# Is drug testing a violation of your rights **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 3, 2001, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-drug-testing-a-violation-of-your-rights/56598 "2001-03-03T04:16:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2001, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-drug-testing-a-violation-of-your-rights/56598/41 "2001-03-06T18:13:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Vision \* > \*\*The only people I think who should be drug-tested on a regular basis is Firefighters, police officers, and anyone in the medical profession. > > I wouldn’t want any of those people all whacked out on drugs trying to save my life. \*\* What about people who operate heavy machinery? Or people who earn a living by driving on the road? Or people who dispense pharmaceuticals or other dangerous chemicals? Heck, what about government employees who handle financial transactions that could cost the taxpayers millions of dollars? There are many reasons for instituting a zero tolerance policy against illegal drugs. I, for one, would RATHER work for a company that required drug testing than one which didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2001, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-drug-testing-a-violation-of-your-rights/56598/42 "2001-03-06T18:37:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ned \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > There’s a world of difference between the two cases. Cocaine is FAR more addictive that alcohol, and its effects are far more severe. If a person claims to only drink alcohol occasionally, I would generally believe him. If that person claims to consume cocaine in strict moderation, I would be far less likely to believe him. > > The world of difference between the two cases exists soley in your mind. I would love to hear your perception of the effects of cocaine, I am sure you would have me rolling. Cocaine produces a mild feeling of well being, slightly increased pulse, increased motor control and heightened alertness. This doesn’t sound more severe than alchohol to me.\*\* The American Medical Association says otherwise. The _AMA Encyclopedia of Medicine_ says that cocaine can cause both dependency _and_ psychosis. In addition, the Journal of the AMA reports that cocaine use is linked to high rates of homicide in New York City and that “homicide victims may have provoked violence through irritability, paranoid thinking or verbal and physical aggression which are known to be pharmacologic effects of cocaine” (6 July 1994). Studies also suggest that cocaine is more dangerous and more addictive than heroin. See [http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/COCAINE.html](http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/COCAINE.html) for further discussion of cocaine risks. A cocaine user may _feel_ that cocaine does not cause significant impairment, and that cocaine helps him perform on the job. However, the AMA says otherwise. Besides which, employers have the right to lay down certain rules – and if they don’t want the risks involved in cocaine use, they are free to prohibit it. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2001, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-drug-testing-a-violation-of-your-rights/56598/43 "2001-03-06T20:34:38Z")
**spooje** : > [@](#): > > I don’t think that’s analogous. Church and oral sex are not intoxicants, though they can make you feel good. There really aren’t any hangovers to speak of, and directly following, your judgement won’t be any more impaired than it was directly preceding. **Jubilation** said that he wouldn’t trust someone who had used cocaine four days before, so “directly following” isn’t an issue. > [@](#): > > Often, employees are called in the middle of the night or on their days off to solve customers problems. … It is in our companies financial interest to know whether it’s employees are likely to be intoxicated on their time off. This is a special situation - if employees are expected to be “on call” 24/7, the company does have an interest in their ability to work off-hours. However, at any given time, I’d say an employee is much more likely to be intoxicated on alcohol than illegal drugs… yet I’ve never heard of companies refusing to hire drinkers. > [@](#): > > Also, an employee arrested for drug possesion or intoxication on his/her time off could directly and adversely affect the future business of the company. As could an employee arrested for DUI or public drunkenness. (Or illegal engagement in oral sex, where applicable.) ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2001, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-drug-testing-a-violation-of-your-rights/56598/44 "2001-03-06T22:33:37Z")
Cocaine causes extreme psychological dependence, but relatively little physiological dependence, since withdrawal is generally mild and overwith in 18 hours. Alcohol causes considerable psychological dependence, as well as considerable physiological dependence, since withdrawal is severe and life-threatening. It is hard to say whether alcohol or cocaine is “more addictive”, since they don’t exactly compare, but they can both be pretty addictive. However, from a drug-testing standpoint, you’d be much better off testing for alcohol; any given employee is much more likely to be an alcoholic than a cocaine addict. > [@](#): > > The only people I think who should be drug-tested on a regular basis is Firefighters, police officers, and anyone in the medical profession. > > I wouldn’t want any of those people all whacked out on drugs trying to save my life. Have you read the thread thus far? For one thing, you’ll note in my post above that the medical profession very rarely tests for drugs. Also, no one here is arguing for anyone’s right to come in “all whacked out on drugs”. They’re arguing whether a positive drug test means that one is likely to come in “all whacked out on drugs”. Dr. J ---
