Is drug testing a violation of your rights

[The_Mermaid]

I’ll relate my story and you can tell me if it’s fair.

I am an RN, and I’ve been working in the health care field for over 20 years always with excellent performance appraisels. I have worked as a charge nurse, preceptor and served on innumerable committees.

About this time last year, I smoked a few joints while I was on vacation. I was injured at work about 3 days after I smoked, was drug tested–standard policy-- suspended and ultimately fired. I attended counseling and was investigated by The Ohio State Board of Nursing. There were never any criminal charges against me, no disciplinary action was reccomended by the Board. I was told to go back to work.

I did get another job at a local hospital. Passed the required urine test with no problem and went about trying to forget about the whole miserable experience at my last employer of 16 years.

3 weeks ago I was called into the Director of Nursing’s office and told that they had received an anonymous tip that I had been fired from my last job for drug use. This sounds horrible and whenever drug use and registered nurse are mentioned together, one thinks the nurse is stealing drugs from the patient and using them. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

My job was terminated right there on the spot. The reason given was that I had not been completely honest about the circumstances surrounding why I left my last job and that now I was no longer trustworthy. I was not required by the nursing board to divulge the details of the investigation and frankly I wanted to put it all behind me.

Now no one will give me an interview, no job prospects are forthcoming and I feel like my life is ruined. I have 2 more checks coming and that’s it and I’m afraid I may need to file chapter 13 to keep from losing my house.

What purpose was served? Has a public service been performed saving the public from me? What in the hell is a 43 year old RN gonna do when she can’t work as an RN anymore?

Yes I’d say my rights have been violated.

[Ned]

Mermaid, thank you for sharing that, you have our deepest sympathies.

Perhaps some on the board can get a glimmer of an idea that the answers and reassurances drug testing seems to give them are as empty as their understanding of the problems.

[JubilationTCornpone]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
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.

There’s good reason for that. Most people use alcohol as a beverage. They do not normally imbibe with the specific goal of getting drunk.

Illegal drugs, on the other hand, are only taken for the purpose of getting intoxicated. (This is barring legitimate medicinal use, of course, which should only be performed under a physicians close supervision.) That’s why alcohol is treated differently from other drugs.

FTR, I would have no objection to a company that refuses to hire drinkers. They would be well within their rights to do so. Such a measure would probably be impractical, but there would be nothing unethical about it.

[JubilationTCornpone]

*Originally posted by Ned *
**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. **

It’s more than just a “personal perception.” It is the judgment of the FDA, the medical community and the federal government. That is why cocaine is specifically restricted by law, while alcohol is not.

[Ms2001]

JubilationTCornpone:

There’s good reason for that. Most people use alcohol as a beverage. They do not normally imbibe with the specific goal of getting drunk.

Illegal drugs, on the other hand, are only taken for the purpose of getting intoxicated.

Intoxication is a natural consequence of drinking alcohol; someone who drinks alcohol knows that he will be affected. Thirst-quenching is also an effect, but someone who is thirsty but doesn’t want to become intoxicated will drink something else.

Drinking alcohol because you’re thirsty is the same as smoking pot because your back hurts, or using meth because you want to stay up all night. There are other ways to do the same thing; choosing to use one of these drugs means choosing the intoxication.

It is the judgment of the FDA, the medical community and the federal government. That is why cocaine is specifically restricted by law, while alcohol is not.

Uh huh. Politics didn’t factor into it at all. :rolleyes:

[Ned]

I really have little patience for arguing with people who aren’t even interested in learning. However for the benefit of others I will post a few excerpts from a medical description of alcohols effects.

