[deleted]

You're on the right track but I'm not sure you're on the train. From the title:

I have to pee in a cup to work for $10hr

So, this is an action by a private company, not a government agency. As such the private company isn't constrained by the Constitution so if they want to create a drug testing requirement for employees they are allowed. The government is constrained by the Constitution, so drug testing could be seen as a Fourth Amendment violation as an unreasonable search. The testing for your job is an action by a private entity and is covered by the employment contract you entered so you consented to the search by entering the contract, the testing for welfare recipients and politicians would be an action by the government, an unreasonable search by the government, and so is prohibited. The Constitution was designed to limit the GOVERNMENT from infringing on your rights. This isn't a conspiracy, it's literally the Constitution doing EXACTLY what it was designed to do.

Many government employers do this as well

Are they the government or are they private companies with government contracts? There's a difference.

Both drug test, frequently. Private contractors for the government are required by the government to do random drug tests, annually. The government usually exceeds that. If you're in a position with access to cleared data, they usually test you randomly once a month.

Here's a website with a good analysis of the Constitutional issues of drug testing, and the particular section that most applies is:

MANDATORY TESTING UNDER FEDERAL LAW Under federal law, jobs that involve safety or security functions generally require mandatory drug testing of applicants or employees. The U.S. Department of Transportation adopted revised regulations in August 2001, and other agencies are free to adopt their own internal regulations. Likewise, many states expressly mandate drug testing for similar jobs, for example, jobs in the medical and health related fields, jobs requiring the use of machinery or vehicles, security positions, food handling jobs, or physically demanding jobs such as utilities cable line installation or climbing.

The drug testing for federal contracts was implemented through the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, which I didn't know before, so thanks for that.

The Constitutional test for whether a random drug testing program is warranted can be found in this analysis:

The Court adopted a balancing test to determine whether drug testing of government employees is constitutionally permissible, finding that the governmental interests in testing must be balanced against the employee’s liberty and privacy interests to determine whether a warrant, probable cause or individualized suspicion is required in the particular context. Unless there are “special needs beyond the normal need for law enforcement” which are sufficiently compelling to overcome the individual’s privacy interests, a warrant and probable cause are required. The Supreme Court found testing without a warrant permissible in three instances: (1) customs officers involved in front-line drug interdiction; (2) customs officers who carry firearms; and (3) train operators where a documented problem with drug/alcohol related accidents existed in the industry. The Court found that employees in these positions performed duties “fraught with such risks of injury to others that even a momentary lapse of attention can have disastrous consequences.”

The courts have already balanced the Fourth Amendment protections against public safety and found in favor of public safety, which is why drug testing for federal contracts is a requirement and why government agencies can require their employees to undergo random drug tests.

To bring this back to the point of the original post, realistically I have to retract my point that politicians aren't subject to random drug tests. By the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 they should be, as far as I can tell, so if they aren't being randomly drug tested that seems like a failure in the execution of the law.

It's like when my school decided to drug test all extracurricular activity participants. To meet their quota they just tested the band, choir, and theater kids and never tested the football or baseball team... Who were legendary for their coke parties.

It's easy to calibrate your selection to ignore certain groups.

I work for the DoD, and we are drug tested frequently.

Answered here.

Yes. This is exactly why people should realize that we need to do more in the area of workplace rights for the average worker in America. Why can't the government violate your 4th amendment rights.. But it's perfectly fine as long as a corporation does it to you? I get that it's a contract but you shouldn't have to contract away your fourth amendment rights just to get a job. In fact isn't it kind of coercion in a way? You're not literally forced to apply for a job that drug tests, but if literally every single job tests for it basically then isn't that effectively the same thing?

I just feel like we need more common sense in our laws. Just because something is Legal™ doesn't mean it's a good law or precedent. I feel like often just because something is Legal people think its logical (oh yes its a voluntary contract so obviously they can contract away your constitutional rights that's the law™) without considering how really kind of fucked up that is. (I'm not trying to imply that you believe if the law is wrong or right because you didn't say I'm kind of ranting about society lol)

I blame congress for not reigning this type of shit in 100%.

In fact isn't it kind of coercion in a way?

That's an argument that can be made, but in practice there are lots of companies that don't drug test employees (sorry if you're not finding them but they're out there), so it ends up being an unconvincing argument when weighed against the freedom/right to contract.

In this case you're not actually contracting away your constitutional right. The essence of your constitutional 4th amendment right is to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures BY THE GOVERNMENT. Unless you work for the government your employer is not the government.

