What are your thoughts on random drug screening?

A lot of companies do this.
A cop should have just cause,maybe an accident or someone behaving strangely .
A company I worked for wanted to start this, and I for one whole heartedly agreed as long as everyone had to do it,including management, and bosses.
Strange they dropped the idea almost instantly.

The question is around the word “unreasonable”. I have a friend that cannot allow an hour to pass without a drink while she is awake. I used to be terrified at the prospect of her getting stopped for a sobriety test or worse involvement in a traffic accident, but this has been going on for some 30 years. The resilience of certain people is astonishing.

Yes. It should be reasonable. I believe in the instances given it WAS reasonable. I had to pass one to teach.
My friend is SO enraged about it, tho, it makes me suspicious. He’s acting like he feels like a Jew in Poland in the 40s.

You know @Dutchess_lll I don’t have children but if I did I would like to know all the teachers they deal with every day are drug free.

I can understand your friend’s outrage, particularly as the job market continues to shrink and civil service becomes ever more the lone refuge of a middle class existence.

Exactly SQUEEKSTER.

I don’t understand his outrage unless he has something to hide.

Same as he would probably like to know every transport driver he or his family encounters on the road today is drug free.

I think they are bs when it comes to marijuana. A person might smoke when they get off work to relax but it stays in your system for months. A person shouldn’t be persecuted for what they do at home.

Considering what could happen of something were to go wrong at work, I’m glad they test us.

As long as you do not do it on the job, and as long as it does not overly impede your ability to do your job, it should be no one’s fucking business.

Don’t you think it’s important to find out if they are a risk before they impede their job and someone gets hurt @ragingloli?

What is the MJ’ed office worker going to do to “hurt someone”?

Also, do you know how commonplace it is for construction workers to drink beer on the job?

Fuck up someone’s finances or other accounts with devastating results, leaving the company wide open for a lawsuit.

It may be common for construction workers in Germany to drink alcohol on the job but if they do that here, and get caught (which they will…anyone who can’t go 8 hours without drinking is a drunk) they’re fired. NO business owner will accept that liability.

All for it so long as they test the drinkers, too.

I would think they would. Why wouldn’t they?

They don’t because alcohol is legal.

If a person is suspected of being drunk at work they will test him for it. Just like if they suspect someone is driving under the influence.

I’m completely opposed, random or otherwise.

Can you make the case for a couple of extreme examples, such as school bus driver or airplane pilot? In those cases, at least there is something to discuss. But I am still opposed.

First of all, “drug” is a meaningless term in this context. What you’re referring to is a certain set of substances that have been deemed to be dangerous. People are not (to my knowledge) tested for prescription drugs.

And more importantly, if the excuse for violating worker (and human) rights is that it’s a safety issue, there are infinite number of safety things that are not tested for and couldn’t possibly be. How do we do a random screen for sleep deprivation, emotional turmoil, an eating disorder, depression, etc?

What people generally mean when they support this type of thing is that they companies’ ability to control the workforce through violations of privacy and threat of loss of employment.

What about the marijuana? It’s legal here in MA, but there are companies that can require testing for this. This means that someone can’t use cannabis for recreation or self-medicating on days in which they are not working. Are you really in support of people being fired for smoking on the weekend?

I could go on, but I really would like you to make the case for this. It’s really unacceptable on so many levels.

@Dutchess_lll: “I think people deserve the reassurance that the people who have access to all your finances aren’t under the influence”

I have to read into this assertion, but I think you’re saying that people working at a company in some financial capacity would be dangerous if s/he smoked pot or other “drugs” on the weekend. ??

@Dutchess_lll: “or your coworker driving a forklift next to you”

If your coworker is driving a forklift next to you, s/he should have been hired on the ability to drive the forklift well. If s/he is suddenly unable to perform well, the infinite amount of possible causes have nothing to do with “drugs”. Surely you’d want performance to be judged on….performance?

@Dutchess_lll: “or your medical providers or waiters and waitresses.”

Re: medical providers – again, are we looking for qualified providers or are we interested in “drugs” they use? Re: waiters – come on. This is one of the most difficult jobs and your making some kind of claim that they need to be randomly violated. Are you being serious?

@Dutchess_lll: “And if a drunk driver hurts someone you love they should pay.”

I like chocolate chip cookies, but I’m not sure this fact has anything to add to this topic.

Nah. I think we’re doing the best we can to prevent people who use drugs regularly enough to test positive, to be blocked from flying our airplanes, teaching our students, making financial investments on our behalf, to ensure they are doing whatever, with a clear mind.

Having said that, I would hope the tests would indicate whether they were currently high or drunk or were previously high or drunk, and take that into consideration.

When I worked at Rubbermaid I did switchboard during the regular switchboard lady’s lunch. I had a couple of calls where the person asked “Did I pass my drug test??”
If you have to ask you probably didn’t, and if you didn’t you can’t come and run our forklifts or run our machinery. Go deliver newspapers.

Clearly, we are once again discussing a subject that at its heart is about class. Who is least likely to face a drug test. How many Senators, Governors, etc. are screened for substance abuse?

And that is also an issue. They should be subject to the same rules. I agree.

