# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Should drug testing be illegal?

## Madison320

I thought this was a no brainer, however that wasn't the case in another thread. In my opinion an employer should have the right to drug test in exchange for employment. It should be a voluntary transaction between employer and employee. No one has the right to force you to take a drug test, but someone has the right to ask you if you would voluntarily give up your right in exchange for employment. In general you should be able to enter into a contract where one or the other party gives up their rights. I let the termite inspector search my house for termites even though I have the right to privacy. In that case I've voluntarily given up my right to privacy in exchange for termite control.

By making it illegal to drug test you're depriving the employer of his right to enter into a voluntary contract. No rights are violated if the employer asks for drug testing as a condition of employment. The employee is free to turn down the offer.

----------


## dannno

In a free market, it should be legal. 

However in our current market controlled by the insurance industry, I would support a law banning it. There is a huge segment of the population who are virtually unemployable, when PLENTY of employers out there would be happy to hire them, if it weren't for the insurance companies that control them. In a free market, I would have no problem with insurance companies making these determinations, but currently they are acting irrationally and doing more harm than good  - these monopolist insurance companies are entrenched in government.

Employers have much better methods of determining the capability of employees to perform their job function than taking a drug test - in fact using a drug test as a strict indicator of whether an employee will perform well or not would actually hurt a business in the long-run because they would be turning down quality employees for stupid, dumb, lazy employees who just happen to not take drugs (or are drug addicts to the drug alcohol)

Why not judge your employees on their performance rather than the content of their urine? Doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Unless you are a lazy employer.


*Edit: As this thread goes on, I make that case that:





			
				Freedom FOR BUSINESSES AND FOR EMPLOYERS would be greatly expanded if drug testing were banned.
			
		

*

Employers did not drug test before the government forced them to - now that most businesses are forced to test, they are not allowed to hire the best people for the job and that is a curtailment of their freedom. As far as I can tell, a ban on drug testing would not curtail the rights of businesses from a logistical standpoint, because businesses didn't drug test when they were free to make that choice on their own.

----------


## fisharmor

Every time I've bought drugs from the black market the seller was completely up front with me as to the anticipated effects and potency.
I guess I never really had a reason to test them first.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> I thought this was a no brainer, however that wasn't the case in another thread. In my opinion an employer should have the right to drug test in exchange for employment. It should be a voluntary transaction between employer and employee. No one has the right to force you to take a drug test, but someone has the right to ask you if you would voluntarily give up your right in exchange for employment. In general you should be able to enter into a contract where one or the other party gives up their rights. I let the termite inspector search my house for termites even though I have the right to privacy. In that case I've voluntarily given up my right to privacy in exchange for termite control.
> 
> By making it illegal to drug test you're depriving the employer of his right to enter into a voluntary contract. No rights are violated if the employer asks for drug testing as a condition of employment. The employee is free to turn down the offer.


Agreed

And yes, it should be a no brainer for a libertarian.

----------


## Jesse James

I agree with the OP

----------


## jkr

It is already unlawful but they don't seem to give a damn about that

----------


## Madison320

> In a free market, it should be legal. 
> 
> However in our current market controlled by the insurance industry, I would support a law banning it. There is a huge segment of the population who are virtually unemployable, when PLENTY of employers out there would be happy to hire them, if it weren't for the insurance companies that control them. In a free market, I would have no problem with insurance companies making these determinations, but currently they are acting irrationally and doing more harm than good  - these monopolist insurance companies are entrenched in government.
> 
> Employers have much better methods of determining the capability of employees to perform their job function than taking a drug test - in fact using a drug test as a strict indicator of whether an employee will perform well or not would actually hurt a business in the long-run because they would be turning down quality employees for stupid, dumb, lazy employees who just happen to not take drugs.  
> 
> Why not judge your employees on their performance rather than the content of their urine? Doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Unless you are a lazy employer.


It seems to me you could make the case for almost anything being illegal using your logic. Two wrongs don't make a right.

----------


## dannno

> And yes, it should be a no brainer for a libertarian.


See, that's part of your problem, you just "no-brain" everything in a non-libertarian society when often times government policy will significantly exacerbate problems that may arise. 

For example, if you give tons of welfare and aid to illegal immigrants and have an atrocious foreign policy that pisses people off, it might not be a good idea to have open borders, even if open borders are a "no-brainer" for libertarians in a free society.

In this case, it is *virtually illegal* for most companies to employ a person who smokes one joint a month. *That* is why I would currently support a ban. That is why this issue is far more complicated than you make it out to be.

