Send comments, tips,
and suggestions to:
DrugWarRant
Join us on Pete's couch.
couch

DrugWarRant.com, the longest running single-issue blog devoted to drug policy, is published by the Prohibition Isn't Free Foundation
facebooktwitterrss
October 2009
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Archives

Authors

Drug-free work week, er, half-week

The drug czar’s getting kind of lazy with his “blog.” Apparently somebody decided that they should post something today encouraging people to get involved in drug-free work week, which begins began… Monday.

Shoot, only one week to be drug-free, and we’ve already missed half of it.

That got me wandering around some of the Department of Labor pages on the topic and I ran into something I hadn’t heard before. Apparently, the Department of Transportation has a new rule, as of August, requiring certain drug testing situations to utilize mandatory direct observation collections.

What does that mean?

Direct observation is a procedure that requires a same-gender observer to “watch the urine go from the employee’s body into the collection container.” […] The direct observation rule also requires that immediately prior to all direct observation tests, employees must raise their shirts above the waist and lower their lower clothing to allow observers to verify the absence of any cheating devices.

Now there’s a job for you.

What kind of a sick society are we breeding?

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

12 comments to Drug-free work week, er, half-week

  • DdC

    Now we know where the Perverts released early to make room for Ganja growers, find employment.

    Free Drugs for a Week?

  • Jon Doe

    I think that if I had to go through that, I’d just piss in the observer’s face.

  • ezrydn

    I’d definitely miss the “collection container.”

  • kant

    I guess the people over at the department of transportation wanted to take a page out of Safford Middle School’s book.

    on a serious note, how is this legal? I mean this is a partial strip search. How is this not a violation of the 4th amendment?

  • BruceM

    please, please take my privacy away from me. Please take away my rights, liberties, and dignity. For the children!

  • paul

    Outrageous, isn’t it?

    Elimination of this rule ought to be taken up on the House floor as a new bill. Maybe Ron Paul could do it. Anyone who resists eliminating the rule could be ridiculed mercilessly on the late-night TV mockery circuit.

  • wow… somebody, or a panel of somebodies, had to come up with that ruling.

    Stuff like this reminds me why I always liked that David Crosby song… “What Are Their Names”

    I wonder who they are
    The men who really run this land
    And I wonder why they run it
    With such a thoughtless hand

    What are their names
    And on what streets do they live
    I’d like to ride right over
    This afternoon and give
    Them a piece of my mind
    About peace for mankind
    Peace is not an awful lot to ask

  • Hope

    As I understand it, this new rule is to be used when it’s known that the victim of the test has tried to implement procedures in the past that might keep the test from showing positive.

    Which sounds strange to me, because I figure that such a situation with major transportation employees would have already resulted in firing and no more tests.

  • kaptinemo

    “What kind of a sick society are we breeding?”

    The kind that Walter Lippmann in his Preface to Morals warned us about, one in which, to stop its’ fearful hands from shaking, will accept manacles…and also attempt to place those manacles upon those who neither need nor want them, as they are quite able to regulate their own behavior based upon personal convictions, and don’t require anyone else to do their thinking for them.

    That’s what prohibs mean to me. They’re the pathetic sorts that want a Big Mommy or Big Daddy to tell them what to do…or worse, harbor a secret desire to be that Big Mommy or Big Daddy. Authoritarianism invariably stems from the fear of its’ adherents that the freedom of others will cause damage to themselves, and so that freedom must be throttled. Hence the drug law manacles they clap upon their own wrists, and demand we wear as well.

  • I had to drug test for about a year and a half. It wasn’t as intrusive as this, but it’s still really awkward when someone is standing directly behind you waiting till your done. I know quite a few people who have had the direct observation. I’ve always thought that they shouldn’t have the right to force you to show them your naughty bits. It’s a sad world we live in indeed.

  • IIRC, “real” drug tests which are mandated by federal law (such as for transportation employees and convicted persons on probation) have ALWAYS been “direct observation” tests and the testing protocols (for what drugs are tested, how and levels considered “positive”, etc.) are similarly dictated by law.

    Most “pre employment” drug tests, however, such as those typically required by low-wage corporate employers such as Walmart, Home Depot and similar companies, are NOT controlled or required by federal regulations. They only need to comply with that company’s own policy and procedures. (These tests are voluntary, because a company gets federal contracts, or just likes a “drug free workplace” and an opportunity to get more controllable, docile workers. In some states, there is a slight discount in Worker’s Compensation premiums like 5% offered by some insurance carriers).

    In any case, these “faux” voluntary “preemployment” drug tests tend to be as cheap as possible for the company (the instant test panels rather than lab work) and there is typically no requirement of direct observation.

    But if you’re a ex-convict, a pilot or a long-haul truck driver who is covered by US DOT or DOJ/BOP requirements, expect the full monty when you’re tested and leave the Wizzenator at home.

  • Cliff

    Repeat after me;

    I will not piss away my liberty for temporary financial security.

    There, now you’re free.