Alcohol use is involved in:

One-half of all murders, accidental deaths, and suicides
One-third of all drownings and boating and aviation deaths
One-half of all crimes
Almost half of all fatal automobile accidents

Temperate and occasional users of alcohol who are in normal health do not appear to suffer negative effects from use of alcohol. In moderate doses, alcohol has beneficial effects: relaxation, appetite stimulation, and creation of a mild sense of euphoria.
[I note that you will have a hell of a lot of problems finding commentary regarding temperate and occassional users of illegal drugs. You certainly will not find relaxation and mild euphoria listed as beneficial effects]

Within moments of ingestion, alcohol reaches the brain where it:

Stimulates and agitates, initially producing euphoria
Depresses and sedates, producing calmness and tranquility
Anesthetizes
Induces a hypnotic state and sleep

Alcohol quickly depresses inhibitions and judgment. As inhibitions are released the drinker may feel friendlier, more gregarious, and more expansive. The suggestion to “have a drink and loosen up” is based on the biology of alcohol in the body. Sexual inhibitions may be released, which gives alcohol the reputation as an aphrodisiac; in fact, alcohol impairs sexual function and performance, and eventually blunts desire. Increased consumption may produce Jekyll and Hyde personality changes in drinkers, leading to aggressiveness and cruelty. Radical mood changes (such as bouncing from euphoria to self-pity) are also typical characteristics of intoxication.

Alcohol adversely affects motor ability, muscle function, reaction time, eyesight, depth perception, and night vision.
Alcohol profoundly disturbs the structure and function of the central nervous system, disrupting the ability to retrieve and consolidate information. Even moderate alcohol consumption affects cognitive abilities, while larger amounts interfere with the oxygen supply to the brain, a possible cause of blackout or temporary amnesia during drunkenness. Alcohol abuse destroys brain cells, producing brain deterioration and atrophy, and whether the organic brain damage and neuropsychological impairment linked to alcohol can be reversed is unknown. Alcohol also alters the brain’s production of RNA (a genetic “messenger”), and serotonin, endorphins, and natural opiates whose function may be linked to the addictive process.

A neurological disorder called Wernicke-Korsakoff’s syndrome results from vitamin B deficiencies produced by alcoholism and the direct action of alcohol on the brain. Symptoms of this condition include amnesia, loss of short-term memory, disorientation, hallucinations, emotional disturbances, double vision, and loss of muscle control. Other effects include mental disorders such as increased aggression, antisocial behavior, depression, and anxiety.
[sarcasm]I can certainly see where Jubilation would find cocaine far more dangerous than this relatively benign substance[/sarcasm]

[JubilationTCornpone]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
**JubilationTCornpone:

There’s good reason for that. Most people use alcohol as a beverage. They do not normally imbibe with the specific goal of getting drunk.

Illegal drugs, on the other hand, are only taken for the purpose of getting intoxicated.

Intoxication is a natural consequence of drinking alcohol; someone who drinks alcohol knows that he will be affected. **

Affected, yes. Not necessarily intoxicated.

Once again: Many people consume alcohol as a mere beverage. This is NOT the same as achieving intoxication. This is why alcohol consumption is by no means analogous to cocaine use.

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
Drinking alcohol because you’re thirsty is the same as smoking pot because your back hurts, or using meth because you want to stay up all night. There are other ways to do the same thing; choosing to use one of these drugs means choosing the intoxication.

Common sense dictates otherwise. Not everybody who drinks alcohol gets drunk. There’s a difference.

[Ms2001]

JubilationTCornpone:

(Intoxication is a natural consequence of drinking alcohol; someone who drinks alcohol knows that he will be affected.)

Affected, yes. Not necessarily intoxicated.

What’s the difference? Whether you’re “affected” or “intoxicated”, your ability to work has been negatively affected, intentionally.

Not everybody who drinks alcohol gets drunk. There’s a difference.

And not everyone who smokes pot gets stoned.

Anyway, getting back to the point (employees are more likely to be drunk than intoxicated on other drugs)… how does this fit in? Employers don’t care what your reasons are for using drugs or alcohol - you could throw a kegger every weekend and keep your job, while a coworker who smokes pot to relieve nausea is fired.

Since you seem to accept that alcohol is a much more realistic danger in the workplace - alcohol use is more widespread and accepted than drug use - what’s the justification for taking preemptive action against drug users, but not drinkers?

[JubilationTCornpone]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
**JubilationTCornpone:

(Intoxication is a natural consequence of drinking alcohol; someone who drinks alcohol knows that he will be affected.)

Affected, yes. Not necessarily intoxicated.

