|
Drug Testing (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ziptnf |
| quote: | Originally posted by Slylee
2 of my good friends are "wake n bakers" and go to work stoned every day. they both own their own companies and have nice homes & cars too lol
not everyone is the same on pot. |
On the opposite side of the spectrum, I know two people that have done absolutely nothing with their lives. They live in their parents basements and get stoned and play World of Warcraft in their pajamas all day. They're absolutely worthless.
Personally, I smoke almost every day, and I have two well-paying jobs, I just got a new house in a nice quiet neighborhood, and am about 4-5 semesters away from getting my Masters Degree. I don't think pot hinders a persons ability to get done, it only worsens it if that person has no drive to begin with. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by xiad
The fact that they go to such extreme measures to violate 1) my privacy, 2) bill of rights, for under the pretense of 'we want to ensure the safety of our employees, respect for our company, and/or acknowledge the law, is completely asinine. |
How does a drug test violate the Bill of Rights? |
|
|
| xiad |
| The 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights protects U.S citizens against unreasonable search and seizure. It also requires that there be probably cause involved with any search (in this case search for past use of illicit substances). With a pre-employment drug testing, companies assume that all new employees are guilty until proven innocent. |
|
|
| ziptnf |
| quote: | Originally posted by xiad
The 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights protects U.S citizens against unreasonable search and seizure. It also requires that there be probably cause involved with any search (in this case search for past use of illicit substances). With a pre-employment drug testing, companies assume that all new employees are guilty until proven innocent. |
Call me dumb, but I don't think Drug Testing for the sake of protecting a company's assets falls under the "search and seizure" category. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by xiad
The 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights protects U.S citizens against unreasonable search and seizure. It also requires that there be probably cause involved with any search (in this case search for past use of illicit substances). |
Even if you construe a drug test as a "search," the fact is that you have a choice of submitting to it or not. Private companies are free to make just about anything (except racial / ethnic / gender / religious identity) a requirement for employment. That's just part of market freedom. If they don't want employees who habitually engage in illegal activities, they are free to reject them. Would you consider a regular criminal background check to also be an "unreaonable search and seizure"? |
|
|
| lenazi |
| quote: | Originally posted by xiad
The 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights protects U.S citizens against unreasonable search and seizure. It also requires that there be probably cause involved with any search (in this case search for past use of illicit substances). With a pre-employment drug testing, companies assume that all new employees are guilty until proven innocent. |
the thing is you are not being forced into the test because once again...YOU WANT the job.
don't want the drug test? find a job that does not give one. |
|
|
| xiad |
| Your right, because it doesn't. I am just saying that government started this trend in testing, which was later adopted by private organizations, goes against the original intentions (the way I interpret it) of the legislation. |
|
|
| lenazi |
| also spelling you're right would probably help you get the job as well:p |
|
|
| xiad |
| quote: | Originally posted by lenazi
also spelling you're right would probably help you get the job as well:p |
Ha. You're right. I'm tired. But, just to let you know, I already got the job, and signed the contract ;-)
I just don't want to lose my job before I even start it. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by xiad
I am just saying that government started this trend in testing, which was later adopted by private organizations, goes against the original intentions (the way I interpret it) of the legislation. |
I don't see how it makes sense to blame the government for checking whether its employees are obeying its own laws. Seems logical to me, even if I disagree with some of those laws... |
|
|
| xiad |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I don't see how it makes sense to blame the government for checking whether its employees are obeying its own laws. Seems logical to me, even if I disagree with some of those laws... |
As logical as the notion of government curiosity seems, it still goes against the basic concept of "probable cause". |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by xiad
As logical as the notion of government curiosity seems, it still goes against the basic concept of "probable cause". |
No it doesn't. Search and seizure in the Bill of Rights refers to when government has the right to force a search on you. It's not talking about searches that you voluntarily submit to as a condition of employment... |
|
|
|
|
