Why Do Some Consider Drug Tests Humiliating?

[AstroSmurf]

For me, I would find it offensive. I hate to say it but I do.

I do not take drugs. I have never sold drugs. I have no real interest in legal or illegal pharmaceuticals. I don't even like taking an aspirin. I admit I like my alcohol but I don't think having one glass of wine or one beer with my dinner constitutes a real problem. The health benefits outway the negatives for me. In any case, I have nothing to hide what-so-ever, except for maybe that extra piece of cheese I had on my sandwich today.

But for someone to preemptively label me as guilty or suspect without reason is the part I am not comfortable with. Instead of being innocent until proven guilty, I forced to follow a flawed system that requires me to prove myself to a group of people who are probably just as suspect. Now if I was asked to volunteer to pee in their little sample vile I would be happy too. I would give them several gallons if I thought they could use it. But to hold my civil liberties hostage over a cup of my own urine, I don't think so. The people behind the idea may be genuine and are looking for a positive solution to a problem. I understand that. However, it sets in motion a chain of events that may end up doing more harm than good. It may seem small and petty now but who says that it won't become a social juggernaunt later. Basically this is a little too "big brother" for me. I also can't help but ask "Who watches the watchers?"

And what did Picard say in "The Drumhead"...

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably"

I think that statement sums up my feelings nicely. (And I realize that quoting Trek doesn't mean a hill of beans for Fox News or the rest of the nation but it helps me to sum up my own beliefs on the subject here.)

 

[wamdue]

1) It sounds no more like a drug fueled fantasy land than areas of the US with "wet" counties are common places for binge drinking.

2) I don't see why a drug test for a job should scare you. When it comes to critical occupations, such as a truck driver, crane operator, or the like, you sure as hell don't want someone who is an abuser to be on the clock.

1) no question the UK has a problem with binge drinking, but shockingly we dont make people take random alcohol tests at work, I don't know from experience, but im guessing we just fire people who turn up to work drunk.

2) im guessing such jobs just dont hire people who have a history with drugs for those types of jobs.

basically in the US job market its seems you are guilty of alcohol or drug abuse, until you prove you are not, which is wrong. Its one thing to test sports stars for illegal drugs, quite another for the common every day worker.

that said in such a society where you are drug tested when you go to work, I can actually see the logic in drug testing people receiving unemployment or job seekers benefits, but that doesnt mean I think its right that either group is subject to these tests.

 

[Plecostomus]

What it boils down to is the mass stupidity of people in general.

You see people buying junkfood with foodstamps, you get outraged. You find out the drug-house down the street the property owner is on welfare you get outraged. You learn that your friend who has been out of work since October has had to resort to selling to pay his rent... You get outraged.

What these "outraged masses" (actually a tiny powerful lobbying minorty) don't get is these cases aren't typical, aren't examples of "flaws in the system" or how the majority of the cases transpire.

It's the same mentality that keeps female nipples off of prime-time TV, a small powerful group is offended so they influence the laws that affect the majority.

I have an opinon on the subject of unemployment, welfare, and drug-testing... I've shared it above and in other places. ON THE OTHER HAND it's just MY opinion and I in no way advocate changing the laws because of my opinion.

What I'm getting at is don't wreck the system for everyone because of a few bad situations that get national attention.

 

[JonathonWally]

Originally Posted by John Picard

Originally Posted by JonathonWally

Originally Posted by wamdue
hang on im on unemployed benefit at the moment (im thinking alot of people are at the moment) but that doesnt mean they can label me as someone who is likely to be doing drugs, ive never done drugs in my life.

I would be deeply offended if I was asked to provide a sample.

whatever next, unemployed people must have an ankle bracelet and a 10pm curfew, becasue some people believe that unemployed people are more likely to steal to makes ends meet, even (lets say) ME, has no history of theft.

You getting far too reactionary to this proposal. There are very few jobs out there that DON'T require a drug screening before the applicant is hired, and this is no different. Why should people receiving public funds not be subjected to any type of screening? The money is meant to help that person get by until he/she can regain employment. It is not meant to be spent on hookers and blow. This is much the same way people get irked when they see a food stamp recipient buying junk food, booze, and smokes at the store and they want the system reformed so that those very items are off limits to the food stamp recipients.

So, what you're really saying here is that you support huge governments and want and demand government enforced invasion of privacy?

In other words, you want a "Nanny State"?

Yep, and I voted for Barrack Obama as well which is why I also believe in free Health Care Nice way to twist my words, but not surprising considering the source and the lack of comprehension and intelligence.

You want government assistance, then you either qualify or go elsewhere. If the qualifications means drug testing, then you submit to drug testing. Can't see where "nanny state" comes in, but then I tend to THINK first.

Wow, thanks for the flame job there. So glad you're capable of discussing this like a cool-headed person.

And ya, I hit quote before you were able to delete it.

 

[JoeZhang]

I just can't worked up about this in a time when we are literately throwing taxpayers money down an bottomless pit - so some guy who gets £60 a week off the dole smokes some dope or does some work on the side - who cares?

Only those who buy in the fantasy that people are living it up on the social.

 

[LaxScrutiny]

If the job is, say, piloting an airplane it's reasonable to require that the pilot not be on drugs.

There's demonstrable need to be drug free to collect unemployment insurance.

Requiring those on Unemployment to submit to drug testing, and not everyone else in the country, is singling out a certain group of people, for no reason, it's just because "you can".

It would be cheaper per person, due to economy of scale, to require all US citizens to submit to drug testing. If you don't want to go that route, then you are singling out one group and implying that they are criminals, without evidence. That could be called "humiliating".

 

[nx1701g]

Many feel that it's an invasion of privacy.

When I have drug tests I always offer to do the blood test instead.

