Random Drug Test.


PDA

12-34hom
January 31, 2003, 03:50 PM
I had to submit to a U. A. for my full time employment today. As normal, i had my H&K compact with me; concealed on my person.

The nurse told me to empty my pockets & take off the sweatshirt i had on.........;)

Before doing so i said, "Now don't be alarmed, i have a concealed firearm on my person".

Well, at that point in the conversation i didn't think i was going to have to provide a urine sample. The nurse was going to do it for me! I saw real fear in her eyes, kinda freaked me out as to what she was going to do or say at that point.

I'll never forget the look on her face the moment i told her i was CCW. I assured her it was ok, i had a permit, had that hey - i was a part time LEO - one of the good guys...:neener:

Well, everything turned out ok, she got over it - i went about my business.

I never give it a second thought about being armed as i go about my everyday business. Second nature i guess, but some folks don't share that same mindset. To bad..

12-34hom.

If you enjoyed reading about "Random Drug Test." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
geekWithA.45
January 31, 2003, 04:17 PM
See title.

coonan357
January 31, 2003, 04:37 PM
random drug tests in the trucking industry is common and needed , you wouldn't believe the amount of people who flunk these tests .especially when they apply for jobs .I'm clean so give me a cup and how much you want ??:what:

TallPine
January 31, 2003, 05:04 PM
The nurse told me to empty my pockets & take off the sweatshirt i had on.........

What the heck does that have to do with a urine sample?

I mean, I can make a yellow hole in snow at 50 below with my insulated coveralls on ... :confused:

Chipperman
January 31, 2003, 05:25 PM
Maybe that was to be sure he was not smuggling in a urine sample from another person.

TallPine
January 31, 2003, 05:47 PM
Maybe that was to be sure he was not smuggling in a urine sample from another person.

Oh .....

So do they watch you to make sure? :D


I suppose some people WILL think of everything ... I suppose they will make you take off your shoes next, just like at the airport. :scrutiny:

Or maybe only if you go "squish ... squish ... squish" when you walk in. :)

Peetmoss
January 31, 2003, 05:49 PM
That is excatly why they had him empty his pockets Chipperman. They also dye the water in the toilet and block the sink off in the bathroom usually. When I have to give a urine sample they also take the temperature of it. I also am subject to random breathalizers too.

PATH
January 31, 2003, 05:51 PM
I failed my urine exam. I studied all week too!:D

AWWW!!! Come on you know you were all thinking of posting that lame joke!;)

Kobun
January 31, 2003, 07:32 PM
I suppose some people WILL think of everything ... I suppose they will make you take off your shoes next, just like at the airport.

Or maybe only if you go "squish ... squish ... squish" when you walk in.
Well, the newest technique is to have a baloon stuck up your a** filled with someone others piss. Then a small hose is attached to the baloon and taped to the *ick.
This is how they do it in sports these days... :rolleyes:

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=43854

BerettaNut92
January 31, 2003, 07:37 PM
I heard some guys brought in a fake...ahem...'toy' and filled it with...ahem....yeah....someone else's...yeah....

Dropped it cuz he was so nervous with the probation ossifer watching...and it was...on the ground....eeew....

10-Ring
January 31, 2003, 07:43 PM
I've had to submit to a random drug test...what a hassle :rolleyes: Funny too, the people whom you suspect don't seem to ever have to submit a sample.:scrutiny:

rock jock
January 31, 2003, 07:46 PM
Random Drug Tests....another outrage we tolerate
If you saw the results of some industrial accidents caused by people on dope, you might not feel the same way.

Sindawe
January 31, 2003, 08:17 PM
Unfortunately a U.A. will tell you absolutely NOTHING about the current state of impairment of the individual being tested, only what they have been exposed to in the past couple of days to months, dependent apon the drug metabolite being screened for. Yes, I've seen the results of accidents by people wasted on some external chemical or another. :what: I STILL do not support any kind of U.A. or hair follicle testing, either pre-job or routine. I'll not work for an employer who asks for such, and one the rare occasion that I have been asked to submit a sample for U.A. (during interviews) I smile and offer 'em a nice fresh taste test. :fire: tell 'em what they can do with their righteous selves :cuss: and leave.

This does not mean that I desire or think its OK for somebody to be wasted and in control of an automobile, equipment or firearms. The technology exists to evaluate the state of impairment of an individual, and I have no problem taking such tests before a duty shift or at random during a duty cycle. This can show intoxication or even fatigue. And if I'm too tired to pass the test, I'm too tired to be working/driving.