What’s the difference?**

It’s a question of degree. Intoxication implies impairment – far more than merely being “affected.”

Whether you’re “affected” or “intoxicated”, your ability to work has been negatively affected, intentionally.

Once again though, it’s a question of degree. Intoxication is more severe than merely being affected, so employers are justified in making a distinction between the two.

**

Not everybody who drinks alcohol gets drunk. There’s a difference.

And not everyone who smokes pot gets stoned. **

The difference is that getting stoned is the whole purpose of smoking pot. Intoxication is the objective. (Of course, this is barring medicinal use of marijuana. Aside from having questionable value, such usage should be performed under medical direction.)

**Anyway, getting back to the point (employees are more likely to be drunk than intoxicated on other drugs)… how does this fit in? Employers don’t care what your reasons are for using drugs or alcohol - you could throw a kegger every weekend and keep your job, while a coworker who smokes pot to relieve nausea is fired. **

There are several reasons. One has to do with the legality of using illicit drugs. If a company prefers to have employees that are nominally law-abiding, it makes sense for them to screen for illegal drugs. Obviously, they can’t check EVERYTHING about that person’s history, but they can consult references, check for police records and screen for illegal substance abuse.

Another is that many such drugs are highly addictive. You claim that occasional cocaine use is less dangerous than alcohol consumption in the short term. Such a claim is dubious, since cocaine has been known to cause immediate death to first-time users (http://www.plainsense.com/Health/General/cocaine.htm ). Moreover, even if we grant that claim, cocaine still has severe long-term symptoms AND a 75% addiction rate, as opposed to 10% for alcohol. Because cocaine usage statistics indicate a much higher addiction rate and dangerous behavior (behavior which can put fellow employees at physical risk), it is entirely reasonable for a company to discriminate between the two.

http://www.medemall.com/general/cokeabuse.htm
http://www.cleanandsober.org/factcoke.htm

**Since you seem to accept that alcohol is a much more realistic danger in the workplace - alcohol use is more widespread and accepted than drug use - what’s the justification for taking preemptive action against drug users, but not drinkers? **

The illegality of drug abuse, the higher addiction rates and the severe behavioral symptoms associated with long-term usage of many such drugs.

[Ms2001]

JubilationTCornpone:

It’s a question of degree. Intoxication implies impairment – far more than merely being “affected.”

“Affected” is just “intoxicated” to a lesser degree - would you get on a bus if the driver said “It’s all right, I haven’t very much to drink. I’m not intoxicated, just a little affected”?

If the issue is whether someone is able to work, the degree doesn’t matter. A bus driver who has had two beers isn’t any more qualified than one who’s had eight.

If not, it isn’t the employer’s business unless he can show relevant effects on the job. “I don’t trust those drug users” means no more than “I don’t trust those Coke drinkers” or “I don’t trust those churchgoers” without facts behind it.

The difference is that getting stoned is the whole purpose of smoking pot. Intoxication is the objective.

If you’re still making a distinction between “affected” and “intoxicated”, then no, not always.

You say that alcohol is used mostly “as a beverage”, instead of for the purposes of getting drunk… but unless you’re stranded in the middle of the desert with nothing but a case of beer, there’s always something non-alcoholic to drink. Choosing to drink alcohol means choosing to become intoxicated to some degree.

There are several reasons. One has to do with the legality of using illicit drugs. If a company prefers to
have employees that are nominally law-abiding, it makes
sense for them to screen for illegal drugs.

If a company wants to take law enforcement into its own hands, let’s see it screen minors for alcohol and tobacco use. Then let’s see it grant exceptions to employees who used drugs legally, in another state or country, and investigate anonymous tips about other unlawful behavior (loud parties, illegal oral sex, etc.).

Another is that many such drugs are highly addictive. You claim that occasional cocaine use is less dangerous than alcohol consumption in the short term.

Actually, that was Ned…

Because cocaine usage statistics indicate a much higher addiction rate and dangerous behavior (behavior which can put fellow employees at physical risk), it is entirely reasonable for a company to discriminate between the two.