 

[wamdue]

You want government assistance, then you either qualify or go elsewhere. If the qualifications means drug testing, then you submit to drug testing.

but it is right to ask people who have no history to take such tests? yes people with a history should face those tests, but not everyone & I dont think people who have another option or can go elsewhere are the type of people who are in government assistance.

its branding people guilty until they prove themselves innocence, and the idea that a government like the USA does that, is crazy, how far off before tourists are drug tested before they are allowed into the USA?

seriously my ankle tag / curfew example sounded crazy when I typed it, but now I fear some people would be in favour of it.

 

[JonathonWally]

You want government assistance, then you either qualify or go elsewhere. If the qualifications means drug testing, then you submit to drug testing.

but it is right to ask people who have no history to take such tests? yes people with a history should face those tests, but not everyone & I dont think people who have another option or can go elsewhere are the type of people who are in government assistance.

its branding people guilty until they prove themselves innocence, and the idea that a government like the USA does that, is crazy, how far off before tourists are drug tested before they are allowed into the USA?

seriously my ankle tag / curfew example sounded crazy when I typed it, but now I fear some people would be in favour of it.

I'm not the one who said that.

 

[wamdue]

sorry the quotes are confusing

 

[sidious618]

Picard said it, not JW. I've fucked up the quotes on occasion, too.

 

[JonathonWally]

sorry the quotes are confusing

Picard said it, not JW. I've fucked up the quotes on occasion, too.

Ya, it happens.

 

[wamdue]

when I quoted it, it had no Quote tags in it whatsoever, so I made my best guess

 

[RJDiogenes]

Originally Posted by John Picard
Yep, and I voted for Barrack Obama as well which is why I also believe in free Health Care Nice way to twist my words, but not surprising considering the source and the lack of comprehension and intelligence.

You want government assistance, then you either qualify or go elsewhere. If the qualifications means drug testing, then you submit to drug testing. Can't see where "nanny state" comes in, but then I tend to THINK first.

Wow, thanks for the flame job there. So glad you're capable of discussing this like a cool-headed person.

And ya, I hit quote before you were able to delete it.

Well, he did delete it, so let's everybody just drop it right there, okay? Thank you.

 

[Jan]

What some people forget is that the reason why most companies do pre-employment and/or random drug testing is simply for the sake of getting lower rates on their Worker's Comp insurance. Whether that company has employees working dangerous machinery or just involved in customer service, it ends up being very cost-effective to drug test. As a side benefit, attendance is generally better overall at companys with 'drug free' policies. And for the most part, the urine tests are only useful in detecting recent abuse. Real abuse, not just the fact that someone had a few drinks the night before the test.

Can The Government come up with an equally valid reason for wanting to test recipients of Unemployment benefits? I think not. And until they do, I'd look around to find out what lobbyists they're listening to.

Jan

 

[Dayton3]

The way I see it, if you are receiving money, whether from the government or an employer, either of those have a right to make certain demands upon you.

If you are independently wealthy or own your own business, then obviously you can do what you want.

That said, companies like Wal-mart and Lowe's drug tested relentlessly. Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse gave you a drug test whenever your rate of pay changed.

But given liabilty laws, that makes sense.

If you are involved in an incident of some kind in a store that causes significant damages or injuries, any kind of legal inquiry can require a drug test.

Many employers are considered liable for damages caused by an employee using drugs unless they've taken significant actions to prevent them.

I don't buy invasion of privacy arguments because they differ for each person.

What one person considers "invasion of privacy" might be quite all right for others.

Unless you have a single national standard for what constitutes an invasion of privacy, then I don't think it can be taken seriously.

 

[the Dagman]

Unless you have a single national standard for what constitutes an invasion of privacy, then I don't think it can be taken seriously.

We do.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Want my piss? Get a warrant. That is the real law.

 

[Jan]

The way I see it, if you are receiving money, whether from the government or an employer, either of those have a right to make certain demands upon you.

Can't agree with that in the case of the government. Unemployment benefits are paid by taxes collected from employers. The qualification for collecting unemployment is to be unemployed through no fault of your own, not charity for people who 'deserve' it.

And that in a nutshell is why drug testing to determin unemployment benefits would be demeaning. When an employer tests, the underlying reason is safety. When the gov't tests, the underlying reason is to determine 'worthiness'. IMO, that's not something the gov't should decide.

Jan

 

[JimCasy]

I had to drug test for a job once...it was a huge pain in the ass, and I was really nervous even though I wasn't on any drugs, because I have a lot of friends who smoke pot and I wasn't sure if it would show up if I was just around people who were smoking. Plus I'd been sick and could barely pee cause I wasn't keeping myself properly hydrated, and it was just sort of embarrassing.

If we want to go into responsibility, my friends who smoke pot are better workers and show up more consistently than their (or my) coworkers who drink a lot. I think it's really stupid that pot isn't legal and alcohol is.

And with the food stamps thing...I've had a couple friends with kids who got food stamps, and they always had a decent amount (like at least $50-60) left over at the end of the month. I don't know who's deciding how much food a family of two should eat, but they seem to be overshooting it.

 

[Dayton3]

Unless you have a single national standard for what constitutes an invasion of privacy, then I don't think it can be taken seriously.

We do.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Want my piss? Get a warrant. That is the real law.

Actually, the Supreme Court has tended to rule in favor of employee drug testing IIRC. After all, no one is making you take a job.

That said, the word "privacy" occurrs nowhere in the U.S. Constitution.

And I do not interpret the Fourth Amendment in such a manner. I interpret it as referring to searches and seizures which are for the purpose of obtaining evidence for the criminal prosecution (and thus potential denial of liberty) of individuals.

I do not believe the U.S. Constitution prohibits searches and seizures for purposes of public safety.