----------


## Madison320

> It is already unlawful but they don't seem to give a damn about that


I'm confused. Who's "they" for starters?

----------


## dannno

> It seems to me you could make the case for almost anything being illegal using your logic. Two wrongs don't make a right.


Uh, no, that's not it at all. 

Read the post right below that one.. now recall this part of the post:




> For example, if you give tons of welfare and aid to illegal immigrants and have an atrocious foreign policy that pisses people off, it might not be a good idea to have open borders, even if open borders are a "no-brainer" for libertarians in a free society.


End the aid to illegals, end welfare THEN open the borders. 

The government shouldn't control anything, but if the government controls something, they need to control it as intelligently as possible, not totally $#@! everybody over.

Another good example.. People on the left liked to blame the regulations that Bush ended on the financial industry for the 2008 financial collapse. What happened was that the government made it easy to loan money for houses with loose monetary policy, so they put in some controls to make it so it wasn't _too_ easy and they couldn't totally manipulate the system. Then they took away the regulations that encumbered the financial industry from making bad loans WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY GIVING THEM EASY MONEY TO MAKE LOANS. So the left was correct that the regulations that Bush got rid of helped create the 2008 financial melt-down, but they don't recognize it was all the other government policies of easy money that were kept in place that actually allowed it all to happen. 

So the point with that example is - TAKE AWAY THE EASY MONEY - then you can get rid of the financial regulations that help ensure these institutions don't make bad loans. If you just start going libertarian willy-nilly for the sake of it, without doing it intelligently and orderly, you can cause a lot of problems.

----------


## Madison320

> See, that's part of your problem, you just "no-brain" everything in a non-libertarian society when often times government policy will significantly exacerbate problems that may arise. 
> 
> For example, if you give tons of welfare and aid to illegal immigrants and have an atrocious foreign policy that pisses people off, it might not be a good idea to have open borders, even if open borders are a "no-brainer" for libertarians in a free society.
> 
> In this case, it is *virtually illegal* for most companies to employ a person who smokes one joint a month. *That* is why I would currently support a ban. That is why this issue is far more complicated than you make it out to be.


I don't think open borders is a no brainer for libertarians. 

I understand your argument about passing a bad law to help alleviate another bad law but only in extreme examples. I'd rather just repeal the first bad law.

----------


## Madison320

> So the point with that example is - TAKE AWAY THE EASY MONEY - then you can get rid of the financial regulations that help ensure these institutions don't make bad loans. If you just start going libertarian willy-nilly for the sake of it, without doing it intelligently and orderly, you can cause a lot of problems.


We would've had a housing crisis no matter what. No amount of regulation can prevent bubbles when you hand out free money.

----------


## presence

mandatory drug testing by the state should be illegal
drug testing by employment contract, I have no issue with
the state shouldn't be employing anyone, so there really should be no conflict

----------


## dannno

> mandatory drug testing by the state should be illegal
> drug testing by employment contract, I have no issue with


But the state forces employers to sign up for certain types of insurance, those insurance companies are in bed with the state, and those insurance companies force companies to drug test their employees..

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> In a free market, it should be legal. 
> 
> However in our current market controlled by the insurance industry, I would support a law banning it. There is a huge segment of the population who are virtually unemployable, when PLENTY of employers out there would be happy to hire them, if it weren't for the insurance companies that control them. In a free market, I would have no problem with insurance companies making these determinations, but currently they are acting irrationally and doing more harm than good  - these monopolist insurance companies are entrenched in government.
> 
> Employers have much better methods of determining the capability of employees to perform their job function than taking a drug test - in fact using a drug test as a strict indicator of whether an employee will perform well or not would actually hurt a business in the long-run because they would be turning down quality employees for stupid, dumb, lazy employees who just happen to not take drugs.  
> 
> Why not judge your employees on their performance rather than the content of their urine? Doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Unless you are a lazy employer.


Just thinking out loud, in what ways does the government currently distort the labor market for drug users?

First and foremost, the lack of businesses and therefore lack of jobs created in response to the government's regulation and taxation.  A greater demand for labor means employers will be less picky.  And maybe this is not true but it seems likely to me that the people most effected by the government's regulation and taxation, to the point that they are not able to open and operate their desired business, would be more likely to hire without a drug screen.

And second, the requirement that employers carry workers compensation/insurance to cover workplace injuries.  It seems reasonable to assume there are many employers who would rather not carry workers comp/etc, but since they are forced to and since drug screening prospective employees provides them with better rates they do so.

