Just curious for your thoughts.
2007-12-15 05:39:55 · 15 answers · asked by laurie195 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Thanks for the input everyone! I was just curious to see other opinions on the matter. I'm torn on the subject myself. Sometimes I think it is an invasion of privacy...and other times I don't. I think what you do in your personal life is your business, however..if what you are doing is effecting your work..then I think it would be necessary to test. Either way...thanks for your input!!
2007-12-15 05:53:26 · update #1
Yes, but I realize that there are jobs (paramedic, doctor, police officer) where you want to be certain that they are drug free.
If I stock shelves at walmart and get high on the weekend, how does that really effect my job. It isn't walmarts business what I do in my home as long as I can function properly on the clock.
2007-12-15 05:44:57 · answer #1 · answered by mcq316 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No it is not an invasion of privacy -- at least if it is done for employment purposes. If it is a condition of being hired or continuing your employment, it is not invasion of privacy or duress.
I have heard the argument that once hired if you are not doing a job that is important, who cares if you use drugs on weekends, well the argument is that the drugs remain in your system, and if you return to your job in either get injured or cause an injury to someone else, there is a major problem.
I think drug testing is a necessary evil in that it is too bad that some people ruined that part of life for everyone. I remember a time, when it would not have been necessary to have drug tests.
What is our world coming to?
2007-12-15 13:51:00 · answer #2 · answered by Diane B 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Depends on the situation.
Employee drug testing? No.
Drug testing to participate in extra-curricular activities in school? No.
Drug testing for athletes? No.
Drug testing of anyone who consents for whatever the purpose is? No.
Random drug testing in a situation where the person is not subjecting themselves by choice (such as those listed above) YES.
mcq316...It is also not Walmart's responsiblity to hire anyone who does not fit their criteria. If you are a drug user, they have the right not to hire you. If you do not like it, you have the right not to apply there. I will not have a drug user working for me. There are a multitude of reasons...and I smoked pot and experimented with other drugs when I was young and dumb. The knowledge I gained from that (and being around users) is that I would recommend that NOBODY hire a drug user. And yes, I do and will always screen.
Brigid...1. You do not have to fear false positives. They are extremely rare, and contestable. 2. The idea that you must worry about false positives is put forth by drug users because they are dumb enough to think things like large doses of Niacin etc. will clear your test. 3. The screeners ask about prescription drugs, over the counter drugs, and any food items (such as poppy seeds) which would otherwise give a potential false positive.
Neese...I agree. I think that 100% of employers should use mandatory drug screening. It is insane not to. And the only ones who think that drug use is not affecting other parts of their life are those who are on the drugs.
2007-12-15 13:45:41 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, but I think any medical testing beyond a drug test is a violation of privacy for most jobs. My cousin got an office job and she had to get a pre employment physical. The physical exam was very brief, but they wanted her ENTIRE medical history on the forms. She left the GYN part blank and they didint say anything.
2007-12-15 13:52:02 · answer #4 · answered by eastcoastdebra 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. The law should even be harder. The world is falling apart with drugs, crimes, even the smaller crimes. People who have be caught or tested positive for anything needs to be tested. You see on t.v or hear on the radio repetitive pattern of people still doing it. Celeberties seems to just get a smack on the hands. I am sick of seeing Spears doing what see is doing, and the judge(s) just seems to take it. Drugs or not people with a repetitive pattern (harmful or illegal) should be put under the prison.
2007-12-15 13:56:45 · answer #5 · answered by Neese 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. If you want what someone else has to offer-a job, the chance for you to play ball, or whatever-they have the right to put restrictions on your eligibility for that...which may be drug testing. If you want the job/etc, you meet the requirements, sign the contracts agreeing to drug tests, and take the drug tests. If not, you don't get the job/etc. You have no 'right' to play pro ball, or such. It is a privlege, and the ones granting privleges can limit them in any way they choose.
2007-12-15 13:46:05 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. I have worked for companies that have done drug testing before, and have not ever viewed it as an invasion of my privacy. I have never taken any illegal drugs and I am proud of that fact.
2007-12-15 13:43:40 · answer #7 · answered by Leah 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I think criminalizing drugs is an invasion of privacy.
2007-12-15 13:56:17 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Depends on the situation. If, as a condition for being hired, no. You're free to work elsewhere. If, after you've been hired, you're told that you must sign this consent form or be fired, I'd consider that duress.
2007-12-15 13:45:59 · answer #9 · answered by trentrockport 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
To me it is a huge invasion. I have never done drugs, but I always worried about false positives from prescriptions and things. I wouldn't want to have the worry of false positives.
2007-12-15 13:45:44 · answer #10 · answered by Brigid O' Somebody 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