Why Do Some Consider Drug Tests Humiliating?

[JuanBolio]

I don't find drug tests humiliating, but they're certainly an invasion of privacy and result in unfair discrimination. Someone smoking pot now and then doesn't make them a bad or unreliable person.

I had a lot of random drug tests in the military. It humiliating because someone has to look at your dick while you are pissing in a cup. How could that not be humiliating?

That was easy enough for me... I guess I'm just comfortable with my penis.

 

[LaxScrutiny]

I had a lot of random drug tests in the military. It humiliating because someone has to look at your dick while you are pissing in a cup. How could that not be humiliating?

That's never been humiliating when I've been watched doing it in a gay bar.

 

[Hoser]

You have to take a drug test to work in a Lowe's!?!

Man...I really love Canada.

Y'know, I don't know how it is now, but now that I think about it I never had to take a drug test until I moved to the States.
And I worked a heckuva lotta different jobs in Canada. Many that required certification, and a LOT with heavy machinery.

Weird, that.

As for doing it for unemployment, LAME. You wouldn't have to take one to get any other type of insurance payment, why this?

 

[Mallory]

As someone pointed out upthread, a lot of companies do it for insurance reasons.

 

[Dayton3]

As for "something to hide" = So what ever happened to "innocent till proven guilty" or "Probable cause".

"innocent until proven guilty" is a concept for a person facing loss of freedom or loss of property due to legal proceedings against them.

It refers to the state being placed under the burden of proving guilt.

It has no application is other parts of life.

Americans throw around too much legalism in life.

So you're okay being treated or even suspected as a criminal, even though there is no proof?

A clean conscience has neither fear nor resentment.

 

[Misfit Toy]

A clean conscience has neither fear nor resentment.

That's an exceptionally shallow viewpoint. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental part of the American legal system. It's a shame that you have so little faith in our country.

 

[SeerSGB]

"innocent until proven guilty" is a concept for a person facing loss of freedom or loss of property due to legal proceedings against them.

It refers to the state being placed under the burden of proving guilt.

It has no application is other parts of life.

Americans throw around too much legalism in life.

So you're okay being treated or even suspected as a criminal, even though there is no proof?

A clean conscience has neither fear nor resentment.

Uh-huh. Bullcrap. It's not about conscience, it's about the fact that people have the right not to be treated as a criminal. If a cop pulled someone over at random and said piss in a cup, why, just because you might have drugs-- no evidence, completely random, people would raise hell. But people are willing accept that logic just because it's their employer.

So you're saying some guy down at the Home Depot is more of a risk than some guy out here on the road with a SUV? If risk is the reasoning, then why don't we federally mandate drug testing before you can get a license to drive or to buy a car?

 

[Dayton3]

So you're okay being treated or even suspected as a criminal, even though there is no proof?

A clean conscience has neither fear nor resentment.

Uh-huh. Bullcrap. It's not about conscience, it's about the fact that people have the right not to be treated as a criminal. If a cop pulled someone over at random and said piss in a cup, why, just because you might have drugs-- no evidence, completely random, people would raise hell. But people are willing accept that logic just because it's their employer.

So you're saying some guy down at the Home Depot is more of a risk than some guy out here on the road with a SUV? If risk is the reasoning, then why don't we federally mandate drug testing before you can get a license to drive or to buy a car?

Sounds good to me.

Drugs are illegal. There is no protected right to do something that is illegal.

And there is no legal right to drive a vehicle either.

 

[SeerSGB]

A clean conscience has neither fear nor resentment.

Uh-huh. Bullcrap. It's not about conscience, it's about the fact that people have the right not to be treated as a criminal. If a cop pulled someone over at random and said piss in a cup, why, just because you might have drugs-- no evidence, completely random, people would raise hell. But people are willing accept that logic just because it's their employer.

So you're saying some guy down at the Home Depot is more of a risk than some guy out here on the road with a SUV? If risk is the reasoning, then why don't we federally mandate drug testing before you can get a license to drive or to buy a car?

Sounds good to me.

Drugs are illegal. There is no protected right to do something that is illegal.

And there is no legal right to drive a vehicle either.

So anything the federal govt. does is good? No descent, no debate, the govt is mother, the govt. is father? If the govt. said tomorrow that drug testing was mandated before people could have a child, or that drug testing was needed before mowing your lawn? You'd just go along with it?

You sure you're living the right country? Cause these one founded with exactly the contrary concept in mind.

 

[Michael Chris]

You sure you're living the right country? Cause these one founded with exactly the contrary concept in mind.

Yep

 

[John Picard]

A clean conscience has neither fear nor resentment.

Uh-huh. Bullcrap. It's not about conscience, it's about the fact that people have the right not to be treated as a criminal. If a cop pulled someone over at random and said piss in a cup, why, just because you might have drugs-- no evidence, completely random, people would raise hell. But people are willing accept that logic just because it's their employer.

