It's not a violation of your civil rights. They are not forcing you to submit. The choice is left up to you to submit to the drug test. Of course, you probably won't be considered for the job if you don't submit, but it is still considered voluntarily. The employer has a resonable interest in keep drugs out of his workplace, so the courts have already ruled that they can require it prior to employement.

If the government tried mandatory drug testing of citizens without cause, it would be a violation of our 4th amendment right of protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, an employer being a private entity, who cannot force you to take a drug test unless you want to work for them, I believe they have the right to set whatever requirements they choose. As a practical matter, there is good reason to not want hard drug users as employees, no matter if they do not actually use on the job. If a person stayed up doing meth or coke all night then came to work, I wouldn't want them working for me because they can't be in their right mind. Drugs affect your brain chemistry long after the high wears off, and in the case of frequent users, their brain chemistry isn't normal for years after they stop using. There can also be parts of the brain that become completely inactive with hard drug use. You don't want someone working for you if the part of their brain that tells them to be honest has completely shutdown. Also, this person obviously has no problem breaking laws, so why would I believe they will respect laws and rules in the workplace? For the record, I think marijuana should be legal and that no one should worry with discriminating against marijuana users unless you can see that it's affecting their work.

You agree to the drug tests by accepting the job. If you don't want to be tested, accept a different job. It's certainly not illegal.

if it doesn't affect your ability to perform your duties then the company should not be overly concerned. They don't reject smokers or drinkers of alcohol then they should not discriminate against users of MJ or other light drugs. Hard drug addicts would probably not be able to perform adequately or safely with any consistency.

What rights? There is no codified right to do drugs. There is no codified right to have a job despite not meeting its basic requirements. Therefore no it is not a violation of any rights. Nothing is done without your consent. If it was, then that would be a different matter.

You out of luck on this one buddy.

It's not a violation of your rights, but if you protest it, the company simply wont consider you for the job. I agree that if companies are going to test for drugs use, they should also test for alcohol abuse, and in some cases, maybe even tobacco smoking. I have some friends that have smoked a lot of weed over many, many years, and frankly, I wouldn't want them working for me. Their brains are fried. You ask them something, and they just grin and say "huh?" I suppose that this is the type of people the employer is trying to screen out. But, in fairness, I also know many people whose brains are fried from too much alcohol - I wouldn't want to hire them either. And how about a person who has do do a lot of physical labor and is coughing all the time from too many cigarrettes?

Yes, Employers have or at least should have the right to hire or not hire whomever they want. They can legally not hire or fire you because you wore a purple necktie if they don't like purple neckties. If they don't want drug users that should be their right. You also have the right to seek employment elsewhere, There are plenty of jobs that don't require drug testing. Employers are also citizens of this country and have rights just like any other individual. That includes the right to hire and fire anyone they choose.

I got hired for a job. I was on the workroom floor working. the boss came by and said there was also a drug test included. I said I was already hired. He said, i had to do the drug test. I said I quit. it is a violation. Its for their insurance. it has nothing to do with the qualifications for the job. If I was lawyered up, I would have sued.

[ insert string of obsceneties here ] Your "RIGHT" to take drugs? WTF? You find that in the Constitution and I'll agree with you. Until you do, I will continue to support the employer's right to conduct all the drug tests he wants to. Working for a particular company is not a RIGHT and neither is putting poison into your body. The employer has a RIGHT to a drug-free workplace and that includes making sure that idiots like you don't bring drugs into the workplace in their bodies. Get real, get a life, and get off the damned drugs!

In the U.S. employment is voluntary on both sides- that is you have the right to quit whenever you want, and your employer has the right to fire you whenever they want. Unless you sign a contract stating otherwise. that being said, an employer has the right to make whatever terms he or she wants, and you have the right to choose to not work there if you don't like their terms.

Don't like the rules - feel free not to apply

Drug use is against the law.I wouldn't want a drug user working for me either.

Yes, the company has the right. They expect their employees to be able to perform to the best of their abilities. If they use drugs or drink to excess, then they will NOT be able to do so. It doesn't matter that the drug use is or is not being done at the workplace. If a person binge drinks or if a person does drugs the night before working, they will not be 100% the next day at work. No... It would be a violation of the employers' rights to expect workers to be at 100% every day. Now, think about this... Do you want your train/taxi driver/pilot/ship captain to have done a lot of drinking or drugs the night before? How 'bout the guy operating the crane, bulldozer, grader, etc.? With THOSE we're also taking about hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars of equipment and liability or the employer. Do you want the surgeon operating on your mother, the nurse giving her drugs, the anesthesiologist, etc., to have an alcoholic/drug hangover? (And if you don't like your mother, what about YOU, your s/o, or child?) How 'bout the cop who is chasing the bad guy at 100MPH?... or shooting at a bad guy? or... You get the idea. White collar workers are the same. Do you want your accountants, your programmers, your staff dragging around, or working to capacity? If YOU were the boss, wouldn't YOU want your people to be sober and trustworthy? Testing proves it.

