Is It Unconstitutional To Drug Test Employees

I'm curious if it is considered unconstitutional to drug test government employees. I have found some articles that say this but I don't trust the sources. I also found articles that seem to imply that the government does drug test all of its employees, I found another that said only employees which handle "sensitive" duties.

I'm just curious if anyone here can find anything concrete or can speak from experience.

At 9/20/2013 7:18:40 PM, pozessed wrote:
I'm curious if it is considered unconstitutional to drug test government employees. I have found some articles that say this but I don't trust the sources. I also found articles that seem to imply that the government does drug test all of its employees, I found another that said only employees which handle "sensitive" duties.

I'm just curious if anyone here can find anything concrete or can speak from experience.

I don't see any reason why it would be. What right of yours is an employee violating by asking such a question?

military drug tests, so no.

At 9/21/2013 3:01:15 AM, darkkermit wrote:
military drug tests, so no.

Military people carry guns which is part of "sensitive" employment.

"Drug testing of employees in the private sector has become quite common. Local governments also have become interested in testing of employees to detect drug and/or alcohol use. Unlike employers in the private sector, however, governmental employers are limited by constitutional considerations. It is well settled that drug testing by government employers constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Probable cause and a warrant are generally required for government searches, although the Supreme Court has carved out exceptions.[1] Even in those instances where testing is permitted under the Fourth Amendment, the due process clause and the equal protection clause of the Constitution prohibit certain practices and procedures in connection with the testing of employees. Local government employers can be held liable for monetary damages when an employee"s constitutional rights have been violated as a result of drug testing.[2]"

"Unless there are "special needs beyond the normal need for law enforcement" which are sufficiently compelling to overcome the individual"s privacy interests, a warrant and probable cause are required."

"The cases dealing with warrantless searches of persons generally involve law enforcement action and have required exigent circumstances and individualized suspicion."

http://ctas-eli.ctas.tennessee.edu...

At 9/21/2013 1:02:16 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:

At 9/20/2013 7:18:40 PM, pozessed wrote:
I'm curious if it is considered unconstitutional to drug test government employees. I have found some articles that say this but I don't trust the sources. I also found articles that seem to imply that the government does drug test all of its employees, I found another that said only employees which handle "sensitive" duties.

I'm just curious if anyone here can find anything concrete or can speak from experience.

I don't see any reason why it would be. What right of yours is an employee violating by asking such a question?

It is considered unconstitutional because they are searching through a majority in hopes of finding a minority, from what I gather. That is supposed to be a crime against the 4th amendment.

At 9/20/2013 7:18:40 PM, pozessed wrote:
I'm curious if it is considered unconstitutional to drug test government employees. I have found some articles that say this but I don't trust the sources. I also found articles that seem to imply that the government does drug test all of its employees, I found another that said only employees which handle "sensitive" duties.

I'm just curious if anyone here can find anything concrete or can speak from experience.

They must consent to a drug test. If they don't consent they would lose their job or not get hired. The government is under no obligation to hire them or to keep them on the payroll. They don't have to take the drug test, but not doing so disqualifies them from the position.

At 9/21/2013 2:00:54 PM, pozessed wrote:

At 9/21/2013 1:02:16 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:

At 9/20/2013 7:18:40 PM, pozessed wrote:
I'm curious if it is considered unconstitutional to drug test government employees. I have found some articles that say this but I don't trust the sources. I also found articles that seem to imply that the government does drug test all of its employees, I found another that said only employees which handle "sensitive" duties.

I'm just curious if anyone here can find anything concrete or can speak from experience.

I don't see any reason why it would be. What right of yours is an employee violating by asking such a question?

It is considered unconstitutional because they are searching through a majority in hopes of finding a minority, from what I gather.

No they are not. They are searching an individual to determine whether or not that individual is adhering to the company's no drug policy. They are not looking to punish you, they are trying to get a judge of your character; just like all private employers who drug test.

