The Journal reported executives at SpaceX worried Elon Musk was on drugs after an “unhinged” all-hands meeting in which he slurred and rambled.

  • thisisnotgoingwell@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    My source discussed your concerns, I think you did not read it.

    “Most courts have ruled that mandatory urinalysis, at least in the absence of probable cause or reasonable suspicion, is invalid as a violation of the Fourth Amendment. While some courts have concluded that government workers may have a diminished expectation of privacy in comparison with the public at large, other courts have required some quantum of individualized suspicion before drug testing can be conducted. States have attempted to uphold mandatory drug testing by arguing that government employees voluntarily consent to drug testing and voluntary consent does not violate the Fourth Amendment. Courts have not accepted this argument, however, finding that consent obtained under the threat of disciplinary action is coercive and thus unconstitutional. The real issue in mandatory drug testing involves balancing individual versus government interests. Most courts hold that, absent probable cause or reasonable suspicion, individual constitutional rights are not outweighed by governmental interests”

    • Shadywack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I did, actually, so let’s break it down:

      The strongest and most often cited argument for rejecting mandatory urinalysis is that such testing is an unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment.

      This is my issue right off the top, hence I bring up fit for duty requirements as a measure of preventing the loss of life and/or property. All reasonable suspicion and disciplinary issues arise after a major loss of life happens, and random UA testing has been viewed as a tool that functions preventatively in encouraging people not to show up under the influence of a substance, ie fit for duty.

      Had you displayed a modicum of understanding, you could see that point rather clearly, but it seems you like to use a stupid fucking red herring to detract from the point altogether. If it’s unconstitutional, them it ought to be amended, and while we’re at it, keep people accountable especially scumbag C-suite execs who are often making decisions that demonstrably lead to death and/or loss of property in various ways.

      • thisisnotgoingwell@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Your reading comprehension is horrible, to say the least. Let me highlight the keywords for you so it’s easier.

        Most courts have ruled that mandatory urinalysis, at least in the absence of probable cause or reasonable suspicion, is invalid as a violation of the Fourth Amendment.