Using Hair for a drug test
- Thread starter TeamCaffee
- Start date
No hair? Then they will use finger and toe nails.
Yeah, but nails are NOT as ugly a picture. Besides, there are some who remove 100% of their body hair. Would not nails contain the same information?
If your a habitual user get together with all the other users you know. Hire a Defence Lawyer to be on call, who will say it's a violation of your civil rights.
Motorcycle Clubs do it all the time.
Motorcycle Clubs do it all the time.
Beats me, but there must be a reason for using hair, not nails, considering the frequency of follically challenged folks, right?Yeah, but nails are NOT as ugly a picture.
Not? You haven't been to Ripley's [Believe it or not!], I guess.
[Cool place!]
Besides, there are some who remove 100% of their body hair.
I know some athletes do, and some wierdos too, but if any truck drivers do, I'd rather not know about it.
Would not nails contain the same information?
It would sort of makes sense that nails carry the same information. I think though that you would have to remove the nail to get the entire picture. That MIGHT be considered invasive.
Brisco
Expert Expediter
I was going to answer this last night..........
But, figured it wasn't going to be worth the effort. Was just going wait til Spring fills us all in on how it worked when he screamed "SECTION 42 - TITLE 18" next time his carrier told him he had to submit a urine/hair sample.
Can't wait to hear how that works out, know what I mean.
Got a problem, ain't got no hair!
No eyebrows or eye lashes?
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
My daughter dates a competitive swimmer, he sayes the only hair on his body is his eye lashes...I know he has no leg hair armpit hair, eye browes or hair on his head, thats as far as i need or want to see.....
springrivergroup
Seasoned Expediter
A random drug test is a search of your person.
From dictionary.com
Random –adjective
1. Proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.
Reason –noun
1. A basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.
Unreasonable –adjective
1. Not reasonable or rational; acting at variance with or contrary to reason; not guided by reason or sound judgment; irrational
Search –verb (used with object)
2. To look at or examine (a person, object, etc.) carefully in order to find something concealed.
The commerce claws does not authorize random searches and the 4th Amendment forbids random searches by definition.
US Constitution
Section 8
…
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
…
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
18 USC Part 1 (CRIMES)
§ 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution
or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
So how’s it work
First I never refuse a random drug test.
I always advise the person telling me to take the test that they are in violation of section 242 title 18 USC.
I always get asked if I am refusing the test and I always say “ no because if I do I will lose my livelihood”.
I always cross-out the word donor on all forms etc…
I always advise the lab people they are in violation of section 241 title 18 USE.
I always write “under duress” under any place I sign my name on any forms.
One should realy know what one is doing before doing it.
One should know what the law realy says before telling others what the law is.
From dictionary.com
Random –adjective
1. Proceeding, made, or occurring without definite aim, reason, or pattern: the random selection of numbers.
Reason –noun
1. A basis or cause, as for some belief, action, fact, event, etc.
Unreasonable –adjective
1. Not reasonable or rational; acting at variance with or contrary to reason; not guided by reason or sound judgment; irrational
Search –verb (used with object)
2. To look at or examine (a person, object, etc.) carefully in order to find something concealed.
The commerce claws does not authorize random searches and the 4th Amendment forbids random searches by definition.
US Constitution
Section 8
…
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
…
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
18 USC Part 1 (CRIMES)
§ 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution
or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
So how’s it work
First I never refuse a random drug test.
I always advise the person telling me to take the test that they are in violation of section 242 title 18 USC.
I always get asked if I am refusing the test and I always say “ no because if I do I will lose my livelihood”.
I always cross-out the word donor on all forms etc…
I always advise the lab people they are in violation of section 241 title 18 USE.
I always write “under duress” under any place I sign my name on any forms.
One should realy know what one is doing before doing it.
One should know what the law realy says before telling others what the law is.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
So if you can cite a court cases where a decision was made to support your theory or have a lawyer's opinion to explain the difference between the constitution (and the relative SC cases) and US code than I can believe you.
