[capozzoli]

How do you guys feel about employers making you take random piss tests?

Im thinking about implementing random drug testing for my company. I dont want anyone working for me that tests negative.

[1vertical]

How do you guys feel about employers making you take random piss tests?

Im thinking about implementing random drug testing for my company. I dont want anyone working for me that tests negative.

They could test my ability by washing it off their wet trowsers....no problem

Edit: In the military that was the most degrading thing I ever had to do...I won't do that any more...sorry
now I know better, I will p*ss all over you while you make sure I am not cheating

Edit#2; If more ppl would do this    , there might be less desire to have people go thru this madness. Why do you think you have ANY right to my urine?

[capozzoli]

Ive heard a lot of construction company owners tell me that their insurance company makes them drug test their employees. If they refuse to comply their premium will quadruple. This is of coarse hear say.

Off topic but kinda related.

[1vertical]

Yeah, off topic, but I believe Insurance companies need to be slapped and reeled in quite a bit.

Seems like they have been given the license to Milk us all badly....they should have to cover
you....PERIOD....car insurance,....paid for...You should be covered 100%....NO EXCLUSIONS
Medical insurance, paid for, you should be covered 100% NO EXCLUSIONS.
Home Insurance, paid for, you should be covered 100% NO EXCLUSIONS....

Edit: else get out of the insurance business....

well you get my meaning
Edit#2: AND they should get out of the business of trying to regulate/and manipulate things...like....Air Bags, and Power Brakes, and Crash testing Automobiles... and Medical procedures...and just get back to the business of insuring against loss.... Your Paid for loss not theirs. This to me seems the reasonable risk they assume for your payment. PERIOD

[Mikey]

I have to ask again. Why refuse a breath test?

Even if I was completely sober, I'd refuse one.

[capozzoli]

Why? I dont understand.

[Mikey]

Because I live in a FREE country and I AM innocent until proven guilty by a jury of my peers; not by a F__King machine.

[majorvices]

I dont want anyone working for me that tests negative.

CLASSIC!

[capozzoli]

How could we enforce the law then?  

If there is no evidence there would be no convictions.

In a free country should we be allowed to drink and drive?  

I think if you are charged with drinking and driving you still have the right to a trial. I cant say I know to much about it. I have never even been suspected.

All I know is that a drunk driver slammed into a car where one of my best friends was a passenger. He was killed instantly when his head popped off.

I also lost my new truck in 2006 when a drunk driver ran a red light and broad sided me. He was also "under insured" I didnt have health insurance at the time and I only got done paying off the settled medical bills last year. I think I got about $10,000 dollars. I had $25,000 in medical bills. Totaled a $10,000 F250 only weeks after I got it.

What is the solution? Is there a solution?

[1vertical]

No easy solution is there.
  Blow in your ignition to start your car...yeah I heard that from an insurance company
that wants to milk you in yet another venue.  If that is what we need to do, then let the people that are mandating
that PAY for the priveledge of having it, instead of jacking up the already exorbitant cost of a vehicle.

So if you don.t blow a sober breath, your car won't start...lol...what a joke, you could have or hire someone
else to blow a sober ignition for you.

Computer eyeball response recognition software to start your car...your eyeballs must respond in a sober fashion along
with retina recognition.  Again let the ppl that feel they have to have this, Pay for it! and mandate it for every driver
behind the wheel. Don't add it to the cost of a vehicle's price tag.

Then in a free society, the people that build the mad max machines that run on ethanol, will be the loose cannons that
will not comply....NO there is no easy answer

[capozzoli]

I think the breath test is a means of collecting evidence. The machine does not convict a suspect but a trial may if there is sufficient evidence.  

If one was suspected of murder is it a violation of their rights to take finger prints?

[corkybstewart]

Ive heard a lot of construction company owners tell me that their insurance company makes them drug test their employees. If they refuse to comply their premium will quadruple. This is of coarse hear say.

Off topic but kinda related.

I run a geological technical services company in the oilfield.  We are required by both our insurance companies and our client oil companies to do regular drug testing of all our employees, including my daughter who makes log copies for the company.  I understand testing the people who are actually working on the rigs since the work is extremely dangerous, but making me test my office people is absurd.

[tubercle]

I think the breath test is a means of collecting evidence. The machine does not convict a suspect but a trial may if there is sufficient evidence.  

If one was suspected of murder is it a violation of their rights to take finger prints?

  A breath/blood test is not used to collect evidence for the arrest but to confirm the probable cause the officer had for making the warrantless arrest. I know this is a little nit-picky but there is a distinction. Many times an arrested suspect will have a zero reading for BAC but the law (here anyways) is for driving "impaired" regardless of the substance, including prescription medication. This determination is made on the street. The conviction only comes after evidence shows a person was driving impaired and any breath/blood test is used as a "totality of the circumstances". Recent changes in the law provide for a reading above a certain limit to show a presumption of guilt. These changes come from pressure from the Feds in the form of a threat to cut off highway funds just like was done with the seatbelt laws.

 Requiring a breath test at a check point just because you are driving is getting closer to going back to what caused the 4th amendment to be written in the first place. IMHO...

[1vertical]

Now as a citizen of the U.S.A., I have placed a copy of the United States Constitution
in the Vehicle I drive, WITH me so that I can really get someone's ire...and read the 4th ammendment
verbatum to someone should I need to.......like it will really matter if the chips are down....LOL.

(I do NOT drink alcohol at all and get behind a wheel personally)

[Mikey]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Looks pretty clear to me. A mandatory BAC test is an unreasonable search of one's person. You could even argue that they are illegally seizing your breath and/or blood.