I blame congress for not reigning this type of shit in 100%.

You can do that, sure, but when Congress acts they generally act either overbroadly or too narrowly focused so they either create a lot of collateral damage or create solutions that are mostly ineffective. Another solution that might work (did work in the past) is putting the workers in a stronger bargaining position than the one they are currently in. That happens when the workers band together and negotiate as a group instead of as individuals, but union is a dirty word in this country now because the corporations have been working against them since at least the 70s, for precisely this reason.

Yeah, but most businesses wouldn't even drug test if the government didn't give them incentives to do so. So imo the government is violating everyone's 4th amendment.

Maybe you should play basketball because that's quite a leap.

How so? They are just paying someone else to violate our rights because it's illegal for them to do.

In a legal analysis the government isn't violating the 4th amendment because the government isn't the one doing the drug testing action. I would need to review contracts to see if they require it or if the companies choose to do it on their own, and that's what the decision would turn on. It's a very narrow, compartmentalized view of the transaction, so going from the government not doing the drug testing to the government violating the 4th amendment is the leap.

From a common sense analysis you take a very jaded view of the government. They aren't paying someone else to violate your rights because it's illegal for them to do it. Violating people's rights isn't the end goal of privatizing contracts. When it happens it's corollary to the main goal of doing things cheaper. The whole idea behind the government paying companies to do work for them (build planes or manage resources or whatever is being contracted out) is that private companies can do the work cheaper and more efficiently than the bureaucracy.

They may not personally be doing the test, but giving business incentive to have "drug free workplace" seems like they are telling businesses to drug test employees because they can't do it themselves, so they are definitely involved. I get they want to do things cheaper, but how is it cheaper to drug test all prospective employees. It's seems like bullshit way to fight the war on drugs imo.

I did some more research on the issue and the drug testing is required by the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 for federal contracts for jobs that involve safety or security functions, so it is an extension of government action, but the courts have weighed the privacy interests of the individual against the public safety risks and found public safety to outweigh individual liberty in this instance. In short, it's not a violation because the drug test is a reasonable search, and the Fourth Amendment only protects against unreasonable searches.

There is nothing at all reasonable about drug testing. It is essentially a war on cannabis, which is part of a war on waking up to what is being done to you.

Notice how it is perfectly OK to be a lecherous alcoholic at all these companies. In fact it is often encouraged.

Which drug dulls your mind and which one potentially expands it?

I notice caffeine and sugar being consumed copiously at nearly every job in America. Over half the people are popping pharmaceutical pills like they are nothing. This is hypocritical insanity.

This is going to become a huge issue in states where cannabis is legal as individuals are being persecuted for following the law.

The question is where do you draw the line. To me alcoholism, obesity from poor diets, and serotonin related pharmaceutical drugs have significantly greater negative impact on the workforce than cannabis.

Do not fool yourself into thinking that drug testing is anything but attempting to discover cannabis use and rooting out anyone medicating with that instead of far worse substances.

Most of the really bad illegal drugs are out of your system far sooner. The whole drug testing thing is complete bullshit.

Hey man, I'm totally with you on that whole thing. My point was just to bring light to how the searches are justified under the current law since no one in the thread was mentioning the separation between government and private action.

But now we are back to OPs point. If you consider it a reasonable search for security, shouldn't lawmakers have to do it first?

I am not an advocate of drug testing, but if the govt says it is reasonable, they should be the ones doing it.

Yes. The research I did led me back around to that view.

In short, it's not a violation because the drug test is a reasonable search, and the Fourth Amendment only protects against unreasonable searches.

Yeah, and it's bullshit. Searching my pee is about as unreasonable as it gets imo. It really just seems like another way to get around our rights, and imo its designed to get around our rights, not to protect the public.

Yet, to get a federal Job you are in fact, drug tested.

Lol you've never worked for the government.

Yeap. All men are created equal is a myth. This land is your land. This land is my land, but mostly is my land.

All animals are equal, but some more equal than others

[deleted]

[deleted]

Coke stays in your system for approx 48hrs, whereas weed stays for up to a month. The issue is not that we should be testing more people, but rather less people.

I don't want to live in a place where everyone needs to be inspected at random.

Sometimes though, in order to get people to see why something is a problem, they have to be subject to it as well. Not unlike the waterboarding arguments, it doesn't hit home unless they have experienced it.

Sometimes though, in order to get people to see why something is a problem, they have to be subject to it as well.