It has distorted the market no doubt but to what extent?...  Similar in nature is that the government requires an employer to provide maternity leave for women.  And so, what privilege are women deserving of being that the government has distorted/dampened the labor market for women?

I think it is likely that the drug user would probably still have plenty of troubles finding employment in a free-market.  But I cannot tell if that is reasonable (i.e. employers are being sensible by not hiring drug users) or if that is an effect of the psychological warfare that has accompanied the drug war.

----------


## opal

hmmm.. not a poll

----------


## presence

> But the state forces employers to sign up for certain types of insurance, those insurance companies are in bed with the state, and those insurance companies force companies to drug test their employees..


that's fine.  
as an individual you still have the option to opt out of the contract of employment with that entity.

I see where you're going but the issue is that government forces employers to buy coverage.   
The solution shouldn't then be to force employers to accept drug addicts or to deny employers the right to test employees; it should be to remove the insurance mandate.

----------


## John F Kennedy III

> In a free market, it should be legal. 
> 
> However in our current market controlled by the insurance industry, I would support a law banning it. There is a huge segment of the population who are virtually unemployable, when PLENTY of employers out there would be happy to hire them, if it weren't for the insurance companies that control them. In a free market, I would have no problem with insurance companies making these determinations, but currently they are acting irrationally and doing more harm than good  - these monopolist insurance companies are entrenched in government.
> 
> Employers have much better methods of determining the capability of employees to perform their job function than taking a drug test - in fact using a drug test as a strict indicator of whether an employee will perform well or not would actually hurt a business in the long-run because they would be turning down quality employees for stupid, dumb, lazy employees who just happen to not take drugs.  
> 
> Why not judge your employees on their performance rather than the content of their urine? Doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Unless you are a lazy employer.


It cannot be said better ^

----------


## TheTexan

I think drug testing politicians should be illegal.

If we trust them enough to run our country, surely we trust them enough to not do drugs.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Sure, as long as employees are free to organize and strike to prevent companies from enacting such policies.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

> that's fine.  
> as an individual you still have the option to opt out of the contract of employment with that entity.
> 
> I see where you're going but the issue is that government forces employers to buy coverage.   
> The solution shouldn't then be to force employers to accept drug addicts or to deny employers the right to test employees; it should be to remove the insurance mandate.


^I think there are a lot of hypotheticals being tossed around but on a purely practical level if there is the will to ban drug testing because it distorts the ability for drug users to find employment then there must be the will to fix the distortion in the first place.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Annd this.

+ rep




> In a free market, it should be legal. 
> 
> However in our current market controlled by the insurance industry, I would support a law banning it. There is a huge segment of the population who are virtually unemployable, when PLENTY of employers out there would be happy to hire them, if it weren't for the insurance companies that control them. In a free market, I would have no problem with insurance companies making these determinations, but currently they are acting irrationally and doing more harm than good  - these monopolist insurance companies are entrenched in government.
> 
> Employers have much better methods of determining the capability of employees to perform their job function than taking a drug test - in fact using a drug test as a strict indicator of whether an employee will perform well or not would actually hurt a business in the long-run because they would be turning down quality employees for stupid, dumb, lazy employees who just happen to not take drugs.  
> 
> Why not judge your employees on their performance rather than the content of their urine? Doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Unless you are a lazy employer.

----------


## dannno

> that's fine.  
> as an individual you still have the option to opt out of the contract of employment with that entity.
> 
> I see where you're going but the issue is that government forces employers to buy coverage.   
> The solution shouldn't then be to force employers to accept drug addicts or to deny employers the right to test employees; it should be to remove the insurance mandate.


I would argue that MORE employers are currently being forbidden from hiring quality employees who use cannabis and some other illicit substances against their will because they are forced to drug test than there would be employers "forced" to hire "drug addicts" if the tests were outlawed. So my solution is actually more libertarian, because it would affect less people's rights AND in addition, if somebody is addicted to drugs, you can either tell, or it will affect their performance, or you will never know and so it won't be an issue - as far as I know you are allowed to not hire and fire based on performance

A drug test is not a "drug addict" test - it is a test to see if there are illicit substances in someone's body.

----------


## Working Poor

I won't work for someone who requires a drug test even though I am clean. The chemical content of my bodily fluids is none of their business.

----------


## pcosmar

I tested a lot of drugs in the 70s.

But "Should drug testing be illegal?" 

