Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: thoughtomator

So? Random drug tests required by government agencies and schools are clearly constitutional (besides being extremely useful), and courts have almost invariably upheld them. Such was the case here. If some ACLU type had managed to get a background check policy struck down, and Mister Kindly with the "loving touch" was a pedophile rather than a potential pothead, folks on this forum would be the first ones to squeal. If you won't do what your employer legally wants you to do, it's twenty-three skidoo, Gramps!


35 posted on 07/22/2005 2:05:32 PM PDT by Luddite Patent Counsel (Theyre digging through all of your files, stealing back your best ideas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: Luddite Patent Counsel

That's pretty much my point... you're not going to find out who's a child molestor or otherwise dangerous to children through a drug test. And there may be some very good personnel who will fail those tests that you wouldn't want to fire.


39 posted on 07/22/2005 2:07:55 PM PDT by thoughtomator (How many liberties shall we give up to maintain the pretense that we are not at war with Islam?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: Luddite Patent Counsel
Random drug tests required by government agencies and schools are clearly constitutional (besides being extremely useful), and courts have almost invariably upheld them.

You are wrong. Read the 4th Amendment. Drug tests are clearly unconstitutional.
42 posted on 07/22/2005 2:08:53 PM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson