Posted on 01/28/2003 9:42:21 AM PST by Cagey
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (Reuters) - Something smells funny in the Arkansas drug-testing business, and a state legislator thinks it might be the urine. Jay Martin, a freshman state representative, won passage through the Arkansas House of Representatives last week of his measure that will make it illegal to sell or use urine to falsify a drug or alcohol screening test. Martin said he is confident the first bill he ever sponsored will become state law. Martin said he was urged to introduce the "clean urine" bill by a local drug-testing company that complained of widespread trafficking in urine untainted by drugs. Many of the sales in the market are made over the Internet, he said. Maximum penalties for violating the law will be up to 90 days in jail and a $500 fine. "As a freshman I'm going to get razzed anyway, but this bill just gave them added reason," Martin said on Monday of his fellow representatives. Indeed they did. When Martin took to the Arkansas House floor on Friday to explain his bill, he was greeted by a chorus of hiss-like noises from many of the other 99 members. As the first vote was taken, scores of members hit the "P" button -- signifying present -- rather than the buttons to vote "yes" or "no." When the guffaws subsided, a second vote was taken and the legislative body passed the clean urine bill with only one dissenting vote, which came from a lawmaker who complained the bill was an invasion of privacy. Martin said South Carolina and other states had recently enacted similar legislation. He added that enforcement of the laws to thwart the use of drug-free urine has been difficult. One typical Internet-based company offering clean urine boasts that its samples are free of illegal drugs, alcohol and nicotine and pre-screened for medical conditions. A deluxe kit that includes four ounces (119 ml) of urine, an odor-proof transport system, chemical heating pads and gloves sells for $49.95. The bill is headed to the Arkansas senate, where action is expected soon.
Yes, they want to stop people from cheating on drug tests.
Once urine is out lawed only out laws will have urine.
You can have my urine only when....nevermind!
Is it unreasonable to (for your own protection) assure that your employees are likely to be clean and sober? Let the users apply for employment where there is no drug screening...
I think the restriction applies to the government, anyway; not to private organizations or individuals.
Was the next line about "prying it from my cold, dead hand? ;)
I have to agree with you on this. I am NOT in favor of people being allowed to lie or cheat on a drug screening test.
OTOH, I AM in favor of certain drugs being legalized.
IMO, if you want to use illegal drugs of ANY type you run the risk of being caught on a urinalisys test, IF there is a valid reason.
If an employer wants to have a drug test to be employed by them that is a valid reaseon.
If a drug test periodically is deemed, by the employer, to be needed that's a valid reason.
A drug test, out of the blue, with no warning, when the test is not advertised as part of the employment contract does NOT a valid reason make.
If a company has reason to suspect that that an employee is using drugs, that is a different story. In that case there is a liklihood that his behavior or job performance is suffering. Beyond that, I believe very strongly that it is an invasion of privacy, and especially when it comes to off hours. A company doesn't own its employees; only rents them for a certain number of hours per week and if they want to spend their off time sh*tf*ced on the floor somewhere, that is THEIR business as long as they're not doing it in the company name or at company expense.
Many drugs stay in a person's system for years and from what I understand will cause a positive result many times long after an individual has ceased to use the drug. As far as I'm concerned that puts drug-testing right up there with lie detector tests as being both unreliable and invasive.
I have refused to work for a company that did routine drug testing, not because I do drugs (I don't), but because I believe it is wrong. In my current job, I am authorized to drive company vehicles, but that authorization is not based on testing clean for drugs, it is based on having a clean driving record. In that case it was reasonable for them to check my driving record. I have yet to be convinced that there is any reason that justifies routine drug testing beyond a very narrow scope.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.