*It should have never been legal,*, nor acceptable.

It was forced on employers. It was never Voluntary,, 

Prior to 1980 it did not exist. It has been detrimental to everyone since. Harming employers,, and everyone unemployed due to such laws.

----------


## presence

> I would argue that MORE employers are currently being forbidden from hiring quality employees who use cannabis and some other illicit substances against their will because they are forced to drug test than there would be employers "forced" to hire "drug addicts" if the tests were outlawed. So my solution is actually more libertarian


I understand that your solution would be "relatively" more libertarian in terms of individuals effected, but its still economic intervention via regulation.  
You're essentially taking the populist path; smother the rights of the few to advance the rights of the many.  
The true libertarian path; the crisp message is deregulation; remove the insurance mandates; which in turn will leave employers with the_ choice_ to test.
We shouldn't settle for the lesser of two evils when the path to no evil stands before us.
Personally, I take the agorist path; I consider employment by a regulated entity to be innately immoral and any state which so regulates illegitimate.
So, I choose instead to enter gainful undisclosed contracts with my fellow man.

I have a good friend from my college days; a fellow agorist.   He's chief technology officer for a nuclear power plant in the US.   He's also a daily pot smoker.   *But he's got an undisclosed deal with his boss, also a stoner, and his hookup:*  As my buddy runs the nuke plant computer system, he simply keeps both of their names out of the automated list of "random" drug tests.   Another inroad for the power of contract to be elevated above the power of law... even in a nuke plant

----------


## mrsat_98

Drugs testing should be legal, how else will I know if I smoked enough to pass.

----------


## Todd

> I think drug testing politicians should be illegal.
> 
> If we trust them enough to run our country, surely we trust them enough to not do drugs.


but... government is about taking care of children and if they are doing drugs then they obviously want to sell them to the kiddies.  Love of Children and drugs just don't mix.

I am very disappoint Texan.

----------


## Jesse James

> I think drug testing politicians should be illegal.
> 
> If we trust them enough to run our country, surely we trust them enough to not do drugs.


you paying?

----------


## Madison320

> ^I think there are a lot of hypotheticals being tossed around but on a purely practical level if there is the will to ban drug testing because it distorts the ability for drug users to find employment then there must be the will to fix the distortion in the first place.


I agree. 

I'm skeptical of those that say they'd be in favor of the right to drug test, "if we had a free market". Why are they so quick to take the government solution instead of the free market one? I think there might be some hatred of big business here. As Ayn Rand wrote, "America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business"

----------


## dannno

> I understand that your solution would be "relatively" more libertarian in terms of individuals effected, but its still economic intervention via regulation.  
> You're essentially taking the populist path; smother the rights of the few to advance the rights of the many.  
> The true libertarian path; the crisp message is deregulation; remove the insurance mandates; which in turn will leave employers with the_ choice_ to test.



Dude, we all agree that the government shouldn't be involved, that drug testing should be legal, that is the libertarian solution..

But what you don't seem to understand is that currently the government is forcing employers to drug test and not allowing them to hire people who use illicit substances. The most libertarian solution short of a full libertarian solution is to stop that from happening and allow businesses the freedom to hire people again, by banning drug tests in the work place, since government is forcing them to drug test. It's preferable, and more libertarian compared to what we have now where employers are severely limited in who they can hire.

In a non-libertarian society, what is "most libertarian" can not always be looked at in a petri dish - you have to look at how it affects everything in the environment. For example, if the government is stealing billions of dollars from people to give to immigrants, then limiting immigration can be argued as a libertarian solution to curtailing government plunder - even if it's not the optimal solution, it is better and more libertarian than what we have now. The people who can't immigrate have their rights restricted less than the people who are being stolen from. The people being stolen from are trapped, they can't avoid taxes, they can't move. The people who want to immigrate on the other hand can do whatever they want where they are, they just can't come here and take people's $#@!.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> mandatory drug testing by the state should be illegal
> drug testing by employment contract, I have no issue with
> the state shouldn't be employing anyone, so there really should be no conflict


+1

----------


## Madison320

> Dude, we all agree that the government shouldn't be involved, that drug testing should be legal, that is the libertarian solution..
> 
> But what you don't seem to understand is that currently the government is forcing employers to drug test and not allowing them to hire people who use illicit substances. The most libertarian solution short of a full libertarian solution is to stop that from happening and allow businesses the freedom to hire people again, by banning drug tests in the work place, since government is forcing them to drug test. It's preferable, and more libertarian compared to what we have now where employers are severely limited in who they can hire.
> 
> In a non-libertarian society, what is "most libertarian" can not always be looked at in a petri dish - you have to look at how it affects everything in the environment. For example, if the government is stealing billions of dollars from people to give to immigrants, then limiting immigration can be argued as a libertarian solution to curtailing government plunder. The people who can't immigrate have their rights restricted less than the people who are being stolen from. The people being stolen from are trapped, they can't avoid taxes, they can't move. The people who want to immigrate on the other hand can do whatever they want where they are, they just can't come here and take people's $#@!.


