Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Washington to make mandatory Random Drug Testing soon.

Posted 6 years ago on Feb. 10, 2012, 3:13 a.m. EST by sayNO2demm (1)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I am a big supporter in Random Drug Testing on Government employees like Police officers, Fire department, Teachers etc...

In the state of Washington they are trying to remove the ban that these unions have on NO random drug testing. We need this ban removed. Let's end corruption! We pay these people to do a job and not on trust that they won't do drugs.

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Random drug tests could become a job requirement for police officers in the state of Washington.

The legislation is being introduced just days after a Seattle police officer took his own life when confronted about cocaine that didn't make it to an evidence locker.

Rep. Mike Hope, an officer with the Seattle Police Department, believes he and his co-workers should be randomly drug-tested on a routine basis.

Hope, R-Lake Stevens, plans to introduce a bill this week to require such tests not only for police, but also firefighters and state troopers as well.

Please Support Mandatory Random Drug Testing in your state.



Read the Rules
[-] 5 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 6 years ago

Cocaine leaves the system in less than 48 hours. So do opiates. Drug testing is only effective for cannabis users. It is tyrannical bullshit. Fuck you.

[-] 2 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 6 years ago

You say that so well - Kudos

[-] 0 points by learnthis (120) 6 years ago

It is not tyrannical bullshit. If you can't pass a drug test work for yourself. The problem with alot of drug users is the use does not end when they walk in the door to work. I have ignored postive tests for pot and given the benefit of the doubt that this was being used during off hours only to have drivers walk in the door stoned out of their minds. I had one driver who I believed when he said he just did it on weekends forget to put a truck in park and it rolled down the hill. The police noticed he was stoned and arrested him for DUI. My insurance company showed no mercy to me. I will never again hire someone who can't pass a drug test.

[-] 3 points by Nicolas (258) from Québec, QC 6 years ago

Meh. Why monitor drug use? What money you'd put in that is much better spent monitoring job performance. If someone screws up, does it matter if he's on drugs or not? And if he does a good job, again, does it matter what chemical shit is running in his veins? Why go after inefficiency in a weird, controlling and indirect way (I mean, besides filling up prisons with cheap and exploitable labor)?

Besides, these sort of things hinder people from addressing the real problem of drugs, addiction (besides health issues, but we're not talking about free access to public healthcare here), when they should, for fear of loosing their job.

I also take the opportunity to point out how hilariously pointless, ill-motivated and counterproductive the war on cannabis is. Haven't we learned anything from the prohibition?

[-] 2 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 6 years ago

I know the insurance thing can be largely out of your control but maybe you should better monitor your employees' performance and you wouldn't have those kind of problems. I know someone who lost their job of 20+ years because they occasionally toked a few weed hits on the weekend after working a 50 hour week. Somebody else fucked up on the job and had an accident so all the employees where drug tested for insurance reasons and this person who wasn't high while working lost their job. At a time when almost 1/5 of workers are unemployed terminating employees who had nothing to do with a poor work performance because they breathed some pot smoke is absurd.

[-] 0 points by alexrai (851) 6 years ago

As a proud drug user with two university degrees and a job... I say, you need to clue into reality.

A majority of the people on this planet get high on drugs, some like to call it Shiraz, or drunk, or alcohol poisoning, instead of drugs, high, and psychosis; but fact is, people have always use drugs, always will use drugs, and frankly most of them are better for you than alcohol. www.maps.org www.stopthedrugwar.org www.erowid.org

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 6 years ago

drug addled moron.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 6 years ago

bore who never explored.

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 6 years ago

In your little mind, anyone that hasn't done drugs is boring? Do you consider alcoholics and druggies to be charming company?

[-] 2 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 6 years ago

Not exactly charming. Entertaining though. In my little mind anyone who writes off someone who stands up for drugs as a "drug addled moron" is someone who obviously has not had any of the experiences themselves. You either have not tried them or you suck at doing them and I find that boring and uneventful.

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 6 years ago

You have no idea what I have experienced regarding drugs or alcohol. Ever been with an alcoholic or a person so strung out on drugs they have no idea of the damage they are doing to themselves and/or their families?

