Drug Testing CHA Residents & Public Employees (Chicago, Time: appointed, for sale)

[nikitakolata]

Does anyone else find both of these articles to be incredibly disappointing?

CHA kills controversial plan to drug test residents - Chicago Sun-Times

Chicago aldermen balk at drug testing for city employees - chicagotribune.com

Personally, I think both city employees (including Aldermen) and CHA residents should be subject to drug tests. I've held several jobs where random drug tests were required. In every case, I needed that job in order to live my life, pay my bills, and meet my obligations. There was nothing optional about the tests because, although someone can say "well you could just quit" that is not a realistic option for any responsible person.

I really just don't understand all the opposition to these tests. If they don't want to do it, I'll take a test in exchange for a cushy city job and free housing... Why do people think city employment and CHA housing are "rights?" No one forces anyone to do either.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by nikitakolata

I really just don't understand all the opposition to these tests.

It's a Constitutional violation as far as I'm concerned.

And with Chicago, you know that they would 1) do it as expensively as possible, and 2) make a million mistakes and get sued left and right.

Just legalize it all already, haven't we thrown enough money and lives away re-enacting the original failure of Prohibition?

[nikitakolata]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

It's a Constitutional violation as far as I'm concerned.

And with Chicago, you know that they would 1) do it as expensively as possible, and 2) make a million mistakes and get sued left and right.

Just legalize it all already, haven't we thrown enough money and lives away re-enacting the original failure of Prohibition?

Well, just IMO, legalization of drugs and drug testing are two different issues. I am all for drug legalization.

To me though, as it is now, using drugs is illegal. I am paying these people's salaries and for their housing with my tax dollars. I would lose the things I have if I did something illegal, such as use illegal drugs. If drug testing violates a person's constitutional rights, why are private entities able to do it?

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by nikitakolata

Well, just IMO, legalization of drugs and drug testing are two different issues. I am all for drug legalization.

To me though, as it is now, using drugs is illegal. I am paying these people's salaries and for their housing with my tax dollars. I would lose the things I have if I did something illegal, such as use illegal drugs. If drug testing violates a person's constitutional rights, why are private entities able to do it?

Private entities *shouldn't* be able to do it, either. But we have a lot of stupid weenies in America who have zero appreciation for the concept of freedom, as defined as "the right to pursue happiness" - the moral majority nitwits and the puritans can all take a long hike off of a short pier.

But I don't agree with your premise, actually.

If a homeowner gets stopped for smoking a joint during Blues Fest (I assume some of those folks are homeowners), they will get some kind of slap on the wrist, but they won't lose their house, and they won't lose their job.

Why would (or should) they, when those things have nothing connecting them?

Now, people doing drugs ON the job is a different story. People using public housing to deal/store drugs for sale is a different story.

I'd ask what the real motivation of this whole plan was- I'd wager it had more to do with giving somebody connected a fat, juicy contract to administer the tests rather than any serious intention to improve public housing.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by nikitakolata

To me though, as it is now, using drugs is illegal. I am paying these people's salaries and for their housing with my tax dollars. I would lose the things I have if I did something illegal, such as use illegal drugs. If drug testing violates a person's constitutional rights, why are private entities able to do it?

Should people lose their jobs or housing for doing illegal things like speeding? Parking illegally? It is all a matter of where you draw the line for illegal activities.

In general I think it is the job of law enforcement and the courts to administer laws - not employers or other agencies. If someone is doing their job well, why should they be drug tested? If someone is doing drugs and isn't doing their job well they should be fired for not doing their job.

If someone is not causing disturbances or problems in a housing complex why throw them out? I think it is better to manage both workplaces and housing based on monitoring things that MATTER in keeping both running well, not based on outside factors.

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

I'd ask what the real motivation of this whole plan was- I'd wager it had more to do with giving somebody connected a fat, juicy contract to administer the tests rather than any serious intention to improve public housing.

That may or may not be the motivation for the plan, but either way it would be the result of it. I think the recent CPS breakfast rules are the result of something similar.

[MannheimMadman]

The only thing that I see fit is drug/alcohol testing for city employees who have constant contact with the public. And in this sense, I mean it for public safety. I'm not sure I want some stoned or drunk dude driving my redline train, or the Clark St. bus.

Originally Posted by Attrill

Should people lose their jobs or housing for doing illegal things like speeding? Parking illegally? It is all a matter of where you draw the line for illegal activities.

In general I think it is the job of law enforcement and the courts to administer laws - not employers or other agencies. If someone is doing their job well, why should they be drug tested? If someone is doing drugs and isn't doing their job well they should be fired for not doing their job.

If someone is not causing disturbances or problems in a housing complex why throw them out? I think it is better to manage both workplaces and housing based on monitoring things that MATTER in keeping both running well, not based on outside factors.




That may or may not be the motivation for the plan, but either way it would be the result of it. I think the recent CPS breakfast rules are the result of something similar.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by MannheimMadman

The only thing that I see fit is drug/alcohol testing for city employees who have constant contact with the public. And in this sense, I mean it for public safety. I'm not sure I want some stoned or drunk dude driving my redline train, or the Clark St. bus.

I can understand blood tests for people operating heavy machinery or working in dangerous environments, but I still would be opposed to things like **** tests. If a CTA driver goes to a BBQ over the weekend and drinks some beers and smokes a joint I don't think they should be fired. If they show up on the job drunk, high, or hungover that's definitely a different matter. I believe the CTA motorman who ran off the rails in the Loop in the 70's was high at the time.

[MannheimMadman]

Originally Posted by Attrill

I can understand blood tests for people operating heavy machinery or working in dangerous environments, but I still would be opposed to things like **** tests. If a CTA driver goes to a BBQ over the weekend and drinks some beers and smokes a joint I don't think they should be fired. If they show up on the job drunk, high, or hungover that's definitely a different matter.

I think what you illustrated is what I'm trying to get at. Live and let live is what I feel. Just keep it professional and safe when you're on the job.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Attrill

I can understand blood tests for people operating heavy machinery or working in dangerous environments, but I still would be opposed to things like **** tests. If a CTA driver goes to a BBQ over the weekend and drinks some beers and smokes a joint I don't think they should be fired. If they show up on the job drunk, high, or hungover that's definitely a different matter. I believe the CTA motorman who ran off the rails in the Loop in the 70's was high at the time.

And this is the problem with drug tests/the reality they create:

less harmful drugs like marijuana stay in your system for WEEKS, while drugs like coke are gone almost over night.

why do I know this, you might ask? because in stories featuring coked-to-the-gills pro athletes doing stupid things (which always makes the news), this logic has been expressed for decades.

so if you want more people doing coke instead of smoking a joint, drug tests will accomplish that goal.

[nidex]

Not disappointed at all at those articles. I could repeat what's been said already, but I'll just say that I pretty much agree with all of it. Especially the part about it costing the city a bunch of money, and some crook getting paid too much to administer the tests.

edit: I also was going to comment about the marijuana in your system for 30 days, vs. coke/heroin in your system for 3. This would punish somebody who maybe had their friend smoke a blunt with them once or twice, whereas the crackheads and junkies will find a way to evade the test.