Author Topic: Mandatory drug testing (Read 1534 times)

funkedup · « **Reply #30 on:** October 27, 2002, 01:59:24 PM »

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #31 on:** October 27, 2002, 02:04:14 PM »

Quote

Search and siezure protection applies to criminal actions and prosecutorial situations not the work place.

that is an interpritation, of the constitution. not the actual words. the interpritation was handed down from a court that doesn't get tested.

how can you trust their judgement if you dont know if they are drug free.

which leads to one of my points about testing. it is only enforced on the people who live with the rules not the ones who make, interpret, or enforce these rules

mrfish · « **Reply #32 on:** October 27, 2002, 02:27:18 PM »

i took a drug test once and they said i failed it - see i don't get that because i was on plenty of drugs ????

those tests are weird...

john9001 · « **Reply #33 on:** October 27, 2002, 02:34:10 PM »

probable cause??, we don need no steeken probable cause.

remember "land of the free and home of the brave" are just words in a song , it don't mean that you are free or brave.

44MAG

Vulcan · « **Reply #34 on:** October 27, 2002, 02:37:59 PM »

Mandatory drug testing? Cool!

But ahh who pays for the drugs. I don't wanna do no tests if we have to pay for the drugs ourselves.

And which is the highest rating? Is like1 the best? or 10 the best and 1 the worst?

-Concho- · « **Reply #35 on:** October 27, 2002, 03:00:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by capt. apathy
testing sucks, here's a couple reasons why.

4. the people who actually make, interpret and enforce the laws, rules and regulation on drugs aren't tested.

I am.

wulfie · « **Reply #36 on:** October 27, 2002, 03:12:41 PM »

The problem with commenting on the Constitution and/or the Bill of Rights with regards to this topic is that today's problems were in no way applicable back then.

Doctors back then? We didn't have surgeons. The state of medicine back then...if the Doctor was 'buzzed' your chance of survival probably wasn't altered that much.

Truck drivers (especially those transporting flammable and/or other hazardous materials), airline pilots, military pilots, the military in general - no possible correlation.

There was not a single occupation back then where negligence could put dozens of innocent lives at risk so quickly.

Friendly fire with a musket? One guy dies. A combat engineer who is hung over and screws up the fuzing on a military demolition job is going to kill everyone within 15 meters of him, every time.

Pilots - don't get me started on the comparisons. The captain of a merchant ship back then could be dead and the crew would still get the ship to a port safely.

It's about discipline in my book - an airline pilot, a SSN Skipper (or anyoone who's a part of the crew of that SSN), a pilot in general, a surgeon - they are going to be and should be held to a higher standard of discipline than a network administrator (providing he doesn't work on FAA computers).

To me it's not about good or bad. I don't care if people smoke the ganja in terms of judging someone's character. Some of my best friends are lifetime members of that club. I think no less of them because of it. Hell, 20 years from now, when I'm not tested and won't have a clearance I'm willing to bet I'm going to be tied down and have a bong duct taped to my face at at least one party.

But sometimes people who use drugs (including alcohol) recreationally let the recreation get out of control, or sometimes the recreation gets out of control regardless of a person's intent. It's not a judgement of them in my book - it happens sometimes and that's life. The testing is to protect 'innocent' people who are trusting a professional with their lives (be it flying drunk, becoming addicted to something and selling classified data to support a habit, falling asleep on watch, showing up for surgery with unsteady hands, etc.) from the worst case scenario involving a professional's voluntary recreational habits.

The worst case scenario varies greatly amongst different jobs. If your worst case scenario involves people getting killed, everything can go wrong even if you do everything right/'by the book'/etc. There's no need to triple the odds of the worst case showing up because you had 4 too many the night before and your reaction time is 80% of what it should be.

Everyone who is a network admin., smoke one for everyone who can't until they retire.

Mike/wulfie

Thrawn · « **Reply #37 on:** October 27, 2002, 03:32:13 PM »

I think only gun owners should be tested for drugs.

