CARBUCKLE@UMKCVAX1.BITNET (Valentine M. Smith) (02/09/90)
The Maryland legislature is considering drug-testing all holders of office along with already required financial disclosures. Do you think this to be legally viable? more generally, do you think drug testing violates one's rights to coun- sel, due process, and self incrimination as outlined by the 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments to the Constitution?
UNCPJS@UNC.BITNET (Peter J. Schledorn) (02/09/90)
Valentine writes: > The Maryland legislature is considering drug-testing all holders of office alo > with already required financial disclosures. Do you think this to be legally > viable? more generally, do you think drug testing violates one's rights to cou > sel, due process, and self incrimination as outlined by the 4th, 5th and 6th > Amendments to the Constitution? I think all such testing violates these rights, although the courts are disturbingly willing to allow it. To be specific, I think that the only justifiable testing is 1) for specific cause, 2) for current impairment and 3) when there is a compelling reason (such as public safety). Current testing programs only test for past use, and most often not for cause. Mass testing programs, such as pre-employment tests and random tests, seem designed more to intimidate the individual worker than to make any real progress against any "drug problem" that may exist. I met with a staff member of the North Carolina Drug Cabinet a few days ago, (as part of a committee of state employees considering a statewide workplace drug policy) and he mentioned that a pre- employment testing program generally leads to a decrease in the number of applications that a company receives. The usual explanation is that "the addicts have stopped applying," but it turns out that the percentage drop is almost the same as the proportion of the public that opposes drug testing! This kind of correspondence proves nothing, of course, but it's striking all the same. I'm working on some reports in connection with this committee, and will post them for comments when they're ready. Best, Peter.
KWILCOX@AUVM.BITNET (ken wilcox) (02/10/90)
on Thu, 8 Feb 90 15:36:00 CST Valentine M. Smith said: >The Maryland legislature is considering drug-testing all holders of office >along >with already required financial disclosures. Do you think this to be legally >viable? more generally, do you think drug testing violates one's rights to >coun- >sel, due process, and self incrimination as outlined by the 4th, 5th and 6th >Amendments to the Constitution? Yes it is against all three. I find that i could be justified to test people whose jobs can be deadly if they are under the influence (airline pilots, etc..). Having a Legislator being tested is just plain grandstanding proving nothing. Wait.... The damaged caused by a drunken legislature is beyond comprehension!!!!!! (sometimes even a sober one!!!!!) Ken wilcox typing under the influence
JWS@BROWNVM.BITNET (02/11/90)
What's the big deal about testing drugs on legislators? What else are legislators good for? It'll save wear and tear on those poor resus monkeys.