The more I think about this the more I don't like your position. Using your logic you could make a case that welfare is necessary since we don't have a free market and people can't find jobs so they need money. Basically your position is that we need more socialism to fix existing socialism. It's a never ending spiral. The solution is to move towards freedom, not away from it.

----------


## dannno

> The more I think about this the more I don't like your position. Using your logic you could make a case that welfare is necessary since we don't have a free market and people can't find jobs so they need money. Basically your position is that we need more socialism to fix existing socialism. It's a never ending spiral. The solution is to move towards freedom, not away from it.


That's not a good argument at all, socialism entraps into being dependent on the state and actually increases poverty. If people can't find jobs because of government, the libertarian solution is not to impoverish them even more.

I welcome another example you may be able to think of that bolsters the point you're trying to make.

----------


## Madison320

> That's not a good argument at all, socialism entraps into being dependent on the state and actually increases poverty. If people can't find jobs because of government, the libertarian solution is not to impoverish them even more.
> 
> I welcome another example you may be able to think of that bolsters the point you're trying to make.



Of course it's not a good argument! It's YOUR argument! I'm making fun of it. 

Your argument roughly is that problems caused by socialism should be fixed with more socialism:

Regulation of the insurance business(socialism) -> businesses being forced to drug test(bad) -> Ban drug testing(more socialism)

----------


## dannno

> Of course it's not a good argument! It's YOUR argument! I'm making fun of it.


Uh, no, I never argued that since government destroys jobs we should have welfare, that was something YOU brought up. I'm sorry, but that doesn't make people more free on the whole, my solutions make people more free on the whole and that is my goal.





> Your argument roughly is that problems caused by socialism should be fixed with more socialism:
> 
> Regulation of the insurance business(socialism) -> businesses being forced to drug test(bad) -> Ban drug testing(more socialism)


Uh, no again, I'm saying that since companies DID NOT DRUG TEST before the government forced them to, now that the government is forcing most companies to drug test, the solution is to ban drug testing. We would be back to where we were before, when companies made the decision NOT to drug test on their own because they had the freedom to do so.

That is not more government intervention, it's LESS government intervention, because the market would mirror the free market much more closely.

You're trying to make some silly argument akin to saying that a bill that is 100 words is better than a bill that is 200 words, even if the bill that is 200 words gives people more freedom than the bill that is 100 words. I'm looking at the RESULT of government intervention in some aspect, does it give people more freedom or not? You are looking at the logistics and playing word games that don't amount to anything intellectually or principally substantial.

----------


## dannno

I mean, come on man, let's say that during the Holocaust they had a law that Jews were to be taken to concentration camps and systematically murdered. That's not libertarian.. but let's say it is part of a broader law that would be nearly impossible to get rid of - So the people who are against it decide to make a law that bans Jews from being taken to concentration camps and systematically murdered - but hey, according to you that's 'socialism', it's another law that limits people's freedom to take Jews to concentration camps and have them systematically murdered! Why don't we just sit around for a few decades and try to get rid of the first law, instead of creating another law that gives people freedom because it is much more realistic to employ in the short term?

----------


## Madison320

> I mean, come on man, let's say that during the Holocaust they had a law that Jews were to be taken to concentration camps and systematically murdered. That's not libertarian.. but let's say it is part of a broader law that would be nearly impossible to get rid of - So the people who are against it decide to make a law that bans Jews from being taken to concentration camps and systematically murdered - but hey, according to you that's 'socialism', it's another law that limits people's freedom to take Jews to concentration camps and have them systematically murdered! Why don't we just sit around for a few decades and try to get rid of the first law, instead of creating another law that gives people freedom because it is much more realistic to employ in the short term?


A law limiting Jews from being killed is not an infringement on anyone's rights(socialism), you don't have the right to kill people. A law banning businesses from drug testing IS an infringement of rights, the rights of the business owner.