**Author:** ![2nd\_Law](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/2/f475e1/32.png) [@2nd\_Law](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/2nd_Law)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2001, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-drug-testing-a-violation-of-your-rights/56598/45 "2001-03-06T23:37:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by **notguilty** \* > …you said this was Con Law 101, now I’m no linguist, but Con conjures up the images of convicts in prison for committing crimes… err, _Con Law 101_ would generally be short for _Constitutional_ Law 101, as opposed to “convict” law. As for the OP, I’ve taken drug tests for jobs, and while I’m not pleased about it I do submit. On the other hand, I’ll refuse to take a polygraph test to get or keep a job, because IMHO polygraphs are as accurate as reading tea leaves. ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2001, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-drug-testing-a-violation-of-your-rights/56598/46 "2001-03-07T00:13:43Z")
> [@](#): > > The American Medical Association says otherwise. The AMA Encyclopedia of Medicine says that cocaine can cause both dependency and psychosis. In addition, the Journal of the AMA reports that cocaine use is linked to high rates of homicide in New York City and that “homicide victims may have provoked violence through irritability, paranoid thinking or verbal and physical aggression which are known to be pharmacologic effects of cocaine” (6 July 1994). This is long term abuse, my description was not. Please read a description of the short and long term effects of alcohol abuse and then come back here and try to keep a straight face continuing to insist cocaine is worse. > [@](#): > > Studies also suggest that cocaine is more dangerous and more addictive than heroin. See [http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/COCAINE.html](http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/COCAINE.html) for further discussion of cocaine risks. No argument here, heroin is a safer drug then cocaine. On the other hand heroin is vastly over rated. > [@](#): > > A cocaine user may feel that cocaine does not cause significant impairment, and that cocaine helps him perform on the job. However, the AMA says otherwise. Besides which, employers have the right to lay down certain rules – and if they don’t want the risks involved in cocaine use, they are free to prohibit it. The AMA says nothing of the sort according to your quote. the AMA says long term abuse is harmful and I have no problem adding that it would undoubtedly have a negative impact on performance. Testing of subjects clearly shows it enhances performance while long term use will degrade performance to a similar degree that alcohol does. I can think of many instances where such a drug could be useful, thats why the military sometimes uses stimulants. Outside such extraodrinary circumstances cocaine use would never be appropriate on the job. Drug testing, however, has nothing to do with use on the job nor does a positive test indicate any particular risk factor to the employer. Studies by the National Science Foundation and the AMA show that testing has been ineffective in reducing drug use and has no noticeable impact on reducing either absenteeism or productivity. The National Academy of Sciences found that illegal drugs contribute little to workplace accidents and that off-duty drug use has about the same small effect on worker accidents as off-duty drinking. Researchers with the Le Moyne College Institute of Industrial Relations surveyed 63 Silicon Valley companies and found that productivity was 29 percent lower in firms with pre-employment and random testing. In truth the vast majority of companies have never done cost benefit analysis of drug testing policies largely because they understand them to be of little to no benefit. Simple steps like making counselling services available have considerably better success at lower costs. The fact is that most companies adopt policies in order to be good corporate citizens and help out in the war on drugs. The government can’t violate the 4th amendment but companies can abuse their contractual powers to do it for them. ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2001, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-drug-testing-a-violation-of-your-rights/56598/47 "2001-03-07T17:42:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ned \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > The American Medical Association says otherwise. The AMA Encyclopedia of Medicine says that cocaine can cause both dependency and psychosis. In addition, the Journal of the AMA reports that cocaine use is linked to high rates of homicide in New York City and that “homicide victims may have provoked violence through irritability, paranoid thinking or verbal and physical aggression which are known to be pharmacologic effects of cocaine” (6 July 1994). > > This is long term abuse, my description was not. \*\* Your post made no such distinction. Moreover, the employer has no way of knowing if the person’s use of cocaine was merely short-term – or that it won’t soon develop into long-term use. Where the employees’ safety is concerned, the company has every right to err on the side of caution. > [@](#): > > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > A cocaine user may feel that cocaine does not cause significant impairment, and that cocaine helps him perform on the job. However, the AMA says otherwise. Besides which, employers have the right to lay down certain rules – and if they don’t want the risks involved in cocaine use, they are free to prohibit it. > > The AMA says nothing of the sort according to your quote.