Somehow I missed this little gem until now, previously posted by Daniel. He’s right. You bring up all sorts of “what ifs”. “What if” with the stamp collector, the gay person… oy oy oy. You certainly have a fertile imagination! :rolleyes:
Oh, and WHAT IF they ask you to wear your underwear on your head? What would you do?!? (That’s a good one, Daniel. Thanks!)
spooje:
There are statistics of how many people drink at all, and how many are addicted. It’s fairly obvious that most drinkers are able to do so without trouble. I don’t think it’s too big of a step to draw conclusions about drug use in general from these.
I believe there are also estimates of total drug use and addiction/rehab which agree with me.
Oh now we have the “altered mental state” because of a fight with his wife, or depression. More “what ifs”.
What if they want you to wear your underwear on your head? 
yosemitebabe:
I’m drawing parallels between drug use and other activities in order (or at least in an attempt) to show that although none of the reasons you give apply only to drug testing, you don’t believe an employer has much of a right to test the other things they do apply to.
Testing supporters: “An employer should be able to test for drugs because a drug user might do X.”
Me: “But someone who uses A might also do X.”
TS: “Come on, drugs are illegal. A isn’t.”
Me: “All right, B is also illegal.”
TS: “I’m not talking about B, this is about drugs!”
In fact, you find it ridiculous that an employer would fire someone based on testing one of these other activities, which is why you’re commenting on my fertile imagination. 
Believe me, it pains me to say this, but, could you provide a cite?
But, the parallels don’t add up! There are dramatic differences between “illegal” sexual acts, and drug use. Dramatic differences between a gay person, a stamp collector, or a person who wears their underwear on their head, and a drug user. We have to spend our time explaining to you why your parallels don’t add up. And it gets old. And I can’t believe you don’t know what you’re doing here. You are the KING of “what ifs”. I’ve seen it in every one of your posts.
I can only reiterate what Daniel has already said. And I’m sure you’ll keep on spewing out more imaginative “what ifs”. Perhaps it’ll be about beekeepers this time, or maybe cattle rustlers. What will it be this time, m’dear? :rolleyes:
Whenever we examine a matter of freedom, power and negative consequences, we must first examine the degree of consensuality: the ability to provide or withhold meaningful mutual consent. Generally, the greater the degree of consensuality, the greater the freedom allowed both parties. When consensuality is absent, we must impose regulation to prevent abuse, exploitation and oppression.
Note that for the purposes of this discussion we are assuming adult mental and psychological ability and fitness to enter into an agreement. The ethics of custodial relationships have a vastly different character and are a matter for a different debate.
The most important component of consensuality is equality of power. When both parties to an agreement have equal power to accept, reject or define the terms of that agreement, we can presume on that basis alone that the agreement does not violate moral stricture. When a significant difference in power exists between the two parties, we are morally obligated to take steps to ensure that the party with the greater power does not use that power to oppress or exploit.
For instance, the government, by virtue of its coercive abilities, holds a greater degree of power than the individual. The individual does not have a meaningful choice to accept or reject the law; submission is imposed on him or her merely by the fact and place of his or her birth. Such a condition does not preclude consensuality, but it requires the application of regulation to the party (the government) holding the excess primary power. And that is precisely the function of the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights; and the obvious power imbalance is precisely the moral justification for the Constitution.
I know that Libertarians will disagree on principle with the above statement. They see the critical moral component as the imposition of physical force and reject on principle the relevance of of non-force-related power imbalances on consensuality. Since they hold this tenet as a funamental axiom, I cannot reply rationally to such an assertion. Obviously, if you hold such a tenet my entire argument fails to comply; I will assume your objection.
There are other aspect of this issue which I do not consider here (e.g. degree of intrusiveness and customary requirements) because they are not particularly relevant to the specific issue of drug testing.
In many cases, an employer holds a greater degree of practical econimic power than an individual employee, especially an unskilled or low-skilled employee. Therefore, we are morally justified presuming we as a society may examine agreements to ensure that the power imbalance does not lead to oppression or exploitation and ensure full consensuality.
Our test is simple: We can prohibit any provision that a reasonable person would not categorically agree to if he or she had economic power equal to his or employer.
Clearly fitness for duty fails this test. If a person wishes to perform a particular duty, he must obviously consent to show his or her ability to perform it. Therefore, if a particular provision is necessary for a particlar job, we cannot prohibit it.
Lacking necessity, the existence of the Fourth Amendenment shows on its face that a reasonable person would not categorically consent to an unreasonable search. Therefore, lacking necessity, drug testing passes our test: It is a morally incorrect provision to insist on and we may prohibit it.