Airhead · « **Reply #38 on:** October 27, 2002, 03:57:41 PM »

shoot dope, not people

easymo · « **Reply #39 on:** October 27, 2002, 05:23:35 PM »

Where is Udie. I know he believes in mandatory test drugging:)

bounder · « **Reply #40 on:** October 27, 2002, 06:35:55 PM »

Nope.

I don't come to work stoned. You don't come to work stoned. If we do we get sacked. Simple.

You don't need drug testing to tell whether someone is on drugs. (unless you're an idiot)

Plus the considerable risk of false positives and expensive industrial tribunals or legal actions.

Plus the fact the human body is a natural pharmocoepia and any one of us would test positive for a number of Schedule I (or class A) drugs. (depends what you test)

Plus the inability of tests to pick up other drugs of abuse

Humans have used drugs for at least 8,500 years and they've never shown any signs of stopping, despite the most brutal repression throughout the ages.

I wish people would get over it and start thinking about how to help people use drugs without them damaging themselves and others.

If we legalized and taxed recreational drugs as luxury items like Alcohol and tobacco you would see a dozen internecine conflicts around the world slowly draw to a close as the farmers went back to rice/maize/coffee/wheat whatever and the money ran out.

Legalize and tax it and suddenly organised crime syndicates are hit by a huge cut in overall profits, meanwhile tax pennies/dollars/euros flow into the bank to spend on guns and oil (and maybe even hospitals and schools and roads and railways).

As legal supplies of various drugs begin to flow, usage can be monitored, quality is assured and damage is limited.

Those who develop problems (and there are always some) can be treated.

It wouldn't eradicate the black market by any means, but it would certainly make a significant dent in the numbers involved, whic in turn would mean less burglary, robbery, mugging, hold-ups etc. There's no denying that thieving to feed a habit is the worst kind because its a long series of offences.

When habitual heroin addicted burglars are caught, local detection rates rise by as much as 50% (in smaller areas).

And of course the state could manufacture and retail the substances, and through sheer economy of scale it could make a huge profit, even if it undercut the black market by 80% (not to mention all that lovely tax too. I mean, noone in here uses drugs so no real objections to taxing the hell out of the longhairs and junkies huh?)

So all in all, don't go to work coked/stoned/tripped out of your head - that's just stupid (and obvious to everyone around you). You don't need drug testing to see that.

But will someone up there please get your head around the 'problem'. It's only a 'problem' if you chose to treat it like one.

pax

oh almost forgot - should we check our pilots for drugs before they go into combat? Or maybe just search them in case they're carrying dexamphetamine sulphate, for example.

And what about our infantry? I would rather give them some pep pills than have them falling asleep at crucial moments.

Remember some drugs can enhance your performance. You just need to choose the right drug for the job, and you can usually find one without too much difficulty for almost any occupation.

john9001 · « **Reply #41 on:** October 27, 2002, 07:52:17 PM »

super market stock boys should be tested for drugs , we don't want them to get the green peas mixed up with the green beans, think of the mess that would cause

wulfie · « **Reply #42 on:** October 27, 2002, 09:07:25 PM »

Bounder you know we aren't talking about 'permitted' performance enhancers. A guy could test positive for something and if it's a permitted substance then no harm done.

Mike/wulfie

capt. apathy · « **Reply #43 on:** October 27, 2002, 09:15:40 PM »

concho is your testing voluntary (truly voluntary, not volunteer or hit the bricks) or mandatory. if manditory I think your department is the exception rather than the rule. around here and most other places I'm aware of neither the cops, judges, or politicians are tested.

also in the construction trades, the guys who develope safety policy and the engineers who design the structures are rarely if ever tested. but the guy sweeping up after, he gets tested regularly.

StSanta · « **Reply #44 on:** October 28, 2002, 12:53:59 AM »

Heh, need a billboard.

Wait, I'll use the O'Club