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 6 years ago

To be fair, the scientific consensus (at least out side of the idiots at the NIDA) suggests non-existent to minimal harm coupled with very significant personal benefits.

e.g. http://www.neurosoup.com/pdf/halpern.peyote.2005.pdf

or http://csp.org/psilocybin/Hopkins-CSP-Psilocybin2008.pdf

You do have a point for alcohol or crack though; those are drugs, while a lot of things other people call like to call drugs are actually medicines or at least non-addictive and very enjoyable.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 6 years ago

I wasn't standing up for alcoholics or drug addicts and their behavior. I just pointed out they can be fun. I was standing up for people who have had positive drug experiences. LSD-25, psilocybin mushrooms, MDMA, mescaline, DMT. "Drugs" like these are not addictive AT ALL and while some of them can possibly be dangerous in a certain situation or context they are for the most part harmless.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 6 years ago

Tell it to the Lawyers gettin' high on booze at their firm functions, or college kids doin' it at a football game... or federal narcotics agents who I'm sure at least some of whom are users.

In the prohibition era they used to tell people that it just took one drink and you'd be an addict convulsing in a corner... then your wife would leave you. For some reason people still believe that crap when it comes to stuff like marijuana.

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 6 years ago

So , how long have been lighting up?

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 6 years ago

Most of my friends smoke, but I don't really light up that often, not my thing... I get paranoid and stupid, then hungry and pass out. :p

I stopped doing most of the stuff I used to do, but I still Like my psychedelics, been close to 20 years. At least in my view there is nothing better than an amazing trip outside to remind you how sweet life actually is.

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 6 years ago

I know both sides, I prefer to be clear headed.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 6 years ago

Fair enough. I find I'm more clear headed after a nice trip, but each to his own.

[-] -1 points by GildasSapiens (266) 6 years ago

"hamalmang", if you are right that cocaine & opiates stay in the user's system for up to 48 hours, then, obviously, random drug testing would be effective if a sample is taken during that period, so it wouldn't only be effective for cannabis users - that's simple logic.

Emergency workers, such as police & firefighters (&, I would suggest, paramedics & Emergency Room workers), should have their on-the-job judgment unimpaired by intoxicants or it could cost people their lives (possibly even your life). Therefore, again, simple logic dictates that drug testing is prudent, not tyrannical.

If workers want to take drugs in their off-duty time, they should ensure they are clear of any effects by the time they return to work, or get jobs that don't require unimpaired judgment.

It seems to be your judgment that's impaired, in this case.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

soldier in world war two preformed better on speed when in emergency situations

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 6 years ago

The 'speed' that was available during WWII when compared to the 'speed' available today is like comparing a Model T to a Corvette.

Do a little drug research, www.erowid.org is a good place to start.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

did the old stuff have more severe side effects?

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 6 years ago

No, the old stuff didn't have the same boost, less than half the punch for the buck as they used to say.

Just do the research, there's some really interesting stuff.

I ran a help forum and website for methamphetamine addicts and their families, I did all kinds of research on all kinds of drugs.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 6 years ago

I've never tried meth myself, but it used to be huge in my city around 2000 and I had a lot of friends get really messed up and badly addicted to it. They all came around eventually and got off it, some quicker than others.

But the strange thing is that there seems to be about 5% of the meth using population who can actually handle the stuff, as in even if they didn't have any meth, they were still fun to hang out with and totally trust worthy. Never seen them tweaked or sketchy off it either. I always thought it would be interesting to study what exactly is so different in their brains that they can handle the stuff...

Anyway, I'm usually a big proponent of psychedelics and such; but in spite of that I would still suggest anyone offered meth run for their lives.

[-] 2 points by PandoraK (1678) 6 years ago

Meth is like some whiskeys for some...handle it just fine until it sneaks up and slaps you.

Meth makes physical changes to the brain, depending on how many dopamine receptors that are affected each time (some people have more receptors than others), affects how long true addiction sets in. The psychological addiction sets in much sooner.

Yes, if offered meth, run, it's not fun.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

that is useful


[-] 0 points by GildasSapiens (266) 6 years ago

That's easy to claim - where's the scientific proof, exactly what sort of tasks & situations were they tested for, what control studies were done, & what tasks & situations were they found to be less effective in?