Yeah, that logic never works out the way you hope. Turns out that when you put a bureaucracy in place it is generally harder to remove it, so you create this extension of the DEA or some independent group to drug test everyone in government. Great. Now you've made your point and a candidate wants to get rid of that, but doing so means you have to fire all the people who do the testing, and he's a "jobs"candidate... Oops.

This is why it's federally very tricky to legalize recreational drugs. Even marijuana legalization would require downsizing the DEA, and that makes you weak on jobs! Especially in Congress, they're very sensitive to that, politically.

It would open up the door to new formally illicit drug-stores. Make the drugs 100% legal, tax em, someone has to manufacture the drugs so there's more jobs there. Basically it would downsize the DEA but create other jobs.

Maybe make some of the drugs only legal in certain clinics that have supervision (kinda like Switzerland does with heroin) for the more dangerous/high-addiction-potential drugs.

They could do some rad psychedelic getaways with that people could vacation to (like people do with ayahuasca retreats in Peru).

All wishful thinking, but maybe I'll see it happen during my lifetime.

It would open up the door to new formally illicit drug-stores. Make the drugs 100% legal, tax em, someone has to manufacture the drugs so there's more jobs there. Basically it would downsize the DEA but create other jobs.

I'm well aware of the theory, but in the short term, you guarantee a reduction in jobs and almost certainly create more. That's leverage an opponent can and often does use against you to great effect.

Tax'em to buy more $110,000 drone missiles for Barry? Fuck that!

Yep. I guarantee that if Senators were getting "randomly" stopped by police on a monthly basis to search their cars and check for warrants, and then being beaten, tased, or shot as soon as they show the slightest hint of non-cooperation, we'd have police reforms already. And there would be a bunch of cops in jail.

I99989899???/96??99909000op

Oookklkkkklkipopkkkokkikjkwiiiiiioyookjikkjkkujujijtuktuikiit

This is my thought. You should only have to piss in a cup if it's impacting your job and someone thinks you may be under the influence. I haven't been able to smoke weed for about 4 years because my company does randoms, and in a company of only about 40 employees there's a pretty high chance of getting tested when you know that executives, management, and I suspect certain "favored" departments are pretty much exempt from the testing. I've been tested about 5 times, that's more than once a year.

I have never smoked weed and went to work, I have never drank and went to work, I have never done any drug and went to work. Why the fuck is what I do in my free time any of the company's business?

It is not, they are strictly rooting out cannabis users. You could drink 4000 beers a night and shoot heroin 3 days before the test and be fine, but take 3 puffs off a joint three weeks before and you will be fired. It is complete orchestrated purposeful hypocrisy.

That's the thing - when we get hit with a random we have to take it within 5 days. We have 5 days to detox off of literally anything but marijuana (and possibly long-term heroin addiction). Literally the one thing I want to do is the one thing I can't. Fuckin retarded.

It is because they are not testing for drugs, they are testing specifically for cannabis.

Come to Canada. I make 24$/h and never have to piss in a cup lol

It's really fucking stupid, too. If I ran a business, I would 100% prefer my workers go home and smoke weed after a hard day than go home and drink a six pack. Then they'd be clear headed after a good night's sleep in the morning, instead of mildly hungover with beer shits.

Then start rejecting it now.

If it is truly random and truly for everyone I don't have such a big problem with that.

Don't you find it to be an invasion of privacy and freedom for them to take your bodily fluids and test you for things that you do on your time? If someone sucks at their job, fire them. If they self medicate every night and are sober at work and a great employee, why fire them?

If it is the employer which takes the samples I agree with you. If it's law enforcement doing it to the general population to enforce the law then it is not an invasion of freedom because legally you're not free to do anything, even on your free time.

If the law is unjust there should be pressure to modify or repeal it rather than to circumvent it.

Yeah, no one has done anything to try and change cannabis laws?!

And in fact cannabis has become/is becoming legal.

It is Federally a Schedule 1 drug, the worst case scenario thanks originally to Anslinger, Dupont, et al.

It is not legal in any way or shape Federally, and they presume this view of law trumps state rights, doctor patient rights, individual body rights and God's law.

Yes, it has become legal in some states and others medically, but the Feds (especially when Slick Willie Clinton held office) are STILL on the warpath. Holder and Obama raided legal dispensaries in WA.

If the law is unjust there should be pressure to modify or repeal it rather than to circumvent it.

