Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Pre employment drug screens unconstititonal

Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2015 10:55:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Drug screens for Welfare applicants have been judged Unconstitutional in Florida and Michigan, a gross violation of the 4th Amendment covering unreasonable search and seizure. The tests have been proven unreliable in study after study. Many times the people administering the tests aren't even sure that they are administering it correctly. A false positive on a pre emoyment drug screen means you don't get the job, your record is stained, and it may ptevent you from getting the next job. And the biggest hypocrisy of all is our elected officials do not participate in any pre employment or random drug screening. With the benefits they recieve, you'd think they should be drug tested before anyone else.
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 1:56:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/18/2015 10:55:38 PM, Sooner wrote:
Drug screens for Welfare applicants have been judged Unconstitutional in Florida and Michigan, a gross violation of the 4th Amendment covering unreasonable search and seizure. The tests have been proven unreliable in study after study. Many times the people administering the tests aren't even sure that they are administering it correctly. A false positive on a pre emoyment drug screen means you don't get the job, your record is stained, and it may ptevent you from getting the next job. And the biggest hypocrisy of all is our elected officials do not participate in any pre employment or random drug screening. With the benefits they recieve, you'd think they should be drug tested before anyone else.

Drug testing welfare applicants and drug testing job applicants are different issues.
Sooner
Posts: 1,012
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 4:11:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 1:56:56 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 7/18/2015 10:55:38 PM, Sooner wrote:
Drug screens for Welfare applicants have been judged Unconstitutional in Florida and Michigan, a gross violation of the 4th Amendment covering unreasonable search and seizure. The tests have been proven unreliable in study after study. Many times the people administering the tests aren't even sure that they are administering it correctly. A false positive on a pre emoyment drug screen means you don't get the job, your record is stained, and it may ptevent you from getting the next job. And the biggest hypocrisy of all is our elected officials do not participate in any pre employment or random drug screening. With the benefits they recieve, you'd think they should be drug tested before anyone else.

Drug testing welfare applicants and drug testing job applicants are different issues.

ME: So what would be the difference in either issue that would not warramt the same opinion on both?
Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away.
Death23
Posts: 779
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 1:41:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/19/2015 4:11:28 AM, Sooner wrote:
At 7/19/2015 1:56:56 AM, Death23 wrote:
At 7/18/2015 10:55:38 PM, Sooner wrote:
Drug screens for Welfare applicants have been judged Unconstitutional in Florida and Michigan, a gross violation of the 4th Amendment covering unreasonable search and seizure. The tests have been proven unreliable in study after study. Many times the people administering the tests aren't even sure that they are administering it correctly. A false positive on a pre emoyment drug screen means you don't get the job, your record is stained, and it may ptevent you from getting the next job. And the biggest hypocrisy of all is our elected officials do not participate in any pre employment or random drug screening. With the benefits they recieve, you'd think they should be drug tested before anyone else.

Drug testing welfare applicants and drug testing job applicants are different issues.

ME: So what would be the difference in either issue that would not warramt the same opinion on both?

You began by talking about the constitutionality of drug screening and the 4th amendment. Your opinion appears based, at least on part, on whether or not the drug tests are constitutional. It is not unconstitutional for a company to drug test job applicants, as opposed to a state government drug testing welfare applicants.

I agree with you that reliability is important. Unreliable testing risks defamation and injustice. That appears to be an issue that can be resolved through regulation as opposed to abolition. For example, a law could be passed that would require all drug testing to be done at state licensed and state regulated drug testing facilities. The drug testing facilities could be regulated by the state with an aim toward very high precision, accuracy, and reliability. Recourse should be provided in the event of false positives. Something along those lines could address your concerns about reliability while preserving the value that drug testing.

Your point about hypocrisy isn't really relevant. Appealing to hypocrisy is fallacious. https://en.wikipedia.org...
ax123man
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2015 4:00:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The difference between drug screening in the public (welfare) sector and private (employment) sector is based on the motivations of those administering the tests. The goal of a business is to earn a profit - for the most part, these businesses don't really care if an employee uses drugs. (we could dig deeper here and discuss the fact that much of the "drugs" that individuals use are prescription pharmaceuticals). For those cases where a business does feel the need to administer a drug test, they continue to be motivated, in the end, by profit. If drug testing procedures are unreliable, they will result in limiting potential employees, thereby increasing labor costs. They will either cease testing or find more reliable tests.

For the public sector I can only guess at what the motivation might be. Limiting costs of welfare? Aren't benevolent politicians supposed to want to help the less fortunate, even if they may have fallen into the trap of dependency? How to we reconcile this? It's easy when you understand what motivates politicians - votes. Wanna get elected and stay in power? Then you definitely can't cut welfare, but you may also win votes by implementing policy that "controls" welfare payments, eliminating these payments for "druggies". There you go: a policy that wins votes on the LEFT and RIGHT. The democrat and republican later go out for a drink and a smoke, celebrating their victory, laughing at the citizens debating the issue on DDO forums.