I’m still struggling to find an explanation of your reasoning. Why certain drugs, why certain positions, why not performance, and why don’t you find this to be a dystopian novel-level violation?

I don’t understand your disconnect. Everyone who works (including congress and senate and the Supreme Court) should be liable for random drug tests. The tests should be able to tell if you are currently under the influence or were during your last hours off and it’s done.
99% of us would have no problem with it. Those that do need to rethink their party habits.

I raised many concerns above, and your response since doesn’t address any of them.

You’re now just re-asserting that “Everyone who works should be liable for random drug tests”. That isn’t explaining anything. Why?

@Dutchess_lll: “99% of us would have no problem with it. Those that do need to rethink their party habits.”

That’s extremely not true, and shouldn’t be true. It’s also irrelevant unless you can explain why it is that you feel that certain drugs should be tested for, etc.

Not “certain” drugs. “All” drugs, including alcohol!
You are on a rant aren’t you!

If you are on prescription drugs you just declare it at the time of testing.
I have no problem with drug testing in the work place as long as it includes EVERYBODY.
That and of course your paid (on the clock when testing).

@Dutchess_lll: “Not “certain” drugs. “All” drugs, including alcohol!”

And SSRIs, any medication with possible side-effects, cough medicine, allergy medication, hand-eye muscle reflex tests, concentration tests, inquiries into current relationship status, financial status, blood sugar levels, sleep monitoring, and mental health.

Remember – you’re rejecting performance as being the measure of doing a job.

Note: I’m not making a “slippery slope” argument here. I’m saying that what you are proposing only makes sense if the above is considered (as well as infinite other things). And to be clear – I’m saying that even if these severe violations of privacy served to [whatever it is that is your goal here] that it would be obscenely immoral. You’re advocating for a total police state dystopian scenario that would put 1984 to shame. I’m just not sure why you’re ok with it and what purpose you think it would serve.

@Dutchess_III: “You are on a rant aren’t you!”

I’ve never been accused of being quiet on an issue I feel strongly about.

@Dutchess_lll A person who is drunk at work might be tested but the worker that goes home and gets stinking drunk at night will not be tested the next day because he/she will be sober. However, a person who smokes pot may have only smoked it on one weekend and might get tested for it two weeks later and get busted by the test results. He doesn’t have to be stoned at work.

Are there some situations where an employer knows of no better test for reliability in a safety-critical situation where it seems to make sense to require drug testing? Sure.

However, I think it’s generally insulting and a disrespectful violation in most cases, or at least, a distrustful thing to do, which is likely to set up resentment and antagonism, and to have other various valid arguments against it, especially when it’s a requirement for something someone needs.

I think that ideally, in a healthy society, that there would not be so much perceived need for such measures, and that there would be abundant awareness of other approaches that are more effective, less punitive, and all around healthier and happier ways to approach the problem than the mindset that expects drug abuse and tries to catch and punish people.

I think if there is some relationship or situation where drugs would tend to be a problem, that some other sort of testing other than drug testing would be preferable.

For example, I work in software, generally with pretty sharp people, on problems that require mental acuity, and that don’t risk people’s lives. Not only do almost none of the people I’ve worked with on such projects seem to have drug problems or have there ever been such problems, if there were, it would show up quickly as someone unable to do the work properly or think and express themselves adequately. The cause wouldn’t particularly matter.

For a specific example, I was once made to do a drug test as a condition of working on a short-term project for one company. I was fairly offended and disgusted and I almost refused, but did it. I’ve never taken any sort of illegal or recreational drug. It greatly lowered my opinion of the employer. My coworker apologized for the stupid test requirement, explaining she too thought it was ridiculous. The test requirement turned out to be a pretty good indicator that the company had terrible leadership and a fairly toxic work environment. One of the worst I’ve ever worked for. In fact, the guy who asked for the test (a former police officer and Christian minister) was later discovered to have been embezzling from the company and I think the whole company crashed and burned as a result.

Not a fan, would not support it.

I dont care what anyone does, as long as it doesnt affect others. If they act out or break the law, then test them then.

@Stache We agree twice on a weekend?!

If your job involves public safety then testing for drugs that can interfere with your work performance is justified. Even legit prescription drugs that can do the same need to be declared.

I have been drug tested on multiple occasions. I did not find it either demeaning or punitive. It made perfect sense to me. For some strange reason the school districts just wanted to be sure they didn’t have a crackhead interacting with the children.

Why are the school districts and public safety agencies incapable of determining if someone has some sort of relevant problem going on without chemically testing their pee?

@Zaku Ya, like weeding out sexual predators. They sure miss a lot of them.

At some point, we will notice the similarities between our airports and the measures at our borders. The drug screening regimen is part and parcel of the same discussion. How much of our national treasure must be devoted to the dubious task of regulating the variables in human nature. Drugs or guns we’re swimming in both. The day will arrive soon when testing will be unnecessary. Just normal breathing will reveal your drug load. But what will it matter if you fire every hidden druggie or drunk while the jobs disappear?

Because they might not notice until it’s too late and some one gets hurt @Zaku.
I sure don’t mind getting drug tested.