At 9/21/2013 2:41:40 PM, DanT wrote:

At 9/21/2013 2:00:54 PM, pozessed wrote:

At 9/21/2013 1:02:16 AM, johnnyboy54 wrote:

At 9/20/2013 7:18:40 PM, pozessed wrote:
I'm curious if it is considered unconstitutional to drug test government employees. I have found some articles that say this but I don't trust the sources. I also found articles that seem to imply that the government does drug test all of its employees, I found another that said only employees which handle "sensitive" duties.

I'm just curious if anyone here can find anything concrete or can speak from experience.

I don't see any reason why it would be. What right of yours is an employee violating by asking such a question?

It is considered unconstitutional because they are searching through a majority in hopes of finding a minority, from what I gather.

No they are not. They are searching an individual to determine whether or not that individual is adhering to the company's no drug policy. They are not looking to punish you, they are trying to get a judge of your character; just like all private employers who drug test.

That's not what the article says. Did you not read the article exerts I produced? This part in particular.

"Unlike employers in the private sector, however, governmental employers are limited by constitutional considerations. It is well settled that drug testing by government employers constitutes a "search" under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Probable cause and a warrant are generally required for government searches, although the Supreme Court has carved out exceptions.[1]"

I didn't just make that up... The exceptions are only people who have law enforcing like jobs and a few other things.

Since their position as an employee is conditional on both the consent of employee and employer, I don't see how it could. They are free to refuse to take the test and their employer is free to fire them - for whatever reason. No one should be required to pay for services they do not want, and no one should be required to provide them for pay or conditions they do not accept.

At 9/22/2013 1:26:17 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Since their position as an employee is conditional on both the consent of employee and employer, I don't see how it could. They are free to refuse to take the test and their employer is free to fire them - for whatever reason. Just as no one should be required to work under conditions they do not accept, so no one should have to pay for services they do not want.

Fixed for clarity.

Do you people realize that I am pointing out that our governors and senators are not drug tested?
I find it hypocritical for our policy makers to allow policies that they themselves don't have to follow.

I can't find anything that proves they are drug tested. I am assuming they are not because of what I have read in the document I provided.

At 9/22/2013 5:34:29 PM, pozessed wrote:
Do you people realize that I am pointing out that our governors and senators are not drug tested?
I find it hypocritical for our policy makers to allow policies that they themselves don't have to follow.

I can't find anything that proves they are drug tested. I am assuming they are not because of what I have read in the document I provided.

They also don't live in tents in the desert, get shipped out for months at a time, and get paid under $40,000 a year. Position has privilege.

That being said, I think the hair being split about "special consideration", while judiciously directed, is not constitutional. If it's unconstitutional in one case, it should be unconstituational in all. Or vice versa.

I do agree that to request employment (or government assistance) can come with conditions, though. And if the government wants to stipulate piss tests as a condition of employment, that should be in their power.

At 9/22/2013 7:17:03 PM, Naysayer wrote:

At 9/22/2013 5:34:29 PM, pozessed wrote:
Do you people realize that I am pointing out that our governors and senators are not drug tested?
I find it hypocritical for our policy makers to allow policies that they themselves don't have to follow.

I can't find anything that proves they are drug tested. I am assuming they are not because of what I have read in the document I provided.

They also don't live in tents in the desert, get shipped out for months at a time, and get paid under $40,000 a year. Position has privilege.

Are you implying that our policy makers should be considered to privileged to require mandatory drug tests for their government position?

That being said, I think the hair being split about "special consideration", while judiciously directed, is not constitutional. If it's unconstitutional in one case, it should be unconstituational in all. Or vice versa.

I assume this is an answer to my above question, but I would just like some clarification on your point of view.

I do agree that to request employment (or government assistance) can come with conditions, though. And if the government wants to stipulate piss tests as a condition of employment, that should be in their power.

I don't disagree there., I do disagree if they consider it lawful for some but unlawful for others. As you have mentioned.

