• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Drug Testing

Is drug testing a violation of the 4th Amendment?

  • Yes

    Votes: 4 10.3%

  • No

    Votes: 32 82.1%

  • Other (explain)

    Votes: 3 7.7%
  • Total voters
    39

Orion

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,080
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Is mandatory drug testing as part of entrance to a job, or random drug testing while on the job, a violation of the 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure?

Explain your answer.
 
Orius said:
Is mandatory drug testing as part of entrance to a job, or random drug testing while on the job, a violation of the 4th Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure?

Explain your answer.
Click to expand...

Not if it is done on private property by a non government entity.

As with that the individual can always refuse and suffer no legal consequences.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Not if it is done on private property by a non government entity.

As with that the individual can always refuse and suffer no legal consequences.
Click to expand...

They could be fired though from their job for not submitting to a drug test. What then?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Not if it is done on private property by a non government entity.

As with that the individual can always refuse and suffer no legal consequences.
Click to expand...

True, however, they can be assessed consequences by the private institution.
 
Since when does the Bill of Rights apply to corporations? It spells out limitations on the government's authority, not anyone else's.

And as much as I consider the practice reprehensible, it isn't the law that needs to step in here. People need to grow some goddamn balls and start telling the corporations that what they do on their own time is their own business.
 
Orius said:
They could be fired though from their job for not submitting to a drug test. What then?
Click to expand...

Well then they may get fired.

If it is for the safety of the work place for that person to not be intoxicated then so be it.

I work for a factory and as part of the conditions of employment, I have to submit to a drug test to get hired.

The particular place that I work at manufacturers items made of rolled mild steel.

Have you ever seen what a sheet of steel can do when it is being unrolled at high speeds? even just handling it can cause you to loose a finger or worse.

Intoxicated people working at my company cause a lot of the accidents.

CaptainCourtesy said:
True, however, they can be assessed consequences by the private institution.
Click to expand...

I can ask for a drug screening before anyone can come into my house but that serves no purpose really.

It has to do with liability and employee safety.
 

How does an individual challenge a corporation in this manner?
 

All true.



I can ask for a drug screening before anyone can come into my house but that serves no purpose really.

It has to do with liability and employee safety.
Click to expand...

I don't want intoxicated people around my kids. It's a safety issue. My house. If you refuse, you don't come in.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
I don't want intoxicated people around my kids. It's a safety issue. My house. If you refuse, you don't come in.
Click to expand...

I don't want them around mine either, I don't entertain those kind of people anyway.

But generally speaking it would be impractical to drug test everyone that entered my home.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't want them around mine either, I don't entertain those kind of people anyway.

But generally speaking it would be impractical to drug test everyone that entered my home.
Click to expand...

I would agree with you, but I can do it if I want. That was my point.
 
Drug users should not be allowed in ANY position of safety or security. They cannot be depended on to provide either. If I am paying people to work for me, I want them working, not thinking about getting their next fix....even if their using is on their own time...
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It would at least be pretty funny, especially if its someone you don't want around.
Click to expand...

Jehovah's Witnesses at 6:30 AM.

"You want to discuss Christ with me? Pee in this cup, first, please." :lol:
 
The 4th Amendment concerns government not private businesses.
 
peepnklown said:
The 4th Amendment concerns government not private businesses.
Click to expand...

Businesses owned by thousands of people, with nothing but a bank account to hold accountable, are not "private".
 
peepnklown said:
The 4th Amendment concerns government not private businesses.
Click to expand...

What private businesses do you speak of? Any business dealing with the PUBLIC is not a private business, thus the govt has a right to get involved for the sake of public safety....
 
Orius said:
How does an individual challenge a corporation in this manner?
Click to expand...
Tell them to go to hell and walk out the door. Pretty simple, doncha think?
 
Government employees get drug tested too. And there's nothing wrong with that.
 
Technically an employer may not be allowed to do it without your signature, but they sure as hell can deny you entry to the job for failure to co-operate.
 
TOJ said:
Tell them to go to hell and walk out the door. Pretty simple, doncha think?
Click to expand...

Freedom FROM employment......that is always an option...:2razz:
 
You have no consitutional right to a job.

If the business wishes you to do it, its your choice. Do it, or you don't get the job. You have constitutional right not to be forced unlawfully to search and seizure but you do not have a constitutional right to a job. So you get to make the choice, submit yourself to the sesarch and seizure by your own free will or leave the job.

If you sign a contract or papers while entering into the job that alerts you that there will be random drug testing conducted then you also are essentially allowing them to do the search and siezure whenever they wish. If you didn't sign it and they spring it on you THEN you should have some recourse. If they institute it after the fact then again, you have the choice to quit or agree.

No one is FORCING you to take that job, no one is FORCING you to take the drug test, it is completely your choice as to which is more important to you.
 
Let's look at the fourth:


Even were this not a limitation on just the government, there is nothing here that is violated by businesses that require drug testing.

Here's why:

1. People are still secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects by the fact that it is still a voluntary action. You can choose to allow the search, or you can choose not to. The ramifications of this choice may not be appealing to some, but there still exists a choice that ios solely made by the searched party.

2. The search itself is not unreasonable. It is a reasonable requirement of an employer to employ law-abiding people.

3. The ramifications of the search are not such that charges will be filed upon the results of the search. If someone fails a drug test, they lose their job, but they are not prosecuted.

One may lose their job, but any action that can be deemed detrimental to their employer can be grounds for job-loss. Drug use can be considered detrimental to the employer.
 
Every job I've had that had random drug tests required that I AGREE to them prior to being hired. If I didn't want to agree to said tests, then I didn't accept the job.

That said, what I don't like about them is that they don't assess the state of the employee while on the job, but rather they assess whether or not they have used any illegal substances in the last couple weeks. (since some drugs are detectable for that long) Hell, I could have just been in the ROOM with someone smoking pot and tested positive for it.

I agree that people should not be intoxicated while on the job - whether on a drug like alcohol, prescription meds, or illegal drugs. But the drug tests do not test for a person's state while working. And that is my objection. They need to come up with a test that tests for a person's state at that moment, much like the alcohol test. THAT I would agree with wholeheartedly.


ROFL

So... you don't hire anyone who ever has an alcoholic drink on their own time? Or even someone who drinks coffee?

Why do you assume that just because someone does something on their own time that that's ALL they think about all day?


Though, I will admit that most of the time while working, I thought about playing WoW. /shrug
 
Problem is this Riv.

At the moment doing illegal drugs is well, illegal. From what I understand ranging from misdemeanor to felony. In general, simply injesting alcohol is not that. A business has an interest in having employee's who are not actively our routinely violating laws that could potentially cause them to become incarcerated by the very nature of the act. While Alcohol can LEAD to such issues, alcohol itself is not grounds for such to happen.

While I do think the logic is a bit flimsy as its not as if we test for other reasons people are violating the law, it is still understandable that it would matter to a business.

Also, what Realm? ; )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…