BUT because the SC ruled in 1942's Wickard v. Filburn case the feds have a right to regulate individuals through the interstate commerce clause, it is a moot point. THIS decision overrides the US code and the right to work idea (that case was about a farmer who grew his own wheat to feed his family).
In addition, the 4th amendment doesn't really apply for drug testing according to their other rulings, it is there under the guise of safety while part of our national drug policy. I don't personally like either the drug testing or the ruling but because I work in a regulated industry as part of a legal entity within that industry *meaning leased to a federally regulated company*, there are requirements I have to meet in order to participate - CDL, training, drug test, etc. ...
Now if you want to test your theory and can find a good lawyer to help you, I will send you $5 to help you out but there are a lot of BIGGER issues that need to be clarified - one is the medical exam, sleep apnea and the fact that you have to submit results of the use of the sleep apnea machine which steps right into the prescribed medication privacy issue.
BUT because the SC ruled in 1942's Wickard v. Filburn case the feds have a right to regulate individuals through the interstate commerce clause, it is a moot point. THIS decision overrides the US code and the right to work idea (that case was about a farmer who grew his own wheat to feed his family).
In addition, the 4th amendment doesn't really apply for drug testing according to their other rulings, it is there under the guise of safety while part of our national drug policy. I don't personally like either the drug testing or the ruling but because I work in a regulated industry as part of a legal entity within that industry *meaning leased to a federally regulated company*, there are requirements I have to meet in order to participate - CDL, training, drug test, etc. ...
Now if you want to test your theory and can find a good lawyer to help you, I will send you $5 to help you out but there are a lot of BIGGER issues that need to be clarified - one is the medical exam, sleep apnea and the fact that you have to submit results of the use of the sleep apnea machine which steps right into the prescribed medication privacy issue.
"Commerce Claws"
It just doesn't get any better than that.
Just where will the Claws stop ?
jimmy
springrivergroup
Seasoned Expediter
You really are making my point. We live in a lawless land where the criminals are the ones making the rules and demanding that the lawful person obey them.
Wickard v. Filburn is a good example of that. Men (the SC) made a decision in a case that is contrary to the written law. Then other men (the rule makers lawyers judges etc) take that decision and say “it case law” and apply it to other matters.
Case law is from a common law system (old English civil law system) where there are no statutes and custom and practice is the rule. It does not apply to a statutory system where the law is spelled out and we can look up what the words mean.
The act of applying case law to a statutory matter may be its self a violation of USC 18 section 242, by a applying custom or practice that may be contrary to the statute.
The rule of law is broken and the rule of men is applied.
Now in the name of safety we have random sexual assaults on citizens at the airport because some farmer wanted to grow his own wheat for his own use in the 1940s.
The real problem with the system is that a citizen can not bring a criminal complaint and has to beg the government (the most lawless group) to do it for them, unless you are a member of one of the special privileged groups asking for something that the government man thinks is politically correct it just won’t happen.
The rule of law is broken and the rule of men is applied.
Scuba
Veteran Expediter
I seem to remember a hair testing case making it to the supreme court where they said taking hair was invasive and an employer cannot force someone to give up a hair sample. While not a drug user myself i don't like the idea of forcing someone to give a hair sample pre-employment i don’t have a problem with because you can just go somewhere else if you don't want to take a hair sample. But once hired urine is the accepted form of testing and i don't think that should change. It's just my own opinion
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Not really making your point but the opposite. We don't live in a lawless soceity where criminals are making the rules and demanding anything unless you count people like Jefferson and Washington criminals. The system is setup where we have elected or appointed people to represent us and it is US, the people, who's job is to watch them and bring them to task when they don't do the right thing.
Not really, W. v. F. was about whether or not the application of the commerce clause under the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 on an individual was legal or not. There was no other written law, it was a consitutional question, not affirming any codified policy or law from congress. The SC found that it does apply to the individual because "because Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government."