So I concur with geekwitha.45's opinion rock jock. This does not mean that I want to prevent YOU from taking the U.A., it is your body and your call. Just don't be too surprised when I bare my teeth, hiss and rip ya a new one when one is forced upon me.

suvdrvr
January 31, 2003, 08:35 PM
Then there was the elderly couple that went to the doctor and the nurse told the old fart that she needed a urine sample, a stool sample and a seman sample. The old man said WHAT! His wife said," she wants to see your shorts".

schild
January 31, 2003, 09:18 PM
I will do a drug test 24/7, but I drew the line at signing a release giving a company I was an outside contractor at access to my IRS, military, and police records. Also wanted permission to talk to my neighbors. This was a new policy after I'd been working there twenty plus years, sorry but I don't need their work that bad!

Standing Wolf
January 31, 2003, 09:32 PM
I don't submit to unreasonable search and seizure.

Tamara
January 31, 2003, 10:03 PM
If you saw the results of some industrial accidents caused by people on dope, you might not feel the same way.

I don't care.

I don't care if day care workers are flipping out on PCP and chainsawing babies every five minutes across the nation; that in no way gives someone the right to invade my privacy.

Because someone else commits horrible accidents with guns, should we give rock jock a safety test every time he buys one?

4v50 Gary
January 31, 2003, 11:07 PM
Intrusiveness on one's personal liberties is weighed against that of the public interest. Whereas there is little if no risk if a file clerk at the library is smoking dope on the job, it does if that same file clerk becomes an airline pilot, Amtrak engineer or even a school bus driver. So our file clerk needn't submit to a urine test because the public interest isn't great enough as opposed to the pilot, engineer or bus driver. I suppose it could even extend to a Homer Simpson when he's on the job.

BTW, every time I've taken the piss test and I always ask them to check for diabetes too. Might as well have a 2'fer.

wingnutx
January 31, 2003, 11:20 PM
If you feel ok letting employers do random searches of your bladder, would you let them also do a random search of your home? How about if they make you list all your firearms, because it might make you a risky employee. Screw that.

Granted, I let the navy test me, but I give up all sorts of things for the military. I don't for some HR weenie that wants to know how I spend my free time.

I did submit for a job once, though, and cheated even though I was clean. It was amazingly easy.

gun-fucious
January 31, 2003, 11:28 PM
make a really nice poppy seed cake and make sure the boss gets 2 slices

dude
January 31, 2003, 11:44 PM
Well if you want a job that requires a piss test......seems to me that you take the test or not get the job.

As a happy aircraft mechanic and frequent flyer for going on 20 years now I am more then happy to submit to a UA and glad that it is requirement for the profession.

I smoked ALOT of pot in my younger days mind you, but quit on the night of 11/22/84 (not that I'm counting) which was the night before leaving for Ft Jackson and what turned out to be a fun 8 year Army adventure.

Jim March
January 31, 2003, 11:47 PM
I'd be SO tempted to use the "somebody else's supply" trick, 'cept with apple juice. See what they make of THAT :D.

dude
January 31, 2003, 11:59 PM
As long as you are not very serious about getting the job..........it might be fun!! (or keeping your present one for that matter)

4v50 Gary
February 1, 2003, 12:05 AM
Apple juice Jim? That would set off the alarms when it comes to the diabetes test.

BTW, I like the "poppy seed" cake for the boss idea. Gotta file that away.:evil: Funny how we know about that type of stuff, but we never think of a devious application of such a harmless dessert.

kalibear45
February 1, 2003, 12:22 AM
Yikes!:what:

dacinokc
February 1, 2003, 12:28 AM
UA is the tip of this iceberg any more though. Interesting cases floating around these days about the use of hair for drug testing without the knowledge of the tested.
Personally I am torn, as an attorney I find drug testing to really suck as from a privacy point of view. It is very flawed, pot will hang out in the body for six months in fat cells and result is positive test, while cocaine will flush out of the body in as short as six hours. UA or hair ends up being about as accurate as a average police radar in detecting is the person stoned on the job, or was around a bunch of pot smokers at a superbowl party.
On the other hand, as a dad, I don't want some apathtic stoner driving a bus with my kid on it if their values or judgement are impared.
While in the military, I was tested and it never made me anymind, and to this day I could pass a test, but I don't like the intrusiveness of it. And it is what is called a slippery slope issue-
I think it was mentioned, but what is to stop a employer of then doing a DNA test to see if you are at risk of heart disease or diabetes and electing to not hire you becuase you would cost him insurance money, maybe, someday. They could argue that as a truck driver they would not want the liability of you having a heart attack and passing out behind the wheel, those weaslly lawyers would lie about thier own mothers- on wait never mind.
So how much are you willing to let someone determine about you before you get to drive, fly, play high school football, or whatever.
It is as much ploy to enforce morality as any issue directly related to job related liability, don't let anyone kid you.....
:scrutiny:

Blueduck
February 1, 2003, 11:31 AM
As a Parole Officer I go to court on this every month.