I wish more people got this. Theres so many bullshit laws that people just say 'well nobody actually goes after that'..THEN GET RID OF THEM. They still send a horrible message. People also like to pretend that they're just relics of the past, like texas's sodomy laws before the supreme court struck them down. Like..everyone ignored it because theres no way anyone would go to jail for it, until someone did and you had George W Bush fighting to keep it all the way to the top. Those laws are still on the books of course, and tbh if it came up to a vote I wouldn't be suprised if we still voted to keep them even without being able to enforce them, because Texas is just that certain breed of special.

If it's law enforcement doing it to the general population to enforce the law then it is not an invasion of freedom because legally you're not free to do anything, even on your free time.

I'm only ok with this if they have reasonable evidence to do such a test. I don't think the population should be subjected to random screenings without any evidence to warrant it just because it's illegal. That is of course why we have the 4th amendment.

Coke stays longer, weeks - you just need a real testing lab.

incorrect

5 days max, and that's only if you've used every day for a few weeks.

The reason why weed stays long is because THC is fat-soluble, meaning it is absorbed into the fatty tissues of your body,which take a substantially long time to dispose of.

Cocaine Hydrochloride is water-soluble, so it goes through your system and leaves through your urine, which only takes a few days.

Or.... we could just stop drug testing everyone?

Kennedy was like a pharmacy.

Kennedy famously smoked joints in the white house with one of his mistresses. After getting sufficiently stoned, he declined more, saying "suppose the Russians attacked us right now"

Kennedy was also the cool head that helped get us through the Cuban missile crisis.

Kennedy's Corpse 2016

We cannot have a DomesDay GAP

I've been an employer who required tests and an employee who was required to pee in a cup. I do not believe proactive testing is proper or right. I completely agree with you on that side.

On the other hand, drug testing has a place in the workforce specifically when the drugs an employee uses negatively affects their capability to perform the work requirements of the job. For example:

• When I was a construction trade operations manager, I was required to order a drug test after every workplace accident. This was to protect the company from worker's compensation claims. I actually hated this, because the whole insurance industry is a scam.
• Drivers should not be driving drunk or under other impairing drugs.
• Athletes should not gain unfair advantage due to doping drugs. This reduces athletics from a competition of skill and training to a competition of who can procure the most effective enhancement substances.

So in general, I think post-incident drug testing may be acceptable. Proactive drug testing is unacceptable.

Anecdotal story: I hired a tradesman who was obviously on something during the interview. He was acting somewhat erratically and was scratching his arms. He was highly qualified and the interview otherwise went extremely well. I directly asked him, "I can't help but notice your physical behavior right now. What drug are you on?" He said, "I'm on methodone step-down treatment from heroin addiction." I hired him on the spot and he was absolutely the best employee I ever had.

I agree with most of what you said. Unfortunately however, drug testing after an incident is largely inconclusive, because the test could prove positive even if the subject wasn't under the influence at the time of incident.

Sure, no one should smoke at work, but if they do at home and don't let it affect their job, they could still test positive

That's the whole "insurance is a scam" part

Yeah that's a good point. Insurance in general is a scam too tho.... the amount I pay on car insurance is absolutely astounding, all because me and my demographic is literally profiled.

but that's another discussion entirely :)

You're a good man, rewarding honesty from a former user. It's sometimes hard to be honest about that sort of thing as a recovering addict, especially at work. More people should think like you.

I don't support drug testing the president for the same reason I don't support drug testing you and I.

We should just make like the Philippines and shoot all the fucking narcomaniacs.

You mean the people that failed to cope with today's fucked up world??

No, I mean people who posses, use or trade illegal addictive or hallucinogenic substances. I don't give a shit why they do it, they need a fucking Mozambique drill every last one of them.

You really NEED to do some mushrooms.. lock your guns away first, tho.

I don't dabble in degeneracy and hedonism, but thanks for the offer.

What do you dabble in?

Internet far-right shitposting, implicit nativism and inciting contempt for people who don't share it.

Right on. Everyone needs a vice. :)

Wow what a bad boy, we're all really impressed.

Degeneracy and hedonism.. you know nothing.

It's ok, reading is hard.

Okay, I'm interested. What exactly did you mean, then?

you sound like someone who does meth

You sound like a fucking coward

I'm sorry you feel that way.

Most hallucinogens cant be addictive.

Hence the disjunctive qualifier - illegal addictive or hallucinogenic substances. If you do any of that shit, just fucking die.

Soooooo... Why exactly is it wrong to fly over the rainbow on a cloud inside your living room?

It's hedonistic, degenerate and illegal. I'm not one to equate legality with morality, though - in this case, I think the penalties prescribed by the law are far too lenient. Summary execution is the only appropriate punishment for narcomania of any form, and those who enable it as well.

yada yada hey guys look I'm retarded yada yada

So, do you have a real argument why narcomaniacs should be allowed to live in our society, or are you just here to signal your moral outrage at the assertion that they shouldn't?