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

Methamphetamine and amphetamine are given to Allied bomber pilots to sustain them by fighting off fatigue and enhancing focus during long flights. The experiment failed because soldiers became agitated, couldn't channel their aggression and showed impaired judgement.[88] Rather, dextroamphetamine (Dexedrine) became the drug of choice for American bomber pilots, being used on a voluntary basis by roughly half of the United States Air Force pilots during the 1991 Gulf War, a practice which came under some media scrutiny in 2003 after a mistaken attack on Canadian troops.[96]

Methamphetamine From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[-] 1 points by GildasSapiens (266) 6 years ago

In other words, methamphetamine & amphetamine caused Allied bomber pilots' performance to deteriorate & impaired their judgment, & dextroamphetamine may have impaired USAF pilots' judgment in the 1991 Gulf War.

None of that supports your earlier claim that soldiers in WW2 performed better on "speed" - quite the opposite, in fact.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago


we discussing whether drugs can be effective in keeping people awake

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 6 years ago

Amphetamines and methamphetamine both induce a feeling of superiority. Shy people are no longer shy while under the influence, confident people are extremely confident under the influence. Over confidence leads to less than responsible actions. While reaction time may be faster, the decision to react often takes longer, the hyperactive mind easily distracted even though the owner of the mind believes they are more focused.

[-] 0 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 6 years ago

President Kennedy had doctors administer high dose shots of amphetamines over 30 times while he was president to help him run the country under times of stress.

[-] 1 points by GildasSapiens (266) 6 years ago

John F Kennedy had acute scoliosis, as a boy he'd had several vertebrae in his lower back fused to counter the effects, & he wore a rigid back brace under his clothes to enable him to stand straight (this is why he didn't/couldn't slump fully when shot from the back). His condition caused him acute pain every day of his adult life, for which he had to take high, & gradually increasing, doses of amphetamines. As a result, like most addicts, he was largely immune to the intoxicant effects of the drugs, but needed increasingly high (& increasingly toxic) doses just to feel "normal". It's probable that, if he hadn't been assassinated, he would eventually have died from an overdose, similarly to Jacko.


[-] 0 points by Kirby (104) 6 years ago

Hitler was a speed freak. He would go for days without sleep, causing serious delusions, that on top of someone who was already delusional! Lol!

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 6 years ago

haha that is true. In his tirades he used to fall to the floor and chew the rugs hahaha. Probably from being awake and angry for so long at a time.

[-] 1 points by alexrai (851) 6 years ago

lol, that is hilarious. I never heard that before...

[-] 2 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 6 years ago

cannibis stays in your system for 3 months. so if you party on new years.. and they test you in march.. your an addict. and did you know that the military forces pilots to take meth to stay alert on long missions? its ok for the government but not the people? thats tyranny

[-] 1 points by GildasSapiens (266) 6 years ago

If scientific studies show that a given drug causes impaired performance in given critical situations, then people with that drug in their system should be excluded from those situations, for the safety of unsuspecting & innocent members of the public.

We already had a discussion, above (q.v.), of methamphetamine in the military, & the only evidence submitted indicated that it causes impaired performance & judgment - not a good idea for people with deadly weapons, & even WMDs, at their fingertips!

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 6 years ago

pot only cause impairment when your high.. not 3 months later when its stil detectable.. not even 3 hours later when its still detectable. yet people can do cociane heroin meth morphine and you would never know the difference. you can not have drug testing when the test cant detect anything besides marijauna .. its a ruse.. and you believe it. and at this point in the economy.. hundreds of thousands of jobs being eliminated becasue of 'cost'.. you think they are gonna increase expenses for ridiculous drug test? as for an appeals process.. there are non.. people are fired before they get back from the testing clinic.

[-] 2 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 6 years ago

If workers use cannabis or are even around others that are using they could fail a drug test several weeks later. If they have a lot of fat on their body they could fail several months later. Hard drugs are water soluble and can leave the body in less than a day if the person consumes a few extra glasses of water and some b vitamins.

