Since Howard Dean kind of brought up the subject, Should a candidate for president be required to be drug tested? We test cashiers at supermarkets, opticians at Lenscrafters, and god knows who else. Should the person who has the launch codes be tested to see if they’re on illegal mind altering drugs?
No, and we should stop testing cashiers at supermarkets, and opticians at Lenscrafters (if that is happening)
Trump may indeed be unstable, but you’re not going to fix that with drug testing.
Worked at Lenscrafters and was required to get a drug test before they hired me.
Yes, and I would extend it to gubernatorial candidates as well.
No, because I don’t agree w/ drug testing (in most, but not all, cases).
Also, I would assume there’s some protocol to pushing the buttons. Or could the POTUS roll out of bed, hungover and angry, and fire some ICBMs to N. Korea to make him feel better?
There’s no drug testing requirement in the Constitution, so no, it should not be added without a Constitutional amendment.
I HONESTLY think that the fastest way to get rid of drug testing is to Mandate it for ALL Board Members and ALL Senior Officers of Every Corporation quarterly for corporations that test, with that quarter’s drug testing results to be listed in the quarterly statement.
Or, the corporation may opt out of all testing and list it so. Testing at the highest levels can be justified by saying that the share holders have the right to know how the corporation is being run.
Why? The Minute you make it “All or Nothing” , the Roman Senatorial Orgyists will magically make all that noise go away.
No, you should just surround them with people who can think and reason and parse if an order is illegal. The President doesn’t have any buttons in his or her office that start WW3 - all orders have to relayed through others.
How about that semi-truck driver you are next to on the interstate. His vehicle weight is about 80,000 lbs at a speed of 70 mph. He is considered low income thus a prime candidate for being a drug abuser.
All the CDL holders have to be in a random drug testing program, do you wish to get rid of it too?
The notion that low income people are at some special risk for drug abuse that high income people are not is bullshit. That’s the point of saying that if a company tests for drugs EVERYONE should be tested.
People involved in transportation - truck drivers, pilots, and so forth - are a special category because relatively mild impairment in those professions can have fatal results. That’s directly related to safety
Someone stocking toilet paper at Wal-mart? Not likely to endanger others no matter how messed up in the head they are.
I dunno about you, but I don’t want drug-tainted TP scraping at my ass!
I don’t think the division is between low-income and high-income, but, as you mention, some kinds of jobs vs. other kinds. Back when I worked for a Wall St. firm, I had to be drug-tested. Now I work for an airline, and I had to be drug-tested before being hired as well. And I am a computer consultant, not a pilot. I believe the requirement was because the unions representing the pilots and flight attendants accepted drug screening only if it applied to everyone.
The safety of the employee himself is also an issue, and not only the safety of others. Also increased worker’s comp costs, reduced productivity, etc.
Regards,
Shodan
There’s also a cost to not employing people because they can’t pass a piss test. It’s a trade off. I’d argue that stocking toilet paper at Wal-mart will probably cost society less over all than refusing to employ such a person, reducing them to homelessness and possibly petty crime to survive. Of course, opinions on such matters do vary.
Not “can’t pass a piss test” - “don’t pass a piss test”.
Regards,
Shodan
Having worked with full blown addicts I question how capable these people are of resisting temptation. I mean sure, a subset manage to recover sobriety but it’s sort of one of the symptoms of addiction that you can’t resist your chosen poison. On the other hand, giving them something to do all day instead of getting drunk or high can help them either climb to functionality or at least not become completely dysfunctional.
Some folks is messed up. How to minimize the damage from that is subject to debate.
This. Stop and think about it this way: How free are you really, when you cannot even decide what goes into your body?
Also, there is an inherent unfairness in drug testing given that some of the most dangerous drugs both the user and the public at large clear the system much more quickly than perfectly legal alcohol, or even marijuana, which is widely considered by rational folks to be relatively harmless.
A single use of marijuana will remain detectable in your system for about two weeks. A chronic user who stops using will remain detectable for more than a month. However, if you are gakked out on coke on Monday, it will likely have cleared your system and be undetectable by Wednesday. There is no way to test for the use of K-2 that I am aware of, and that is even more dangerous to the user and the public at large than coke.
You have to keep in mind that it’s not like we’re testing people because law requires it as part of getting a job. If you’re getting a job in the private sector, things are much different. What you (Procrustus) would are saying, would require a change to state/federal laws, making drug testing illegal would probably be similar to making lie detector tests illegal.
That’s an interesting argument but has a few problems. First of all, many employers want to be able to tell both the public/investors, and their insurance company that they regularly/randomly drug screen and/or all of their employees (or at least employees of a certain class) are drug free.
As for harder drugs clearing out faster, that’s true, yes, but there’s the point I made above, so it’s kinda moot, plus the fact that if someone is snorting an 8 ball every two days, there’s a good chance they can’t clean up in two days, even if they’re given notice of the pending test. Also it’s just sort of ‘it is what it is’ pot is fat soluble, coke is water soluble’, it’s chemistry you can’t do anything about it.
