B.S. Drug Test

[Mackman]

My oldman O/O was in a accident yesterday. Was not his fault no one got hurt. A older Lady 74 years old pulled out of a side street on him. Did alittle damage to his truck. Her car was messed up had to get towed. He had a witness and the lady said she pulled out. So the PA state police knew it was not his fault. So they say to him leave the truck there on the shoulder you have to go for a drug test. My dad was pissed. It was not his fault and they made him take a drug test. Took 3 1/2 hrs when it was all said and done. Who is paying for his lost time for taking the drug test. The PA trooper told him it is a law that anyone with a CDL weather there at fault or not have to take a drug test. Another B.S. law/Rule after CDL holders. If it was his fault i could see the drug test but this was just a waste of his time all afternoon was last. By the way the old lady didn't get nothing. God some things just get me going.

[Douglas]

That's how it is for ANY driver workin' with the city. You can be sitting still and someone hits you and you still take a drug test, and not just for CDL vehicles either.

[Mackman]

But city workers are gett paid when there afternoon is wasted. So they dont care.

[Mtc_Is_Hell]

its a good law. If the old lady takes him to court and the lawyer trys the driving under the influence card, he will have a legal document stating other wise, get over it.

[PhuzzyGnu]

What's the problem? The drug test is covering his ass.

Everyone knows that you have to drug test after any accident- it's in the CFR. It's a good thing, too. It helps sober drivers, and it hopefully gets positive-testing drivers jail time.

I've had to do it, in nearly the same situation- an elderly woman ran into my trailer when she failed to notice her lane ended. It was not my fault, and the police report said it was not my fault. She got ticketed, her car got totalled, and she went to the ER as a precaution.

I got to pee in a cup. Big deal. The drug test is just more evidence for ME.

-p.

[Mackman]

get over it.

i am over it it didn't in happen to me. Just wanted to get some other drivers opinion

[dc6860]

8) Maybe you should look at it from our side as professional drivers??
If there wasn't so many people out there under the influence of drugs and alcohol who still thinks its ok to drive in that condition many of us wouldn't have to put up with all the tests and laws that now exist.

I for one will take a test anytime because I know I'm clean?? And its not a waste of time nor does it bother me at all.

DC

[rcso]

But city workers are gett paid when there afternoon is wasted. So they dont care.

Actually I was tested 'after' work. One of those time was after a 12 hour shift and before HAVING to go to court 3 hours after my shift was over.

[yoopr]

It's SOP when there's an Accident.
If he lost time and money take her to small claims court.

[Skywalker]

Whether or not we get paid for the time....is immaterial. The FMCSR's clearly outline the when/how/where a UA/Drug Test is required. One of them is "when one of the vehicles has to be towed" from the scene.

He lost less than 4 hours.....sure its a pain, but whats even a bigger pain is to not have the UA/Drug Test done, then have papers filed against filed against you.....and then have the filing lawyer take notice of the fact that the driver neglected to comply with the FMCSR's. $$$ka-ching, ka-ching, KA-CHING$$$, then he's going to subpoena 6 months of the logs, turn pro's loose on them....and you'd best not have fudged on them....cuz if his pros find any errors....its a real slippery slope from there on out.

Its a requirement of the job....and it is both a "Damocles Sword" and also a double-edged sword. For those of us who know we are clean....its our proof that we were sober and not under the influence of anything. For others, its the beginning of a death knell to their careers.

[terrylamar]

I used to think the Firearms Business was heavily regulated.

[yeti]

that type test is pure bs :dung: :dung: your father is still an American citizen and shouldn't be forced to prove himself innocent of any crime, especially when there is no suspicion that any crime has even occurred. I accept the prehire drug test and can live with the random test(don't like them but can live with them) but to be treated as if you are guilty and have to prove your innocence of a crime that never occurred is insane.

"come check me out, I have nothing to hide" is the most asinine argument in favor of allowing this type of illegal search. I still maintain my right to be secure in my person, papers and property. Its the same as saying if a cop is driving past your house and thinks that its possible a crime is occurring there he can demand entrance and search, just because a crime could be happening.So now its come to the point, because you have nothing to hide, the Government is free to toss your home anytime some civil servant thinks that it is possible some crime may possibly be, has or will occur in your house? They do not automatically audit the bank teller after a robbery because she may be a tax cheat do they?

THOSE WHO WOULD SURRENDER LIBERTY TO SECURE SAFETY, DESERVE NEITHER to steal from Ben Franklin.