\*\* The AMA clearly described some of the effects of cocaine, and they clearly constitute impairment. Naturally, the degree of impairment will depend on the dosage and the extent of prior usage. The point remains, however – the company can not simply assume that such usage was short-term, and that the employee’s usage is conducted under medically safe conditions. > [@](#): > > \*\*Studies by the National Science Foundation and the AMA show that testing has been ineffective in reducing drug use and has no noticeable impact on reducing either absenteeism or productivity. \*\* That’s a red herring. It only addresses the _wisdom_ of doing drug tests using current techniques. It does not mean that the employer has no _right_ to do so. Moreover, it could simply mean that we should re-examine the way in which such testing is conducted, or the industries for which the testing has been done. ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2001, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-drug-testing-a-violation-of-your-rights/56598/48 "2001-03-07T18:07:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > \*\ ***spooje** : > > > [@](#): > > > > I don’t think that’s analogous. Church and oral sex are not intoxicants, though they can make you feel good. There really aren’t any hangovers to speak of, and directly following, your judgement won’t be any more impaired than it was directly preceding. > > **Jubilation** said that he wouldn’t trust someone who had used cocaine four days before, so “directly following” isn’t an issue.\*\* If a person consumed cocaine four days before work, it’s reasonable for a company to suspect that he might do so _one_ day before work – especially given the high degree of cocaine addiction. In contrast, it doesn’t matter if you attended church or had oral sex before work, since these do not produce any adverse symptoms. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 7:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-drug-testing-a-violation-of-your-rights/56598/49 "2001-03-08T07:25:38Z")
**JubilationTCornpone** : > [@](#): > > If a person consumed cocaine four days before work, it’s reasonable for a company to suspect that he might do so one day before work – especially given the high degree of cocaine addiction. About as reasonable as for the company to assume that since an employee had a few beers 24 hours before work, he might have a few beers one hour before work. > [@](#): > > In contrast, it doesn’t matter if you attended church or had oral sex before work, since these do not produce any adverse symptoms. I can think of a few, but they’re pretty contrived. On the other hand, it’s also pretty contrived to assert, in the absence of evidence, that users of illegal drugs are more likely to be intoxicated at work than users of legal drugs. In addition, the very existence of impairment testing makes it a moot point. There’s no need to guess at the probability of an employee being intoxicated when you can know for sure. If a police officer sees you weaving on the road, he doesn’t just look over your credit card bills to see if you’ve purchased alcohol in the last month, then assume you’re drunk based on that. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-drug-testing-a-violation-of-your-rights/56598/50 "2001-03-08T08:50:56Z")
My company _does_ test for booze on a pre-employment screening. And I know 1 employee who had to retest when he came up positive. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 8:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-drug-testing-a-violation-of-your-rights/56598/51 "2001-03-08T08:58:01Z")
**spooje** , what time period was covered by that test? ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-drug-testing-a-violation-of-your-rights/56598/52 "2001-03-08T09:54:24Z")
Not really sure. ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 10:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-drug-testing-a-violation-of-your-rights/56598/53 "2001-03-08T10:23:53Z")
Jubilation, I notice you have skirted the issue that brought up the discussion which was your assertion that cocaine had a greater effect than alcohol. Please don’t avoid standing behind your assertions by directing the debate towards trivialities, it gets tiresome. On the alcohol testing question it is my understanding that metabolites of alcohol are untestable as they are not unique from those produced by carbohydrates generally. This means you must still have alcohol in your system to get a positive. I imagine that means a maximum of about a day after very heavy consumption. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 10:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-drug-testing-a-violation-of-your-rights/56598/54 "2001-03-08T10:45:32Z")
If **Ned** is correct, then the alcohol test **spooje** mentioned seems like a fancy breathalyzer - which, of course, is entirely different from a typical past-usage drug test. Someone who fails that test is either drunk or a very heavy drinker… not true for, say, marijuana. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-drug-testing-a-violation-of-your-rights/56598/55 "2001-03-08T14:47:00Z")
