Why does the ACLU suddenly oppose drug screens for state workers?

[Courtesy Flush]

I really don't know their history on this, but they're up in arms about Florida workers being drug screened, yet here in Louisiana I've been a state employee for 23 years, and it's always been a fact of life that drug screens are required. I've never heard any opposition to it.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Violation of unreasonable searches.

If an individual has not been arrested, a search of that person's body is a violation of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. And even if arrested, the searches are qualified based on precedence.

The ACLU defends the Bill of Rights, not the actual defendant directly.

[RKP5637]

2. +1, n/t

[Ptah]

5. The fourth amendment is the one concerning searches

"Fourth Amendment: guards against searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed. Some rights to privacy have been inferred from this amendment and others by the Supreme Court."

[no_hypocrisy]

9. Oops. My bad. You're absolutely correct.

[Tesha]

3. Most likely, nobody in Louisiana asked the ACLU for help.

They keep pretty busy just helping where folks have
*ASKED* for help; they don't run that many projects
where they go looking for things to do.

Tesha

[CBGLuthier]

4. random drug testing, or pre-employment screening?

[Courtesy Flush]

7. Random

To be honest, I've only been tested once, and that was after many years on the job.

[Viking12]

10. Do you operate machinery, vehicles, or in some other position where safety involved?

[Courtesy Flush]

15. I use the agency's vehicles. nt

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. I guess they don't what a druggy crashing the agency's vehicles into people

[Courtesy Flush]

22. Gee, ya think?

[Rebubula]

32. So why not test for alcohol use??

You use the phrase 'druggy' - so I can sort of figure out what your stance on personal drug use might be. Do you drink alcohol? Ever hear of anyone being killed by a stoned driver? I can find 30 dead from alcohol related crashes in regional newspapers today alone.

However - back to my point - alcohol causes hundred fold (number pulled from ass) problems as compared to most drugs.


Meth\heroin users usually cannot hold jobs and their issues would be noticeable. This is mostly looking for recreational pot users (again - stat pulled from ass).

[Freddie Stubbs]

43. I would be happy to take a breatlalyzer test at work

[walldude]

40. They don't what a druggy...

LMFAO. At least this druggy can compose a complete and understandable sentence.

The word is WANT genius. Maybe you ought to go get high, it might help you to pay attention.

[SOS]

44. #1 cause of serious car accidents: distracted driver

This idiot is the number one cause of death and injury on the highway.
He's not a "druggy"



#2: speeding
#3: alcohol
#4: reckless
#5: rain

If employers really want to save lives they should tell their employees to put down the cell phone and slow down.

Coming in at # 15: under influence of drugs.

http://seriousaccidents.com/legal-advice/top-causes-of-car-accidents/

[CreekDog]

45. let us know when you actually learn the governor's policy

:hi:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/os-rick-scott-drug-testing-state-work20110322,0,2150123.story

[Bucky]

6. I don't think they "suddenly" came out against drug testing.

I'm sure I've heard of them opposing mandatory drug testing since I started following the news in the 1970s. In the ACLU's opinion, a drug test for all employees violate unreasonable search & seizure standards in the Bill of Rights.

[Statistical]

17. How?

The Bill of Rights protects citizens against abuses by the government.

You have no Constitutional rights against the actions of another individual.

For example Skinner could delete this post and I would have Constitutional ground under which to appeal. However if the federal government did so I would.

For public employees it gets more complicated because the same entity is both the employer and the government but it would matter in which role it was acting.

[JDPriestly]

8. Why should a government employee working in some office somewhere

say Equal Opportunity be given drug tests? Those tests are costly. It is an unnecessary invasion of privacy of the employee. If the employee is performing well, whose business is it what drugs the employee is taking? If the employee carries a gun or drives a truck or car for the state or deals with children, that is a different matter.

These tests look for very indications of the use of very specific drugs. If someone is taking those drugs, but it isn't affecting their work, is it really worth the money spent on the drug testing?

Louisiana is a poor state. I believe that it receives more in federal taxes than it pays. Why is it spending money on drug testing of office bureaucrats? That is ridiculous.

[immoderate]

48. Get real. It's screening for hippies. It's not a test to see if you are impaired.

All that "machinery" and "children" is bullshit. If an employee is impaired, it will most likely be from alcohol. What drug tests do is determine if you have smoked marijuana within the last month. Not whether you are stoned. Most other drugs leave the body in 24 hours. And it doesn't determine impairment. Only performance tests would do that.

