So why is drug testing wrong in this case?

[Dasota]

I got into a discussion f this on FB, and I felt that c/p in it here would be a good idea

This is a really backward thing. You support this because you have to pass a drug test? Well I oppose drug testing altogether. For anyone. What you do in your time is you business. Also, who else but the people on welfare could use a little pot? It's a depressing as fuck world out there when you are trying your damn hardest to get a job, but no one will hire you for any number of reasons, like being in your 60s, or needing a higher pay rate then what they are willing to pay in order to be able to survive. Another thing, how is taking MORE rights away from the people a good thing? We all have a right to privacy.

The 4th Amendment states:
"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."

[blas87]

You've got to be kidding me.

It really makes my head hurt when people get all militant about "Mah right to privacy!" and quoting the 4th amendment, and then get all dream and idealistic-like, "Aw come on now, everyone should be able to smoke a little pot, it's not a big deal!" or "What I do is my own business!"

Yeah, but you know what? A lot of people don't just smoke at home. I know plenty of people who toke at work. I don't want to work with people who are high. It's bad enough I've had to work with people who have been drinking before work.

You have no right against that stuff on private property, for one, and for two, there are valid reasons why employers don't want employees who actively partake in illegal (and legal, like alcohol) substances. It's liability. It's for safety. It's for the good of the company. God knows, we don't need to be paying workman's comp for idiots who come to work drunk or high and then fall into a machine or slice their fingers off or ram the forklift into a wall.

[linguist]

here's a pretty interesting article dealing with the actual effectiveness of drug-screening welfare recipients, vs using much less invasive and much more cost effective measures.

one item i found interesting in the article is that the majority of drug screens don't test for alcohol, which is actually the most abused drug in the country.

[Andara Bledin]

one item i found interesting in the article is that the majority of drug screens don't test for alcohol, which is actually the most abused drug in the country.

Oh, but alcohol isn't the same as other drugs.
</sarcasm>

We, as a society, are such blazing hypocrites when it comes to recreational drug use. Alcohol, which causes more deaths annually then every other drug combined, is a-ok, because so many people like to drink, but everything else that they don't like or we've all had pounded into our heads is "bad" is verboten, despite most of them being notably less damaging, even when abused.

It's that sort of unreflective, ignorant attitude that causes us to spend thousands of dollars in order to save a few hundred, and then we pat ourselves on the backs for a job well done.

^-.-^

[DrFaroohk]

I think a novel idea would be to actually blame the people who DO shit, rather than the entire group as a whole. How about you just fire the people who get high at work rather than everyone who MIGHT get high? I know, it's really far out there, holding people accountable for their own actions instead of the actions of others, but it might just work.

Or if we're gonna go with the "might" scenario, how about we do some digging and we discover that X race uses Y drug more than other races, so now why don't we say "well we're not hiring anyone who's a X-enese because they might come to work high! Hey, it's a liability thing!"

[Tanasi]

In my company we instituted pre-employment drug testing and we also included drug/drink testing for anyone that was involved in an accident directly and indirectly. Amazingly the number of accidents went down dramaticly and out workman's comp rate have gone down accordingly. I think the drug testing is a good thing and I have more confidence in my fellow workers that they're not going to injure me because they're impared.

Back OT: Why would anyone voluntarily subidise another's illegal drug habit??? Speaking for myself I do not want my conficated money to be spent on drugs, smokes or booze for anyone regardless of reason. I won't freely give money to someone that I think will use it for such. I wouldn't give money for such to my family and I certainly won't to strangers. Sometimes gifts have conditions.

False positives are a problem but while the article didn't mention one I'd say some sort of appeals process was also included. If I was going to take such a drug test I'd go with the list of prescribed drugs, and OTCs, foods I consume that might give a false positive and any conditions that could lead to such. If I'm smoking dope I wouldn't bother applying for the money.

[Andara Bledin]

Speaking for myself I do not want my conficated money to be spent on drugs, smokes or booze for anyone regardless of reason.

But it costs more to stop a single person from getting money who shouldn't than it does to give money to 50 people. It's not cost effective. You're taking money out of the hands of the needy and giving it to testing facilities. Costs will rise and benefits will fall.

False positives are a problem but while the article didn't mention one I'd say some sort of appeals process was also included.

You'd like to think so, but this is a bureaucracy we're talking about. They'd much rather toss wheat and chaff than allow for a possibility of any chaff getting through. Which is all fine and dandy when you aren't in a position to be the wheat.

Appeals processes are costly and drawn-out processes, and as I've noted myself, they can be a tough battle even with doctors involved. And they add even more cost while providing absolutely no benefit.

^-.-^

[Tanasi]

So in effect what you're saying is nothing can be done so just give them the money??? How about not give them any money at all???

[Andara Bledin]

No, that isn't even remotely what I said.

What I did say is that by doing it this way, you're handing money that could be used by people in need to drug testing companies and bureaucrats just so that you can be smug about denying a drug user or three from getting any.

It's wasteful and does far more harm than the good it's supposed to be doing.

I would hope that we, as an educated people, could manage to be smarter than that, but as it stands, I'm not going to hold my breath.

^-.-^

[AdminAssistant]

Then what way should it be done, Andara? Our government can't afford to give handouts to hardcore drug users.

[Andara Bledin]

I don't have any answer beyond the fact that wasting money is not a solution.

And until someone can find something better, then it's actually best to keep "giving" money to "hardcore drug users." The vast majority of which don't get public funds in the first place.

^-.-^

[Dreamstalker]

I think this was brought up further back in the thread, but reserve the tests for the people who actually have some of the signs of drug use (or other behaviors that cannot be explained by medication side effects, mental issues or just poor hygiene).

Forcing a clean person to hand over money they can't afford to and then denying them benefits because of a false positive that they don't have the time or money to appeal is NOT the way to do this.

[Andara Bledin]

Forcing a clean person to hand over money they can't afford to and then denying them benefits because of a false positive that they don't have the time or money to appeal is NOT the way to do this.

Exactly. Why should hundreds of innocent people be punished just so that the few bad apples can be given the heave-ho?

If it's about the money, then the whole thing is a farce.

^-.-^

[Tanasi]

The should test everyone because if they don't then some druggie that gets tested and fails will cry, whine, complain, play the race card, etc., and some judge will say the rule is arbitrary and comprecious and throws it out. Then the good people of Florida are back to where they started.

[Andara Bledin]

So.... are you going to donate the millions that it will cost to test everybody?

^-.-^