Read up on neuropsychology. Any pleasurable action in life releases the same chemicals. Psychedelics can be an incredible journey, and it's REAL. LSD changes the way you experience things. It doesn't make you delusional, it creates a whole other world. The combination of this and the fact it isn't addicting make that I think it shouldn't be illegal at all. I'd rather have tobacco be illegalised than Psychedelics. More harmful and dangerous. Should you be put to death for eating fast food? Because well, it works in the same way. Fuck me I don't even care that I took the bait. If you're being real, you're a truly autistic wankstain.

So you're saying your preferred manner of degeneracy and hedonism is really pleasurable? And this is somehow meant to convince me of its virtue? That's not how any of this works, you fucking degenerate.

I'd rather have tobacco be illegalised than Psychedelics. More harmful and dangerous.

How so? Tobacco smokers destroy their health and, potentially, the health of people they exhale into. Narcomaniacs destroy societies.

Should you be put to death for eating fast food?

Eat it often enough and you'll die eventually. Taking obscene pleasure in food is definitely degenerate, but it doesn't even begin to compare with narcomania.

Yeah I haven't ever had psychedelics. I just know a lot about them. You obviously don't. Go back to /b/, wankstain.

Yeah I haven't ever had psychedelics. I just know a lot about them.

Then why the fuck do you defend this degeneracy? I don't understand this drive to tolerate human wastes we have absolutely no fucking need for. Sodomy, narcomania, demographic displacement, and the list goes on. Do you ever stop to look at what you're doing beyond satisfying your urge to feel morally righteous and validated by accepting the unacceptable?

I bet you play lots of video games. Also a huge form of degeneracy. Or as I like to call it, a hobby. And come on captain pol, what's wrong with butt stuff?

I bet you play lots of video games. Also a huge form of degeneracy.

Definitely, if you let it turn into a lifestyle or a "hobby", as opposed to taking it for what it is, a useless distraction. I have seriously yet to encounter an occasion when I could seriously claim playing was a better use of my time than doing something else.

And come on captain pol, what's wrong with butt stuff?

Sometimes balls touch. Sometimes you forget to say "no homo". Combine the two, and a normal male sexual encounter suddenly becomes gay. Do you want to take that risk?

I never take risks. I wear a jockstrap 100% of the time. Makes for fun conversation in swimming pools as well. Also take your first explanation and it's an explanation for psychedelics not being degenerate.

Also take your first explanation and it's an explanation for psychedelics not being degenerate.

Except I'm not claiming videogames aren't degenerate, in fact, I'm claiming the opposite.

Which would make you a degenerate for playing video games, right?

Definitely, if you let it turn into a lifestyle or a "hobby", as opposed to taking it for what it is, a useless distraction.

Couldn't the same apply to drugs?

Troll, Troll, Troll, your boat Gently down the stream!

I hope that was sarcasm

Would you believe their results to be legit? Why bother

Exactly. Who watches the watchmen?

Everything is legal as long as you don't get caught

I'd go a step further and give them a comprehensive battery of test for psychopathy, including a brain scan of loyalty questions while under the MRI; if they legitimately took an oath of the jesuits or freemasonry for example, they'd fail as their loyalties are primary to those groups and secondary to america.

my understanding is that MRIs can tell if you are lyinig and it's infallible because certain areas of the brain light up to 'fabricate' an answer; also psychopathy becomes immediately apparent to a neurologist who knows which parts of the brain are more active and less active in spychopaths

Don't know why you were downvoted, but a nation that isn't concerned about the mental health of its leaders shouldn't be surprised when they go full retard post-elections every damn time.

Trust cuts both ways and I say the same thing to folks hyped up on the anti-gun laws bandwagon. If you want to take away guns from the hands of the people, then take away guns from the hands of cops too. They can shove their Nanny State bullshit up their ass. Everyone needs to be held to the same standards

Upvote for both.

It has nothing to do with any real rule or law. It's insurance companies in business having an excuse to not pay anything if you piss dirty.

Say you smoked pot a week and a half ago and then you fell off a ladder at work. Obviously you are not still high, but it doesn't matter because it's still "in your system". Boom. You are fired and nothing is paid. It's all about money.

I hate these kind of arguments because we shouldn't be pushing for more people to get drug tested, we should be pushing to eliminate them entirely.

