What about Private Sector Prohibition of Drugs?

Everyone always complaining about the Drug War. What about the Drug War in the Private Sector?

For instance, in my hotel the owner recently hired a Management company to come in.

The management company is excellent, offering better pay, better benefits, and more opportunity.

But there is a price to pay for all of this, namely. All the employees are being subjected to a drug test and a background check.

Now, some of the crew are worried, because a couple have admitted they are ex-felons and won't pass the strict employment requirements on the background check and others have complained that they smoke weed and won't pass the drug test. Might lose a few people.


Should Private Sector employers have the right to drug test employees?

I think that every single private sector employer should institute drug screenings. That way, the Government doesn't get involved and Libertarians and other drug users can have all the drugs they want, but the cost of that drug use will be you can't find a job.

I support the Private Sector War on Drugs. Employers should have the right to discriminate against drug users and felons.

 

Personally, I don't like private sector drug testing but, yes, companies have the right to do whatever is legal in screening job applicants.

 

I like this mindset. Decriminalize drugs, but ensure that companies retain the right to restrict drug use by their employees at whatever level they choose.

 

I support a business's right to be able to do that, but is there really a reason in the first place? Why don't businesses do tests to see if people drink? Why is the recreational use of marijuana (I'm assuming you mostly mean mj) worse than recreational use of alcohol? I guess all of the drug users will have to go off and create all of their own jobs instead of getting hired. (Like Steve Jobs, most likely Bill Gates, virtually every famous musician, many famous authors, many great athletes.)

 

I suppose. Technically. Though I find it to be kind of a sissy way for employers to throw their weight around. What a person does on their own time shouldn't be any of an employer's business unless it somehow affects their work.

 

The big question is though...

When these people become completely unemployable because of their drug addiction, how do we keep them off the public dole?

 

I disagree.

What a person does on their off time "in general" should not be any of a companies business.

If their after hours partying, be it drinking alcohol or smoking pot or whatever, starts to noticably affect their work then the company can take issue.

You should not be able to fire someone for smoking pot after hours.

We have drifted so far away from the Constitution in relation to protection of individual liberty that the document does not mean anything anymore.

Witch hunts .. such as going after Pot smokers, was exactly what the Constitution was intended to prevent.

 

It's due to insurance costs.

Health Insurance companies offer stiff discounts for companies that drug test.

It's a health expense issue.

 

For marijuana? That doesn't make sense.

 

Too bad. This does not justify abridging the Constitution.

The founding fathers did not put a clause in the Constitution ... This stuff all applies except when Insurance discounts are being considered.

We can come up with all kinds of silly excuses to invalidate Constitutionally protected rights.

This one is sillier than most.

 

What does the constitution have to do with employers drug testing?

 

I am for it... only since I am for private owner rights.

One condition though... I don't think a business should be able to test and fire/not hire because of a legal substance. For instance many companies are doing this right now with nicotine and I don't like that.

 

Why shouldn't a company have the right to fire people based on drug use - or anything else for that matter?

 

I oppose drug testing for this reason. I couldn't care less whether the person who sells me a candy bar and a paper smoked a joint last week. Additionally, drug testing removes the presumption of innocence. I can understand testing bus drivers, airline pilots, air traffic controllers, but it has gotten out of hand. It's like we're living in a police state where even employers are acting like cops.

It's like war. If people weren't making a profit from war, our country wouldn't be invading 7 or 8 countries right now (it's getting hard to keep track.) If people weren't making money from the drug war, drugs would probably be legal.

 

the way i look at it, its a private sector job, they can decide who they want and do not want to hire or keep and can decide what ever policy they want to use for that matter, provided they apply it evenly across the board.

 

What about the crane operator on a construction site? What about the guy using explosives for tunneling under NYC? There are many jobs with the potential of costing lives and huge amounts of damage if something is done wrong.

Regardless, why shouldn't an employer be able to act in its own interests? They aren't arresting you, jailing you or anything else. If you pop positive on a drug test, you are just fired or not hired, you aren't arrested.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to keep from hiring someone that could mean millions of dollars in liability?

 

Personal liberty. The right to do what you want on your own time. The fact that the company does not own you.

You should be embarassed to ask such a question but I understand. Unfortunately most folks are ignorant of the principles that this country was founded on and what made it great.

 

only in mission critical fields, like handling nukes, driving etc.

otherwise it is a violation of the 4th and to reject you if you reject the test is discrimination.

 

LMAO

Discrimination is perfectly allowed except in certain protected classes(race, religion, creed, national origin, sex, age)

Other than that, a private citizen can certainly discriminate.

 

of course a private business has the right to drug test employees- as long as that's part of the employment contract.

 

get rid of the public dole?..

 

what if the company puts it in their employment contract? why can't they do that?

 

you don't have the right to do drugs and work at B of A if B of A doesn't want people who do drugs.

 

Yes, business owners should be able to require a drug test as a condition of employment. They do own the business after all.

Most employers are fooling themselves, though. More often than not they subject potential employees to urine tests which will show if someone smoked a joint in the last month but won't tell them if they smoked crack last weekend. It also won't tell them if the candidate is a raging alcoholic.

 

It really depends....Pot is illegal, so a company has the right to not hire you because you are a criminal if you use drug...

But as for places where pot is legal, a private company should not have the right to fire someone for doing something that is legal, as long as the use does not interfere with their job performance. Under this, a company could fire anyone who drinks, smokes, drinks coffee (caffein is a drug) as well.