TexasCHLforum.com

With all due respect W.P., we do not need another nanny state law.
Following your logic, why dont we start testing doctors, nurses, and
anybody else in the medical field, since your life is in their hands. And lets not stop there, lets test everyone that uses our roads, since the have the potential of causing harm or death, even passengers can cause problems. And vihicle mechanics, lets not forget about them. Howabout farmers and ranchers, since we eat what they produce.
Aw heck, why not just test every person in the state/nation, since we have to have contact with some of them allmost everyday, and you just never know what they'll do.
Yea, lets punish the majority for what might be a couple of idiots.
Makes perfectly good sense to me!!!

Dan

Lots of good reasons listed.

One another side of the coin; DPS is already overloaded and behind on applicant processing. Who would have to pay for this drug testing? What provisions would be in place to give a second, more thorough test if a positive was returned?

And if you are going to use police officers as your comparison, then why not require CHL holders to pass an MMPI (psychological examination)? (BTW, LEO's are not tested throughout the year).

Texas LEO's must have 40 hours of in-service training every 2 years, lets do that for CHLs too. Make them pass a physical exam and physical agility test.

No, I think not.

This would be a waste of money, and it would likely be more of the CHL holder's.
We have fingerprints on file with the FBI.
We have passed criminal screenings.
We don't owe student loans or child support.
We're about as clean a group as you can get and still be human.

It's doubtful we're doing recreational drugs.

wow what a flaming I'm getting for this post... Everybody is wigging out. I posted this as a clearly loaded question to enact a response and it did exactly that. I was just wandering what some of you guy's thought about it, I think it's a idea that has alot more cons that pros. It's a idea that some would consider good at heart but the reality of doing it would be substantially more cost and trouble than any perceived positive outcomes.

I don't think you are getting flamed, I'm a little surprised at how one sided it is though.

Witness P wrote:wow what a flaming I'm getting for this post... Everybody is wigging out. I posted this as a clearly loaded question to enact a response and it did exactly that. I was just wandering what some of you guy's thought about it, I think it's a idea that has alot more cons that pros. It's a idea that some would consider good at heart but the reality of doing it would be substantially more cost and trouble than any perceived positive outcomes.

Who wigged out? All I read was calm, thought out responses.

Naw, no flames.

In fact, you didn't even state your position in the original post, so we would have no reason to "flame". You simply asked several reasonable questions...to which we have responded.


Now, if you want to take my guns away and think Michael Moore and the Dixie Chicks are great......................

seamusTX wrote:Drug testing implies a presumption of guilt and essentially requires people to prove that they are innocent.

+1. However, if it were required, it certainly wouldn't be the end of the world to me.

A 4000lb. truck has way more capacity to kill then a handgun, and we don't require random drug testing of all people holding a driver's license.

Are society is already geared way too much towards "guilty until proven innocent", and this is one more extension of that philosophy that we are better off without.

And can anyone recall opening the paper and reading a story about a stoned CHLer using his carry pistol to crime? I'm sure it's probably happened, how often? "Random" drug testing would be a solution to a non-problem and one more way of robbing us of what few freedoms we still have.

Drug testing es no bueno re: CHLs.

Witness P wrote:wow what a flaming I'm getting for this post... Everybody is wigging out.

You posted the question, then 22 minutes later you egged people on to respond.

No one has flamed you; you didn't even take a position.

Kevin

flintknapper wrote:Naw, no flames.

In fact, you didn't even state your position in the original post, so we would have no reason to "flame". You simply asked several reasonable questions...to which we have responded.


Now, if you want to take my guns away and think Michael Moore and the Dixie Chicks are great......................

I agree with all of the above responses. We drug test at work for pre-employment and after that only if you are involved in an accident (insurance regs).

And I didn't see any flaming either, just well thought out responses.

I have to admit I am a little surprised that it is almost unamiously no testing except for just a few. These are some good results that I'm getting, surprisingly the exact opposite of what I was told people would want.

Never, Never, Never volunteer to give up your rights.
Random drug testing doesn't even work 100% as a deterrent on drug and alcohol abusers that are required to do testing as part of their legal travails. First hand experience as staff in one of those facilities.

Beyond rediculous to even mention it as an option connected to already unconstitutional weapons requirements.. (/rant off)

Let me tell a little tale about drug testing...

I'm a union official, and we're currently fighting to save the job of an employee who tested positive for marijuana. He swears 100% that he has never used any drugs, and I believe him 100%. Here's why: He was tested when he went to school to get his commercial driving license. He volunteered for this school, and had been waiting months to go. He knew well in advance that he was going, and knew that he would be drug tested. He has 23 years in as a federal employee, in a law enforcement position.

Sound like someone that couldn't avoid puffing a joint in the 14 days before CDL school?

From the time he took the test until they told him it was positive, was 14 days. He immediately took a private test, but since 14 days had passed, this wasn't valid to disprove the first positive test. He was placed on home duty pending termination, because this is a zero-tolerance job for drug use.

As he's entitled to do, he paid to have his original urine sample retested at a lab of his choosing. This time it was negative! He also paid for a hair follicle test (which covers the past 90 days), and it was also negative. When we investigated and deposed witnesses who were also present, we found out the test collector violated every rule in the book, even though he signed an affidavit swearing he'd followed procedure exactly.

The local CEO has given our guy an extension of 10 days before he has to impose termination, and he's actually hoping the testing we've provided will be accepted. He doesn't think our guy is guilty, either, but the way policy is written, the follicle test might not be accepted.

That's okay. While our policy might not recognize a hair follicle test, a judge is sure going to! I just don't want our guy to be out of a paycheck while the case works its way through the courts. But if we have to go that route, he's going to get some serious backpay when (not "if") he gets reinstated.

No, I do not trust urine sample drug tests.

Kevin

No drug testing period.
Drugs don't make you a criminal. Their abuse is what leads to it.