BUT in this case, we are interstate transporters and the consitutuion which trumps everything else spells out that the federal government can "... regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" and does not define what regulate means or among. It, like other things left the door open to prevent trade wars between two sovereign states at the same time not to prevent the harmonization of transportation regulations and laws among the states. Remember this was applied to railroads when they enacted laws in the late 19th century to standardize track size and bed composition.
Again the statute doesn't circumvent the constitutional obligation the feds have to regulate interstate commerce.
OK so the constitution means nothing?
Different situation.
the assualts on the citizens happen because of several reasons and I agree with you that it is a real problem but there is a point to be made that in order to fly, which is voluntary, you have to subject yourself to the system that is in place. WHICH is my point in a few other threads about our standards and our justification to allow one thing to make it conveinet for us. Truckers b*tching about the DEF fluid isn't about the EPA but because truckers are too lazy to have a specific set of standards and hold people to them, the same holds true for the TSA and the system that is in place. What happens if people actually boycott flying and choose to drive instead? You think the airlines industry (who should be doing their own security) would stand still?
Actually it wasn't about W. v. F. that caused the TSA to be involved, it was long before that when the commerce department got involved with regulating Air Craft industry, and it became a mess in the 50's.
To complain about specific issues that the government messes with, it is simple and clear in our system. The idea that we don't have ways to fix problems is rather sad way of thinking. We don't have the English or French system of government but our own. It takes the involvement of the people to change things but at this moment the people seem to be happy with their government to change anything.
BY the way, I don't know if you have an idea about everyday life in the past but between 1914 and 1924, we had some of the darkest times in this country in regards of civil liberties. From 1924 to 1934, it wasn't too bad, but from 1934 to 1963, it was a case where we lost a lot of our civil liberties and our ability as citizens to judge those who we elect. I don't want to return to 1915 or 1916 where you didn't have freedom of speech or 1936 where I couldn't practice in my business without having my rates approved.
Lawless society? Lol ok
springrivergroup
Seasoned Expediter
And yet you make my point again.
The constitution gives congress the power "... regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" .,however, it expressly forbids the unreasonable search weather regulating commerce or not.
A random test is an unreasonable test by definition.
The thing speaks for its self, if you want it to say something different you have to change the meaning of the words or the words them selves.
And while the 1st Amendment forbids an act by Congress the 4th forbids an act by anyone, Congress, any government, any employer, any person, anyone, that’s what the actual written words say, and yet it is not held as the actual law instead we have rule by men who say it is something different.
The rule of law is broken and the more we say its not the more broken it becomes.
While the government may not be directly setting your rates, you and I and about 1/3 of the people who work have to ask the government’s permission to work, everything we do has a rule or regulation about how and when it is to be done and by whom, and be ready to prove our innocence at any time day or night for no reason.
Changing something may be simple and clear in our system, it just that our system does not fallow its own rules so the processes to change are not available to the citizen.
Tell me again how the systems not broken and we have the rule of law, it just makes me feel sooo good to hear it.
The constitution gives congress the power "... regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" .,however, it expressly forbids the unreasonable search weather regulating commerce or not.
A random test is an unreasonable test by definition.
The thing speaks for its self, if you want it to say something different you have to change the meaning of the words or the words them selves.
And while the 1st Amendment forbids an act by Congress the 4th forbids an act by anyone, Congress, any government, any employer, any person, anyone, that’s what the actual written words say, and yet it is not held as the actual law instead we have rule by men who say it is something different.
The rule of law is broken and the more we say its not the more broken it becomes.
While the government may not be directly setting your rates, you and I and about 1/3 of the people who work have to ask the government’s permission to work, everything we do has a rule or regulation about how and when it is to be done and by whom, and be ready to prove our innocence at any time day or night for no reason.
Changing something may be simple and clear in our system, it just that our system does not fallow its own rules so the processes to change are not available to the citizen.
Tell me again how the systems not broken and we have the rule of law, it just makes me feel sooo good to hear it.