So you're saying some guy down at the Home Depot is more of a risk than some guy out here on the road with a SUV? If risk is the reasoning, then why don't we federally mandate drug testing before you can get a license to drive or to buy a car?

Sounds good to me.

Drugs are illegal. There is no protected right to do something that is illegal.

And there is no legal right to drive a vehicle either.

Comrade, the Soviet Union fell in the early 1990's.

 

[Chaos Descending]

The ones who consider drug-testing humiliating are more often than not the ones with something to hide.

Or they could just be the people who don't like other people looking at their dick while they take a piss.

 

[Kryton]

Fuck the unemployed. As the employer of the goddamned US Congress, I want to know why mandatory drug testing isn't required of every single Senator and Representative. I saw "Charlie Wilson's War"...I know the shit they do behind closed doors.

I WANT ACCOUNTABILITY FROM CONGRESS!

 

[John Picard]

The ones who consider drug-testing humiliating are more often than not the ones with something to hide.

Or they could just be the people who don't like other people looking at their dick while they take a piss.

They did that in the military, but in the civilian world I've always been shown the bathroom and given a cup. No escort required.

 

[Chaos Descending]

The ones who consider drug-testing humiliating are more often than not the ones with something to hide.

Or they could just be the people who don't like other people looking at their dick while they take a piss.

They did that in the military, but in the civilian world I've always been shown the bathroom and given a cup. No escort required.

Seriously? That's cool. I haven't had a Whiz Quiz since I got out of the Navy myself. My company (9+ years) does not do drug testing. I think if it did, half of management would pop positive.

 

[kimc]

It depends on who wants the drug test and why. There is a certain desire among professionals to be treated as a professional and requiring a drug test says "we don't really trust you even though we say we do trust you enough to offer you a job".

As for the unemployment benefit it's an unfortunate fact that accepting money from the government requires allowing them certain invasions into how you conduct your affairs. This is true of banks receiving stimulus money, welfare recipients, and those wanting unemployment benefits. If you want privacy then don't give the government reason to be checking you out.

 

[CaptainStoner]

People are worried about the unemployed getting money while using drugs, but aren't concerned with the extra cost of testing the unemployed for drug use?

We want to spend money to prevent people from receiving money!

Bingo. Drug Testing Company pays contributions to Republicans, who push to get drug testing expanded wherever possible. It has nothing to do with drug issues directly.
It wouldn't be cheap, it wouldn't make anyone any safer, and BTW - why no testing for alcoholism? Anyone who pretends to care about drug issues, and the all-important safety of the children, has to start there first, or STFU.

 

[John Picard]

It depends on who wants the drug test and why. There is a certain desire among professionals to be treated as a professional and requiring a drug test says "we don't really trust you even though we say we do trust you enough to offer you a job".

Would you want your surgeon drug tested? Would you want to be operated on by a doctor who has a reputation for being an alcoholic? What about air traffic controllers? After all, these people are all professionals and with your logic they should be trusted as not the type of people who abuse narcotics.

As for the unemployment benefit it's an unfortunate fact that accepting money from the government requires allowing them certain invasions into how you conduct your affairs. This is true of banks receiving stimulus money, welfare recipients, and those wanting unemployment benefits. If you want privacy then don't give the government reason to be checking you out.

Perhaps; however, beggars cannot be choosers and as such if you're asking for a handout then you should be willing to accept the strings that are attached. If you don't like it, then learn to save money so that you don't have to ask for a handout when times get tough.

 

[T'Baio]

So you're saying some guy down at the Home Depot is more of a risk than some guy out here on the road with a SUV? If risk is the reasoning, then why don't we federally mandate drug testing before you can get a license to drive or to buy a car?

Sounds good to me.

Drugs are illegal. There is no protected right to do something that is illegal.

And there is no legal right to drive a vehicle either.

SeerSGB, as soon as I read your post and your question of Dayton3, I was thinking; "You don't know him at all, do you?" Right away, I thought, of course Dayton is gonna' say that's fine with him.

 

[Jan]

They did that in the military, but in the civilian world I've always been shown the bathroom and given a cup. No escort required.

This is true. As for the poster upthread who posted that somebody on parole gave a sample from a friend in order to beat the tests, I tend to doubt that. If you're in a testing facility, the first thing they do is test the temperature of the sample given, then proceed with chain-of-custody protocols.

<snip> ... and BTW - why no testing for alcoholism? Anyone who pretends to care about drug issues, and the all-important safety of the children, has to start there first, or STFU.

One of the main reasons why a test has to be redone due to being indeterminate is because the person being tested has ingested large amounts of water in order to flush out their system. This is most common in alcoholics.