Here's a question for you: Suppose you wanted to test your future wife for STDs before you got married. Should that be illegal?

----------


## dannno

> A law limiting Jews from being killed is not an infringement on anyone's rights(socialism), you don't have the right to kill people. A law banning businesses from drug testing IS an infringement of rights, the rights of the business owner.


Right, I was sorta making fun of your argument about having socialism because government destroys jobs when socialism doesn't help people.. You are saying you want less laws, that seems to be your goal, while my goal is to give people the most amount of freedom. So I was inferring that you would be against a law that gives people more freedom just because it's another law. 

The bottom line is that banning drug tests would give people more freedom than the current situation where employers are forced to give drug tests. Since employers didn't drug test before they were forced to, there's really no valid argument you can make to the contrary. My solution gives people more freedom than your solution.




> Here's a question for you: Suppose you wanted to test your future wife for STDs before you got married. Should that be illegal?


Why would I want to test my future wife for STDs if we are already having sex?

But seriously, that's another bad analogy.. Because I can simply ask my wife to get an STD test, voluntarily, and if she says no there is nothing stopping me from calling off the wedding. Relationships and marriage will likely never be regulated like employment is regulated today.

----------


## Madison320

> Right, I was sorta making fun of your argument about having socialism because government destroys jobs when socialism doesn't help people.. You are saying you want less laws, that seems to be your goal, while my goal is to give people the most amount of freedom. So I was inferring that you would be against a law that gives people more freedom just because it's another law. 
> 
> The bottom line is that banning drug tests would give people more freedom than the current situation where employers are forced to give drug tests. Since employers didn't drug test before they were forced to, there's really no valid argument you can make to the contrary. My solution gives people more freedom than your solution.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I want to test my future wife for STDs if we are already having sex?
> 
> But seriously, that's another bad analogy.. Because I can simply ask my wife to get an STD test, voluntarily, and if she says no there is nothing stopping me from calling off the wedding. Relationships and marriage will likely never be regulated like employment is regulated today.


A better question should have been would you make it illegal to test your future wife for drugs. I'm sure you'd say no to that as well.

My guess is that you don't value the rights of business owners as much as the rights of non business owners.

----------


## dannno

> A better question should have been would you make it illegal to test your future wife for drugs. I'm sure you'd say no to that as well.


Huh? Can you be more specific? Are you saying you want to outlaw ALL STD testing? Once again, I said you could ask your wife to voluntarily go in and have herself tested, would that be illegal? If she says no, then you just don't get married. 





> My guess is that you don't value the rights of business owners as much as the rights of non business owners.


Oh come on, this is total horse $#@!. I can tell you aren't even reading my posts when you say stuff like this. 

LISTEN for once, please...

EMPLOYERS RIGHTS ARE BEING CURTAILED BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HIRE THE BEST EMPLOYEES, IF THEY USE ILLICIT SUBSTANCES. Employers are missing out on hiring good employees who would help their business because they are forced to drug test by the government. Employers did not CHOOSE to test their employees for drugs before the government forced them to. So as far as I can tell, the number of businesses whose rights would be affected by a ban on drug testing would be ZERO. Whereas EVERY business who is currently forced to drug test is having their rights curtailed, as they are not allowed to hire the best employees for the job. 

So once again, freedom FOR BUSINESSES AND FOR EMPLOYERS would be expanded GREATLY if drug testing were banned. You are limiting the scope of your thinking when you look at every issue under a magnifying glass rather than looking at the big picture.

----------


## Madison320

> Huh? Can you be more specific? Are you saying you want to outlaw ALL STD testing? Once again, I said you could ask your wife to voluntarily go in and have herself tested, would that be illegal? If she says no, then you just don't get married. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come on, this is total horse $#@!. I can tell you aren't even reading my posts when you say stuff like this. 
> 
> LISTEN for once, please...
> 
> ...


All I'm saying is that you want to ban drug testing for businesses but not individuals. 

How would freedom be expanded for business owners? Currently they can decide to test or not test. You want to take away the option.

----------


## bunklocoempire

Voluntary participation.  If it ain't voluntary, it's $#@!e.

If someone's existence is all about sacrificing to ones own life, I am not likely to sway that with a gun.

If someones existence is all about self sacrifice for others, am I going to sway that with a gun?
And everything in between.

One size does not fit all, and keeps the bar needlessly low.  

Please don't tell me how voluntary relationships with others is supposed to work, like government is constantly telling me.

----------


## dannno

> How would freedom be expanded for business owners? Currently they can decide to test or not test. You want to take away the option.