Drug use per se does not imply unfitness for duty, except in very specialized occupations as noted earlier in this thread. It is certainly true that excessive drug usage might render one unfit for duty, but then again so might many other legal or normal activities. Therefore proving lack of drug use in general does not meet our test of necessity.
Nor is illegality per se a sufficient justification for a provision. Again, we look to the Constitution for guidance as to the provisions to which a reasonable person is not expected to categorically consent. Again the Constitution is very clear: the implication of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is that a citizen may depend on the presumption of the legality of his or her behavior and need not accept intrusive measures to establish such legality without specific reason and warrant.
To impose by any power a condition to which a reasonable person would not categorically consent by definition constitutes oppression, and is thus immoral, by the same principles as we accept our Constitution.
I am wary of the Libertarian arguments that using power other than physical force to come to an advantageous agreement is always consensual. I do not wish to grant to the owners of capital and their managers powers explicity denied a democratic government.
yosemitebabe:
i would not disagree with this statement… HOWEVER, the testing that employers use is not to test for whether one is high on marijuana, but rather whether they have used it within the previous ~30 days. these are quite different things.
I am a 'reasonable person" and I would have no problem with drug testing.
The employer needs employees as much as the employee needs the job.
If the employer makes restrctions which are unreasonable, the employee has every right to: 1 Quit, 2. Start his own company, and even hire ONLY employees that use drugs, or 3. organize a union & go on strike.
You use the “we” and the “Our” word a lot- are you a King? I hope you have not decieded you are speaking for the rest of us- becuase you are not. As for your tortured reasoning that drug testing is somehow against the Constitution- much greater Folks than you (We like to call the "the Supreme Court - yeah, I know, kinda elitist) have decieded that they are not.
Employers are allowed (and even encouraged) to discriminate against you because you are a CRIMINAL. This is a GOOD thing. Don’t like it- another idea comes to mind- don’t use illegal drugs. :rolleyes:
Daniel:
By “we” and “our,” I refer to the citizenry and our collective democratic ability and obligation to pass laws (albeit indirectly, through our representatives) to regulate behavior.
The fact that you would consent to a particular search is not relevant. The test is whether the preponderance of reasonable people would categorically consent given equal power. The Eight Amendment specifically precludes that test with relationship to the government; it exists because such consent is presumed non-existent. So how can you assume the preponderance of consent in a similar venue? And would you personally categorically consent to unwarranted searches? Categorically means any kind of search in virtually any circumstance. Would you consent to the police asking you to take a random drug test? Wuold you consent to your employer searching your car for illegal drugs? Your house? Your bank records?
If the employer-employee relationship is truly equal, than you must accept that almost any stipulatation to employement is morally acceptable (and I believe that Libertarians do so). Employers should not be restricted from discrimination based on sex, age, race, religion, national orientation or (in some places) sexual orientation. Contrawise, if you accept that those discriminations are legitimate for fully consensual relationships, then why am I allowed to make those very same discriminations in my choice of sexual partners?
We cannot look to the Constitution itself for guidance in the adoption or rejection of drug testing laws and other restrictions on the employer-employee relationship; Clearly this relationship falls under the category of commerce, which the States (and Congress, if it’s interstate commerce) may certainly regulate. The US Constitution neither compels nor prohibits such regulation.
But the employer-employee relationship is usually not a relationship of equal practical power, of full consensuality.
The general mutual interdependence between employers and employees tells us little. More to the point is the typical disparity between a specific individual’s economic reliance on a specific employer. Clearly they are different, especially for low-skilled employees. He exposes himself to considerably more economic risk from losing a job than his employer does from losing his services.
Finally, although I do not consider myself perfect, I have a very good grasp of logic and reason. You may disagree with me, but do not personally insult or attack me unless you wish to take it to the Pit, where we can test our eloquence as well as our reason.
yosemitebabe:
It seems that every one of the differences you’ve mentioned is that it doesn’t satisfy some other reason you have for supporting drug tests… so I bring up another situation that does, and you complain that it doesn’t satisfy yet another reason.
Look at this line from Danielinthewolvesden:
Doesn’t this seem to imply that the reason employers are allowed to do drug tests is because drug use is illegal? Is it not also true that you would be a CRIMINAL if you engaged in oral sex in an area where it was illegal? Yet when I bring that up, it’s brushed off - this inconsistency can only mean that the illegality of drug use is not the real reason to allow testing.
Yes, the “illegal” part is the part that is a sticking point with me. A person starts a habit that they know is illegal. There was never a time when it wasn’t illegal. It isn’t as if the illegality part came later, and they are stuck with it. They chose to use drugs, knowing what the stakes were.
They can easily choose to not use them. It isn’t as if the drugs are life-sustaining. They aren’t like insulin, right? And they can choose to not work at a place that does drug tests. It isn’t like they’re going to be wrestled to the ground while walking down the street, and be subjected to a drug test. A person can leave once there is talk of drug testing.
