Obama, the criminal's friend

JohnWC

Veteran Expediter
Well, testing them all and then doing randoms are both unconstitutional, so I didn't think you were serious when you suggested those.
Why is it not constitutional for one group in this great country but constitutional for another group I've got sick 3 times from getting drug tested . Haven't ever failed one yet in 37 years and I wonder what the true numbers are in the trucking industry.
Not the government BS.
 

JohnWC

Veteran Expediter
How did you get sick getting drug test?
Go into a those places with everybody coughing and sick what's the odds of you getting something. Can I prove it no but funny within hours I started coming down with something one time it was the flue.
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Go into a those places with everybody coughing and sick what's the odds of you getting something. Can I prove it no but funny within hours I started coming down with something one time it was the flue.
Ok, got it.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Cheri..Since we're all responsible for our own actions (or should be) it doesn't!

When people are barred from employment, how might they 'support' themselves? By turning to crime: theft, burglary, purse snatching - doesn't that concern us? It concerns me, because I don't want to be victimized by someone who needs to steal to eat.
It's getting harder to justify treating people harshly over the recreational usage of marijuana, when the "damage" is considerably less than alcohol. People busted for DUI don't lose their jobs, they get a permit to drive to & from work!
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Why is it not constitutional for one group in this great country but constitutional for another group I've got sick 3 times from getting drug tested . Haven't ever failed one yet in 37 years and I wonder what the true numbers are in the trucking industry.
Not the government BS.
The reason it is constitutional for one group (several, actually) and not others is because the Supreme Court has carved out several exceptions to the 4th Amendment's illegal search clause. Normally under the 4th Amendment, probable cause and a warrant are generally required for government searches, but because public safety outweighs the personal liberty of those engaged in certain activities who's improper performance can have immediate, serious and irreversible consequences for others (such as airline personnel including pilots and mechanics, truck drivers, maritime and river ship personnel, nuclear power workers, certain railroad and mass transit employees, and employees who handle pipelines carrying natural gas or hazardous substances), those who engage in these regulated industries must waive certain constitutional rights. You have a right to personal liberty and due process under the 5th and 14th Amendments, but not if those rights puts the public in danger.

According to Quest Diagnostics, a diagnostic information services firm who tracks these things, the actual numbers amongst the general population where employers do drug testing 3.7 percent failure rate in 2013, compared with a rate of 3.5 in 2012, a relative increase of more than 5 percent. This is the first time the rate of positive tests has gone up since 2003. Hair tests also saw a significant increase, with 7.4 percent of the 190,000 tests being positive. That 's a relative increase of nearly 25 percent from 2013.

For truckers, 1,240 drivers failed drug tests in 2013, up from 1,139 in 2012. And, 2,095 drivers failed alcohol tests in 2013, down from 2,494 violations in 2012. Both alcohol and drug failure rates among truckers represent less-than one percent failure rate, well below the general population.

This all began in 1980 when a survey of US military personnel revealed 27% had used illegal drugs within 30 days of taking the survey. A drug testing program was put in place and 5 years later drug use was down to 5 percent in the military. Three years after that, when they tweaked the system to largely what it is in trucking now, it was down to 3.5 percent. In 1986, Ronald Reagan issued an Executive Order mandating a drug-free federal workforce (lead by example, that sort of thing). A year later Congress legislated it, and then specific rules for testing and procedures were legislated, and then in 1988, the US DOT issued rules to require drug-free workplace programs through its six operating administrations: 1) Federal Highway Administration; 2) Federal Railroad Administration; 3) U.S. Coast Guard; 4) Federal Aviation Administration; 5) Urban Mass Transportation Administration; and 5) Research and Special Programs Administration.

Those first couple or three years saw test failure rates among truckers, railroad and airline personnel along the same lines as the early military, of well in excess of 20 percent (mostly amphetamines but others, of course). Since then the rate has fallen dramatically, to less than 1 percent for truckers and railroad personnel, and even lower for airline personnel.