If the man with the gun tells me I must pee in the bottle, I pee in the bottle. I might not like it, I sure as hell don't want to do it, I resent the implication and the intrusion, but pee I will, my family still likes to eat. However I will not pretend that its all right, I won't snivel and say I'm clean so go ahead and test me. Its still wrong to FORCE me to prove I am innocent of committing a crime that may or may not have occurred.

[terrylamar]

No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing they to take the piss test, it is voluntary. A Commercial Drivers License is a privilege not a right. Anyone can refuse to take the test.

[yeti]

No one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing they to take the piss test, it is voluntary. A Commercial Drivers License is a privilege not a right. Anyone can refuse to take the test.

figuratively or literally, the gun is held to your head. You pee or I shoot you is the same as you pee or lose your license. I don't know where this granting me the privilege to do anything is the right of the government. The government can call almost anything they want a privilege, that doesn't make it so.

Rules and regulations that are reasonable are fine. Prehire test, fine, random test ok, I'll do it, but to require you to prove yourself innocent of any crime, let alone prove the crime never occurred is still wrong. Wrong is wrong no matter how the government presents it to you. I did not trade my citizenship for a CDL, no matter what the government thinks, but under the barrel of the gun I am forced to submit.

[rcso]

Actually this is based off constiutional law.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, empowers the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

[yeti]

Actually this is based off constiutional law.


Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, empowers the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

this is based off the bill of rights of the United States Constitution, not constitunial law

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.

[DesertRat]

There is no fourth amendment violation here. At any point and time, you can surrender your CDL and no longer be subjected to this requirement. As long as you hold that CDL you have given "implied consent" to search actions by law enforcement. That is a condition of your CDL, something that you have consented to in return for the privilage of holding a CDL. See that's where it all changes, the concept of privilage. You have no right to a CDL (or drivers license for that matter.) You have been granted the privilage of holding one. As such, the Government can require what it deems appropriate, without fear of violating the Constitution.

[rcso]

and when you drive on public highways you're subject to the rules of the political subdivisions therein; including implied consent to your blood, breath, urine or other bodily fluid in accordance with the laws of whichever state you're in.

The government of our nation have every right to control interstate commerce because that right is expressly given in our Constitution and has not been repealled yet. That is why there are rules on who, how, why, when, and what can be transported from one place to another.


If Mac's dad feels his rights were violated by that cop when he acted under the color of authority then Mac's dad has every right to try to bring a federal civil rights lawsuit against him. He also has every right to bring a civil suit against the at-fault driver for damages (lost time in his case)

The fact here is this, when you sign your paperwork to get your CDL or any other license then you have to abide by those laws, otherwise you will not be licensed to drive, and personally I wouldn't want to get caught running a commercial load without a valid CDL.

The government has an obligation to protect the populace. Yes we all have rights, but those rights stop cold when the infringe on other's rights. Your right to a free press is not anymore important than my right to a free press. I wouldn't want an inexperienced or unlicensed commerical driver transporting nuclear waste any more than I want a nutcase performing surgery on me or a 17 year old arresting me. All three have certain licenses that must be earned in order to do those jobs and all three are done that way to protect others.

(Example only, I'm sure Mac's dad is an upright citizen) If Mac's dad 'was' under the influence then he is more likely to hurt someone while driving. If Mac's dad was not licensed to drive a commercial vehicle he is more likely to hurt someone. If Mac's dad was intoxicated and killed someone in a wreck how is 'his right to protection from unreasonable searches or seizures' more important than my right to live?

[rcso]

BTW, Mackman; you've got a great looking bike.

[yeti]

There is no fourth amendment violation here. At any point and time, you can surrender your CDL and no longer be subjected to this requirement. As long as you hold that CDL you have given "implied consent" to search actions by law enforcement. That is a condition of your CDL, something that you have consented to in return for the privilage of holding a CDL. See that's where it all changes, the concept of privilage. You have no right to a CDL (or drivers license for that matter.) You have been granted the privilage of holding one. As such, the Government can require what it deems appropriate, without fear of violating the Constitution.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

STOP PUTTING THE GOVERMENT ABOVE YOURSELF. Just because we sumit to these laws doesn't make them right. At no point do you surrender your rights as a citizen, you sumit because you MUST, that doesn't make it right, the commerce clause does not say you give up individual rights it says the goverment sets the rules the STATES must live by. If the driver of the car wasen't correrced into peeing in the bottle can you not see unequal treatment under the law.

the specific test this thread referred to is not a random test it is a test requiring a driver to prove himself innocent of a crime that cannot be shown to have occurred. It is the responcibility of the goverment to prove him guilty, it is not lawful to make the driver prove his innocense.