Author Topic: The Urine Test (Read 1418 times)

Chairboy · « **Reply #30 on:** February 29, 2008, 01:10:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by texasmom
If they're willing to disregard the law in respect to the use of drugs, you can be darn sure they're willing to disregard your work policies as well.

Does your example apply only to drugs or do you believe that it's a global truth?

If so, consider for a moment that 50 years ago, it was illegal for blacks to disobey an instruction to sit in the back of the bus. By this argument, Rosa Park's defiance would indicate that by asserting what she felt to be her rights, she proved that she's 'willing to disregard your work policies as well'.

Shuffler · « **Reply #31 on:** February 29, 2008, 01:15:11 PM »

They do that test on welfare applicants.... if you apply... yourin!!

VonMessa · « **Reply #32 on:** February 29, 2008, 01:28:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Shuffler
They do that test on welfare applicants.... if you apply... yourin!!

Preach it, brother!!!

texasmom · « **Reply #33 on:** February 29, 2008, 01:37:54 PM »

Sorry Messa, that just sounds like a lot of excuses why:
"...but... but... I wanna keep my weed."

I don't mind at all jumping to a conclusion without a thorough white glove inspection of someone's personal & private life; especially if I were an employer dishing out a paycheck. If you show blatant disregard for the law in order to satisfy your own desires to stay high ~ that's A-OK with me ~ no problem. I'd just move on to any of the next 10 in line who would be MORE than willing to take your job. *NEXT IN LINE PLEASE*

Chair, it's ridiculous to make the leap comparing a doper to Rosa Parks. Not in any way shape or form are dopers who willingly disobey the law so they can get high are anywhere near in comparison to Rosa Parks.

You're a vile dog & you approved the message? =)

Rich46yo · « **Reply #34 on:** February 29, 2008, 01:39:13 PM »

I dont like urine tests. Ive always believed they violated the constitution. If there is no evidence that someone uses an illegal drug then it should be prohibited they should have to give up anything like urine, hair, DNA.

I believe that applicants for all this fancy new public housing, since we've torn down the highrises, DO! have to submit to urine testing to get their new housing. At least in my town.

Geary420 · « **Reply #35 on:** February 29, 2008, 01:44:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by texasmom
Past use (like an over-the-weekend joint) also is a great indicator of the level of respect for the law/authority that someone has. If they're willing to disregard the law in respect to the use of drugs, you can be darn sure they're willing to disregard your work policies as well.

That's the whole *nothing is more important than me* attitude which has enveloped us lately.

Congrats, you just beat out all the squeakers for the most retarded post ever award.

texasmom · « **Reply #36 on:** February 29, 2008, 01:45:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Geary420
Congrats, you just beat out all the squeakers for the most retarded post ever award.

Spoken like a true doper.

Geary420 · « **Reply #37 on:** February 29, 2008, 01:48:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by texasmom
Spoken like a true doper.

Spoken like an idiot who saw Reefer Madness and thought it was a PBS documentary and not propaganda.

ridley1 · « **Reply #38 on:** February 29, 2008, 02:10:07 PM »

I smoked marijuana, but I never inhaled.

And I never had sex with that woman.

Sound familiar?

Jackal1 · « **Reply #39 on:** February 29, 2008, 02:11:47 PM »

The problem is the disguise it tries to hide under.
Let`s see you invade someone`s privacy under a thinly veiled .well excuse. that`s all you can call it because that is what it is.
If it were doing what it claims to do it might be one thing.
What about the large percentage that show up at jobs everyday impaired due to legally prescribed drugs. Vailium, xanax, pain meds of all sorts and colors, the big crave for antidepressants.........all impair you. Today you wouldn`t have a work force if they were taken out of the picture. The CEOs, Administrators and bosses from ground level to top supervisors that put the scotch bottle or martini glass down around 3 or 4 A.M. All violating the law. Alcohol content above legal limits. That`s OK?
Most of these your are violating the law just by getting behind the wheel and driving to work.
It`s smoke and mirrors. It`s the precedence it sets and the doors it opens to step on your rights in the future.
I have never, don`t now, nor will ever buy into to such a blatant scam and the trampling of my privacy.

VonMessa · « **Reply #40 on:** February 29, 2008, 02:32:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Jackal1
The problem is the disguise it tries to hide under.
Let`s see you invade someone`s privacy under a thinly veiled .well excuse. that`s all you can call it because that is what it is.
If it were doing what it claims to do it might be one thing.
What about the large percentage that show up at jobs everyday impaired due to legally prescribed drugs. Vailium, xanax, pain meds of all sorts and colors, the big crave for antidepressants.........all impair you. Today you wouldn`t have a work force if they were taken out of the picture. The CEOs, Administrators and bosses from ground level to top supervisors that put the scotch bottle or martini glass down around 3 or 4 A.M. All violating the law. Alcohol content above legal limits. That`s OK?
Most of these your are violating the law just by getting behind the wheel and driving to work.
It`s smoke and mirrors. It`s the precedence it sets and the doors it opens to step on your rights in the future.
I have never, don`t now, nor will ever buy into to such a blatant scam and the trampling of my privacy.