You deliberately accepted a position with that condition, no? You could have passed it by, but you didn't care about your 4th amendment right, and now you don't care about anyone else's either.

False choices, that's what they're called.

seriously, the laws do not apply to them. Just you.

[deleted]

What do you mean "participate in Obamacare"?

[deleted]

But that's because their healthcare is guaranteed. They have the best healthcare in the world.

Second best, they're not royalty*.

royalty only wins as they're born to it, politicans at least have to get voted in first.

[deleted]

The law is that you have to have health insurance, not specifically Obamacare. I dont have Obamacare, I have health insurance through work.

[deleted]

All of the government employees I know (spoiler: I dont know a mayor or anything) pay healthcare dues just like the rest of us.

[deleted]

You're making sweeping generalizations. My healthcare didnt change at all, not a single cent... I didnt have to shop for anything, I didnt get dropped. I guess we know different working people.

Also, whats with the quotation marks around working?

I have healthcare through my work, so I didn't have to go on the marketplace. The prices went up but the company ate the cost so we didn't have to.

I don't think including them would really make any difference, but realistically, they don't need insurance. They are rich enough to have private doctors that they pay directly.

Most jobs in America have guaranteed health insurance

[deleted]

Because goverment employees have healthcare... through them selves... just like tons of other buisnesses

There are two Americas. There is one for the elite and their sycophants, and one for the rest of the 99.9%

An observation: Lower wage/low skill jobs where the likelihood of stereotypical drug users applying seem to drug test more often. Also jobs that have a lot of safety regulations, obviously... From the jobs I've had, only the shittier/lower skill level jobs required me to take a drug test.

My perspective is that the big wage earners/politicians/sales guy type jobs seem to be able to use drugs as long as they don't get caught and can function at work.

Shittier jobs means less money. Less money equals less motivation. Less motivation and not going anywhere in that job probably more than likely equals to drug use of whatever kind. It is called soft kill and it has been happening in this country for a long time now.

Lower wage/low skill jobs where the likelihood of stereotypical drug users applying seem to drug test more often

Are you aware that studies have found that lower income people are less likely to use drugs than higher income people? In particular, people on welfare are massively less likely to use drugs than the general public.

http://www.drugfree.org/news-service/florida-welfare-applicants-less-likely-than-general-population-to-use-drugs/

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/02/26/3624447/tanf-drug-testing-states/

The national drug use rate is 9.4 percent. In these states, however, the rate of positive drug tests to total welfare applicants ranges from 0.002 percent to 8.3 percent, but all except one have a rate below 1 percent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/welfare-recipients-are-less-likely-to-be-drug-users-than-average-american-results-show-a6687581.html

I always thought drug tests were the way to get out of workmans comp for companies....for the most part everyone cheats em and its the normal. Then when people get hurt they don't say anything because they could drop dirty and get fired. At the same time the company can fire them for dropping dirty and they don't need to pay workmans comp

And use the same shitty testing kits that we have to use.

Same reason we don't test cops, laws are for us peasants.

Yeap

Or maybe just stop drug testing people who have shown zero cause to suspect drug use.

This, but add in cops.

You need to challenge that piss test under your constitutional rights. I think if you dig into the legality of it, there are employers who are using it to discriminate, but not only that, where does it say your employer can have access to your bodily fluids for a min wage job that doesn't involve driving or policing or saving lives?

It is whack from the onset and puts too much power into the hands of people who only hire others. Fuck the authoritarian nonsense. Y'all folks need to kibosh that bullshit with some disobedience.

I don't think any employer would know what to do if people simply refused. What are they gonna do? Hire someone else? No. That costs more than the piss tests which already cost too much.

Are you a wizard?

Yes, I'm a Freemason. No I don't conform to any ideas of what that is. I go to lodge, I share with my brethren, I help in my community and I speak my mind. Freemasons are just normal guys from all walks of life who believe in making themselves better individuals through practice f masonic principles. Be level, be square, be upright, practice charity, etc. Many are hot heads politically and religiously speaking, but we don't allow ourselves discussion of these things in our own circles and definitely not while in lodge because politics and religion breed disharmony among people.

I enjoy it. I've met good guys from all over the world through it.

lol, says the guy who literally knows nothing about the craft. Rage on in your ignorance. It means nothing to me. You and people like you who engage in such nonsense have no effect as you huddle together and get angry at things you are completely ignorant of.

You're obviously the ignorant one here and you've obviously never attended a Lodge or anything alike. Your ignorant comments just goes to prove that you don't and will never understand being in a community with like-minded people without "serving a corrupt cult"

WTF just happened? I thought this thread was about drug testing...

