Arguments Against The ADA

is a nurse practicing in Missouri that has, already, previously been placed on probation for testing positive for heroin. She has recently had a relapse in her recovery and is fighting to get her license back so she can practice nursing. The state board has already given her one chance and she was practicing in Missouri. She has been sober for nearly 3 years and has taken suboxone the entire time of her sobriety to help with withdrawal. E.M. hates that she has a dependency on the suboxone and wanted very badly to wean herself off of it. She spoke with her physician about this matter and her physician strongly suggested that she not be taken completely off her prescription of suboxone. Her physician lowered her dose and she began taking a lower dose. After time passed, E.M. felt like she had things under control and she completely stopped taking her prescription. E.M. went under some stress at her job and ended up leaving the facility she was working at. She knew that one of her old co-workers had access to heroin and after running into him at a local store, she started abusing again. Beginning at the time of her first time being placed on probation E.M. has been required to provide urine samples at randomly selected intervals. During her time of remission, when she was abusing, she failed to call and leave urine samples. At this time, E.M. explained that she was focusing on bettering herself and working on her sobriety. I feel that E.M. was very sincere and was accountable for her actions. She truthfully took responsibility for her wrongful actions. E.M. stated that she now realizes that her heroin addiction is a lifelong addiction that will always be knocking at her door and she cannot stop taking suboxone. The board questioned her and wanted to make sure she did not have plans of going against her physician’s orders again. E.M. was in tears almost the entire time she was explaining her actions to the members of the board and I feel like they were true

The applicant contends he admitted to having tried Spice before when he was in a deep depression/anxiety state, after he was wrongfully assaulted by an El Paso, Texas, Police Officer. The applicant by violating the Army's policy not to abuse alcohol, compromised the special trust and confidence placed in a Soldier. The applicant, as a Soldier had the duty to support and abide by the Army's alcohol abuse policies. By abusing alcohol or other drugs, the applicant knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his

Although there are some additional provisions from government employers due to security and safety, the legal framework allowing for drug testing is not all that dissimilar with greater concentration on a balance of privacy, dignity, and reputation with respect to safety, security, and operations. The case citations that justify private employer drug testing are vast, which allows for the practice prevalently today. Some key factors to consider here are a secure collection method (Mollette v. Kentucky Personnel Board and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet) and (Coleman v. Town of Hempstead), collective bargaining agreements, and privacy.

Furthermore, Judge Goeke noted that Beck, “provided no evidence that he had any business activity unrelated to the sale or distribution of marijuana. Further, petitioner has not established which, if any, expenses were for any alleged services offered and which expenses related to the sale of marijuana.”

In today’s time and age, you have many work places that do have drug testing but in others you do not have any. The people that do drugs and have a job think that it is okay to do what they are doing because they know that they probably will not get caught. When you have two people that are friends and one goes out and parties and smokes weed or does other drugs they think that it is okay for their friend to come along and do the same stuff when really their friend is not able to because their job requires random drug testing. People think that random drug testing is not fair to people when even it is not fair for some because other work places do not do it. In addition to that, people drawing governmental help also do not think that they should be drug tested because they need the help too bad. If people got drug tested getting the governments help then that would help people truly do need the help to get it, because people know that they should not try to get help if they are on drugs.

Upon arrival, Ofc. Rangel #203 made contact with the driver (Alvarado-Nandi, Steve DOB 04/03/94), who related that he did not possess a driver's license. Steve was checked through LEADS via dispatch, which verified no valid status of his driver's license. There was a strong odor of cannabis emanating from inside the vehicle. Steve related that there was a small bag of cannabis in his left pant pocket. I recovered a small plastic bag containing a green leafy substance suspect

You have broken several regulations including putting Clients at risk with your alleged "impaired" employee for two days BEFORE your false accusations, not using a licensed laboratory for your phony "test", not allowing me to test, and a big list of other Violations. Not to mention Clients that you have a duty to protect.

