For the powers that be will use this argument to require large numbers of workers, especially manual workers, to submit to drug tests. Any test we could construct must ignore continuaing debates about important political questions. The Supreme Court specifically noted this concern in upholding the mandatory testing of Customs Service employees. To do so would be to intrude inappropriately into their lives. Random drug testing welfare recipient have yet to become a law because the government been going back and forth over this issue and has not came to a conclusion to if it is constitutional or not. If it proves they're clean, they would be reimbursed.
Local, state and federal laws allow private employers to implement workplace policies regarding drug testing. In Colorado, welfare recipients would need to pay for the drug test. This discussion helps us focus on an ambiguity I have heretofore glossed over. Such evil is indeed evil. Why are they doing drugs and they need to get help. If it does interfere, then the fault is on them for letting their drug use get in the way, but many can responsibly use recreational drugs without any issues. .
And people need to be able to defend a positive test, which could potentially be accounted for by other factors, such as a pot-smoking roommate, a spiked drink, a poppy-seed bagel, or a prescription or over-the-counter medication. First, executives' and politicians' work is scrutinized by others, and thus, any harm they could cause is preventible by the actions of others. In particular, the Constitution's protection of privacy, recognized in the Court's landmark ruling in Griswold v. It is not evident, however, that the Fourth Amendment is directly relevant to this issue. And then Welfare drug testing was proposed.
In conclusion, drug testing in the workplace should ideally be used to enhance the health and safety of employees and those receiving services. If the recipient passes the drug test they receive half the cost of the test back on their first monthly payment. This would also increase school budgets and revenue. Both sides fight tooth-and-nail for their side, and the end result is a vicious battle for legal authority. Perhaps there are more effective or less intrusive ways of achieving these same results.
There is no denying that workplace drug testing offers an objective and generally accurate way to establish the truth of someone's drug use. Public Relations Some organizations administer drug testing to show their integrity to the public. I do not endorse extensive testing programs. State officials say that Medicaid would cover the costs of those drug treatment programs. Obviously this criterion will be satisfied only if the more reliable forms are used. Limits on Testing But limited testing it must be.
As a former natural bodybuilder I resonate with this article profoundly. Were this to happen, some of us might come to oppose all drug testing even when the five criteria are satisfied. For, as I have argued, employers cannot intrude into the private lives of employees unless the matter is directly relevant to job performance. It would seem so, at least as defined by the Fourth Amendment. Consider, for a moment, auto makers, bridge builders, construction workers, etc. Breath testing involves having an individual blow into a device that can measure the amount of alcohol in the blood.
Employers generally test for drugs under certain circumstances. Truly, it is up to the citizens, at large, to determine what they feel are the most important pros and cons of drug testing welfare recipients. But that makes these programs, along with their potential benefits, entirely dependent on the conscientiousness of employers. However, philosophers are not especially equipped to determine when the criteria are satisfied, although they may be adept at specifying what would count as evidence. The employee benefits from the freedom from drug addiction as well as financially, emotionally, and spiritually. With all the media attention and so many different type of drugs in our school system one may ask how do the schools function daily with these activity happening in our schools. Government Executive Order 12564, signed by President Ronald Reagan, established requirements for drug-free federal workplaces.
On the other hand, if drug use or any other trait or behavior, for that matter were demonstrably relevant to the performance of an employee's assigned duties, an employer may reasonably inquire about such use. Opponents of mandatory drug testing argue that the savings obtained by drug testing are far outweighed by the cost of testing itself. Thirty-two people out of the 55 ultimately lost their benefits. Similar patterns were observed for other measures of student-reported substance use, but those differences were not statistically significant. Ex hypothesi, this behavior no longer concerns just themselves; on good Millean grounds we should support limited testing. A deterrent effect may be in place, however: Between March 2013 and November 2014, 711 applicants refused to take drug tests and were therefore denied benefits.