Where is the drug testing?

Witness P · Post by **Witness P** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:12 am

I know this will probably have at leats one reply... Why is there not regular drug testing for CHL holders? IF police go through regular drug testing throughout the year would it be out of place to ask CHL's to do it? Both carry a deadly weapon on or about them and have the potential to kill. basicslly what I'm trying to say is if commomn citizens have been given the right to carry a deadly weapon with them in public much like L.E. is it ureasonable to drug test? How many closet marijuana smokers have CHL I'll bet a scary number, or how many occasionally indulge in cocaine or speed, or drink heavily and have slipped by DPS, drunk behind the wheel and never been caught. After a experience I had at the range yesterday overhearing a conversation it got me worried. The hoops you jump through to get your liscence originally do not weed out "no pun intended" the ones that have never been caught or slipped by the skin of their teeth on multiple occasions. Is there a need for continual "testing" of CHL holders?

seamusTX · Post by **seamusTX** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:22 am

NO!

Drug testing implies a presumption of guilt and essentially requires people to prove that they are innocent.

- Jim

Witness P · Post by **Witness P** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:34 am

We now have a nice opposeing view to start with, I can't wait to see where this goes... Come On People Leave your Opinion You can't just have No thoughts on This [/b]

Liberty · Post by **Liberty** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:42 am

I am subject to drug testing, and have been tested several times since the early 70s. Drug testing is humiliating, nonrandom and useless.

I think testing is a bad idea. Drug testing of probation and parolees is responcible for some folks moving to harder drugs. The Harder drugs don't stay in the system as long as a reletively harmless drug such as marijuana.
I don't see a problem anyway. Is there a bunch of shootings from drug crazed CHL holders? Chances are if someone is a more than recreational user they will have found a way to be inelligible for the CHL in first place. [/list]

DaveT · Post by **DaveT** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:43 am

Too many 'innocent' people are made to look otherwise with drug testing.

I am referring to folks on prescription medication. Too many meds have so many varied ingredients that can show up as a 'positive' in random drug testing.

Then there is the financial issue involved with drug testing. Who will be paying for it ? The answer is simple..... we will. Higher license fees, maybe a special tax on our licenses, who knows.

A slippery slope at best as it would involve much more government regulation and I am sure we are all aware of what happens when the government gets too involved in anything.

longtooth · Post by **longtooth** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:45 am

Nope. One more infringement. He who governs the lest governs best. No more regs.

MoJo · Post by **MoJo** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:47 am

NO! NO! NO! a thousand times no! Random drug testing should be outlawed!

Cosmo 9 · Post by **Cosmo 9** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 9:50 am

Once again we get to reference the great show "Myth Busters" the one with the poppy seeds. A very small amount of poppy seeds caused a false positive every time. Drug tests are not 100 percent!

KBCraig · Post by **KBCraig** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:14 am

Absolutely not.

quidni · Post by **quidni** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:19 am

Witness P wrote: if commomn citizens have been given the right to carry a deadly weapon with them in public much like L.E. is it ureasonable to drug test?

Point - LEO's carry not just for their own protection, but because they are charged with peacekeeping for the general public. And bus drivers are subject to testing because they are transporting the general public. Other people depend on them regularly, as part of their job. I still don't agree with random testing in these professions; I think they should have to see cause to test, and just focus on the individual who showed that cause.

Point - the Bill of Rights does not grant the citizens of the USA various rights, including the right to free speech, to associate with whom we choose, and to bear arms. It recognizes those intrinsic rights, and acknowledges that the government shall not infringe them!

So, nope, no random testing just because someone has a CHL.

I.e. LEOs can not pull over random drivers for a breathalyzer test, nor can they stop random pedestrians to test just because they have a driver license (even if they're walking at the time), since it's possible they might pull their keys out at any moment. (and driving isn't a right, it's a privilege, but it still is protected this way.)

However, if an LEO stops someone for driving erratically, & that person shows symptoms of intoxication, then it's reasonable to ask for the test.

And more people are injured or killed in auto accidents than are by firearms-related accidents.

yerasimos · Post by **yerasimos** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:33 am

+1 on what longtooth said. I do not believe it is the State's responsibility to stamp out drug use, but rather that of employers (who can hire and fire whom they choose), churches, families and individuals (self government). I am more sympathetic to the idea of automatic/stronger penalties if somebody is involved in a shooting and they are found afterwards to have been under the influence of whatever. If you decide to drink or intake a substance that impairs your mental faculties, I believe you have no business walking around with roscoe on your belt, much less driving an automobile.

I am not defending a hypothetical Joe Blough CHLer who enjoys lighting a blunt at home every now and then, but it is not my responsibility (nor IMO DPS's or anyone else's) to ensure he does not or cannot do so. Joe Blough is responsible for and shall face the full consequences of his actions, including toking on the blunt.

Just so some of you understand where I am coming from on this, on a handful of occasions in my life, I have been offered illegal drugs and I turned them down every single time. I did the same with prescription painkillers regarding a recent injury, too, since it would have affected my ability to drive, handle weapons and operate heavy machinery. And I have not driven with a drop of alcohol in my system since the late 1990s. (I thought a lot on the subject back then, and have always made the right decision since.)

flintknapper · Post by **flintknapper** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:33 am

Witness P wrote:? Both carry a deadly weapon on or about them and have the potential to kill. basically what I'm trying to say is if common citizens have been given the right to carry a deadly weapon with them in public much like L.E. is it unreasonable to drug test? ?

Using this logic, then we needn't stop at only CHL holders. Would it not be prudent then to apply the same to everyone who drives a car. Lets not overlook every law abiding citizen who carries a simple pocketknife. Many objects used daily by ordinary citizens have the potential to kill if misused, so do we start drug testing the general population?

Drug testing of CHL holders (in my opinion) would be a colossal waste of money and resources. You are required to swear that you are not chemically dependent, or mentally deficient when applying for a CHL. At Both the State and Federal levels this is investigated. All that is needed, is already in place. Swift, sure punishment for those who violate the laws.

As you can tell, I am opposed to the idea....mainly because I feel it is "a solution in search of a problem".

A great question nonetheless. Thanks for bringing it up.

longtooth · Post by **longtooth** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:36 am

Another OOOOOOHH how true. "a solution in search of a problem." I'm gonna use that one too.

Mithras61 · Post by **Mithras61** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:02 am

Why I oppose random drug testing:

1) Random isn't. I have been subjected to this sort of nonsense for over 3 decades now, and I have never seen how they can hit the same people (usually about 3x their sample size) over and over again.

2) It's an unreasonable search based on a presumption of guilt. I should never have to prove I did not do something.

3) I carry for my protection and the protection of my family. LEOs carry for the protection of the public at large (btw, I also oppose random testing for LEOs).

4) IF someone is involved in an incident, you can test for drugs & alcohol at that time and if you find them, enhance the penalties. Make it illegal to operate a firearm while intoxicated. Don't force me to prove I'm sober before I even carry it.

5) FWIW, concealed carry should NOT be banned at bars or anywhere else. I should be able to carry wherever and whenever I want. If I harm someone with it, prosecute me under the laws that exist for that. The state won't protect me, and I can't sue them for failure to do so, so it becomes MY responsibility. Let me fulfill my responsibilities. If I fail to do so because of drugs or alcohol, handle it just like you would if it was an automobile.

longtooth · Post by **longtooth** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:09 am

+ 1 to the above. Good post.

TexasCHLforum.com

Where is the drug testing?

Should there be Drug testing of CHL Holders?

Where is the drug testing?

Re: Where is the drug testing?

Why I oppose random drug testing...