If you're really such a privacy nut that you think it should be illegal to gather evidence of a crime (remember drug use is still a crime) then I'm sure you also object to TSA body scanners and the Terrorist No-Fly list. And were also outraged by the Edward Snowden leaks showing government data collection of all US citizens private emails and web traffic. And I'm sure you protested against Stop And Frisk. And I'm sure you use PGP for all of your online correspondences. And I'm sure you would never use gmail or facebook or amazon, because those companies profit from collecting information about you. Get over yourselves, you're not a privacy nut you're a drug use nut. Nothing to be ashamed of there, just come out and own it.
In an era where the rights of corporations are expanding by leaps and bounds every year, it's ludicrous to think that little old you have the right to use illegal drugs and still remain employed by a company that doesn't want you to. They're literally giving you money to follow their rules, and you're saying you want their money but don't want to follow their rules?
I did reference the TSA. Which is bullshit. And I agree with Shotgunwilly that a debate over whether drugs should be illegal or not is a completely different matter.
What I need from the pro-drug-test camp is a bright line explanation of why it goes that far and no further. That's what's missing. What 'their money their rules' sounds like is a rationalization of anything based on the idea that it's good for productivity and everyone feels safer.
In philosophy/logic, we would ask, 'by virtue of what.' By virtue of what is drug testing okay? If you say reason
a under conditions
y then we say, 'great. actions q, w, and r would also be justified for reason
a under conditions
y, so its okay to do them too.' So you need some reason(s) and some conditions which
limit it to drug testing. I guess employers should have complete access to the financial accounts of pension managers because it's such a huge liability for the company if an employee is embezzling and embezzling is illegal. I guess employers can conduct random body and household searches of pharmacists because pharmacists' stealing is such a huge risk and drug dealing is just as illegal as taking drugs.
Someone mentioned the rights of the company to watch your email account in case you're cheating, and this was obviously meant as a ridiculous example, but adultery did use to be illegal in the US, so would the legal status change your mind?
The famous mathematician John Nash was fired from his government job when he was arrested for gay sex. He was working for something like the NSA I believe, so, given cultural attitudes towards homosexuality at that time, it did make sense that he couldn't hold a sensitive position when he was so vulnerable to blackmail, as distasteful as the idea of getting fired for your sexual orientation now seems.
My point is that whether something "feels right" or "seems okay" according to current attitudes isn't a pole star telling us whether it's right or not.
But this was at least an example where the crime was brought to the employer's attention. I don't have a problem with employers refusing to hire someone based on a felony drug conviction in their past (though, again, we get into practical problems if that's ubiquitous). What pro-drug-testers are talking about is not about whether you're allowed to take drugs or not and not whether employers deserve to know or not but they are talking about
giving an employer more right to investigate someone and look for signs of illegal activity than the police themselves have. And I don't encrypt my email because I'm not particularly bothered by the NSA spying on everybody. Being bothered by something isn't necessary to know it's ethically wrong.
Btw,
OP, you might want to check the laws in your state.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-rights-book/chapter5-3.htmlIt looks like in a lot of places they can't ask you to be tested without a job offer.
Interestingly, in some places employers are only allowed to test with probable cause. But if you think someone's doing something illegal, why wouldn't you just report it to the police? Why would we privatize this aspect of the justice system? Why couldn't companies just report suspicious behavior to the police and absolve themselves of liability in that way?