Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!rb
From: rb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Newsgroups: net.followup,net.legal
Subject: Re: Discussion of Drug Testing
Message-ID: <487@cci632.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-Oct-86 11:57:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: cci632.487
Posted: Thu Oct  9 11:57:42 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Oct-86 00:46:05 EDT
References: <4071@brl-smoke.ARPA> <119@akgud.UUCP>
Reply-To: rb@ccird2.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Organization: CCI, Rochester Development, Rochester, NY
Lines: 38
Summary: Constitutionality.
Xref: mnetor net.followup:2522 net.legal:3858

In article <119@akgud.UUCP> rjb@akgud.UUCP (rjb) writes:
>
>When I made a denunciation of random drug testing based on the
>several ammendments to the Constitution that I think it violates
>plus the violence it does to the principles of "Presumption of
>Innocence" and "Probable Cause", a respondent suggested that if
>I pressed the issue far enough that I would be accused of being
>a drug user.  Well it hasn't happened to me, but as you recently
>have seen Mr Cooper has been somewhat smeared by people who
>smugly write "I have nothing to fear, I'm not a drug user,..."
>and tacitly imply that if you object to the testing then you
>have something to hide.  I'm a generally conservative person
>but I know tyranny a-comin' when I see it.  McCarthy lives !
>Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}

The Constitutional protections are there to prevent deprivation
of "Life or Liberty or property" without "due process".

If testing could lead to criminal prosecution, then it would
probably be unconstitutional.  If instead, it would only lead
to an offer of appropriate medical treatment, then it would
make sense to include tests for diabetes as well as drugs.

The AMA considers alcoholism a desease, and also addiction to
certain other chemicals.  If someone were put in jail for having
diabetes and not knowing it, there would be public outrage.
The same should be true for drugs.

On the other hand, once a person is aware they have a problem,
they have a responsibility to do something about it.  If the
diabetic knew he was diabetic, knew he was having an "attack"
and still insisted on driving, doing something else that
could threaten the safety of others, he would be negligent
at best, and criminally responsible at worst.

Now the big question is, can a sick person be compelled to
accept treatment?  The issue is unresolved.  Gov. Lamm
says no, but many others say yes.