Edit: nvm. Just realized I was in /r/conspiracy

I'm guessing you are a member of the ignorant crew that doesn't have a clue about what freemasonry is or does and spends all your time listening to others who are equally in the dark and make shit up for some drama in their lives?

If so, carry on, you are not making a difference in anyone elses life.

run along kid.

Or just end the fed..

We can't even hold them accountable for treason and perjury. How could we hold them accountable for urine samples? If they FBI can't press them, what's lab tech or commissioner going to be able to do? Hell, our very own attorney fucking general is balls deep into this shit.

I don't see it working to any result. What's a drug test on top of everything else the Clintons (and others) do/have done?

The problem isn't the rules. The problem is the rules don't apply to some.

The problem is the people that dictate the rules are the least likely to follow them

There allowed to insider trade too. How the fuck is that not illegal.

Source?

https://theintercept.com/2015/05/07/congress-argues-cant-investigated-insider-trading/

my motivation to do good in school to have a better chance to get a better job. my reason for competing in the work place to achieve more and greater. my drive all comes from the fact that the closer to the top is the furthermost from drug tests

Won't happen because a lot of them really like cocaine

We pushed for the same thing here in Florida when Rick Scott pushed for drug testing welfare recipients, not because he really cared about if anyone was on drugs but because he had an opportunity to pander to his base, since you know fuck poor people and all of that, and because he is one of the owners of a large testing company here in FL.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/gov-rick-scott-solantic-and-conflict-of-interest-whats-the-deal/1161158

http://www.orlandoweekly.com/Blogs/archives/2015/06/19/florida-taxpayers-on-the-hook-for-15-million-for-gov-rick-scotts-fight-to-drug-test-welfare-applicants

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article25114639.html

Luckily Scott nixed it and nixed his endeavors to further alienate the lower class.

Have you seen Hillary's and Bill's malfunction in public? Either they are under a heavy set of pills or they are robots controlled by the CIA. I lean towards the more plausible one but, you never know

The Police (At least in some areas) have a problem with it so i doubt it would float with politicians....
http://www.wpxi.com/news/investigates/pittsburgh-police-union-files-civil-rights-grievan/19147227

Lets just all do drugs.

It should've more compared with people on welfare being proposed to be drug tested, so government employees (also paid by government/tax money) should ALSO be drug tested.

I'd love to know what Hillary is on... She's been 'dancing' wildly lately....

I don't want to pay for this.

I think people running for President should all have complete mental and physical exams by independent doctors and given the option to either have them disclosed in full or drop out of the race.

I'd be OK expanding that to Congress as well.

Once again, what would this achieve? The problem is corruption and human limitations. You guys all have these weak ideas that can't identify the true problem(s). It's not like our government, currently, is engineered with the health of state and citizens in mind. I think that's the basic idea people need to come to grips with. It is not beneficial. So, as not being beneficial it is not going to rigorously screen the related aptitudes and alliances.

A doctor, independent or otherwise, is just as controllable as an agency with an agenda. Prone to bribery, threats or whatever other methods to be employed. And even if they weren't, the consequences for their findings would still have to be enforced by some other entity/agency.

It all stems from a culture of corruption. The burden of cleaning up this culture falls on the people, and the people are sleeping and ignorant, docile. We're subjects who see ourselves as subjects, perpetual children who see government as parents. So even when government is wrong, we get sent to our rooms if we point it out.

Our FBI is compromised. Who do we appeal to now?

All government employees need to be drug tested on a regular basis, especially politicians.

The problem here is that you shouldn't have to take a drug test either.

I think employers have a right to know if they're about to hire some dopey fucking disgrace and dodge that bullet.

If you can't tell the difference between a drug addict that will negatively affect your business and a sober person, in an interview, than it doesn't really matter.

... just no.

The Ruling elite don't pee in cups. They pee on all of us.

That and if you have dual citizsnship should be banned from Congress

Better yet, test them for taking money from corporations or wealthly bribers. This pissing contest of fucking with drug users does not need to be continued, not even as a joke or payback. The people don't want it. Instead of getting all caught up in "fairness" on one of a thousand injustices, just stop the money buying our politicians. As long as they are bought, you are going to be fucked one way or another.

This came up in Florida? and they stated it had been unconstitutional to do so (take urine samples). I think it was a year ago. On another note that might be a good excuse because it is Federal/State job and not an employer like a corporation.

It was in 2012, here's a link to the story. Interesting read.

I love this concept. The president actually being a public employee of the ppl.

