Clinical Drug Testing

New Jersey statute N.J.A.C. 6A:16-4.4 raises a host of legal and financial issues for school district administrators. According to the law, when it comes to random testing of student alcohol and other drug use, districts that decide to do random drug tests must follow certain protocols to ensure students’ 4th Amendment rights are not violated.

Some people may say that mandatory drug testing is a violation of the athletes’ Fourth Amendment right. According to some people, these tests are unnecessary and therefore violate these rights. The author of “Mandatory Drug Testing Violates Rights” believes that drug testing is a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution; “Courts have ruled that drug tests are a search. A search is a privacy issue, and there has to be a reason for the search.” This is true. Drug tests are a search, and in some cases they may violate the rights of some citizens. Professional athletes, on the other hand, do not get their rights violated by this. This does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the athletes have already agreed to the rules of participating in the sport. Deborah Lee and Ann Griswold, authors of “Point: Athletes Should be Tested for Drugs” explains that “in none of these cases have athletes’ Constitutional rights been abrogated because the participation in athletic events is always voluntary and never mandatory. The ‘mandate’ only comes into play after the athlete has agreed to participate, thereby voluntarily agreeing to obey the rules of the sport.” This explains how the athletes have agreed to the rules of the activity, which in most cases prohibit the use of many performance enhancing substances, so since they have agreed to these conditions, the mandatory drug testing of athletes is not a violation of their rights. An athlete’s rights are not being violated by

Our country is one where every day, new medical treatments and medicines are being discovered and being approved to help Americans battle all of the different diseases and conditions that affect us. In order for us to be able to get access to those medications and treatments, many people agree to become part of clinical trials, they are the first to receive the treatments, this helps to understand how the body will be affected and if the medication will be effective. People who are part of these clinical trials, go through extensive medical testing, and they must be of sound mind and

is ridiculous to deny the seriously ill the safest, most effective treatment to ease their

As a State Court Judge, to determine the motion to suppress the drug evidence requires an analysis of the facts and the legal provision related to the issue in which the drugs were obtain. Since the police officer stopped the criminal defendant for speeding, the officer was stopping the criminal defendant to issue him/her a valid ticket for committing a valid crime, therefore the officer was in a legal place. Meanwhile, the officer conducted a background check verifying the identity of the criminal defendant, and discovered that he had an outstanding misdemeanor warrant for his arrest. The officer then preceded to arrest the criminal defendant when a marijuana joint fell from his pocket, this gave the office legal right to search the vehicle. Therefore, being the state judge, I would not suppress the motion to

Eric, I found your point about standardizing drug screening for pregnant mothers interesting. In my opinion testing for drugs could be a beneficial preventative strategy. Testing for alcohol use early on can prevent damage to the fetus. Also, testing will allow mothers the opportunity to receive help. The only negative outcomes of standardizing drug screenings are the cost and doctor- patient relationship. Drug screening expecting mothers can be expensive, but the cost to care for a infit addicted to drugs is more. Drug screenings can also effect doctor- patient relationships. If drug screening were standardizing the relationship would change to doctor- patient- police relationship.

Although many people are against amendment 106 ,which allows doctors to give life ending drugs to terminally ill patients, this should be legal because it respects patients wishes.

However, the Supreme Court has opined that this is not a constitutionally protected right so as not to undermine the authority of the FDA in its mission of protecting public health for the many. The right to be able to receive unapproved drugs for patients in dire situations may seem like a safety concern for anyone not involved in such a situation in which a loved could possibly be saved due to a novel medication not currently approved for use. However, moral theory in relation to this claimed right, is certainly a legitimate one, as it looks to emphasize the specific rights of the individual and discounts the safety aspect for the many. In this case, the individual in need of such a medication that could possibly save or prolong their live could surely believe that they have every right to try to protect their life by any means necessary. However, the limitation of this situation rests in the ability to preserve the integrity of the clinical trial data. Design of such clinical trials is a careful and painstaking endeavor that must be strictly adhered to in order to expedite the drug approval process. Someone in a dire situation surely has ever right to believe they have an entitlement to receive a medication that may save or prolong their life but understand that they could be denied access to the medication on the grounds that it could negatively impact the clinical trial data and cause delays in getting the medication approved and in the hands of other people in desperate

Drug testing in the workplace started happening in 1988 and till this day is still continuing. Not until 1991 did they start drug testing on employees who work on aviation, trucking, railroads, mass transit, and pipelines. Today, mostly everywhere you apply for a job a drug test is mandatory. Which is reasonable because if illegal drugs are involved, drug use can affect workplace concentration and judgment which could put the employee at risk. But should a drug test be required only for those in public transportation sector jobs? Although a drug test shows whether if a person has done drugs recently or not, there are many ways that people can beat a drug test. So how does one truly know if the person is still doing drugs after he/she passes the test? Drug tests should not be required whether it is for any or public transportation sector job because it does not prove whether if an employee has fully stopped using the drug therefore making no justification to the drug test at all. The most common drug screens that employers request are the five panel. The five panel which tests for the five most common street drugs, such as marijuana, cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), amphetamines and opiates. All the drugs listed affect a person in a negative way but some are worse than others.

The cost of drug testing is often a big worry and the deciding factor of why companies shouldn’t do it. The price of implementing a policy out weights the risks which include, turnover, productivity, absenteeism and high workers compensation claims. According to OHS Health and Safety Services Inc., (2012). The range for drug testing is $28-$42 dollars. Larger companies that roughly administers 5,000-10,000, the cost is lower and companies that administer 50-100 tests, the cost is higher. Drug testing can be costly to employers, but it offers a better caliber of job applicants and reduces the number of employer who use

I just stepped in what I think is a bag that used to contain some sort of narcotic and a napkin with vomit all over it. I could tell it was a puke-soaked cloth from the way my shoe slightly sunk into the ground and made a noise similar to that of dipping a spoon into a pot of macaroni and cheese. I knew it was a bag that used to contain drugs because this is a California Cchinatown, a.k.a. the land of conspicuous drug deals. I remember I used to see “transactions” all the time right after we moved here. One time, around four years ago, when I was eight, I saw a black man wearing a wifebeater and saggy jeans trade brown paper bags with a Vietnamese man wearing the same thing. They looked around cautiously, got really close to each other and

This article examines the current status of drug testing welfare recipients and the effects it is having on each individual state. The author is not for nor against the law, she simply states how much it is costing for each state and the results of the drug tests. Although she brings in the statistic that has been found from each state, she bring each law up to date on how it has developed throughout the past couple of years. Although the author is not biased, she does give citations from those who feel that the law is not doing what it was created to do.

One man is left dead and three other people are facing brain damage after they volunteered taking part in a drug test in Paris. 90 volunteer were given the drug in varying doses, and six of the volunteers have been hospitalized. All of the other volunteers are being contacted and tested for the same conditions.

Although many companies promote drug-free environments as one of their CSRs, there is no real way for a company to catch all drug abusers at the work place. However, administering drug test can greatly reduce the number of drug users in the workplace. It is my belief that companies should administer drug test as a pre-employment screening for new employment and issue random drug test as a condition for continued employment as a way to support the cause of a drug free environment. Drug abuse of any magnitude can put the employee at risk of injures; deliver poor work performance and poor production, which can ultimately affect the employer’s ability to deliver to its stakeholders. According

The marathon of scientists finding cure to the various diseases that haunt mankind, continues to make an indelible landmark. Scientists in past have created subtle practices by using human parts and mentally retarded children in research trials, finding cure for a disease created an atmosphere of impossibility, and there were no federal guidelines in place that could approve these treatments to be used on patients, like Food and Drug Administration (FDA).