How to pass a drug test?
This is so much the most effective method of dissuasion of drugs and the more controversial type of the tests of drugs. Drugs tests at random it takes the order as the Department of Transport of the USA, what means that many employers in the USA do not have another option to apply the programs of random tests of drugs. Even if at random it is not forced the drugs tests by law, many organizations use small random tests of detection of drugs as a scale of an effective dissuasion. At first sight in the USA, the tests at random of drugs it seems to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States that protects the right of the citizens "of the safety of his persons, domiciles, roles and effects against records and unreasonable seizures". Also, the states of the Fourth Amendment that "will not send orders, but in a credible motive, are corroborated by means of oath or protest and describe with peculiarity the place that should be registered and the persons or the things of that it is necessary to make use". Independently, the Supreme Court of the USA gave an opinion on Skinner v. Railroad I Work Assn., 489 USA 602 (1989) that the drugs tests at random it is admissible for the personnel in the safety of the sensitive positions. Justice Kennedy, speaking on behalf of the majority, wrote:
[E] l interest of the government in the tests without a sample of individualized suspicion is convincing. Workpeople subject to the rights of the tests of approval of the management infested with risks of injuries to others that even a momentary loss of the attention can have disastrous consequences based on the interest of the public in general [...] Although the procedure cannot identify all the employees of altered with facility and a perfect precision, the regulations FRA give an effective way of dissuading to the workpeople occupied in sensitive tasks of safety the use of controlled substances or alcohol, first of all.
The opinion of the judges Marshall and Brennan illustrates another side of the controversy:
The question in this case is not if one declares a war against the illegal drugs it is a good public politics. The importance of freeing our society of these drugs is, for the time being, clear for all. Rather, the question here is if the implementation of the Government in which the war of a particular weapon Draconian - the obligatory collection and tests of chemistry of the blood of the railroad workpeople and of the urine - agrees with the Fourth Amendment. Precisely due to the need to act against the scourge of the drugs it is clear, the need for alertness against the unconstitutionality excess is big. The history teaches that the serious threats to the freedom come often in urgency times, when the constitutional rights seem too extravagant that to support. The Second World war, the cases of redeployment of camps, Hirabayashi against the United States, 320 USA 81 (1943); Korematsu v. United States, 323 USA 214 (1944), and the Red Threat and McCarthy was of the cases the internal overthrow, Schenck v. The United States, 249 USA 47 (1919), Dennis v. United States, 341 USA 494 (1951), are only the memories more extreme than when we allow that the fundamental freedoms to be sacrificed on behalf of the real or perceived demand, which invariably to be sorry for about it.
In the United States today, the drugs tests at random it is used by companies, centers of rehabilitation of drugs, the jails, the military police, and the firemen's departments, agencies of government, and, more recently, the schools. This method also can be used in the adolescents by his parents, or the order of carrying out in the adolescents in the school. The point of a test of drugs at random is the dissuasion, as the threat of the detection is much major compared to other test methods. Several questionable methods are used to determine who does the test to himself, that the names of a hat go from the drawing, to the most defensible methods use like robust generators of random numbers. Nevertheless, the drugs tests at random many selection systems are juridically indefensible because there is nothing to prevent that the users to speak to the persons for the names of regeneration with the random generator until the wished result has taken place. Most of the systems of manipulation do not have audit track it tries (database records are easy to change, so that the employers or his agents of the tests must not have access to the records of track of audit for the selection at random to be defensible). Finally, the third ones the hiring of selecting at random to the subjects of test of drugs is not juridically defensible, because there is no way of proving that there was no collusion to select a specific individual.
The target of the tests at random is to discourage the drugs consumption between the personnel, the recluses, or the students for not saying to anybody who when they are going to be proved in advance. Nevertheless, the critics affirm that the tests at random it introduces a guilt presumption, and is a violation of the intimacy if the user is not really poisoned during the working time. Also, the tests at random it is more probable that the cannabis consumers put themselves, since the metabolitos of the THC have a major duration in the body that those of many other drugs.