Before even graduating high school I started working as an assistant coach for a recreational center. The moment I was offered the position I had 48 hours to get to the assigned clinic and take a drug test. Once I graduated high school and became a camp counselor, the recreational center that I worked for did random drug test due to working with children ages 4 to 15. At the age of 24 the University of Miami hired me as a temporary medical assistant and when I came to the hospital to sign the paperwork for the University I was asked to take my drug test right away and was then placed in a van and taken to the hospital for a mandatory drug test. A few month after working as a temp The University of Miami hired me as a full time employee and did not drug test me that time. I have always understood the reason behind certain occupations and the importance of drug testing their employees, such as working with kids, yet even for job responsibilities such as

BRENNAN had blood shot eyes, exhibited exaggerated facial tremors and an odor of cannabis emitted from the vehicle. I asked BRENNAN what medication or drugs he was using today. BRENNAN stated "the only thing I take is my prescribed medicine, percocets". I requested BRENNAN to exit the vehicle and to submit to a series of psychophysical divided attention test, some of which he could not successfully complete. BRENNAN was informed of my findings and requested to submit to a chemical test of blood at the Schuylkill Medical Center South hospital. BRENNAN attempted to debate taking the blood test. While he was speaking the odor of synthetic cannabis emitted from his person. I observed a large amount of, brown tar like substance on both of his hands. The tip of his right pointer finger had black on it. I asked him to hold his hand in the air and detected a strong odor of cannabis on his hand. BRENNAN then agreed to submit to the blood test and shortly later sat in the rear of of the patrol vehicle.

During the time of assessment the patient is alert and very talkative about his concerns. The patient reports that he has been stressed over all the things that have occurred lately in his life. The patient reports that he is not crazy, however has issues smoking Cannabis. According to the patient most recent drug screen the patient test positive for only THC. The patient states, " y'all really don't understand, I really like smoking marijuana because I feel like myself." The patient reports that he is a "pot head" and needs marijuana to function. Further, he expresses that if he does not smoke marijuana he gets irritable. The patient reports he has had difficulties sleep, feels of nervousness when around others, and having depressed mood swing. The patient reports recently having abdominal pains and feeling nausea. Nurse gave the patient a bag to vomit in if necessary. The patient reports experiencing conflict at home with his mother, not having a place to stay, a female that he has been having sexual relations reported to him that she is pregnant, and these additional stressor been overwhelming to him. The patient reports concerns with having a sexual

In this way, it is up to the judgement of those who are hiring to select the individual they best deem fit to fill the role. It is norm of employee relation acts in many countries to discuss said good faith; in New Zealand this term, as defined by Employment New Zealand, means that both employers and employees ‘must not act in a misleading or deceptive way… must be responsive and communicative…. And [when making decisions that will impact employees] the employer must give the affected employees sufficient information for them to understand [the situation]” This faith must be upheld by both parties to remain liable, and as such, any sort of drug testing would lead one to argue that the employer no longer values the employee’s good faith; especially if the employer is testing out of suspicion and is beyond their contractual rights. Consequently, Dixon has no right to be appalled “appalled at the irresponsibility of the BMA, who have long been opposed to random testing of doctors”, as they are well with in their rights to assume medical staff are “sensible enough to come forward for help, and [that] those [who] don't are informed upon”.

Defendant Iron Country Management, Inc.’s First Request for Production of Documents, Things, and Medical Information Directed to Plaintiff

Case Description. A 27-year-old African American male presented to the dental clinic with nonrestorable molar requiring extraction. During the review of his medical history, the patient reported taking a “dab” of marijuana approximately five hours prior to his appointment. Due to the admission of recent illicit drug use, no treatment was rendered. The patient was offered an appointment the next day but refused citing the bias in regard to cannabis use.

“Welcome to our team Mr. Dave Matthews. Here at Vandalay Industries, we take pride in hiring the highest caliber of workers such as yourself, and to ensure the safety of all our employees in the latex factory, we ask that you pee in to this plastic cup.” While this may not be the best way to bring about a company’s drug testing policy to a new hire, the fact remains that in most every position today, if no urine sample is given, it translates into “no job for you!” Drug testing, a once rare and uncommon policy, is now among many employers a requirement for any new or existing job position. Although seen by some as an infringement on one’s constitutionally granted rights, companies who have adopted these policies say that it works

It is a well-known fact that employees who use alcohol or drugs in the workplace will affect their performance significantly, moreover it can represent a safety concern for other employees as well, therefore a private company in New York can fire employees who test positive on a drug test or refuse to submit to a random drug test, “if it was previously stated in their company policies and communicated to all employees” (Rich, 2012). The refusal of the employee in this case can under New York laws justify its termination, however I consider important to consider the option of the drugs found in his locker to be medicated which it can provide a positive result, however it doesn’t mean the employee is using illegal drugs so his fear of false result is valid and could be resolve with a medical justification.