The test I mentioned was definately a urine test.(I had to take one for employment) ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-drug-testing-a-violation-of-your-rights/56598/56 "2001-03-08T18:41:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > \*\ ***JubilationTCornpone** : > > > [@](#): > > > > If a person consumed cocaine four days before work, it’s reasonable for a company to suspect that he might do so one day before work – especially given the high degree of cocaine addiction. > > About as reasonable as for the company to assume that since an employee had a few beers 24 hours before work, he might have a few beers one hour before work. > \*\* Naturally. After all, we are talking about what ‘might’ happen. The difference is that cocaine is a medically restricted substance, whereas alcohol is not. The FDA and the medical community have judged that cocaine poses a far greater risk. > [@](#): > > In contrast, it doesn’t matter if you attended church or had oral sex before work, since these do not produce any adverse symptoms. > [@](#): > > **I can think of a few, but they’re pretty contrived. On the other hand, it’s also pretty contrived to assert, in the absence of evidence, that users of illegal drugs are more likely to be intoxicated at work than users of legal drugs.** Even if we grant that to be true, the medical community has already voiced its judgment on the safety of using cocaine. They have judged alcohol to be mostly safe, whereas they have judged cocaine to be patently unsafe. > [@](#): > > **In addition, the very existence of impairment testing makes it a moot point. There’s no need to guess at the probability of an employee being intoxicated when you can know for sure.** Only if a company is willing to conduct such testing every day, at every possible opportunity. It should be obvious that this would have a severely negative impact on productivity – all to protect a non-existent “right” of the employees. ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2001, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-drug-testing-a-violation-of-your-rights/56598/57 "2001-03-08T18:49:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ned \* > \*\*Jubilation, I notice you have skirted the issue that brought up the discussion which was your assertion that cocaine had a greater effect than alcohol. Please don’t avoid standing behind your assertions by directing the debate towards trivialities, it gets tiresome. > \*\* There is nothing trivial about quoting what the AMA has to say about cocaine causing psychosis or violent behavior. The medical community and the FDA have already passed their judgment on cocaine. Granted, there are several factors to consider (e.g. addictiveness, short- and long-term effects, the nature of the symptoms); however, it is dangerous enough to be medically restricted whereas alcohol is not. Besides, objecting on such fine points is simply missing the forest for the trees. Even if you assume that there are _some_ respects in which _cocaine_ is safer than alcohol, that is hardly an argument against drug testing in general. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2001, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-drug-testing-a-violation-of-your-rights/56598/58 "2001-03-09T00:05:44Z")
**JubilationTCornpone** : > [@](#): > > _(On the other hand, it’s also pretty contrived to assert, in the absence of evidence, that users of illegal drugs are more likely to be intoxicated at work than users of legal drugs.)_ > Even if we grant that to be true, the medical community has already voiced its judgment on the safety of using cocaine. They have judged alcohol to be mostly safe, whereas they have judged cocaine to be patently unsafe. What matters is how safe it is at work - whether you’re better off with your forklift driver drunk or on cocaine. Surely you aren’t suggesting that alcohol is “mostly safe” in this respect, or significantly safer than cocaine? > [@](#): > > Only if a company is willing to conduct [impairment] testing every day, at every possible opportunity. It should be obvious that this would have a severely negative impact on productivity That’s exactly what I’m suggesting. In addition to being more accurate and less intrusive, impairment testing doesn’t take days to get results - only a few minutes at most. It doesn’t have to be administered at every possible opportunity; even just by giving the test when employees arrive, you have a far better idea of who’s prepared for work than you’d get from intrusive testing. > [@](#): > > all to protect a non-existent “right” of the employees. Last I checked, employers don’t own their employees (that went out in the 1800s). If this has changed, would you care to describe exactly which parts of an employee’s private life are his own, and which parts belong to his employer? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2001, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-drug-testing-a-violation-of-your-rights/56598/59 "2001-03-09T00:08:42Z")
**JubilationTCornpone** : > [@](#): > > The medical community and the FDA have already passed their judgment on cocaine. Granted, there are several factors to consider (e.g. addictiveness, short- and long-term effects, the nature of the symptoms); however, it is dangerous enough to be medically restricted whereas alcohol is not. Are you suggesting that cocaine is illegal and alcohol is legal simply because cocaine is considered more dangerous? ---
**Author:** ![Ned](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/848f3c/32.png) [@Ned](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ned)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2001, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-drug-testing-a-violation-of-your-rights/56598/60 "2001-03-09T00:21:07Z")
Jubilation, I am going to try this one more time before I give up on you. I have no problem with you using FDA descriptions for the long and short term effects of cocaine. What you need to do to make some sense of this description is compare it to similar descriptions of alcohol. You cannot compare your personal perceptions of alcohol to a medical description of cocaine and have a reasonable comparison. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-drug-testing-a-violation-of-your-rights/56598.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-drug-testing-a-violation-of-your-rights/56598.md?page=4)