At 9/22/2013 7:37:12 PM, pozessed wrote:

At 9/22/2013 7:17:03 PM, Naysayer wrote:

At 9/22/2013 5:34:29 PM, pozessed wrote:
Do you people realize that I am pointing out that our governors and senators are not drug tested?
I find it hypocritical for our policy makers to allow policies that they themselves don't have to follow.

I can't find anything that proves they are drug tested. I am assuming they are not because of what I have read in the document I provided.

They also don't live in tents in the desert, get shipped out for months at a time, and get paid under $40,000 a year. Position has privilege.

Are you implying that our policy makers should be considered to privileged to require mandatory drug tests for their government position?

That being said, I think the hair being split about "special consideration", while judiciously directed, is not constitutional. If it's unconstitutional in one case, it should be unconstituational in all. Or vice versa.

I assume this is an answer to my above question, but I would just like some clarification on your point of view.

I do agree that to request employment (or government assistance) can come with conditions, though. And if the government wants to stipulate piss tests as a condition of employment, that should be in their power.

I don't disagree there., I do disagree if they consider it lawful for some but unlawful for others. As you have mentioned.

My first statement was on constitutionality. The second was on actual requirements. Just because you can legally do something doesn't mean you're required to. And if that's the case, if the Congress wanted to mandate piss tests for certain jobs and not others, I'd be fine with that.

And no. I doubt any time soon we'll be seeing Congress pass laws forcing themselves to pee in a cup. It's just not likely. If the people are that upset about it and want it changed, I'm sure there will be some news coverage on it and some people voted out of office until the people get heard.

It is somewhat ludicrous that a freedom that is taken away by a public body is wrong, but one taken away by a private entity is justified. It does not matter who is infringing your liberties: the role of government is to stop their gratuitous limitation.

At 9/22/2013 7:17:03 PM, Naysayer wrote:

At 9/22/2013 5:34:29 PM, pozessed wrote:
Do you people realize that I am pointing out that our governors and senators are not drug tested?
I find it hypocritical for our policy makers to allow policies that they themselves don't have to follow.

I can't find anything that proves they are drug tested. I am assuming they are not because of what I have read in the document I provided.

They also don't live in tents in the desert, get shipped out for months at a time, and get paid under $40,000 a year. Position has privilege.

There are also positives and negatives with privilege. The private lives of elected officials are usually put under a microscope...for example, any alleged instances of infidelity usually lead to pronounced concerns during an election campaign, and at times may warrant the official to resign. Compare this to the de facto brothels that surround most military bases overseas that have minimal enforcement and receive very close to tacit public approval from base commanders.

That being said, I think the hair being split about "special consideration", while judiciously directed, is not constitutional. If it's unconstitutional in one case, it should be unconstituational in all. Or vice versa.

I do agree that to request employment (or government assistance) can come with conditions, though. And if the government wants to stipulate piss tests as a condition of employment, that should be in their power.

At 9/23/2013 3:48:17 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It is somewhat ludicrous that a freedom that is taken away by a public body is wrong, but one taken away by a private entity is justified. It does not matter who is infringing your liberties: the role of government is to stop their gratuitous limitation.

Do you think people should be allowed the "liberty" to be under the effect of hallucinogenic drugs while on paid employment?

At 9/20/2013 7:18:40 PM, pozessed wrote:
I'm curious if it is considered unconstitutional to drug test government employees. I have found some articles that say this but I don't trust the sources. I also found articles that seem to imply that the government does drug test all of its employees, I found another that said only employees which handle "sensitive" duties.

I'm just curious if anyone here can find anything concrete or can speak from experience.

Drug testing employees, generally, is perfectly constitutional. However, the circumstances under which employees -prospective or current- may be tested by employers (especially if the employee is employed by state or federal government) may be statutorily regulated by applicable federal and/or state law.

At 9/23/2013 4:04:13 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/23/2013 3:48:17 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It is somewhat ludicrous that a freedom that is taken away by a public body is wrong, but one taken away by a private entity is justified. It does not matter who is infringing your liberties: the role of government is to stop their gratuitous limitation.

