not, folks who work for said Company are a reflection of its brand and protecting that investment for something as reasonable as illegal(pretty key term)activity is actually not too bad a move from a practicality stand point either, depending on the level of what's at stake.


----------



## Skylar (Mar 28, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Why would an employer need 'probable cause' to give you a drug test?


----------



## Kosh (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



No you evidence is in far left religious dogma, the Constitution is something you far left drones have no clue about. To you drones it is just a GD piece of paper!


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2016)

idb said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


Cannabis testing is only relevant in that your employees are breaking laws while in some capacity representing your company(in my Corp's employee handbook, it specifies the degree to which you actually represent the company and you read the handbook once per year and either agree to it or dont, again, free to leave whenever you wish).....

but Id argue Weed shouldnt be illegal to begin with anyhow.


----------



## Skylar (Mar 28, 2016)

G.T. said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Its relevant from a liability perspective as well.


----------



## idb (Mar 28, 2016)

JakeStarkey said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > My objection to mandatory workplace drug testing is that it doesn't test for impairment...only that you've used drugs.
> ...


How is detecting that you've used drugs a matter of workplace safety unless you're impaired?
All it tells the employer is what you've been doing in your personal time.


----------



## Skylar (Mar 28, 2016)

idb said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Its a liability issue. If you can demonstrate that you knew they were users of cannibis....and then they act in an impared fashion and hurts someone, you're liable for plenty. 

And why would an employer need probable cause?


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

G.T. said:


> but Id argue Weed shouldnt be illegal to begin with anyhow.



--- which is all the *more *reason to not bend over for this shit.


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Because it's _pre-emptive_.


----------



## Skylar (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



The constitution is a list of government powers and individual rights against federal government interference.

What does have to do with your employer?


----------



## Skylar (Mar 28, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



And?


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2016)

Pogo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > but Id argue Weed shouldnt be illegal to begin with anyhow.
> ...


No, acually its non sequitur so long as businesses arent writing the Law.


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



And ---- that's it.  What more so you need?

You can't arrest Joe Blow for bank robbery, on the basis that Joe needs the money and might conceivably do it.


----------



## idb (Mar 28, 2016)

Skylar said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


So, how far should the employer take these risk factors that might cause impairment?
If he/she was aware the employee was going through a marriage break up for example.
That might cause them to be distracted and a danger to others.
Should they be automatically stood down...or tested for 'impairment'?


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

G.T. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



No actually it's about standing up for your own rights.  And that means collectively.


----------



## Skylar (Mar 28, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...




Some relevance to the 4th amendment. Or constitutional rights. 

Rights are restrictions on government actions. Not businesses. By the standards you're using, a non-disclosure agreement would violate your 1st amendment rights. 



> You can't arrest Joe Blow for bank robbery, on the basis that Joe needs the money.



A business isn't 'arresting' anyone. If you fail the drug test, you are free to go.

Permanently.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2016)

Pogo said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


I stand up for my rights by not working for any company that does something that I cant rock with, simple as that. Im not into forcing some corny personal ideals on every single company when I have the choice to work for those Im most aligned with and not work for those Im not.


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 28, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


It's one of my hose pesky phrases in the constitution.  Searches and seizures must be conducted under a warrant and warrants can only be served if there is probable cause.


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 28, 2016)

Kosh said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


Said the idiot who doesn't know the constitution when she reads it.


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 28, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


My employer IS the government.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Once again proving the far left drones do not understand the Constitution!


----------



## Kosh (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Not what you posted earlier!

Yet another far left drone caught in the their web of lies so they can push their debunked religious agenda!


----------



## G.T. (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...


The government operates under 2 differing capacities. They govern. They employ. Working for an arm of the government doesnt mean your employ(ER) is governing over you as the conglomerate of the entire govt simultaneously while employing you. Surely you can distinguish between the two.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



They aren't seizing anything. They're testing your urine. You don't have to let them.

Refuse, cite the 4th Amendment, let us know what happens.


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You miss the point.  Arresting Joe Blow for a bank robbery just because he might do so in the future is acting _pre-emptively._

As for the former, I'm not arguing_ Constitutional _rights.  I'm arguing _human _rights.


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



That's what I did, though I didn't cite the Fourth.  I just said I was against it.

Know what happened?

Nothing.  They backed down.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 28, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Well you have proven you do not understand either, just far left religious dogma..


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 28, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



They aren't testing for future drug use.


----------



## Skylar (Mar 28, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



You're not required to take the drug test. Its merely a condition of your employment.


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

Skylar said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Yeah --- because "required" and "a condition of" are different things.

