Forced Drug Testing CJA/373 Forced Drug Testing Drug testing is being given to many people for different reasons such as obtaining employment. One may ask should drug testing be forced upon those entering the prison system. Is it fair for those obtaining employment be given a drug test but not to those that are criminals. Criminals are given drug tests to ensure bail is set at a level that can be obtained and so that the courts can recommend that, they receive help for their addictions. Looking at individuals having to do drug testing to obtain employment I do not see why a defendant should not have to do the same.
Most jobs require drug testing, whether it’s annual or random, so why shouldn’t someone who is not working for their income also be drug tested? I don’t believe that this law should in any way be unjust or unethical. If anyone should think that this law would unethical, unfair or immoral, I ask them then how ethical, fair and moral is it for tax payers hard earned dollars be paying for someone else’s next
Discussion According to Marcus Roberts (2004), with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, there are four fundamental reasons for drug testing in the workplace. The four reasons are safety, organizational efficiency, reputational risk, and employee welfare (p. 10). While these are all important reasons to institute such a policy, we must also take into account the financial strain, legal risk, and the potential to cause a negative effect to the image of the management in the eyes of our employees. The cost of drug testing varies widely depending on the type of test done. In an article written by Sandy Smith (2004), she outlines that the cost of hair specimen testing costs about $115-$150 per test nationally, and that the cost of urine analysis testing is estimated to cost approximately $44.00 per test (para.
------------------------------------------------- drug testing employees and applicants Legal or not? Introduction As the job market becomes tighter and employers increase screening measures to ensure that they are hiring the right candidates, drug testing in the workplace has become common place. Although many employers argue that drug testing is merely an employer right to screen out potentially harmful and costly employers, other argue that it is an invasion of privacy and a violation of personal rights. In this paper, I will examine the strength of the cases for employer drug testing as well for employee privacy based on prior court decisions regarding the subject matter. Employer Right to Know Many employers argue that in order to fill positions with employees or promote and maintain employees, that drug testing is necessary in order to protect the employer from liabilities such as negligent hiring and costly accidents and health expenses incurred by intoxicated or under the influence employees.
If the adults cannot buy a gun legally there is always the other option, to get them from selling them illegally When responsible adults buy a gun, they most likely will not use it to murder people. They would use it so they can help themselves. A lot of people are in danger every day and most of them don’t have any protection. Guns aren’t the best way to solve a problem but if you are in need for some help and protection, then a gun can help a lot. 67% of Americans own a gun for protection from crime.
Criminals especially those who are going through court proceedings may not feel comfortable disclosing certain information to someone they know to be a researcher. Typically most researchers are similar to police in characteristics, white and middle class, so acting covertly will most likely increase comfortability between the researcher and criminals, allowing more valid research to be acquired. Similarly judges and police may alter their behaviours if they know the researchers true identity in a bid to disguise any flaws in their practices and unjustified law enforcing. However, Positivists would argue that data collected by covert observations aren’t at all valid, they are biased as they are based off of the observer’s interpretations. This could be especially true in the case of researching court proceedings as it is unlikely many researchers have gone through one themselves.
Although police officers stand for peace, there are many countries where people view police not as the hero but as the villain. Even in safe, developed countries like Canada and the United States, acts of police misconduct have occurred. For these reasons, police officers should not be allowed to carry firearms. Eliminating guns won’t eliminate police misconduct; however it will take some power away from them but that can be good because they will also be gaining power this way. It sounds confusing but when people see a man with a gun, no matter what side of the law he is on, they will get intimidated and possibly fear him.
This just goes to show that there is drug-testing going on all over the United States in many different ways. In some cases drug testing is very effective, but overall drug testing is not very accurate or beneficial in the workplace. Unless someone showed up for work under the influence of drugs or alcohol and the employer wants proof that this person is in fact using drugs or alcohol then drug testing in the workplace is meaningless. After conducting research on the subject of random drug testing in the workplace we have concluded that random drug testing does not work. Not to say that it does not have an impact or that it is ineffective to companies or businesses, but this does not work because the tests are not always one hundred percent accurate.
The inability for employers to have a drug free workplace, since they will no longer be able to give the employees drug test for marijuana. It would send a permissive message to young adults that drug use is acceptable. This creates to the public perception that marijuana is not a serious or harmful drug, when in fact, it lead to numerous mental and physical harm. Loss of control over medical marijuana by physician. In consistency with other laws for example, if a state legalizes marijuana, this conflicts with federal laws, and this leads to confusion in the public and among law
There is the mentally ill, disabled, elderly, able bodied but lazy, and those who work low paying jobs. Each group should have their own set of requirements they need to meet before they receive any money. One thing that should be a requirement for everyone is getting a drug test before anything else. Why should someone doing drugs receive any money? They could just be lying to get more money for their drugs.