… but this is a weak argument when applied to drug testing in general. I suspect marijuana is responsible for far more positive test results than cocaine (it’s certainly detectable longer), but you’ll have a hard time finding high addiction rates and dangerous behavioral changes among marijuana users.

[Ned]

Just to clarify, I don’t think I commented on whether cocaine was more or less dangerous than alcohol. If I did, I misspoke as I have no opinion on the relative dangers in a general sense. I believe my comment was that the effects of cocaine are are considerably less than alcohol and this is undeniable to anyone who isn’t content to pull facts from their rectum.

Jubilation’s argument is old and silly. if I am thirsty I drink water. If I want the effects of alcohol I drink a beer. I can feel one beer just as I can feel a couple lines of cocaine or a couple of tokes from a joint. Its just massive denial to suggest that we drink beer because we are thirsty.

People who’s only experience is alcohol have some weird idea that the magnitude of the effects it can have have some correlation to other drugs. Nothing I ever took in my misspent youth compares with magnitude of the effects of alcohol.

[JubilationTCornpone]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
**JubilationTCornpone:

It’s a question of degree. Intoxication implies impairment – far more than merely being “affected.”

“Affected” is just “intoxicated” to a lesser degree - would you get on a bus if the driver said “It’s all right, I haven’t very much to drink. I’m not intoxicated, just a little affected”?
**

If all he had was a sip or two a few hours ago, then I would not worry about it. That’s why the law does not prohibit drivers from drinking altogether. It simply prohibits them from drinking to the point at which they are medically judged to be impaired, as indicated by blood alcohol levels.

I would naturally prefer to have a driver that doesn’t drink at all, but I’m not about to claim that any consumption whatsoever constituted “intoxication.”

If the issue is whether someone is able to work, the degree doesn’t matter. A bus driver who has had two beers isn’t any more qualified than one who’s had eight.

You have GOT to be kidding.

**If not, it isn’t the employer’s business unless he can show relevant effects on the job. **

In other words, don’t worry about a life-threatening disaster until it actually happens. OOOOOOKAY.

**You say that alcohol is used mostly “as a beverage”, instead of for the purposes of getting drunk… but unless you’re stranded in the middle of the desert with nothing but a case of beer, there’s always something non-alcoholic to drink. **

Of course. That still doesn’t mean that intoxication is the objective, though. That’s why non-alcoholic beers and “virgin” simulations exist. Some people like the flavors of their particular beverages, and don’t drink with the purpose of achieving intoxication.

**Choosing to drink alcohol means choosing to become intoxicated to some degree. **

Not according to the law, not according to the medical community, and not according to the American Psychiatric Association. Here’s how the APA defines intoxication:

Dysfunctional changes in physiological functioning, psychological functioning, mood state, cognitive process, orall of these, as a consequence of consumption of a psychoactive substance; usually disruptive, and oftenstemming from central nervous system impairment. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth Edition.
Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Association, 1994

Modern law is on my side on this issue. That’s why the law does not prosecute those who are caught “driving while containing alcohol in their bloodstream.” Rather, it prosecutes those who are “driving while intoxicated.” Both the medical community and the grand legal system draw a distinction between intoxication and mere consumption.

**

There are several reasons. One has to do with the legality of using illicit drugs. If a company prefers to have employees that are nominally law-abiding, it makes sense for them to screen for illegal drugs.

If a company wants to take law enforcement into its own hands, let’s see it screen minors for alcohol and tobacco use. Then let’s see it grant exceptions to employees who used drugs legally, in another state or country, and investigate anonymous tips about other unlawful behavior (loud parties, illegal oral sex, etc.).**

Obviously, companies can’t investigate EVERYTHING that their employees might be doing. It is specious to insist that they should not perform drug testing unless they are willing to investigate ALL possible forms of law violation.

**

Another is that many such drugs are highly addictive. You claim that occasional cocaine use is less dangerous than alcohol consumption in the short term.

Actually, that was Ned…**

My mistake. Nevertheless, the point remains…

**

Because cocaine usage statistics indicate a much higher addiction rate and dangerous behavior (behavior which can put fellow employees at physical risk), it is entirely reasonable for a company to discriminate between the two.