Do you think people should be allowed the "liberty" to be under the effect of hallucinogenic drugs while on paid employment?

Personally, I'm in favour of drug tests being able to be rejected, but this being grounds for termination (unless it is shown to be done for malicious reasons e.g. constant tests or tests at malicious times). But the fact that the source of liberty being infringed is not the government does not stop liberty being infringed. If I was unclear, my problem is not specifically with one answer or another, but with a double standard where if a private body takes away liberty it is unjust, while if a public body takes away liberty it is.

With the specific example of hallucinogens: if I was an employer and my employee was not fulfilling their role adequately, and was being more of a nuisance than even neutral to the system, then firing them is the most prudent thing to do. The cause of which ought to be of no concern.

At 9/23/2013 5:12:16 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

At 9/23/2013 4:04:13 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/23/2013 3:48:17 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It is somewhat ludicrous that a freedom that is taken away by a public body is wrong, but one taken away by a private entity is justified. It does not matter who is infringing your liberties: the role of government is to stop their gratuitous limitation.

Do you think people should be allowed the "liberty" to be under the effect of hallucinogenic drugs while on paid employment?

Personally, I'm in favour of drug tests being able to be rejected, but this being grounds for termination (unless it is shown to be done for malicious reasons e.g. constant tests or tests at malicious times). But the fact that the source of liberty being infringed is not the government does not stop liberty being infringed. If I was unclear, my problem is not specifically with one answer or another, but with a double standard where if a private body takes away liberty it is unjust, while if a public body takes away liberty it is.

With the specific example of hallucinogens: if I was an employer and my employee was not fulfilling their role adequately, and was being more of a nuisance than even neutral to the system, then firing them is the most prudent thing to do. The cause of which ought to be of no concern.

One infringes at gun point, and the other 'infringes' someone's non-existent right to their life. Let's see if you can figure out which is which.

At 9/23/2013 7:02:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

At 9/23/2013 5:12:16 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

At 9/23/2013 4:04:13 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/23/2013 3:48:17 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It is somewhat ludicrous that a freedom that is taken away by a public body is wrong, but one taken away by a private entity is justified. It does not matter who is infringing your liberties: the role of government is to stop their gratuitous limitation.

Do you think people should be allowed the "liberty" to be under the effect of hallucinogenic drugs while on paid employment?

Personally, I'm in favour of drug tests being able to be rejected, but this being grounds for termination (unless it is shown to be done for malicious reasons e.g. constant tests or tests at malicious times). But the fact that the source of liberty being infringed is not the government does not stop liberty being infringed. If I was unclear, my problem is not specifically with one answer or another, but with a double standard where if a private body takes away liberty it is unjust, while if a public body takes away liberty it is.

With the specific example of hallucinogens: if I was an employer and my employee was not fulfilling their role adequately, and was being more of a nuisance than even neutral to the system, then firing them is the most prudent thing to do. The cause of which ought to be of no concern.

One infringes at gun point, and the other 'infringes' someone's non-existent right to their life. Let's see if you can figure out which is which.

To clarify, "their" refers to the person 'infringing.'

At 9/23/2013 3:48:17 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It is somewhat ludicrous that a freedom that is taken away by a public body is wrong, but one taken away by a private entity is justified. It does not matter who is infringing your liberties: the role of government is to stop their gratuitous limitation.

So you think it's perfectly justifiable for you to come over to my house, sit in my front yard, and toke up and I shouldn't be allowed to infringe on your liberty?

At 9/23/2013 7:02:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

At 9/23/2013 5:12:16 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

At 9/23/2013 4:04:13 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/23/2013 3:48:17 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It is somewhat ludicrous that a freedom that is taken away by a public body is wrong, but one taken away by a private entity is justified. It does not matter who is infringing your liberties: the role of government is to stop their gratuitous limitation.

