Random Drug Test.

[dacinokc]

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.....

 

[Blueduck]

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

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

 

[dacinokc]

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]

The slippery slope

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]

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 But hey, thats why they invented "pesky lawyers"

 

[coonan357]

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]

We have it where I work. It doesnt bother me ,amusing to see other people handle my urine,yuck.

 

[Dannyboy]

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]

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]

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..."

 

[Byron Quick]

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]

OMG!!! LMAO@Blueduck

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

 

[larry_minn]

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]

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]

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]

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.