They want to purge liberals. Pot smokers are more liberal. Sure there are conservatives who smoke pot. That's what the Libertarian party is for. Those will be candidates for "rehabilitation." ;)

--imm

[hifiguy]

11. Probable cause and the prohibitions against

unreasonable search in the 4th Amendment (does that apply to ANYONE anymore?) come to mind as reasons for objecting.

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. Perhaps you have a job where drug screening is justified

If you operate heavy machinery or have access to prescription drugs a few examples.

[sabrina 1]

13. I thought they might challenge this violation of the Constitution

I'm sure they've challenged it before. And it never, ever should have been allowed in the first place.

Another example of people giving up their Constitutional rights without even a whimper.

Good for them.

[WingDinger]

14. Why should pub union emps make more money than I, in another form.

Only this time, it is a public emp that is doing the HIM TOO attacks. Dispicable.

[Courtesy Flush]

24. "Dispicable" (sic) is a pretty string word.

Drug testing is a very common practice. That's all I'm saying. I'm not calling for them to be tested. I just don't see why it's being made an issue long after it has become a non-issue.

[geardaddy]

30. Is that you Scott Walker?

[WingDinger]

42. Yes, I am channeling him,.

[Dappleganger]

16. Not just random, but done every single quarter of ALL state employees.

AFTER they are hired.

[Citizen Worker]

18. In the 80s when Ronnie Raygun first began talking about drug testing I called the local office of

ACLU to ask if the organization would contest such testing. I was told, "there's too much public support for drug testing." In short, there were no plans on fighting the implementation of mandatory drug testing. I never renewed my membership in the ACLU following that phone conversation.

[WatsonT]

20. That's odd

considering that they've sued on behalf of very unpopular neo-nazis before.

[fishwax]

19. it makes sense they'd make noise about Florida since it's a current proposal

I don't know if they made noise when that became standard in Louisiana, or what they've done since in Louisiana, or anything like that. But I don't see their opposition as in any way sudden.

[EFerrari]

23. Amy reported this morning that in addition to these tests

the governor also wants them for people on public assistance.

It made me wonder if one of his relatives was in the drug testing business because that's how venal these people are.

[fishwax]

25. ugh -- that wouldn't surprise me at all

"It made me wonder if one of his relatives was in the drug testing business because that's how venal these people are."

:puke:

[EFerrari]

27. I may have to go find out somehow because my triggers tripped big time.

Agreed. :puke:

[Dappleganger]

26. Solantic is in the drug-testing business.

You know, that chain of walk-ins he owns but conveniently transferred his shares to his wife just before running for governor.

[EFerrari]

28. And boom, there it is.

Walk in what, Dappleganger? I've never heard of it.

[Dappleganger]

37. They are a chain of walk-in medical clinics.

[EFerrari]

39. Thanks. n/t

[freshwest]

34. Oh, great. Contracts for family members for something there was no urgency to do.

Another manufactured need for profit.

The Pigs at the Trough are all Republicans.

[EnviroBat]

29. Have worked for the State for 4 years now.

No pre-employment drug screen, and no talk of ever being drug screened. This was such a refreshing thing when I first started here. I actually asked if there was a drug screen and the woman who was finalizing my orientation paper work responded, "No, should we"? I just laughed. I work for a State University though, and never have to drive a vehicle or operate anything more dangerous than a desktop PC. My friend is an equipment operator for the University, and he can't so much as drink a beer for fear of being pulled over for a possible DUI. Instant termination.

[Bluebear]

31. When was the last time you petitioned the ACLU to represent you about this?

[freshwest]

33. Because they don't support them for anyone? And state workers are people, too?

Those are just guesses. They are a bit selective on what cases they'll take on. Perhaps they are doing this in this case since the attack on all state workers is in the national news.

[DefenseLawyer]

35. I'll support them as soon as every Congressman has to pee in a cup whenever I tell him to.

That seems reasonable.

[geardaddy]

36. +1000

[walldude]

41. Hell yeah.. Public Employees.

Happy to take the free health care, nice pension, and salary we're paying them, then they can happily piss in a cup.

[H2O Man]

38. Did anyone in your

state contact the ACLU to request assistance? They have to hear people's opposition, in order to take action.

[geardaddy]

46. Here's something to look at.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x566783

[CreekDog]

47. On principle I cannot take seriously any post by someone called "Courtesy Flush"

i mean really. :eyes: