If you live in "public" housing would give up your rights then?
It's just an awful twist of logic that someone in public employment has to pee for their pay while those on the public dole (supported in part by those very public employees) are not required to pee for theirs.
I agree that living in "public" housing, in other words, subsidized housing, presents a murky situation, since the taxpayers are paying the person's rent, and I, personally, don't feel that I should be required to indirectly help support someone's drug habit. And the idea of drug testing for welfare benefits, again, while a potentially sticky situation, doesn't bother me, because once again, the taxpayers (you and I) are subsidizing someone's existence, so it's only fair that we/they have the ability to put conditions on that assistance.
If you're talking about drug testing for one's job, ESPECIALLY if that job has a person operating a motor vehicle or piece of construction equipment, than I agree that it should be done. I also feel, however, that it's a sad set of circumstances, when so many people feel that they need recreational drugs and/or alcohol, just to make it through their day. Given my somewhat advanced age, I didn't have to be subjected to drug testing during the first part of my working life. However, about a year after I retired from my full-time job of 37 years, I was asked to join one of the "big box" auto parts stores, as a delivery driver.
I had some time on my hands, and SS hadn't kicked in yet, so I agreed to do so. It was the first time in my life that I was subjected to a drug test, at the age of 57. It was eye opening, as I hadn't quite realized how deeply the drug culture had invaded American life.