If an employee harms another employee, damages equipment, the premises, or themselves, while working, the employer can be held accountable. It is, therefore, reasonable to require the employee not break the law by using illegal substances. Yes, I have seen your comments. The federal government is cracking down on this type of misuse, too. If you receive narcotics from a doctor now, you have to 1, submit to a urine test to show you have the proper amount of that drug in your system and no illegal ones. 2, said test is allowed to be given randomly - the doctor's office can call and say 'bring all your prescriptions to the office and take a urine test. You better not have anything you aren't supposed to. 3, you have to sign a paper agreeing to only get your narcotic meds at a specific pharmacy. Violating that can end your script. 4, you cannot get refills before they are due. Yes, there will ALWAYS be people that misuse. But if someone is responsible, and knows of this, it is they that are at fault, for not reporting them to their insurance companies or their primary physician. Any doctor that just dispenses drugs for patients like you claim your friend has, can be stripped of his license and prosecuted.

http://www.kci.org/meth_info/msg_board_posts/2007/040107/Brain_scan.htm A picture is worth a thousand words.

I don't use drugs, but I don't think that it is right. Drug users will just find some way around it anyways. I take prescription drugs that will show up on a test, so I always find jobs that don't drug test. I don't think that my employer should have to know what problems that I have that I may have to take medicine for....don't they have all those HIPPA laws for the very reason of keeping your medical records private!

Question 1: YES Question 2: YES Question 3: NO

Yes, the company has the right because it is illegal. Even if not done at the workplace (or so people say), drug users have a higher absentee rate, increased chance of theft, and a higher accident rate. Given all that, being a hiring manager myself, I would rather have someone working for me that is clean and is firing on all cylinders. It is not a violation of your rights because drugs are illegal. I used to do drugs myself many years ago. I know first hand what they can do.

I see where you're coming from, and I'm all for companies NOT drug testing, but I think they have the right to do it. If drugs in the workplace are against their policy, part of you being their employee means agreeing to be subject to drug tests. :

Yes. I worked for United Air Lines. We were drug tested once a day in a random fashion. It was done for the safety of the passengers and the crew also. People were let go immediately for failing it. They were given an appeal process, but most cases the drug test had the final say.

I'm not a lawyer but I'm a Unionist and I've dealt with Labor Relations for quite some time now. These comments and replies that users are giving to this question clearly shows all the sharp edges of contrast and amplifies the difference in views between worker and employer. This entire world is run by employers. If you don't believe me tell me why AIG took tax payers money because their business failed. They want socialism for themselves but capitalism for the workers. However, back to the question at hand, do you guys realize that alcohol is a drug and that all those prescription medicines are drugs as well? Guess who are the main beneficiaries behind the sale of these substances, that’ right employers are! Surprised? Don't be, employers rule the world and we are slowly being dragged back to slavery, of a different nature nonetheless. The reason why MJ is not legalized is because employers haven't figured out how they could be the ones that would mostly benefit out of it. You doubt it? Research Amsterdam and get a dose of reality for yourself. If it were legal all you would need is one seed and a garden and you would have an eternal supply of MJ! I agree with someone who mentioned that it is only another way to control people. I don't smoke MJ nor advocate anyone to do it; however, I advocate freedom of choice. In this world its going to be hard to get rights that benefit us the workers because you don't see Union lobbyists lining up in the hall way of the white house, but you do realize that lawyers and businessmen are always side by side. The same is true of lawyers and the people who write the laws; they are all one small happy family! Long live the freedom of choice!

I find it bizarre that this happens. Is this mostly an American occurrence? I work and live in Canada and I have never worked for an employer that required any kind of drug testing what so ever.

i'm not sure what rights you're referring to. i looked through the constitution and amendments and it doesn't say that you have the right to not be tested. we also have rights given to us by congress, department of labor, state legislatures, city councils, etc. generally, everybody is concluding that if you choose to go work for a company, that company has the right to enforce certain policies that are relevant to the job. we sure don't want our airplane pilot to freak out on a hallucination from LSD taken last week. as a parent, i might object to my 10th grader being taught by a teacher who uses meth. as a boss, i find that employees who use drugs are 50% more likely to have trauma, psychological issues, addiction treatment, and other medical problems (neurologic, cardiovascular, liver ...). if i'm paying $1,100 a month in premiums for employees already, and employees who use drugs use health insurance so much more that next year premiums will be $1,400, i'm entitled to either make employees pay for the full premium OR require drug testing in order to lower our costs so that fewer employees will need to be laid off.

Yes it's right. Companies should have the right to hire whomever they please and if they don't want drug users working for them then they shouldn't have to hire them.

Of course this is wrong, and immoral. Unfortunately, you are waving all rights and agreeing to the test when you subject yourself to their terms of employment. Smile, and enjoy the totalitarain society we have submitted to. Vote Libertarian if you want to change our society.

If the company is stating they enforce a drug free working environment, they would have the right to enforce that through the drug testing (through the application you sign). Many companies practice at hiring and then random throughout their employees after that. It's expensive so now the after hiring testing has been mostly eliminated due to cost and need to incorporate "efficiencies".

As the law stands, employers can require a drug test as a condition of employment. I think the law is stupid, naive and classist. Does it *really* affect your job performance at your cubicle-dweller job if you toked up on the weekend 3 weeks ago? Would you rather have a drunkard or a heroin addict flying your airplane? (Hint: late-stage heroin addicts don't get 'high' anymore. Their fix just keeps away withdrawal symptoms). Do you *really* think that your boss' boss' boss' is subject to the same drug testing requirement as you? The most disappointing thing about this question is the large number of people standing up to defend "employers rights". Classic peasant mentality. http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/04/14/americas-peasant-mentality/

Absolutely! If my child is on a bus you are driving you had better be clean or I personally will come after you my friend. Of course the employer has the right to test you! The employer is the one that gets sued when his/her employees screw up and using drugs is screwing up big time in my opinion...of course, this is just my opinion.