Drug tests do not actually find evidence of the chemical compounds that are illegal in a person's body. The chemicals change after they are consumed and what the tests find are not actual evidence that the person was definitely using something that is illegal. Unless a company is spending hundreds of dollars to test each individual with a test that is sent to lab where a highly trained professional is performing them they are extremely inaccurate. Many people have lost their jobs and their lives been fucked up from cheap shitty drug testing. Cheap drug tests have become a multi-billion dollar a year industry and the people who profit off of this largely make up who is advocating these mandatory testing laws. Fuck them.

[-] 1 points by GildasSapiens (266) 6 years ago

I agree that, if drug testing is required, then high-quality, accurate analysis must also be required, as well as an appeals process, of course.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 6 years ago

sorta of a guilty til proven innocent deal

[-] 1 points by GildasSapiens (266) 6 years ago

No - innocent 'til proven guilty, 'til proven innocent on appeal - that's how the justice system works.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 6 years ago

Positives can and often are challenged, so your premise that people's lives get screwed up because of a drug test is a fallacy.

As I suggested to a previous poster, do some research.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 6 years ago

So because some people can effectively challenge a faulty test no one's lives are screwed up from them?

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 6 years ago

Anyone can challenge what they believe is a false positive and if it was false then it is removed from record.

In the event of a false positive one can request and receive a more accurate test at the cost of the facility requiring such testing.

I've been subject to drug testing since 1990, pre-employment, random, and in the event of accident resulting in more than $500.00 property damages. Including the time my truck was backed into while I was not in it! I watched the guy back into it and I still had to submit to a UA within 24 hours.

Of course, 99% of the time if you don't use illegals you have no worries. If you are using prescription drugs, bring them with you or a list for the record.

Jeez, doesn't anyone learn these things?

[-] 2 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 6 years ago

I have only ever been drug tested once and it was for employment years ago so I have very little personal experience. I have read quite a bit about it over the years and admit some of the material is a little dated. I don't know for sure but I doubt that employers are required to retest employees who challenge the results and I believe that many people have lost their jobs over the years due to cheap faulty testing. I do not believe that all types of tests are as high as 99% accurate.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 6 years ago

Like anything that business has to pay for, it starts out with the lowest cost...where the most false positives are found. A legal challenge (don't fault me, that's what they are called) isn't just a 'step up' but can be a hair test, blood, etc. With a listing of all prescription and otc drugs used within the past 6 months.

Some otc and prescription drugs interact and then test as so called street drugs.

Worried about false positives? Then start out by knowing your rights.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 6 years ago

simple logic says.. then they can get high every vacation and every holiday weekend , every friday nite and never test positive ..only the ones that smoke pot will be positive. you are equating recreational users with street thugs.. these are your colleagues and relatives not those idiots you see on intervention

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 6 years ago

I haven't used cannabis heavily for months and not at all for several weeks. My mind is as sharp and my judgement as accurate as it has ever been. While I would never advocate driving stoned or on any drug except maybe caffeine when drowsy I have operated a vehicle high many thousands of times and I promise you it has saved me from numerous accidents from dimwits on their cell phones.

[-] 2 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

What drug was George Bush under the influence of when he decided to invade and occuppy two countries that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children. What test should be required to prevent these horrors?

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33486) from Coon Rapids, MN 6 years ago

He was under the influence of the Drug Known as greed in war profiteering. Addiction fed by the likes of Halliburton and other defense contractors ( war profiteers ).

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 6 years ago

Who cares about the 4th amendment right? Sorry, but your proposition is in clear violation of the fourth amendment.

The war on drugs is a fucking failure.

Stop wasting tax dollars. Stop the war on drugs. It has solved nothing. In fact it makes drugs more dangerous due to the high value the war on drugs brings to the black market.

Not to forget prohibition of alcohol failed... and alcohol kills more people than any other "recreational" drug.

[-] 2 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 6 years ago

Also airline pilot,school bus driver,train driver,ocean oil tanker,state and federal employee,And the speaker of the house he look like always drunk

[-] 2 points by alexrai (851) 6 years ago

Gawd, do you drug warriors just not go away?

Hopefully some of these legalization initiative pass and police can puff whatever the hell they want on their free time and not have to worry about arresting innocent people. That would be fan-frickin-tastic.

