I would agree IF drug test were reliable. They simply are not. My company requires drug test for all new employees. I went through 3 months when everybody I sent down did not pass. We eventually dug into the problem and discovered that they hadn't failed either. For a three month period, every sample submitted through the place we used came back as "contaminated." This means they did not pass, and were ineligible for employment with our company. But after three months, and five or six employee candidates not passing, we finally figured out that something was wrong. From this point the problem moved over my pay grade, but the next person I sent down passed. Undoubtedly several people I tried to hire did not get the job because of a faulty drug test.mojo84 wrote:And the sending and bag searches to go to certain events.
Welfare is not a right and is available on condition. One of which should be drug testing. I also think many of the people to could do work for the state to earn the money they receive. I think this would cut down on the number of people just choosing to sit on their rears and collect what they can.
In my case, a medical condition means that I now pass a considerable about of mucus in my urine. While I certainly wouldn't "fail" the drug test, it's unlikely that I would pass it either. You can pretty well bet my sample would come back as contaminated.
And finally, there are foods (poppy seeds on some breads for example) that will give a false positive on a drug test. I don't have a problem with the concept of a drug test. My objection is not even a privacy or rights issue. I simply know from actual experience that drug test are not reliable.