I agree, but I think it needs to be during the entire time of service. I also think cops and public school teachers both need to be tested as well, regularly. Huge numbers of cops in particular are high as fuck on speed and steroids.

Candidates maybe, but once you're president go nuts. That job is crazy, I welcome the idea of Obama lighting up at the end of a hard day. Probably the only thing that keeps him sane.

I welcome the idea of Obama lighting up at the end of a hard day.

Then we all should get to.

Totally. There should be a national holiday where everyone just smokes a joint and tries to figure out how to make the world a better place. I vote we replace Christopher Columbus day with that.

Or require them to take some psychedelics before taking office.

But I want Gary Johnson to be president.

I have a much better chance of passing a pee test than he does.

A coward who is over apologetic?

I

Which presidential elects you think do drugs though?

D

Because they make the rules but don't have to live by them.

Not every job drug tests. If the Wal-Mart I work at did no one currently working there would work there. The job I'm hoping to get next week has a CEO who I'm told smokes a lot so he doesn't drug test his employees.

One of the two candidates allowed her communications (as top diplomat) to be compromised because she didn't want to be bothered. The other guy is a slum lord who's insulted pretty much every group in the US except for the white trash. You think any of them would get in trouble over some drug use?

Because you're a fucking peasant

I would also fully approve of psychological testing for all elected or running politicians.

Its a joke. All these politicians want to drug test people receiving welfare. Fair enough. Why weren't the banksters drug tested for all the welfare they got?

They rolled their joint too big to fail.

nothing will be done by anyone.

It will be done by everyone

not at the rate you are going. you'll be 'waking up' people all the way to a FEMA mass grave.

At least i died for the truth. I trust my people. We are like cockroaches a total radication wont happen....ill best you up in a fight

you really think the clintons couldn't find someone to pee in a cup for them?

It’s a Big Club, and You Ain’t in It: George Carlin 

the secret is, learn to get away with it.

buy fake pee you p#ssy

Let's add a non compete clause while we're at it! Close that revolving door between big biz & government.

Drug test cops. The same test that is given to professional football players. Mandatory.

Oh wait. Cops have a union. Never mind.

I agree with that but I also think that they should have a health/mental exam once a year to see if they are still healthy enough to hold that position.

It's the golden rule: He who has the gold makes the rules. There's also a quip about "golden showers" in there somewhere.

Can they even test for megalomania or sycophants?

You should rewrite your legislation like Portugal, even Michael Moore found out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=advFVy5Ev6I

The economic value accumulators think that by drug testing their wage slaves, they can increase their profits by a single digit percentage point. So, your freedom to use substances to offset the misery of your mind numbing overtime job has been curtailed. They need the money for more rooms on their houses, more cars, bigger boats, etc. Just suck it up and take it while they burn through the worlds resources. It's the way of things. We are to be driven off of the land into soul sucking professions to destroy the land. It's a bright future.

I've never been drug tested for a job, but I don't do drugs n work in a industry full of drug uses

Drug testing for a job is just an internal company practice. When you worked at the mall, the corporate companies do not want to be liable should a major fuck up happen. I.E. a display falls on a customer and kills them because some dope head set up the display.

Ho about we don't drug test anyone?

Because your employer thinks an employee who uses drugs is less likely to be a good employee, and that's bullshit so we shouldn't enforce that on other people?

Why don't you acquire the skills to get a better job? People with valuable skills don't get drug tested.

e

False. Engineers get tested.

Bullshit they do. What are you even talking about? I'm friends with hundreds of engineers, and none of them get tested.

It's true, I got drug tested to be an electrical/software engineer. It was a job at a government contractor that required a DoD security clearance though.

Same here, ive known of three that have had to, ones a civ eng, two are in mining.

Are you even from America.

Don't know why you were downvoted, but a nation that isn't concerned about the mental health of its leaders shouldn't be surprised when they go full retard post-elections every damn time.

Trust cuts both ways and I say the same thing to folks hyped up on the anti-gun laws bandwagon. If you want to take away guns from the hands of the people, then take away guns from the hands of cops too. They can shove their Nanny State bullshit up their ass. Everyone needs to be held to the same standards

Second best, they're not royalty*.

royalty only wins as they're born to it, politicans at least have to get voted in first.

You're obviously the ignorant one here and you've obviously never attended a Lodge or anything alike. Your ignorant comments just goes to prove that you don't and will never understand being in a community with like-minded people without "serving a corrupt cult"

Okay, I'm interested. What exactly did you mean, then?