You said previously that employers do this for safety reasons in order to make sure employees are not harming themselves or others. If we want to make sure our neighbors are not harming themselves or others why not require that anyone moving into a new neighborhood or apartment complex submit to random drug tests or home searches? I mean if they don't want to consent to a search they can live somewhere they doesn't require such submission. Additionally if they don't use drugs there is no need to worry about random drug tests/searches.

_________________

But if you have nothing to hide, Steve, what's the problem?
Oh and Law enforcement officers can't just search. Hopefully the homeowner/car owner is smart enough to say no. I would say no to a home or vehicle search each and every time, Steve, and I am NOT a user.
My point is that employers should not have domain over my body, nor what I would do while not at work. i do not subjugate my entire existance to my job, nor should any reasonable person. An employer has no authority over my home life, nor over my personal property, i.e. my body. That we have allowed this is a consequence of your type of attitude.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

The fact that employers provide the employee with a salary/provide their livlihood, allows for what otherwise would be an invasion of privacy. They need to ascertain whether an employee poses a threat to his/her own safety or the safety of others. I would be happy to live in a suburb where every homeowner was subject to drug tests and anyone failing said test would be ousted. Wouldn't bother me a bit. A drug free town.....that works for me.

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!

I really cant believe that someone must explain this to you...
Because your neighbors aren't paying you salary & benefits to perform a job.

_________________
CSFMB 2014 Nascar Pick 'em Champion

We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. — Ronald Reagan

Steve, can you realistically explain how, say, an IT tech would possibly cause a safety issue if he were stoned the night before work? I mean really? Safety? Maybe, MAYBE if we're talking about fork lift operators but the people getting tested are accountants dude. can you really make the claim that you have to drug test a pencil pushing number cruncher for "safety"?

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Yes but their actions have an effect on my and your wallets and effect our safety (which was the context in which Steve presented his argument). If they burn their house down because they were too high to put out their blunt, or were so fucked up that they backed over a kid, we have to pay for it in terms of higher insurance rates. Why not nip that problem in the bud by discouraging such activity by subjecting all homeowners and renters to random drug tests and home searches?

_________________

There really is no problem. You just came up with a preposterous scenario which I summarily dismissed. I never said that without a warrant that a Police officer had the right to search your home or vehicle....unless they spot something in plain view that gives them probable cause for said search. But often the officer will ask permission of the home/car owner to conduct a search. It's truely amazing how many times someone who has drugs in their car/home will consent to a search, just to try to avoid looking as if they have somethng to hide. Yes, this type of testing is as a result of the type of attitude I have....and I celebrate that fact.

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!

Steve, would you also condone mandatory screening for health related issues? For example, should there be mandatory heart disease screenings for employees in safety-sensitive positions due to the possibility of undergoing cardiac arrest while performing their job? Not to mention the employer would be aware of the potential for a long-term absence for the employee should medical issues worsen, and could staff appropriately. Should we pull banking records to look for suspiciously high dollar transactions relative to income? That would indicate the employee is up to something, and if he aggravates the right type of person, retaliatory action could be taken, possibly at his place of employment. Literally dozens of people could die.

_________________
"All crowds boycotting football games shouldn't care who sings or takes a knee because they aren't watching." - Nas

Do you really feel as though since you have a job you forfeit all your privacy for a paycheck?
That sounds somewhat unreasonable.
As postulated above, it's somewhat insincere to claim that it's about safety when people like accountants and mail room clerks are being drug tested. how does testing the counter guy at Blockbuster ensure safety? And safety from what exactly? Anyone saying that it's strictly about safety, is lying, or willing to be misled.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

and i celebrate that fact...
Really dude? You need some legitimate things worth celebrating.
Like for example Michael Bolton's entire catalogue. but I digress.

I know people are stupid and consent to searches. I liken our rights to the trademark laws. Somewhat parallel, if you think about it. See, if you're a company like say, Monster Cable and you DON'T sue the little pizza shop called Monster, you actually lose your right to sue a company that is legitimately trying to trade using a similar name or logo. So you HAVE to go after everyone you can.
I think of our rights like that. No high school drop out cop (and let's face it, cops aren't cops because they got straight A's in High School, Amirite?) is going to intimidate me into a search, especially if I have nothing to hide. What do I have to lose? My rights. If you don't use your 4th amendment rights, you lose them.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

If they are not clear minded, it is more reasonable to believe that a mistake may be made on their part. Employers want employees that work at an optimal level, not someone that is likely to screw up. Is Ike an IT tech....I doubt it. But perhaps you want to just insert whatever employee you think would not have any safety concerns under the influence of drugs, so you chose that job. How about a Plumber, Carpenter, Drywaller, Electrician, Painter, Tile setter,Roofer, Welder, etc.....

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!

It isn't only about safety. No business owner wants an employee in any position who is using drugs. Would you hire an accountant who tested positive for meth? Would you hire a truck driver who tested positive for crack? Would you hire a sales person who tested positive for heroin? No, you would not.

_________________
CSFMB 2014 Nascar Pick 'em Champion

We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. — Ronald Reagan

A mistake? A number paperwork mistake? How does that affect SAFETY, Steve? And "clear minded"? Should I be tested to make sure I'm getting enough sleep too, then, for safety's sake? I bet tired workers are a hell of a lot more dangerous that workers who smoked a joint the night before.

I am tired of "safety" being the cop out for intrusive behaviors. The drug testing empire is only a small example. But there's a lot of them. Everything from having to somehow put "Hot" on a cup of hot coffee to the fact that I had to pay an extra $800 or so on my new truck so it could have tire pressure sensors (mandatory) because a couple people were too bloody stupid to check their tire pressure.

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

Are you trying to tell me that nobody on the planet who smokes a joint a month should have a job?
Do you feel that meth, Crack, and heroin are in the same league as marijuana?

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

1) Why would you think I am a fan of Michael Boltons music? Not the case.

2) All Police Department's requirements for hiring demand that any candidate for job as a Police Officer be a High School graduate, with the vast majority of departments requiring an associates degree or bachelors degree in Criminal Justice/Law Enforcemet Justice Administration.

So no, you are not right.

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!

I would imagine that most people wouldn't want a neighbor that uses drugs. Like you said it's not just about safety. Drug users would likely lower a neighborhood's property values or discourage non drug using renters from renting an apartment in an apartment complex that houses drug users. Why should my property value suffer, or if I am a landlord, why should my bottom line suffer because people are using drugs in their homes? Why not stop that entirely by requiring people to subject themselves to random drug tests or home searches? If people find those searches too intrusive they can find a neighborhood or apartment complex that does not require such subjection.

_________________

Again, you want to use examples of employees, where safety is of no concern, whereas there are MANY jobs where such concerns are legitimate. I wouldn't want a school bus driver who was responsible for the safety of dozens of children to be under the influence of drugs. Nor would I want anyone employed to drive any vehicle to be a drug user. Even if they dont have anyone in the vehicle they are driving, the possibility of them causing an accident by hitting another vehicle is a concern. safety is not a cop-out. it's a legitimate reason to ensure employees are not drug users.

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!

I've asked this question multiple times but still haven't gotten a response: If safety is a such a concern why not make sure everyone is not a drug user? Why should employers be safer from drug users than John Q Public?

_________________

Wouldn't bother me.

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!

That's fine. I just wanted to establish that you are okay with the government having the power to force you to pee into a cup for no other reason than to potentially keep other people safe, even though you have never used drugs in your life.

_________________

What I am telling you is this: If you have a Wife & Kids to support & you work for a company that randomly drug tests employees, & you still smoke pot, you are a fool & have your priorities out of whack.

_________________
CSFMB 2014 Nascar Pick 'em Champion

We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much. — Ronald Reagan

I am just fine with it. But the discussion was not about the Government having the power to force one to submit to drug testing, but private businesses having the right to demand the same. But again, that wouldn't be a problem for me.

_________________
Go Cubs!!!!

[quote="IkeSouth"why am i still upset even though i passed without issue? because i felt like a god damn slave.[/quote]

Yep, you *are* a god damn slave. Whether you pass or not, whether you have any reason to worry about passing or not...

_________________
Middle Aged Crazy, like Uncle Terry

WHAT????? The worker provides the employer with everything he has. The fact that anyone has an idea like the one above shows why Unions will never go out of style.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

We have ways to attempt to catch drug users in the general public. Every time you get in the car you are subject to a possible drug test even if you are doing nothing wrong at the time.
They get sued for accidents, or providing an unsafe workplace. They have a responsibility to provide a safe environment. I can't sue the cops if a guy on crystal meth drives his car into me on a street corner. I can sue a company if they let a guy on crystal meth operate a chainsaw and it slices me in half.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Can I sue if a guy hyped up on espresso crashed the company van into me?

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

Improper nouns should not be capitalized.

_________________
Kid Cairo's Boers & Bernstein YouTube Channel

Kid Cairo: 2013 March Madness Tournament Winner!

"Cowabunga? Cowa fucking piece of dog shit! This game is diarrhea coming out of my dick!"

You could sue but driving on caffeine is not illegal. You still would sue the company that had the company van but the espresso would be meaningless. You'd be more likely to win if he was driving while drinking it and distracted.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Sue everybody! I'm going after Starbucks, Ford, the company, the driver, and the employer personally. This is a civil matter. The legality of high caffeine dosages isn't critical. This man was high.

Drivin' that truck
High on Starbucks
Boilermaker Rick better watch your speed

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

This is why I stick to moral drugs. Less risk.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!