Good $#@!ing lord, that is bull$#@!, you clearly aren't reading my posts... I've said like 15 times in this thread already that most business are FORCED BY GOVERNMENT to do the drug tests, they CANNOT decide whether or not to test. I clearly explained the mechanism by which that happens. Before government required businesses test, businesses did not test. That is my whole entire $#@!ing argument, that I've made like 10 times at least, and you clearly haven't even read it once.

What's the point of having a debate if you aren't going to read my posts?

----------


## dannno

If I wanted to start a medium or large business, I would RATHER have the right to hire employees who used drugs than have the right to test my employees for drugs - I find the first a far greater and important freedom to have than the latter. I would rather have both freedoms, but if I had to choose it would be a very easy choice to choose the first one, and so would any smart business owner.

Who here would want to curtail my freedom to hire who I want in favor of government mandated fascist drug testing? Madison320, apparently, and maybe presence?

----------


## Madison320

> Good $#@!ing lord, that is bull$#@!, you clearly aren't reading my posts... I've said like 15 times in this thread already that most business are FORCED BY GOVERNMENT to do the drug tests, they CANNOT decide whether or not to test. I clearly explained the mechanism by which that happens. Before government required businesses test, businesses did not test. That is my whole entire $#@!ing argument, that I've made like 10 times at least, and you clearly haven't even read it once.
> 
> What's the point of having a debate if you aren't going to read my posts?


Do you have any evidence for this? From what I've read only about half of businesses are testing for drugs, and that's usually only for the initial hire.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health...effective.html


Let's review:

You make the questionable claim that businesses are forced to test for drugs and the solution is force them NOT to test for drugs.

Let's assume you are correct and businesses are being forced to test for drugs. 

So the big question for you is why not STOP FORCING businesses to test for drugs?

----------


## dannno

> Do you have any evidence for this? From what I've read only about half of businesses are testing for drugs, and that's usually only for the initial hire.
> 
> http://www.slate.com/articles/health...effective.html


Medium and larger companies are forced to get certain types of insurance by government, the companies that provide that insurance are in bed with government, those insurance companies require companies to drug test. EVERY office job I have ever had or applied for in a medium or large sized business required a drug test. Fortunately I can pass a drug test, even after I take a bong hit on the way to the clinic - but that's only because I know how to pass them from a scientific standpoint, most people have to rely on hear-say and rumors about what works and what doesn't. 

The half of jobs that don't require testing are usually either like customer service jobs in some type of food or beverage chain (like Starbucks) or smaller businesses. 





> So the big question for you is why not STOP FORCING businesses to test for drugs?


That's optimal, like I already said - but if I had a choice, as a large business owner, over whether I could hire people who used drugs or test my employees for drugs, I would choose being able to hire people who use drugs. That is why I would support a ban.

----------


## presence

> For example, if the government is stealing billions of dollars from people to give to immigrants, then limiting immigration can be argued as a libertarian solution to curtailing government plunder - even if it's not the optimal solution, it is better and more libertarian than what we have now. The people who can't immigrate have their rights restricted less than the people who are being stolen from. The people being stolen from are trapped, they can't avoid taxes, they can't move. The people who want to immigrate on the other hand can do whatever they want where they are, they just can't come here and take people's $#@!.


No.  This is nationalist populism.   This is not libertarianism.  I do not support this notion.   

When the government creates edicts which distort markets the solution to distorted markets is to remove the edicts which caused said distortion.  The solution is not to create new edicts to lessen the impact of other edicts; this is disinterventionism and your luck at choosing the "best" disintervention will be equally as failed and bring forth just as many unintended consequences as choosing the "best" intervention to begin with.    There is no additional edict the government can make which can lessen market distortion; it can only shift the distortions elsewhere upon other hapless souls and in so doing the State grows, liberty shrinks, and people suffer.

----------


## Madison320

> Medium and larger companies are forced to get certain types of insurance by government, the companies that provide that insurance are in bed with government, those insurance companies require companies to drug test. EVERY office job I have ever had or applied for in a medium or large sized business required a drug test. Fortunately I can pass a drug test, even after I take a bong hit on the way to the clinic - but that's only because I know how to pass them from a scientific standpoint, most people have to rely on hear-say and rumors about what works and what doesn't. 
> 
> The half of jobs that don't require testing are usually either like customer service jobs in some type of food or beverage chain (like Starbucks) or smaller businesses. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's optimal, like I already said - but if I had a choice, as a large business owner, over whether I could hire people who used drugs or test my employees for drugs, I would choose being able to hire people who use drugs. That is why I would support a ban.