… but this is a weak argument when applied to drug testing in general.**

Hardly. Most drugs which companies test for are decidedly dangerous. Marijuana may constitute the majority of positive tests, but it certainly does not represent the majority of drugs been screened for.

**I suspect marijuana is responsible for far more positive test results than cocaine (it’s certainly detectable longer), but you’ll have a hard time finding high addiction rates and dangerous behavioral changes among marijuana users. **

Even if we grant that though, that doesn’t make drug testing a violation of one’s rights. At best, it only suggests that maybe marijuana should be an exception to the rule.

Moreover, companies still have strong motives for screening for marijuana. The majority of substance abuse experts believe that marijuana is, or could be, a gateway drug. Sure, many MJ users disagree with this view; however, the company has no obligation to accept their assessment. Besides which, a company has no obligation to keep someone on the payroll if that person is willfully engaging in some felony.

[Ms2001]

JubilationTCornpone:

If all he had was a sip or two a few hours ago, then I would not worry about it. That’s why the law does not prohibit drivers from drinking altogether.

A sip or two a few hours ago isn’t going to make the bus driver feel any different. Once he’s been affected to the point that he can notice it, he’s no longer qualified to drive.

A bus driver who has had two beers isn’t any more qualified than one who’s had eight.)

You have GOT to be kidding.

Given the choice between a bus driver who’s had two beers and a bus driver who’s had eight, I’d walk. I hope you’d do the same.

If not, it isn’t the employer’s business unless he can show relevant effects on the job.

In other words, don’t worry about a life-threatening disaster until it actually happens. OOOOOOKAY.

No… don’t invade employees’ personal lives based on conjecture. If an employer can prove that drug users are unqualified or untrustworthy, or that drug testing will reduce accidents and injuries, he might be able to justify testing. But not if all he can come up with is “Reader’s Digest said marijuana is a gateway drug!”

Of course. That still doesn’t mean that intoxication is the objective, though. That’s why non-alcoholic beers and “virgin” simulations exist.

That’s exactly my point. If you like the taste of beer, you have two options: alcoholic or non-alcoholic. By choosing the alcohol, you are choosing the intoxication.

Obviously, companies can’t investigate EVERYTHING that their employees might be doing. It is specious to insist that they should not perform drug testing unless they are willing to investigate ALL possible forms of law violation.

The least they could do is not fire employees who aren’t breaking the law - for example, by using drugs in a state or country where they’re decriminalized. (That is, if making sure their employees abide the law really is the point, which I doubt.)

Moreover, companies still have strong motives for screening for marijuana. The majority of substance abuse experts believe that marijuana is, or could be, a gateway drug.

Cite? My understanding is that this is controversial.

Besides which, a company has no obligation to keep someone on the payroll if that person is willfully engaging in some felony.

I tend to think that the legal system is better qualified than employers to interpret the law and decide who has broken it.

[SuaSponte]

*Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone *
It’s more than just a “personal perception.” It is the judgment of the FDA, the medical community and the federal government. That is why cocaine is specifically restricted by law, while alcohol is not.

Jubilation, please stop dragging the medical community into this. The distinction between alcohol and illegal drugs is primarily political and social, not medical.
For evidence, please look at this chart from the Merck Manual. Only opiates and (possibly)amphetamines are more addictive than alcohol. It’s missing from this edition, but (IIRC) the 15th edition of Merck specifically noted that marijuana is illegal due to political and social factors, not medical ones.
The Merck Manual is not pro-drug propaganda; it is a standard diagnostic reference manual which you are likely to find on every doctor’s bookshelf.
You are chasing a wild goose trying to distinguish between alcohol and illegal drugs on the basis of addictive properties. The only real distinction you can draw is that alcohol is more mild, so you have to drink a decent amount before you have the same impact on your ability to function as typical doses of illegal drugs. However, the urge to drink that decent amount at improper times (e.g., just before getting behind the wheel of your semi-) is actually stronger with alcohol than with, to use your example, cocaine.

This has no impact on the right of employers to decide whether or not to test for drugs and/or for which ones. I just wish you’d stop beating your horse. It’s dead.

