In March, the 9th Circuit Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for employers to require pre-employment drug tests, maintaining that such policies were in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Because the trial involved an applicant for a position in an Oregon library, its ramifications extend to all public, non-safety oriented jobs in Oregon, as well as Nevada, Alaska, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana and Washington, all of which are under the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court.
A quick Google News search reveals that similar policies are being debated around the country. Most prominent are the proposed random drug tests in public schools, which would require students to submit a urine or blood sample. Most of these policies apply to student athletes.
Such policies raise an interesting question — how far should institutions, such as public places of employment or schools, be allowed to delve into the personal lives of people like students or potential employees?
The history of court rulings involving drug-testing policies reveals an interesting trend. According to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), courts generally ruled against these policies until the mid-1980s. The courts maintained that if drug tests were required without reasonable suspicion that an individual was using drugs, they were in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
However, NORML notes that toward the end of the 1980s and into the 1990s, a period characterized by domestic policy under the influence of the War on Drugs, courts began to uphold random drug-testing policies. In a 1995 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld a Washington school district's right to test athletes for drugs regardless of suspicion.
In an effort to combat drug use, courts began to rule in favor of random drug testing with or without reasonable suspicion that the individual was using drugs. This allowed for random drug tests of students and pre-employment drug tests that act as screening for potential employees.
The problem with such policies is that they blur the line between an individual's privacy and what they are forced to disclose to their school or employer.
Drug tests are inefficient in determining whether an employee or student is under the influence of drugs while at work or at school because some drugs metabolize quickly, while others remain in one's system for months. Therefore, the results of drug tests more accurately predict whether or not the individual in question has ever used drugs, instead of whether they were intoxicated while working or attending class.
It could be argued that a place of employment or a school has the responsibility to ensure that its employees or students refrain from drug use. But is that the place of these institutions? Is it justifiable for your boss or your principal to police your private life?
I would posit that the answer is no, because what one does in their private life might not apply to their performance in work or in school. If drug use were to cause problems on the job or hinder academic performance, such evidence would provide reasonable suspicion for a drug test.
Even if the employee or student did not use illegal substances, drug tests are quite invasive, and out of respect for employees and students, they should not be required without warrant.
Additionally, allowing such policies might set the precedent for policies that broach one's privacy in other aspects of his or her life. Thus, drug-testing policies apply to all of us, even if we are sure we would pass them, because it is important that we protect our right to privacy.
The 9th Circuit Court's recent ruling was one step towards the affirmation of individual privacy. Future trials will have remarkable impacts on our national definition of privacy.
News Hawk- Ganjarden 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: The Rebel Yell
Author: Marisa Christensen
Contact: The Rebel Yell
Copyright: 2008 The Rebel Yell
Website: Drug-Testing Policies Can Impede Our Right To Privacy
A quick Google News search reveals that similar policies are being debated around the country. Most prominent are the proposed random drug tests in public schools, which would require students to submit a urine or blood sample. Most of these policies apply to student athletes.
Such policies raise an interesting question — how far should institutions, such as public places of employment or schools, be allowed to delve into the personal lives of people like students or potential employees?
The history of court rulings involving drug-testing policies reveals an interesting trend. According to the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), courts generally ruled against these policies until the mid-1980s. The courts maintained that if drug tests were required without reasonable suspicion that an individual was using drugs, they were in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
However, NORML notes that toward the end of the 1980s and into the 1990s, a period characterized by domestic policy under the influence of the War on Drugs, courts began to uphold random drug-testing policies. In a 1995 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld a Washington school district's right to test athletes for drugs regardless of suspicion.
In an effort to combat drug use, courts began to rule in favor of random drug testing with or without reasonable suspicion that the individual was using drugs. This allowed for random drug tests of students and pre-employment drug tests that act as screening for potential employees.
The problem with such policies is that they blur the line between an individual's privacy and what they are forced to disclose to their school or employer.
Drug tests are inefficient in determining whether an employee or student is under the influence of drugs while at work or at school because some drugs metabolize quickly, while others remain in one's system for months. Therefore, the results of drug tests more accurately predict whether or not the individual in question has ever used drugs, instead of whether they were intoxicated while working or attending class.
It could be argued that a place of employment or a school has the responsibility to ensure that its employees or students refrain from drug use. But is that the place of these institutions? Is it justifiable for your boss or your principal to police your private life?
I would posit that the answer is no, because what one does in their private life might not apply to their performance in work or in school. If drug use were to cause problems on the job or hinder academic performance, such evidence would provide reasonable suspicion for a drug test.
Even if the employee or student did not use illegal substances, drug tests are quite invasive, and out of respect for employees and students, they should not be required without warrant.
Additionally, allowing such policies might set the precedent for policies that broach one's privacy in other aspects of his or her life. Thus, drug-testing policies apply to all of us, even if we are sure we would pass them, because it is important that we protect our right to privacy.
The 9th Circuit Court's recent ruling was one step towards the affirmation of individual privacy. Future trials will have remarkable impacts on our national definition of privacy.
News Hawk- Ganjarden 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: The Rebel Yell
Author: Marisa Christensen
Contact: The Rebel Yell
Copyright: 2008 The Rebel Yell
Website: Drug-Testing Policies Can Impede Our Right To Privacy
