Drug Testing News

Drug Testing: How Far Will It Go?

By Scott Colvin

One of the more intrusive aspects of marijuana prohibition in the last decade has been the phenomenon of drug-testing anything with a pulse. Athletes are tested before their seasons begin, and most people in the private sector are screened before they begin their employment. It has sadly become a way of life.

Lately, though, the scope of drug-testing efforts has become even more outrageous. State governments in Michigan, New Jersey, Oklahoma and Louisiana have ascended from petty thugs to maniacal super villains in their attempts at indirect mind control.

Last October, Michigan enacted a law requiring citizens receiving welfare to pass a drug test in order to collect their benefits. Fortunately, the American Civil Liberties Union stepped in and Federal District Judge Victoria Roberts issued a temporary restraining order blocking the testing before it began. "Mandatory drug testing of a broad swath of the adult population," the ACLU wrote in their complaint, "has never in our nation's history been proposed or enacted by a state government, much less approved by a court." For now.

In New Jersey last December, an appeals court ruled that public-housing authorities can legally force tenants whose rents are federally subsidized - - and any of their guests - - to remain drug-free or risk eviction. The judge wrote in his decision, "State nullification of a federally mandated lease provision based upon a finding of unreasonableness would tear at the very roots of our federal system." That's funny. Throwing a family out into the street simply because someone might have used marijuana days before does not seem to mend those broken roots of "our federal system."

Drug-testing student athletes have been commonplace for some time, but Oklahoma Gov. Frank Kiting has decided to take his policy to absurd new levels. He has called for random drug tests for all students. Schools that implement such policies would receive financial incentives. Yikes, this guy is hard-core. First, they are going to "randomly" test students. Something here screams that there will be more "Peter Punk Rockers" being tested than "Paula Prom Queens." Second, the state government would be spending taxpayer money to force costly drug-testing procedures on students, raping their right to privacy. It sort of sounds like the parents are selling out their children to Big Brother.

Seeing that athletes, employees, welfare recipients and children are fair game for intrusive drug-testing policies, it was only a matter of time before the lawmakers turned on themselves. In 1997, Louisiana passed a law requiring elected officials to pass a drug test in order to keep their jobs. Thankfully, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals last December upheld a federal judge's ruling that that was unconstitutional.

These are just four examples of where the spectrum of drug testing is headed. Other states, towns and school districts will certainly attempt to pass similar policies. The major question is, will the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizure remain a defense against mandatory drug-testing laws? As one policy is shot down, another one creates its own havoc. So, what's next? Will the government insert a chip in our brains that gives us an electric shock every time we think about lighting up? Let's hope not, but it is frighteningly hard not to think of how far the prohibitionists will go in order to demonize marijuana smokers and rid the world of a plant with great utility.

Drug testing has become another way for the government to control our lives. They dangle a carrot over our collective heads (welfare and subsidized housing), and as quick as they are to offer help, they yank the prize away by mandating how we live our lives. It's social engineering defined.

TAKEN FROM HIGH TIMES - May, 2000 Issue.