[-] 2 points by bensdad (8977) 6 years ago

We must get the governor of florida to run this
you know - the guy who is drug testing welfare recipients - and proved nothing.
Rick Scott owns a drug testing company - do you?
Should we drug test congress ?
I own stock in corporation D - can I require D employees to be drug tested ?

what a croc! get over it - legalize drugs

[-] 3 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 6 years ago

I think we should drug test Rick Scott.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 6 years ago

This is just another example of how the (R)epelican'ts are all for BIG government. The BIGGER and more intrusive the better.

Let's just test everybody, including the 1%, for everything..........................BUT charge the 1% to pay for it!!!!!!

[-] 2 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 6 years ago

Why not start with the heads of state in Washington and then work their way down to the common people? With the way Washington DC, Congress, the Senate, the Judicial System, the Feds have sold out to Corporate America....something is affecting their brain cells!!!

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 6 years ago

If anyone is common , it's obama, the cokehead.

[-] 2 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 6 years ago

Why are you stalking me pervert???

[-] -3 points by B76RT (-357) 6 years ago

Don't flatter yourself. Stop repsonding to my posts ans shut up.

[-] 2 points by Neuwurldodr (744) 6 years ago

You know.....after a while it is futile to try to engage in logical dialogue with you and your Pre-Industrial Anti-intellectualism..... Did you get that Quasimodo?

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 6 years ago

you're muslim, you're not capable of anything that's logical.

[-] 1 points by sayNO2demm (1) 6 years ago

Please Support Government Random Drug Testing. Let's remove the Drug Cartels from our system.

End the Ban unions have on random drug testing.

[-] 1 points by gestopomillyy (1695) 6 years ago

it is tyrannical bullshit. if your too stupid to know an addict when you see one get outa business. drug test never show any drug in anyone except for cannibis. its a societal control technique. and do not buy insurance that has any drug stipulations included.. your story about the drunk driver had nothing to do with drugs you see how your mind is bent

[-] 1 points by toukarin (488) 6 years ago

Not that I wouldnt want drug testing to be required, but what would the costs of such a program be? Would it also not be another avenue for large scale corruption?

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 6 years ago

they dont need to pay the dea to find the drug users, there is a much more cost effective and efficient means available, just go ask all the employers, who already is testing much of the general population. This is just another example as to why I think I am the only genius on the planet. LOL


[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

Let's start random drug testing at the top then, beginning with the president of the United States on down. Surely, people with great power can put our nation in much greater jeopardy than any policeman.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion4 (70) 6 years ago

Mandatory insurance for contraception, mandantory random drug testing

[-] -1 points by learnthis (120) 6 years ago

The reason why so may of the "99% OWS" peope don't have jobs is because they can't pass a drug test of any kind. Employers both public and private have every right to expect their employees to show up for work sober and NOT under the influence of anything. OWS thinks there should be no rules and no leaders and no bosses since who is anyone to tell them what they may and may not do.

[-] 2 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 6 years ago

That is conjecture and it is just silly. You have no way of knowing if a single person involved with occupy would have difficulty passing a drug test. Giving up pot for a few weeks is not at all difficult. I don't know a single person who had any problem doing this to get a job. At worst they might be a little grumpier than normal for 2 days. The problem is randomly testing people who already are employed because they chose to get a high when not at work.

[-] -2 points by Farleymowat1 (19) 6 years ago

Make love not war. Power to the peaceniks! The government has us all with nooses around our necks, and we let them. George Washington grew cannabis. Nobody wanted to drug test him! He was not a peacenik, however, as he had men in his ranks executed for certain violations.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 6 years ago

make love to your wife, thru proper marriage, my dad made love to my mom, and then split, i never even met him once, and let me tell you growing up a bastard son in a single mom house was no picnic.

[-] 1 points by Farleymowat1 (19) 6 years ago

You got that right fwg. My folks were together until my dad died. I'm sorry your dad was an asshole.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

Shouldn't the employers be tested for drugs as well?

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 6 years ago

Aren't the 99% in a democracy the ones who should tell Congress what they may do and may not do?

[-] -2 points by Farleymowat1 (19) 6 years ago

Obama used to sit around and blow smoke with the brothers back in his day. Why is he so against legalization? Oh, his attorney general provided the Mexican cartels with weapons. Gotta be good money for the 1%ers in that.