Are mandatory random drug tests violations of the fourth amendment?

[Pogo]

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.

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]

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

What does have to do with your employer?

My employer IS the government.

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!

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.

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!

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

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

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]

In a very related story...

 

[Centinel]

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]

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.

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

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

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

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.

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.