At my store, we don’t do any kind of testing whatsoever, we just say that we don’t care what you do when you’re off the clock. My example is that you can punch out, drive your car out of the parking lot, shoot up, pass out with the needle still in your arm and as long as you’re back at work on time tomorrow and working at 100%, I really don’t care what you did between when you left and when you got back. However, if you’re work is suffering, I don’t care what the reason is, you’ll eventually be asked to leave. (Just a quick note here, as loose as I am on the subject, if I catch you possessing or using drugs on the premises or on the clock, you’ll be fired that day, at least make an attempt to hide it, for the love of god, don’t leave your pipe on the dashboard of the delivery van).
Something like that could be implemented at more places, but again, the unwashed masses like to see the ‘drug free’ thing as well as the insurance company (and even moreso OSHA, if you have any kind of equipment that could hurt someone).
A bigger question, for me, is should we still test for drugs (or at least pot) in states that have Legalized It. I’m all for legalizing it, but as someone who used it for many, many years, let’s be honest, even when you’re not high, if you get high on a regular enough basis, it certainly results in you being a bit spacey the rest of the time. OTOH, I’m conflicted because while I don’t have a problem with businesses having more strict rules than states/fed laws (as long as they’re legal), I’m not sure I’d want a business to test for alcohol or Rx drugs…of course, I’ve seen some businesses that will disqualify you for certain jobs for any positive opiate result even if you can produce a valid script and sometimes that makes sense.
So, while I’m conflicted in some areas, I can say that I have no problem a private business drug testing. However, as for drug testing potential POTUS, it’s not something I’ve ever given any thought too.
Were you tested pre-offer? While I do not use recreational drugs I do take prescription drugs which while they do not impact my ability to do work or to accomplish my work I would be filing an ADA violation with the EEOC if they asked me to test before being hired.
This is a very risky legal issue for them http://hr.cch.com/eld/65fc449e7bd0100098d6e0db5501c0ed01.pdf
Lanier v. Woodburn | ACLU of Oregon
But I also do not trust employers whom don’t trust their hiring process enough to require a need a pre-offer test.
I understand why companies get away with this in industries with a more company favorable applicant pool but I personally feel that it is the responsibility of us in more rarified applicant pool carriers like most computer carriers to stand up. Just in the hope that it will filter down to other industries.
While I would not be nearly as brave, being a worker with valuable skills and with a long track record of over-performing my peers I have successfully help end intrusive practices like asking for passwords to social media accounts from a couple of local companies.
These invasive polices that do not relate to the safety for the individual, other employees, or the public; security needs; or requirements related to job performance should not be tolerated.
Not that these tests sound like they are accurate but with with a 1/500 false positive rate, out of 1,000 tests, 2 will be positive even though the employee’s urine was clean.
So while I know that you think only the “guilty” refuse, people whom are clean should also refuse as they can be wrongfully accused and terminated due to an invasive policy.
While it may seem obvious that a clean employee has nothing to lose by submitting to a test the truth is the only thing that can come out of it is a random false report.
Luckily being in the 9th district I think that most employers do a very directed type of testing due to the potential legal implications within the existing case law.
Of course employers of lower wage, higher applicant count workers can get away with a lot just because their potential employees are less likely to complain or have the resources to fight a wrongful no-hire or termination.
The Russian Olympic Committee has volunteered to help administer the inaugural program.
The problem is, though, what if a candidate tested positive for a type of drug, like amphetamines, that could also be prescribed medically for a legitimate purpose/condition but is illegal to possess without a valid prescription? What if a certain medication gave a false positive for an illegal drug such as methamphetamines? In addition to the unofficial requirement that candidates disclose either general physical results or an overall health summary, should they be required to disclose any and all medications they are currently taking too? Because that would be the unintended consequence of such a drug testing requirement.
As Trump has proven, submitting medical records of any kind is strictly voluntary, which is why HIPAA is not implicated. A requirement to disclose current medications would create HIPAA complications.
Yes, because it doesn’t actually tell us what we need to know. I don’t care if that truck driver toked up a week ago. I care that he’s sober, alert, and capable of fast, appropriate reactions today. Making the driver piss in a cup doesn’t tell me anything about his ability to handle his vehicle right now.
Testing for illegal drugs also doesn’t tell me if that driver is impaired because he’s taking OTC cold medication or legitimately prescribed pain medication. It doesn’t tell me if he’s dangerously distracted because he had a fight with his boss or because he’s trying to text while driving.
If trucking companies were serious about making sure that their drivers were fit to be on the road, they’d test for alertness and reaction time before drivers hit the road. They’d also put more pressure on drivers to take required breaks, stick to realistic schedules, and require some sort of periodic check-in to confirm that drivers on the road are not over tired, etc.
Let’s also dump this assumption that low-income people are more likely to be drug abusers. Low-income working people are busy spending their money on essentials like food and housing, not nonessentials like drugs. This prejudice makes no one safer.