Thank you for saving me from the repetitive motion that would have otherwise accelerated my carpal tunnel.

SD67 · « **Reply #41 on:** February 29, 2008, 03:05:30 PM »

Gawd. This is such a huge topic at the moment. SOME employers here are now requesting urine tests before hiring, I've never worked for one of them.
I fail to see the correlation between what someone does on their own time and their work ethic. I used to use drugs, hell I even used to MAKE them, but when I worked I was the epitome of a model employee.
I no longer use illegal drugs of any kind, I don't smoke and I only drink occasionally and I still get to work on average 20min early to prepare for the day. There may be employees at our company that party hard on the weekends, but they never indulge during the week and they never turn up to work under the influence. After being in the "business" for as long as I was, I can spot someone who is buzzed a mile away and I'll be the first person to escort them to the office IF I came across them on the workshop floor.

VonMessa · « **Reply #42 on:** February 29, 2008, 03:14:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by texasmom
Sorry Messa, that just sounds like a lot of excuses why:
"...but... but... I wanna keep my weed."

I don't mind at all jumping to a conclusion without a thorough white glove inspection of someone's personal & private life; especially if I were an employer dishing out a paycheck. If you show blatant disregard for the law in order to satisfy your own desires to stay high ~ that's A-OK with me ~ no problem. I'd just move on to any of the next 10 in line who would be MORE than willing to take your job. *NEXT IN LINE PLEASE*

Chair, it's ridiculous to make the leap comparing a doper to Rosa Parks. Not in any way shape or form are dopers who willingly disobey the law so they can get high are anywhere near in comparison to Rosa Parks.

You're a vile dog & you approved the message? =)

First of all, I don't need excuses to keep my weed, it's very safe and thank you very much for you concern.

Second, what exactly constitutes a "doper"? Is it only because a drug is illegal, or because one is a user of the drug, be it in a recreational context or habitually? In this line of thinking does it mean that someone who consumes alcohol is automatically an alcoholic? What keeps a social drinker from going to work intoxicated?

Third, I could still use some answers to my first round of general questions. I'm sorry, but the catch-all "you are just making excuses, now lets quit this silliness" might work for the "Texas Kids" when you want them to clean their room, but I must apologize, for it doesn't satisfy my inquisitive nature. Rather it's like covering you eyes when the boogieman comes and telling me that since you can't see him, he isn't there. Indeed, it does not even answer the questions I have posed. Do you not believe that an individual can casually drink alcohol, smoke marijuana, or take prescription medication (when actually necessary) without being an alcoholic, pothead, pill-popper or general "doper"?

Believe it or not, some people actually have willpower, morals, work ethics, etc. Some folks can actually distinguish the difference between "work time" and "play time" and when is the appropriate time for each. And absolutely YES, some people can not and get carried away with it. Just remember, the main reason that prohibition was repealed were the increase in crime that it caused due to its demand, and the fact that Uncle Sam realized how much of a cash cow it could be, if taxed. Because it's legal, does it abusing it make it more acceptable?

Bottom line is that you (meaning people in general) can't break certain laws that you are OK breaking (such as speed limits, parking ordinances, fudging your taxes and yet claim that you are in no way, shape or form breaking any important laws therefore can't be considered a lawbreaker. Furthermore, one can not decide when it's OK to point the finger and cry "criminal" because one is not breaking the same laws. On the other hand, though, it seems to be working for good ole George B. Maybe it's a Texas thing?

Lastly, it's "Dirty dog".

eskimo2 · « **Reply #43 on:** February 29, 2008, 03:39:36 PM »

Anyone who’s in control of things that can kill people (busses, air traffic, weapons, cranes, medicine, etc.) should be tested randomly for being under the influence while at work. Those who work with children probably should as well. Any test that can produce a false positive, however, should be re-administered in a way to confirm influence beyond doubt before someone is terminated.

Bluedog · « **Reply #44 on:** February 29, 2008, 04:06:44 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by texasmom
Past use (like an over-the-weekend joint) also is a great indicator of the level of respect for the law/authority that someone has. If they're willing to disregard the law in respect to the use of drugs, you can be darn sure they're willing to disregard your work policies as well.

That's the whole *nothing is more important than me* attitude which has enveloped us lately.

Your personal rights mean nothing compared to the good of the collective comrade.
Silence any who object to the word of authority.

You guys ever get the feeling you are becoming what you once hated the most?