Sometimes you can’t have it all your way. Especially when it comes to illegal things that you have chosen to do.
yosemitebabe:
Then why don’t you feel the same way about an employer testing for illegal sexual behavior?
The testing doesn’t detect a habit, it detects past drug use.
Oops! Simulposts!
Because they don’t. You never can seem to get these analogies right.
CRIMINAL, and MIND-ALTERING. Both. An employer has a right to be concerned that an employee might harm himself, or others, while on an illegal, mind-altering substance. This employer is probably worrying about legal liabilities, among many other things. Other people on this thread have brought that up. This employer may also feel within his rights to weed out employees who will use illegal drugs.
Certain sexual acts may be “illegal”, but not mind-altering. Certain states of mind (depression, a fight with the wife, wearing your underwear on your head) might cause a person to be impaired (temporarily) but they are not CRIMINAL.
yosemitebabe:
No one denies that drug use is illegal, and if you deal in illegal drugs the constitutionally regulated law enforcement and criminal justice system apprehends you, you will be punished.
What we’re arguing is whether your employer has the freedom to use its economic power to compel you to submit to an activity (warrantless search) that we have explicitly denied our own government, and for the very good reason of potential for abuse.
If drugs tests were truly consensual, there would be no controversy. If you want to take one, fine. If you don’t want to take one, and will suffer no economic consequences (or the economic consequences are mutual between the employer and employee), then you don’t.
But such is not the case. At my own level of professional employment, drug testing is rare. There are relatively few skilled professionals and many of us are civil libertarians by nature. A company that insists on drug testing soon finds itself dominated by those mediocre employees who are economically unable to refuse. However industries which depend on unskilled or low-skilled labor usually do not show such economic equality. If testing is sufficiently prevalent, an unskilled worker faces the choice between submission and starvation. I for one will never accept a definition of consent that includes such a choice.
I would be most interested in seeing statistics on the relative prevalence of drug testing by industry and note the correlation with typical pay. I would assemble such statistics myself, but I must admit I have no idea where to find the primary data.
Oh, so only “habits” are illegal? So when a person is “occasionally” using drugs, they are not choosing to use an illegal substance?
This is news to me.
If you do them right, they can be mind-altering. 
I agree, if a job starts drug testing after an employee has been working there, it might seem a bit opressive to them to feel like they have no choice but to submit. But they ought to be able to pass the test, right? So their job will not be at risk, right?
When a person is looking for a job, and finds that all of them out there within his skill level require drug testing, the decision is simple. Just get clean of the drugs, then take the test. Or, if testing is repugnant to them for some reason, keep on job hunting.
Hey - I had to be (shudder) weighed before I got hired at my last job. (It was a very basic heath check - blood pressure, weight, etc.) Talk about humiliating! But I allowed myself to be weighed. I wanted the job.
yosemitebabe:
A drug test doesn’t show that you did anything illegal at all - you could test positive because you used marijuana legally for medical purposes, or in a country where it’s legal, within the past month.
From your previous post, I understand that you are concerned with drugs because they’re both mind-altering and illegal, and not concerned with off-hours activities that are either only mind-altering or only illegal.
[ul]
[li]Your concern with drugs’ mind-altering ability seems to come from the possibility that someone would show up at work high. I will not mention alcohol in the context of an adult because alcohol is legal for them; however, do you believe an employer has the right to test employees under 21 for past alcohol use?[/li][li]Also, are you concerned that someone will show up at work high because you believe a majority of drug users will do that, or do you believe even the tiniest possibility is a reason to test?[/li][li]Would your position on drug testing change if some or all or those drugs became legal?[/li][/ul]
yosemitebabe: If you have no illegal drugs in your house, you shouldn’t have a problem allowing the police to search it whenever they feel like it. I mean, you have nothing to hide, right? The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution doesn’t exist to protect the guilty (although it does have that effect). It’s there because such compulsory intrusion opens up too much potential for abuse given the disparity in power between the government and the individual. This is a crucial and basic point about civil liberties.
I do not refuse employers’ drug tests because I’m unable to pass one. In fact I have to take consensual drug tests under circumstances under which I feel I have absolute equality of power and I admit the necessity. I know I’m clean and I can prove it if I wish. I refuse them because if I allow compulsory intrusion in this small matter today, I set a precedent and grant implicit permission for larger intrusions tomorrow, by people who control to some measure my livelihood and thus my life and whose interests often differ from my own. I am fortunate that I personally have the economic power to individually resist a manifestly unjust intrusion. I feel I have an obligation to extend such power by law to those who do not have such good fortune.