Conducting Drug Testing 'For Cause'

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

In many years, companies adopted many programs to monitor substance abuse in the workplace. The implementation of drug testing by companies grew in recent years. American workers have seen a dramatic increase in the use of drug testing in the previous years. Drug testing is implemented to assure safe workplaces for American workers. Drug testing can reduce the company’s health care and insurance costs. Even though drug testing has become common in the workplace, there is little research that exists regarding this matter. Overall, drug testing affects the decisions of workers by adopting a “zero tolerance” policy. Experienced users try to beat these tests by using drug to cancel the tracking of the drug itself. These workers attempt to avoid the detection of drug use for long periods (Borack, 1995).

Castulon should establish a drug testing program because of the potential benefits that overrides the potential risks associated with such program. The bottom line of the company is profitability and stakeholder’s benefits; however, drugs do not contribute to any of these. The company relies on employee productivity, reduces employee turnover and absenteeism, reduced cases related to workers compensations. The impact of the drug testing program within the company on their morale and productivity will be heavy but will soon wear off. Having such program can also be used for deterrence purposes as the employee will try to avoid failing drug test and so is a long terms

Alcohol is one big drug that is the most used by teens. Alcohol is the hardest the hardest drug to get caught with. Alcohol doesn't stay in your system for very long. The Alcohol only stays in your system for a few hours. How do you know that the alcohol is the problem it could be the students surrounding. It does state that the students surroundings dose affect how they could be involved in drugs.

I do not think the introduction is really effective at all. I say this because at the end of the paragraph I am confused as to which side he is taking on the argument and I really feel this way throughout the whole paper. In the first paragraph you should develop your idea and share your standpoint while establishing a thesis. In some spots the author hints at a side but it is not until near the end of the paper until I really saw he was against the drug testing.

Determining the Blood typing, Hematology of the blood and levels of alcohol, along with the anatomical positions of the human body.

The bell rings for fourth period to end and Jack is not planning on going to 5th period, he is skipping class so he can do drugs with his friends. After, he goes through the rest of the day normally, he has been doing drugs for 3 years now. Since eighth grade. Imagine if his school had drug tests. He would be trying his best to quit so he doesn’t get found out. There are many reasons drug tests are helpful for student athletes. Drug tests for student athletes are effective because they keep students safe, they improve students behavior and they are supported by the fourth Amendment.

There has been great controversy regarding the topic of drug testing in the workplace. Employees fear the thought of being tested, while employers use it as a tool to make decisions. Arguments concerning the legality of drug tests has sparked many political debates. However, employers receive reinsurance of safety and health issues with implemented pre-employment drug testing as well as randomized or ongoing drug tests.

Drug testing is one action an employer can take to determine if employees or job applicants are using drugs. It can identify evidence of recent use of alcohol, prescription drugs and illicit drugs. Currently, drug testing does not test for impairment or whether a person’s behavior is, or was, impacted by drugs. Drug testing works best when implemented based on a clear, written policy that is shared with all employees, along with employee education about the dangers of alcohol and drug abuse, supervisor training on the signs and symptoms of alcohol and drug abuse, and an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) to provide help for employees who may have an alcohol or drug problem.

Drug testing is one action an employer can take to determine if employees or job applicants are using drugs. It can identify evidence of recent use of alcohol, prescription drugs and illicit drugs. Currently, drug testing does not test for impairment or whether a person’s behavior is, or was, impacted by drugs. Drug testing works best when implemented based on a clear, written policy that is shared with all employees, along with employee education about the dangers of alcohol and drug abuse, supervisor training on the signs and symptoms of alcohol and drug abuse, and an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) to provide help for employees who may have an alcohol or drug problem.

in determining whether companies are morally justified in using drug testing or polygraph testing I argue that Companies are not morally justified in using drug test or polygraph test if the confidential information is not relevant to a jobs performance. The company should not be able to legitimately expect it or require it. normally confidential information is irrelevant to a job's performance. the employer could not ask applicants or employees about their drug use.

The first argument in favor of mandating drug tests towards welfare recipients is Robert Rector, a Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy at the Heritage Foundation. Robert Rector’s argument claims that, “Welfare Programs Should Promote Self-Sufficiency", meaning that the goal of tax dollar paid programs is to help people so that they eventually no longer need government assistance. Therefore, Rector believes that one way to do that is to make sure the recipients of these programs live as healthy as possible in order to continue the process towards no longer needing assistance. The author claims that those within welfare programs hold an obligation to their taxpayers to be as “self-sufficient” and independent as they can be.

However, many workers giving the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory test are inexperienced. A study showed that eighty percent of states in 2002 assign the test to welfare caseworkers instead of mental health specialists like it is supposed to be (“Mandatory Drug Testing” 3). This means the people giving the test do not have the training that is required to properly administer it. Other studies showed that the workers received less than the necessary eight hours of training needed to hand out the tests. Workers who are unqualified and inexperienced are giving tests that can be used to decide whether someone keeps or loses their families welfare benefits. Being on welfare can determine whether you can live or just scrape by on a day to day basis.

When first implemented in 1986 (Zeidner), pre-employment drug testing was a topic of hot controversy. Drug testing for employment is a good predictor of employee satisfaction and work performance.

Drug testing is a way of obtaining information about the employee. Employee has a right to privacy and protecting the privacy of employees is more important. (Shaw, 2016, p.468). Also getting drugs out of the workplace is important only if drugs are illegal, or the use of drug impacts the performance of employee. For example, by using drugs such as marijuana, employees miss more work and cause more accidents. For these reasons, many employees get fired. Frequently changing jobs of employees and workplace injuries cost employers more money. (Moore, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette). Drug testing for employment is an unwarranted invasion of employee privacy if used incorrectly. Privacy is an important right, but companies’ rules often threaten the privacy of employees. When personal information gets leaked to public, it causes harm to employees. (Shaw, 2016, p.435). Drug testing must be done if it is relevant to job performance and it should not violate the privacy of employee. From utilitarian’s point of view, if job performance adversely affected by the use of a drug, employer has a legitimate right to conduct a drug test. Because the use of a drug could considerably harm employees themselves, fellow employees, employer and as well as consumers. Awareness of drug use helps employers to increase productivity and eliminate the production losses. (Shaw, 2016, p.469). According to utilitarian’s principle, a decision is correct if it has outcomes of the greatest happiness for everyone