Proper drug test for marijuana have a tolerence built into them to avoid picking up the small traces you might get from hanging out with friends. That is however every clients story and I've seen it shot down at least 20 times in court by experts from the toxicology labs. Every new lawyers just got to try it once and waste everybodies time :rolleyes:

A THC urine test with proper cut-off will be clean in 30-35 days after consunmption (even if your smoking like Tommy Chong) not six-months. Get to see that defense shot down in flames every 3 months or so.

Got no problem with UA's as part of employment. If you don't want to take one get over your bad self and don't work for people with that requirment:scrutiny:

dacinokc
February 1, 2003, 01:32 PM
While not getting into any legal banter about this, the issue of "proper cut off" means that the test will in fact still show traces longer than a month, it is an interpertation on the data.
I do trust the courts in using cutoffs thanks to the issues having been haggled for a long time and case precidence and standards having been established (Those pesky lawyers- there are volumes in the stacks of law school about how litigation got us to the point of those court used standards on drug testing).
I do not trust the private sector in the use of the information they glean from the same test however, nor do I trust them private sector to limit information gathering to just the drug screening.
The instrament of testing is not really at question to me, I would acknowledge the scientific validity of the process. It is what other types of information that can be gathered, and what it can be used for that I worry about. It is what humans choose to do with the information I don't trust.
As I said, I did druy screening for years myself in the military, and I have no problems with it's use in a proper manner....

geekWithA.45
February 1, 2003, 02:50 PM
Intrusiveness on one's personal liberties is weighed against that of the public interest.

Being a reasonable human, I _might_ be convinced in the case of heavy equipment operators, bus drivers, and airline pilots, but where, oh where does it end?

About 15 years ago, when this sorta thing was getting under way, it was JUST the aforementioned categories, and today, it's all over the map, based on the flimsy pretext of employer's rights to receive "good work", among others.

Does an employer have the right to recieve "good work"? You betcha. How do you tell whether work is any good or not? Well, what do you think will be more informative, inspecting the employee's results, or the employee's human wastes?

The problem is that the "public interest" notion is being abused well beyond the principles of the founders. "Public Interest" is appealled to for every damnable intrusive thing there is: what you eat affects health care and insurance costs, and therefore we should be able to track your eating habits" was one thing I saw recently.

The bottom line: This country is founded on the premise that the individual's liberty is paramount, and may only be intruded upon in the case of dire, immediate need, and THIS AIN'T IT.

------------------------------------------------
For the record: I don't use drugs, and my personal policy is that my immediate resignation automatically accompianies any sample of bodily anything that is requested.
------------------------------------------------

Blueduck
February 1, 2003, 03:40 PM
dacinokc,

Very valid points on private industry. I have test results that come in each week that show "Positive", "Adulterated" or "Intentionally diluted". When you look at the details of both the case and report it can very well be that they have done nothing wrong at all.

If a company just gets a lab to send a report to a supervisor without proper training I can see a problems:uhoh: But hey, thats why they invented "pesky lawyers" :D

coonan357
February 1, 2003, 04:33 PM
if you want privacy invasion go look what a truck driver has to do for a job , 10 years of job history is manatory per section 392 of the CFR , thats all jobs driving or not !!! (cleared up by talking to a DOT official ) you must list what you did inbetween jobs if more than 1 month , you are subject to background searchs for certain types of jobs (involving hazmat) if you haul haz-waste in NJ you must submit income records ( I'm still trying to figure out that one ) you have to random drug tests with in 36 hours of recieving notice or loose you license for 6 months , you have to take post accident drug test , pre-employment drug tests , all for working for aprox 8 dollars an hour ?? I did this for 12 years without a single accident ( I'm damn lucky ) now I am looking for a better field of employment . one which I can have a life not a career .


Rant off : sorry about that folks I guess I'm finally fed up !!!

Kahr carrier
February 2, 2003, 06:04 AM
:neener:We have it where I work. It doesnt bother me ,amusing to see other people handle my urine,yuck.:what: :neener:

Dannyboy
February 2, 2003, 08:27 AM
The only problem I have with this is when you have somebody standing there watching. I used to have to drink so much water when I was in the Army that I couldn't stand up straight before I could go. Stage fright, you could say. Of course, like Kahr carrier, I always found it amusing to have somebody carrying my urine, especially after whizzing on the bottle. They always hated that. Oops.

Beav
February 2, 2003, 09:19 AM
LOL, I hear ya Dannyboy! I hated the UAs in the Navy, they had someone right there watching you do your thing as well. I used to have to drink so much water that if they didn't let me go I'd probably piss myself. As bad as it was I would have hated to be the guy doing the watching all day.

Blueduck
February 2, 2003, 10:13 AM
From somebody who takes them let me say you guys are not alone. About 20%+ of people have "Shy bladder" and it is a pain.

Tricks of the trade are: 1. Turn on sink faucet for noise
2. Wash hands with warm water before
3. Mountain Dew

Best result I had was with a client notoriuos for coming in very late and always having "trouble" hoping his officer would just give up and go home. We entered the bathroom just after a female officer had dropped a client. The preceeding officer had filled the bowl with red dye to prevent her gal from "scooping" with the cup.

When my guy looked down and saw all the red in the toilet he loooked at me with wide eyes. I said "Yep were sick of it, you got five minutes or I use the catheter, and I'm not real good with it yet..." :uhoh:

Byron Quick
February 2, 2003, 10:30 AM
I don't like the current system at all. What a person does off the job is none of the job's business. It ain't the government's business for a non government employee at any time.

On the other hand, I have no problems with being tested for impairment on the job for that is a pertinent concern of employers.

In other words, if an alcohol tests shows that I came to work under the influence...fine. If it shows that I was drinking last night and I am penalized for that...uh uh.

In some jobs, such as commercial pilots, the standard is different for good reason. I believe it is no alcohol for twelve hours before a flight. That's fine. Develop a test that will show alcohol consumption during the preceding twelve hours. Not one that tests positive for more.

Beav
February 2, 2003, 10:35 AM
OMG!!! LMAO@Blueduck :D

UA from hell
My very first day at boot camp we had to do a UA. Well naturally most of the guys were nervous to begin with so several of them couldn't go. The Navy seemed to enjoy mass UA sessions, where they had several people go at the same time. Shockingly the Petty Officer was running around yelling in everyones ear "PISS IN THE F'IN CUP!!!" over and over. Now who is going to be able to go under that pressure? Eventually the people that couldn't go had to drink 10 cups of warm water.
"One petty officer, two petty officer" and so on, when they got up to 7 or 8 cups they started to sound like they were going to puke or cry. It was funny and frightening all at the same time. Needless to say I saw all of that and concentrated really really hard :D

larry_minn
February 2, 2003, 12:17 PM
The last one I did they did the whole deal. Blue die in toilet. warm water in sink turned off, and temp guage on cup. They did NOT check me for stuff (onboard)
I was tempted to fill it so full and put it as far from stool/sink as I could but figured the folks in lab are not the enemy. Glad I have only had to do it twice in my life.

NewShooter78
February 2, 2003, 12:47 PM
I still think the UA is an invasion of privacy. The military might be a separate issue because you do give up a lot of your personal rights just by joining. As most people I know in the military will tell me "its not a democracy", so UA there is a fuzzy issue. But for private sector jobs I think it rediculous as a pre-employment requirement. Now after an on the job accident, I can understand it being done because if you are impared while working that is a dangerous position. And if you want to pass a test then there are ways of getting a negative results without having to use someone else's clean urine. There is a whole industry built around this, and it makes detox products just to pass drug tests.

The other thing that really sucks is the descrimination that I know happens if you have been arrested or even just ticketed for a drug related violation. I may be mistaken but I think that in some states you can't even get a CCW for having a non felony drug conviction or guilty plea even if it happened twenty years ago. It makes no sense if you can buy a handgun, but not be allowed a CCW for such an offense.

DeltaElite
February 2, 2003, 04:21 PM
Even though we don't do them, I am all for them.
I work with some pretty odd folks, of course a UA won't tell you that they are an alcoholic, which is what is prevelant in Le.

Honestly, I would fail them. I get a small quantity of Vicodin each month for my back and I'm betting that would show up in my UA.
So I would have to produce medical records to show them that I am "legal" to use them.

chaim
February 3, 2003, 03:30 AM
I had to do it in basic training and as others have said it was no fun trying to force yourself to go with some guy in a window watching you and about a dozen guys around you trying to go too. At least the Drill Sergeants didn't come into the room with us.

I also had to do it once for a bank teller job. I did it but I really don't like it. For jobs like that it is none of their business what you take, drink, smoke, etc. off the job. If you are stealing or doing a bad job or coming in obviously intoxicated you should be fired. Otherwise, it is none of their business.

If you enjoyed reading about "Random Drug Test." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!