Sua

[The_Asbestos_Mango]

From Las Vegas, home of the casino industry…

I’ve arrived at the conclusion that companies drug test for one reason- to save money.

Workplace safety isn’t the issue. It has long since been proven that users of illegal drugs constitute no more of a safety hazard on the job than alcohol users. However, many insurance companies that provide workman’s comp cut companies a break on rates if they do pre-employment and random testing. Most companies don’t do random, the one I work for does. Also, worker’s comp won’t cover an employee who tests positive, which saves the insurance company a lot of money in paying what should be a valid claim. You smoke a joint on Saturday night, get hurt on the job Wednesday afternoon, and you have no medical coverage, plus you’re out of a job… It’s a lot cheaper to pull an application out of a filing cabinet and make a phone call than it is to make repairs of potentially hazardous conditions in the workplace.

I also think some companies use random testing as a way of keeping turnover high, thus avoiding paying for benefits such as medical coverage (some companies don’t provide it until you’ve been working six months) and paid vacation time. Understand, here in Vegas it is common practice in the casino business to hire workers, especially dealers, since we’re highly skilled, but for the most part not protected by unions, keep them until they’re within a few days of completing their probationary period (usually 90 days, although some casinos it’s as much as six months) then informing the employee that he/she is “not meeting the standards of service” and letting them go and hiring the next body that applies for the job. (In case you want to bring up the issue, it really costs the company next to no money to train these workers. They hire a dealer with about a year of experience, and on-the-game procedures are standard throughout all casinos, and there are always dealers with some experience wanting to move from a $60 a day job to an $80 a day job, and on up the line, so high turnover really doesn’t cost the company much compared to paying benefits.) Random drug testing is a good way to get rid of employees who do make it past their 90 days, but before they’re eligible for insurance or paid vacations. Smoke a reefer over the weekend, then sometime during the week, your name is pulled out of the hat… It doesn’t matter how well you do your job. A few metabolites in your piss, you’re unemployed.

I was once drug tested after tripping and falling on gravel on the sidewalk adjacent to the hotel I was working at. I tested clean, but I still felt a little insulted. The boss was obviously trying to avoid the company being liable for any injury I may have suffered when the accident was caused by a hazardous condition on the property. As it was, I only had a minor ankle strain, didn’t miss any work except for the trip to the clinic to get the piss test…

When I returned from the clinic, I had the security guy drive me past the corner of the hotel where I had fallen, and the gravel was still there. It was still there the next day when I came in to work. Twenty four hours after the accident, there was landscaping gravel on the sidewalk, the same gravel I had tripped on, when I had informed my boss, and security of this hazard. Mind you, this was a casino that caters mainly to locals, and a high percentage of the clientele was elderly. I guess they’ll sweep it up and put edging around it after some little old lady breaks a hip and sues the pants off the company.

[VarlosZ]

Ned, I had similar communication problems with Jubilation last time we did this; it’s good to see it wasn’t just me. The drug-testing hijack starts, let’s say, at the top of page 2 (JTC’s post second from the top is a good place to begin):
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=58914

I made as logical and airtight an argument as I could, but failed to make a dent in JTC’s convictions. Reading the relevant portion of the thread might point out to those trying to debate with JTC about drug testing that they face, to put it mildly, an uphill battle (no offense intended, Jubilation; I just mean to say that you seem to have strong emotional reasons for backing the position you do).

Briefly: Employers do (and, I think, should) have the legal right to test for drugs. Ethically, however, it’s a train wreck. Employers have just as much right to examine my urine as they do to come to my house and examine my closet. As Sua points out, the only valid distinction between alcohol and illicit drugs is a legal one, and I can accept that an employer (who pays money to train employess) would want to know if a job prospect was in danger of being incarcerated 2 months into his employment. I could therefore fathom a justification for drug testing of job applicants (though it would still be an attrocious violation of privacy). Searching the urine of an employee who is known to be efficient and productive (and upon whom the compnay has already turned a profit) is entirely different.
For what it’s worth, this is cute:
http://avclub.theonion.com/avclubarchive/drugwar.html