Anyway -- in my case I called their bluff, and they blinked.  The more people do that, the more they'll blink.


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 28, 2016)

Kosh said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


Show us where I posted something else.  Show us, feel free to take all the time you,need, show us where I said I did not work for the government.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Mar 28, 2016)

You know, for 20 years while I was in the U.S. Navy, I was subjected to random urine screenings on a regular basis, at least once every three months, and, depending on the command, it could be done as often as once a month.

The way they did it was the CO and the XO rolled a 10 sided dice, and then, that number was used as a way to screen the command, by going after the last digit on your SSN.  

However............as a Drug and Alcohol Program Specialist, I learned that the intoxicating effects of cannabis only last about 3 to 6 hours (depending on use), but because the THC molecule adheres to body fat, it can be detected for up to 30 days.

Someone else brought up the point of why should you be penalized for something that you did over 2 weeks ago, when there are zero intoxicating effects at the time of testing.

If they could get a different test that would show the difference between being intoxicated and one that just says you used it sometime in the past 30 days, I might be okay with that, but only if you were penalized when you are actually intoxicated from the cannabis. 

The military has been doing testing since the late 70's, early 80's, but then again, in the military you are on duty 24/7, because you can be called off of liberty or leave at any time and required to report back to the ship (I've had it happen to me twice).

Do I think that civilian companies should be able to test?  Only if they tell you up front (before you accept the job), that urine tests are a requirement for employment, but to bring up a policy in the middle of someone's employment?  Not cool.

Besides, unless you are working in a high risk job (like heavy construction, bus driver, airline pilot, etc), I don't think that any employer should require the employees to drug screen randomly, only in cases where an accident has occurred.

After I retired from the Navy?  I swore to myself that I would never take another urine test for employment ever again.


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 28, 2016)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...


They ARE seizing my urine.  They have a procedure in order to seize it.  It's not like they are rummaging through the trash at the end of the driveway on garbage day.


----------



## Agit8r (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> My company wants to start drug testing this summer.



The Fourth Amendment applies to governments under the United States.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Your very first post!

And several after that!

It is all over this thread, if you need to be shown your own words again, that is on you. And now this proves why you are against a drug test!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Did they tie you down and insert a catheter?


----------



## Nosmo King (Mar 28, 2016)

Kosh said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...


Where?  Where did I say I did not work for the government?

You are so tedious to debate.  You're worthless.


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

ABikerSailor said:


> You know, for 20 years while I was in the U.S. Navy, I was subjected to random urine screenings on a regular basis, at least once every three months, and, depending on the command, it could be done as often as once a month.
> 
> The way they did it was the CO and the XO rolled a 10 sided dice, and then, that number was used as a way to screen the command, by going after the last digit on your SSN.
> 
> ...



Good points.  If workplace safety/liability were really what they were after they could run simple competence tests that would reveal whether an employee was impaired or not by _anything _--- including presence of a substance, lack of sleep, crisis going on at home, creeping illness, whatever.  So the guy who smoked a joint 22 days ago but is perfectly alert would not be flagged, while the guy who was up all night fighting with his wife, would.

Obviously that's not what they're going for.


----------



## Kosh (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Says the far left drone that says that their "Company" is asking them to do a random drug test. It is your OP!

I know of very people who call their government job working of a "Company"..

So you have been busted in that lie and your far left rants about drug testing are lame..

Just shut up and do the drug test or quit it doe snot make a difference to anyone here what you do!

But look at me I am asking a far left drone to be an adult!


----------



## Pogo (Mar 28, 2016)

In a very related story...


----------



## Centinel (Mar 28, 2016)

Nosmo King said:


> My company wants to start drug testing this summer.  I am opposed to them on constitutional grounds.  How can I consent to an unwarranted search of the most intimate place I own, my body?



You don't have to consent. You are free to refuse.



> Would you consent if, as a condition of your employment, your company wanted to come into your home, riffle through your check book, peek under your bed, snoop around in your closets and dressers?



No, I don't think I would. And then they wouldn't be able to do so. 



> I will comply if they present a search warrant and show probable cause.



You're perfectly within your rights to simply refuse to comply. They have no right to force you to. 



> It's funny how that fourth amendment can be ignored.



It's not being ignored.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 29, 2016)

idb said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


I didn't make that claim. Stop being such a dumb fuck.


----------



## Iceweasel (Mar 29, 2016)

idb said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


Because, Brainchild, if one is an illegal drug user they may well still be under the influence. So their desire to not that that chance trumps your desire to fuck up your brain. Start your own business and make your own rules if you don't like it.


----------

