A Boost for Drug Testing
Monday, Apr. 03, 1989 By ALAIN L. SANDERS


The wreck was the bloodiest in Amtrak's history. On Jan. 4, 1987, a string of Conrail locomotives rolled past warning signals near Baltimore and collided with a high-speed passenger train carrying more than 600 people. The fiery crash killed 16 and injured 176. Public dismay turned to anger when it was revealed that engineer Ricky Gates had been smoking marijuana at the controls of the Conrail train. Gates admitted the drug use and pleaded guilty to manslaughter after a urine test, required by the Government of railroad employees involved in serious accidents, revealed traces of marijuana. The tragedy fueled public support for the Government's expanding program to test employees for drugs. But the proliferation of testing among both public and private workers has spawned legal challenges from civil libertarians and labor leaders who see the antidrug campaign as a dangerous invasion of privacy.
Related Articles
Test Cases

Some 4.2 million federal employees got the word last week on new imposed guidelines governing tests ...




Last week the U.S. Supreme Court, in its first rulings on the drug-testing issue, upheld, by a vote of 7 to 2, the constitutionality of the Government regulations that require railroad crews involved in accidents to submit to prompt urinalysis and blood tests. The Justices also upheld, 5 to 4, urine tests for U.S. Customs Service employees seeking drug-enforcement posts. Said Attorney General Dick Thornburgh: "The court recognized that the Government can, and indeed should, take all necessary and reasonable steps to prevent drug use by employees in sensitive positions."

The decisions could help the Bush Administration's drive to curb drugs on the job. A 1986 Executive Order by former President Reagan authorizes drug testing throughout the Federal Government. So far, more than 50 agencies, including the Agriculture and Interior Departments, have moved to start up programs. The random, unscheduled urine tests that some agencies use have drawn the fiercest opposition from staff members. No fewer than 14 challenges | are winding their way through appellate courts.

Private companies have enthusiastically followed the federal lead in testing. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that 43% of the nation's largest firms, including IBM, AT&T and 3M, have implemented drug-screening programs for job applicants, employees or both. Last week's high-court rulings have no direct legal bearing on most private companies, but the decisions are expected to encourage industry to increase testing.

Opponents of Government screening argue that it is an "unreasonable search," barred by the Fourth Amendment. They contend that employees should be tested only if there is good reason to suspect drug use. But Justice Anthony Kennedy, author of both decisions, concluded that in the cases of rail and Customs employees, the Government need not have "individualized suspicion." Train workers, he explained, "discharge duties fraught with . . . risks of injury," and "employees involved in drug interdiction reasonably should expect effective inquiry into their fitness and probity." Justice Thurgood Marshall dissented bluntly: "Compelling a person to produce a urine sample on demand . . . intrudes deeply on privacy and bodily integrity." Normally conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who joined his more liberal colleagues in dissenting from the Customs decision, was equally sharp: "The Customs Service rules are a kind of immolation of privacy and human dignity in symbolic opposition to drug use."

(2 of 2)
Some legal scholars worried about the court's direction in future cases. "Will it be limited to safety-sensitive positions or broadened to include any public employee who is a role model?" asked University of Michigan Law Professor Yale Kamisar. Other experts doubted that the court would uphold random drug tests for a broad spectrum of Government employees. "The pattern of votes on the court suggests that as you get closer to mainstream workers, the number of dissenters picks up," observed Columbia University Law Professor Gerard Lynch.

Still, testing is likely to spread, and many workers are, to say the least, uncomfortable with the idea. Peter Appelt, a Government employee, had to walk through an office full of people with a little cup in hand to get a promotion. "It was quite embarrassing," he says. "A nurse followed me into the men's room and stood outside the stall." He passed the test, and is now a senior inspector for the Customs Service at New York City's Kennedy International Airport.

but at the end of the night after a long haul or once you hit your 36hr. break, do you guys stop and get a beer

You may go into a restaurant or bar and drink when you are off duty.

You may not drink within four hours prior to driving a CMV.

if you are shut down for the night

If they'll let you park there for the night;

I can park at a truckstop, go inside and buy a case of beer or whatever and drink it in my truck

Just make sure it doesn't take more than 2 hours and back in your bunk for a 10 hour rest unless you split the berth time.

i had beer on the road alot. I liked to socialize sometimes when i had down time and got plenty of sleep.

You can do this EVEN if you have driven your full 11 hours for the day, and you can CARRY "unopened" alcohol back to your point of shutdown for the night.

truckstops are FULL of trucks with guys having a few beers in the sleeper while watching T.V. on a break.... whether a 10 hour, or a RESET.

WHEN you finish line 4 for the day, you need 10 hours off duty before driving again. You can't drink 4 hours prior to driving, and can't have more than .02 in your system

If I LIKE to have a beer once or twice a week, I am NOT gonna deny my enjoyment of my job