Do you think people should be allowed the "liberty" to be under the effect of hallucinogenic drugs while on paid employment?

Personally, I'm in favour of drug tests being able to be rejected, but this being grounds for termination (unless it is shown to be done for malicious reasons e.g. constant tests or tests at malicious times). But the fact that the source of liberty being infringed is not the government does not stop liberty being infringed. If I was unclear, my problem is not specifically with one answer or another, but with a double standard where if a private body takes away liberty it is unjust, while if a public body takes away liberty it is.

With the specific example of hallucinogens: if I was an employer and my employee was not fulfilling their role adequately, and was being more of a nuisance than even neutral to the system, then firing them is the most prudent thing to do. The cause of which ought to be of no concern.

One infringes at gun point, and the other 'infringes' someone's non-existent right to their life. Let's see if you can figure out which is which.

This is just comical: are you saying that for a government institution to be able to fire someone, they have to do it at gunpoint? The threat of force is the threat of not having a job if you don't agree to the test. This is the same as in a private body. For your claim to be correct, the government must be shooting those who don't work for them, which is just comedy, not actual politics.

No-one is discussing right to life, and to find it in drug tests is just looking for needles in haystacks. One does not have the inalienable right to a job: a job comes with duties. If the duties are not fulfilled, you lose your right to that job. No "public" or "private" terminology or distinction needs to be used. To do so is to force a petty hatred of government arbitrarily into disagreements.

And @Naysayer, as I have already clarified, "It does not matter who is infringing your liberties". Whether you do so as a private citizen or do so as a governmental body does not make it any more or less moral. I had a typo in my last post, but to clarify once more: . If I was unclear, my problem is not specifically with one answer or another, but with a double standard where if a private body takes away liberty it is not unjust, while if a public body takes away liberty it is.

At 9/24/2013 4:03:48 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

At 9/23/2013 7:02:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:

At 9/23/2013 5:12:16 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:

At 9/23/2013 4:04:13 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

At 9/23/2013 3:48:17 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
It is somewhat ludicrous that a freedom that is taken away by a public body is wrong, but one taken away by a private entity is justified. It does not matter who is infringing your liberties: the role of government is to stop their gratuitous limitation.

Do you think people should be allowed the "liberty" to be under the effect of hallucinogenic drugs while on paid employment?

Personally, I'm in favour of drug tests being able to be rejected, but this being grounds for termination (unless it is shown to be done for malicious reasons e.g. constant tests or tests at malicious times). But the fact that the source of liberty being infringed is not the government does not stop liberty being infringed. If I was unclear, my problem is not specifically with one answer or another, but with a double standard where if a private body takes away liberty it is unjust, while if a public body takes away liberty it is.

With the specific example of hallucinogens: if I was an employer and my employee was not fulfilling their role adequately, and was being more of a nuisance than even neutral to the system, then firing them is the most prudent thing to do. The cause of which ought to be of no concern.

One infringes at gun point, and the other 'infringes' someone's non-existent right to their life. Let's see if you can figure out which is which.

This is just comical: are you saying that for a government institution to be able to fire someone, they have to do it at gunpoint? The threat of force is the threat of not having a job if you don't agree to the test. This is the same as in a private body. For your claim to be correct, the government must be shooting those who don't work for them, which is just comedy, not actual politics.

No-one is discussing right to life, and to find it in drug tests is just looking for needles in haystacks. One does not have the inalienable right to a job: a job comes with duties. If the duties are not fulfilled, you lose your right to that job. No "public" or "private" terminology or distinction needs to be used. To do so is to force a petty hatred of government arbitrarily into disagreements.

And @Naysayer, as I have already clarified, "It does not matter who is infringing your liberties". Whether you do so as a private citizen or do so as a governmental body does not make it any more or less moral. I had a typo in my last post, but to clarify once more: . If I was unclear, my problem is not specifically with one answer or another, but with a double standard where if a private body takes away liberty it is not unjust, while if a public body takes away liberty it is.