Do you have any evidence that businesses are forced to test for drugs?

If the only two choices were a law that forces drug testing and a law that bans drug testing, then I would agree, I'd rather ban drug testing.

----------


## P3ter_Griffin

If we have an actuary here they could probably explain the exact calculation that effects the business man's decision on whether to drug test or not.

There are few industries where government mandates the employer to drug test; trucking, shipping, nuclear power plant operation I'm sure.  But in general it is a matter of rates.

And assuming the government does not dictate to the actuaries and insurers what that rate adjustment is, it is reasonable to assume it would continue in the future.  Even the businessman who does not provide insurance to his employees in case they get injured on the job, it is likely he would have insurance to cover his means of production and his resources that will be used to that end.  And being that it is his employees who employ his means of production and handle his resources I think it is reasonable to assume that who the businessman employs would still effect his rates.  And that businesses that drug screen employees would benefit from lower rates.

----------


## presence

> Do you have any evidence that businesses are forced to test for drugs?
> 
> If the only two choices were a law that forces drug testing and a law that bans drug testing, then I would agree, I'd rather ban drug testing.


NO.

If the choice only exists between a law that bans drug testing 
and one that forces drug testing 
then the State which forces this false dichotomy is illegitimate.

I want freedom.   Not the latest flavor of state approved populism.

----------


## r3volution 3.0

> In this case, it is *virtually illegal* for most companies to employ a person who smokes one joint a month.





> But the state forces employers to sign up for  certain types of insurance, those insurance companies are in bed with  the state, and those insurance companies force companies to drug test  their employees..


As others have said, the best solution would be to remove those mandates. Only if that were less politically feasible than banning drug tests, and banning drug tests would have the net positive effect you're suggesting (more businesses freed from having to test than denied the ability to test), would banning drug tests be justifiable as a second-best option. But you haven't shown that banning testing is more politically feasible than removing the mandates, or that the net effect of banning drug testing would be an improvement relative the status quo.

Likewise with your immigration analogy. The best solution is to eliminate the welfare, not (further) restrict immigration. And, in that case, the best solution is also clearly the most politically feasible (everyone who supports closing the border would naturally support the _less severe_ measure of restricting welfare to immigrants, but not vice versa).

----------


## presence

Two politicians were running for President:

One promises everyone will be strapped to a machine and $#@!ed constantly 24/7 for life.
The other promises universal pee hole plastic surgery; every will have all sex organs removed.

Who do you vote for?

If you had been living under a 24/7 $#@! regime would you reconsider the pee hole surgery?

----------


## dannno

> NO.
> 
> If the choice only exists between a law that bans drug testing 
> and one that forces drug testing 
> then the State which forces this false dichotomy is illegitimate.
> 
> I want freedom.   Not the latest flavor of state approved populism.


This sounds like plugging your ears and singing "lalalalalalala"

We all agree on the real solution - the question is, until that hapepns, would you rather have less freedom or more freedom. I say more freedom.

----------


## presence

> This sounds like plugging your ears and singing "lalalalalalala"
> 
> We all agree on the real solution - the question is, until that happens, would you rather have less freedom or more freedom. I say more freedom.


the State cannot give me freedom, liberty is mine to take

the is no more freedom in forced vs banned

----------


## Madison320

> This sounds like plugging your ears and singing "lalalalalalala"
> 
> We all agree on the real solution - the question is, until that hapepns, would you rather have less freedom or more freedom. I say more freedom.


Except in this case you haven't shown any evidence that businesses are forced to test for drugs. I'm still waiting.


This quote is what really annoys me. When people think they know better than the business owner how to run their business:




> Employers have much better methods of determining the capability of employees to perform their job function than taking a drug test - in fact using a drug test as a strict indicator of whether an employee will perform well or not would actually hurt a business in the long-run because they would be turning down quality employees for stupid, dumb, lazy employees who just happen to not take drugs (or are drug addicts to the drug alcohol)
> 
> Why not judge your employees on their performance rather than the content of their urine? Doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Unless you are a lazy employer.

----------


## Madison320

> NO.
> 
> If the choice only exists between a law that bans drug testing 
> and one that forces drug testing 
> then the State which forces this false dichotomy is illegitimate.
> 
> I want freedom.   Not the latest flavor of state approved populism.


I agree. I was getting tired of arguing ...

----------

