Illicit Drugs Has Always Been

¶ … illicit drugs has always been a social problem anywhere and in the United States in particular, the problem has been pervasive especially with regards to those using illegal substances in the workplace. In order to curb the occurrence of this problem, there have been workplace drug testing in place in both the public and private sectors. Various statutes and organizational policies have been implemented to ensure that in the execution of drug testing in the workplace, the rights of individual workers are not trampled on. There is a difference though when it comes to implementing drug testing in the workplace for public sector and private sector employees. In the case of Tanya Blackburn refusing a random drug test, as a member of the Civil service Board, it is necessary first to research whether there are court rulings (both state and federal) on the matter that are applicable to the grievance of Ms. Blackburn. Although the courts basically consider random drug testing in the workplace as not consistent with the U.S. Constitution (Cayer, 2003, p. 140), there are some provisions that merit exclusion. Thus, police and fire employees, transportation workers, and military personnel maybe tested randomly or on a regular basis without violating their constitutional rights (Cayer, 2003, p. 140). This may still be a general statement and applied to Ms. Blackburn's case, she seems to be on the "losing" end. However, she should still opt to fight the provision in court in order to protect the rights and freedoms she believes in and from the outcome of the decision can the matter may be settled.

Case 2: Whenever a person is hired to perform a job or occupation, that person should be hired based on what his or her abilities and conditions are at the present and not what could happen in the future. For instance, in Min Patel's case her lung cancer there years ago that went into full recovery had nothing to do with her ability to perform as a deputy sheriff especially since she has passed the medical exams of the city. As what the Americans with Disability Act specifies, it is illegal to screen for any disability unrelated to job performance (Cayer, 2003, p. 141) and clearly, there was no disability to speak of except for records of Ms. Patel's clung cancer treatment and her statements that she had the disease. The city may be stating that if she is hired as a deputy sheriff, "she would be exposed to situations in which she could be breathing substances that could reactivate her condition (Cayer, 2003, p. 146)." This argument is immediately presumptuous and without basis unless the city provides strong evidence from top medical experts that that could be the case. Absent any of these proofs, then the city is discriminating Ms. Patel from a job that she has been found to be qualified to undertake and by not proceeding with hiring her, the city is opening itself up for carious legal cases. Thus, if Ms. Patel does not fight the city's decision, then she is giving up her rights especially the ones that protect her and others who have had similar cases from discriminatory practices.