Random drug testing of certain groups of workers may seem well-intentioned, but it erodes everyone's constitutional right to privacy.

The Centre Area Transportation Authority recently said it will start random drug testing of CATA and Campus Loop drivers. Some people argue that public employees whose work directly affects the safety of others, such as bus drivers, should be randomly tested for drugs. These jobs are categorized as safety sensitive.

But the Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. Law enforcement officials have usually interpreted this to mean they cannot arrest citizens or search their property without probable cause.

By definition, random drug testing would occur without first establishing probable cause.

Going through the humiliating experience of drug testing would make employees feel as if they were under constant suspicion of illegal and destructive behavior.

Random drug testing will not alleviate the drug problem because workers could use drugs in between tests. The only way to ensure workers are not taking drugs would be to test every day -- an idea that is logistically impossible and certainly not conducive to a comfortable working atmosphere.

Testing safety-sensitive workers could lead to testing for a wide variety of the nation's work force. Many jobs can be classified as safety sensitive to a greater or lesser degree. Construction workers, architects and nurse practitioners affect public safety as do bus drivers.

Furthermore, even if every bus driver is completely drug free, that will not protect passengers from other drivers who are chemically impaired. It would be next to impossible to regularly test everyone who drives.

The U.S. Supreme Court also has indicated greater tolerance toward drug testing by refusing to review two federal court rulings. The two rulings rejected claims that drug testing violated employees' privacy rights.

Certainly testing is warranted if safety sensitive employees exhibit signs of drug abuse. But people should be wary when the government says it will randomly take away some rights for the good of the public.

Violating some citizens' rights is no way to address a far-reaching social problem.