Trucking companies are required to test all new hires, as well as conduct annual random testing of 10 percent of their current drivers for alcohol and 50 percent for drugs.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
"Lead by example"? So why aren't state & federal legislators required to be dug tested? Or judges?
I guess the example is "Do as we say, not as we do", as usual. :mad:
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
"Lead by example"? So why aren't state & federal legislators required to be dug tested? Or judges?
I guess the example is "Do as we say, not as we do", as usual. :mad:
Well, "lead by example" in the federal workforce was to set an example for the private workforce. The reason legislators and judges aren't tested for drugs is, just because you have a bias towards a group of people, be they legislators, or judges, or poor people (welfare recipients), that isn't really the standard for "probable cause." And if the Fourth Amendment means anything, it means the government has to have probable cause to test you for drugs. Testing welfare recipients, or judges or legislators without probable cause violates that principle because the government is searching a person without knowledge that the person is in fact taking drugs. That's the classic "fishing expedition" and courts tend to frown on fishing expeditions.
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
It's not because of a bias towards legislators and judges, it's because they can wreck lives in the course of their employment, same as any truck driver. I'd like to know they take that responsibility seriously, but some of their work product makes me wonder.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
You'd have to give an example of where a judge or a legislator wrecked a life the same as any truck driver (immediate, serious, and irreversible, which are the standards used in federal regulations). Enacting legislation or ruling on legal precedent doesn't count as a wrecked life, nor does not getting your way because a judge or a law doesn't favor your wishes. Legislators and judges can certainly wreck lives in many ways, but they are hardly in safety critical positions that would require the suspension of their constitutional rights.

Every year somebody introduces a bill somewhere, either in DC or in the several states, to drug test judges and elected officials, including legislators and governors. And every year they die a quick death because the Supreme Court struck down a Georgia law in 1997 that required testing of candidates for office as being unconstitutional. Two lower courts thought the same way you do and had ruled with the state, finding that the drug tests were okay because of the substantial trust voters hold for their elected officials in terms of safety, economic well-being and law enforcement. But the U.S. Supreme Court in an 8-1 vote wasn't having any of it. You have to prove legitimate public safety concern about drug use among political candidates, appointed and elected officials. Otherwise, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, drug testing without state compelling interest diminishes personal privacy for a symbol's sake.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
You'd have to give an example of where a judge or a legislator wrecked a life the same as any truck driver (immediate, serious, and irreversible, which are the standards used in federal regulations). Enacting legislation or ruling on legal precedent doesn't count as a wrecked life, nor does not getting your way because a judge or a law doesn't favor your wishes. Legislators and judges can certainly wreck lives in many ways, but they are hardly in safety critical positions that would require the suspension of their constitutional rights.

Every year somebody introduces a bill somewhere, either in DC or in the several states, to drug test judges and elected officials, including legislators and governors. And every year they die a quick death because the Supreme Court struck down a Georgia law in 1997 that required testing of candidates for office as being unconstitutional. Two lower courts thought the same way you do and had ruled with the state, finding that the drug tests were okay because of the substantial trust voters hold for their elected officials in terms of safety, economic well-being and law enforcement. But the U.S. Supreme Court in an 8-1 vote wasn't having any of it. You have to prove legitimate public safety concern about drug use among political candidates, appointed and elected officials. Otherwise, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, drug testing without state compelling interest diminishes personal privacy for a symbol's sake.
If ever there was a case for the drug testing of judges, the exploits of Judge Richard Baumgartner certainly provide justification. He presided over the highly publicized Christian-Newsom murder case in Knoxville, TN - one of the most gruesome killings to have happened in this country in recent history - all while being addicted to drugs and running illegal scams to purchase them. Of course he heard many other cases as well, but this one was the most notorious instance of one jurist wrecking the lives of numerous people and improperly administering the due process of law.

http://archive.wbir.com/news/articl...-federal-charges?odyssey=tab|topnews|bc|large

This is a rather lengthy article if you connect to some of the links and related stories, but it's an interesting read and will likely turn your stomach - especially considering that for all practical purposes, he got off with barely more than a slap on the wrist.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
Seems more like a probable cause case than a blanket testing of everyone case.

My recollection of the Christian-Newsom case isn't what it should be, because that case wasn't all that publicized nationally, so you'll have to refresh my memory on how he improperly admistered due process. He was obviously impaired during the trial, which is unconscionable, but I don't recall any improper rulings during the trial or at sentencing that would be classified as ruining the lives of innocent people.

The defense got a special judge to order a retrial for 4 of the defendants, because Baumgartner was impaired, more than being due to inappropriate or incorrect rulings from the bench. The TN State Supreme Court vacated the special judge's and let the original convictions stand. Two of those defendants later got retrials, but only because the new judge was unable to be the 13th juror at the original trial (a phrase to mean unable to determine witness credibility when no physical evidence exists to connect someone to the crime wave the conviction hinges primarily on witness testimony). But even at the decision to orde the retrial, the judge noted that it seemed clear the defendants were in fact connected to the crimes. Both defendants were convicted at retrial.

The victim's families had to go through a very unpleasant time of two retrials, but I really don't think the second trials damaged them in the same way an impaired trucker could, much less the sane way the convicts did, and would justify suspension the 4th Amendment for all judges.
 
Top