When I said 'at gun point' I was referring to the government in general. And it is not 'force' to refuse someone a job - how can a negative action be forceful? And I agree that no one has an 'inalienable right to a job' for that would be a contradiction and mockery of rights, so I don't understand...are we even in disagreement?

Dylan, I am not sure: you essentially claimed my point is wrong, though I don't fully understand why. Again, it is still just a parody of how government works to claim that for a government institution to be able to fire someone, they have to do it at gunpoint. Private bodies, similar to government, have the capacity to murder and kill and steal. This is of no note, however, as in the given situation, neither are threatening to do so, nor is the threat even implicit (or no more implicit than the other).

In short, to summarise my case: for something to be wrong politically, it ought to (crudely put) lower someone's liberty. Whether drug testing is legal or not does not depend on who is drug testing another individual. If it is wrong for a public body, it is wrong for a private body. If it is just for a private body, then it is just for a public body also.

At 9/24/2013 1:51:45 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Dylan, I am not sure: you essentially claimed my point is wrong, though I don't fully understand why. Again, it is still just a parody of how government works to claim that for a government institution to be able to fire someone, they have to do it at gunpoint. Private bodies, similar to government, have the capacity to murder and kill and steal. This is of no note, however, as in the given situation, neither are threatening to do so, nor is the threat even implicit (or no more implicit than the other).

In short, to summarise my case: for something to be wrong politically, it ought to (crudely put) lower someone's liberty. Whether drug testing is legal or not does not depend on who is drug testing another individual. If it is wrong for a public body, it is wrong for a private body. If it is just for a private body, then it is just for a public body also.

Your response has nothing to do with what I was trying to say. I'm not exactly sure where your misunderstanding lies, so I will just reiterate: Infringement occurs only when physical force is involved. Thus, it is not infringement when a company requires its employees to take a drug test, as they are free to refuse. The consequences they may face from their refusal would be the loss of something they had no right to in the first place, and obtained properly only by mutual consent.

dylan, I am not misunderstanding you, because I am not engaging in your case. I am restating my original one because another misunderstood it, and am doing the same now. To have different rules regarding the infringement of liberty (which of course does not require the actual use of physical force, or even direct force, as "Give me your money or I will kill you" examples demonstrate) for public and private bodies has the necessary implication that freedom has less normative value when threatened by a private body than a public one.

You have rights in all situations: you have the right to not be fired for holding a certain opinion, you have the right to not be fired for false reasons (e.g. made redundant, then someone being hired to your job 3 days later) etc. for both private and public bodies. The only question is whether you have the right to not be fired from a job for refusing to take a drug test. The instigator has nothing to do with it.

At 9/25/2013 4:21:10 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
dylan, I am not misunderstanding you, because I am not engaging in your case. I am restating my original one because another misunderstood it, and am doing the same now. To have different rules regarding the infringement of liberty (which of course does not require the actual use of physical force, or even direct force, as "Give me your money or I will kill you" examples demonstrate) for public and private bodies has the necessary implication that freedom has less normative value when threatened by a private body than a public one.

You have rights in all situations: you have the right to not be fired for holding a certain opinion, you have the right to not be fired for false reasons (e.g. made redundant, then someone being hired to your job 3 days later) etc. for both private and public bodies. The only question is whether you have the right to not be fired from a job for refusing to take a drug test. The instigator has nothing to do with it.

Since when did you have the right to not be fired? The right to not be fired is the right to a job, meaning the right to the product of someone's effort, meaning the right to someone's life.

You have a right to anything, your right is just not defended. The difference between a right to a job and a right to private property is that you get one in Capitalism and the other in Soviet Communism.

At 9/26/2013 9:02:29 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
You have a right to anything, your right is just not defended. The difference between a right to a job and a right to private property is that you get one in Capitalism and the other in Soviet Communism.

So I have the right to my life and the right to murder? Your contradictions amuse me.