Author Topic: Mandatory drug testing (Read 1533 times)

senna · « **Reply #75 on:** October 28, 2002, 02:43:59 PM »

This whole drug thread is rather strange. You people are like an angry mob of people trying to harrass the dope heads. Sheesh, a simple test would resolve everything. Then everybody can get back to doing what it is they do best rather than worst. Ive had to take these tests before and they arent that big of a deal.

I

Im all for it then.

midnight Target · « **Reply #76 on:** October 28, 2002, 02:57:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler

---snip---
once again, if you aren't doing something wrong, illegal in this case, you have nothing to worry about...

This is the scariest line in American politics. Something Tailgunner Joe would have said. I don't do drugs either Eagler, anymore.

Eagler · « **Reply #77 on:** October 28, 2002, 03:47:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target

This is the scariest line in American politics.

nah

the scariest line would have been:

"GORE WINS!"

Sandman · « **Reply #78 on:** October 28, 2002, 03:50:49 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target

This is the scariest line in American politics. Something Tailgunner Joe would have said. I don't do drugs either Eagler, anymore.

Funny thing... The left uses the same argument when it comes to gun control laws.

mrfish · « **Reply #79 on:** October 28, 2002, 03:51:16 PM »

hey eagler, could you come up with a different term than 'doper'?

it's not offensive or anything, i just get a mental image of my grandpa when you say that - it's 2002 no one says 'doper' for cryin out loud

midnight Target · « **Reply #80 on:** October 28, 2002, 03:55:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman_SBM

Funny thing... The left uses the same argument when it comes to gun control laws.

Oh yea... well.......

I need to think about this one. You might have a point, then again, you might be confusing the abrogation of a right to privacy that is one of those Inalienable ones, with the limitation of gun ownership, which is not one of those inalienable ones, just a poorly worded amendment.

naah, not the same.

AKDejaVu · « **Reply #81 on:** October 28, 2002, 04:00:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Eagler

I believe I would find the vast majority opposed to testing, partake on tested substances to one degree or another

you, I believe, are in the minority - non doper (never doper) against testing

I believe I am in the overall minority. Most people that are for the testing have used drugs at some point. Its simply that most have tried it. Maybe you haven't... but if that's the case... you are also in the minority.

Quote

once again, if you aren't doing something wrong, illegal in this case, you have nothing to worry about...

Can't say I care much for this statement at all. Its right out of 1984. Maybe we should also put exceding the speed limit governers on our vehicles too. And also put bad thoughts = pain "medication" in the drinking water. I mean... if you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about... right?

I don't believe that the use of drugs necessarily promotes an unsafe work environment. I'd be curious to see if anyone has correlated the two. I believe the excessive use of anything does promote an unsafe work environment... including humor. I can honestly say I've seen more work/safety impacting situations arrise as a result of a practical joke than those that were even remotely drug related.

For every whacked out wierdo that does something stupid, there are thousands that simply have no excuse.

AKDejaVu

AKIron · « **Reply #82 on:** October 28, 2002, 04:10:58 PM »

Does private industry have the right to establish their own rules of behavior? I think so. Do private citizens have the right to choose their employer? I know we do. What's the big deal? If you don't want to be tested don't take the job or refuse the test and possibly be fired. If enough folks don't want to be tested then companies will quit testing rather than lose good employees.

The military tested for a long time and probably does still. Did I like to be tested or like having to watch other guys pee? Hell no. Did I feel it was necessary? Absolutely.

Eagler · « **Reply #83 on:** October 28, 2002, 04:12:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by mrfish
hey eagler, could you come up with a different term than 'doper'?

it's not offensive or anything, i just get a mental image of my grandpa when you say that - it's 2002 no one says 'doper' for cryin out loud

LOL

what do you suggest you young whipper snapper you?
what's a 2002 doper called

Sandman · « **Reply #84 on:** October 28, 2002, 04:35:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by midnight Target

Oh yea... well.......

I need to think about this one. You might have a point, then again, you might be confusing the abrogation of a right to privacy that is one of those Inalienable ones, with the limitation of gun ownership, which is not one of those inalienable ones, just a poorly worded amendment.

naah, not the same.

Sidestep the issue and look at the argument, "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you've nothing to hide."

It's not a good argument for gun registration, nor is it a good argument for drug testing, IMHO.

Both liberals and conservatives seem to use it around here on occasion. Of course, their are a few more vocal types from the right that seem to use it ALL the time to justify government forays into personal privacy.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #85 on:** October 28, 2002, 04:46:46 PM »

once again, if you aren't doing something wrong, illegal in this case, you have nothing to worry about...

the same argument for searches of houses. the police could just oick an area and go door to door, searching for drugs, unlicensed guns, stolen property, or contraband of anykind.

would that be ok too? if you got nothing to hide, no harm done right?

Karnak · « **Reply #86 on:** October 28, 2002, 05:40:01 PM »

I consider mandatory drug testing an invasion of my privacy. I dislike it intensely and agree with the poster who likened it to being required to prove your innocence when there is absolutely no evidence that you're guilty.

That said, I had to take one to get my current job. I did and, not surprisingly given my lack of drug use, I passed. I still consider it an intrusion into my personal space.

lazs2 · « **Reply #87 on:** October 29, 2002, 09:01:19 AM »

I bet I have done more drugs than the top two drug advocates in this thread combined.... then again maybe not but... enough to know something about em and the lifestyle.

we are not talking about going to your home and testing you on a mandatory basis. We are talking about employers rights.... ONLY his rights. he isn't going to deprive you of life or liberty... at best he is simply going to fire your worthless butt. You face no criminal prosecution. He is simply protecting himself and.... you have the right to refuse testing. you have the right to not work for him. He is simply saying..."hey, if you work for me I want you free of illegal drugs." He is smart enough to know that no druggie has the courage to admit that he is useing so... he needs to test. He can't "tell by looking" and he knows that his opinion will not hold up in court.... a failed drug test or ten helps his case a bunc tho and he is able to get rid of his problem...you.
lazs

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #88 on:** October 29, 2002, 10:50:07 AM »

a failed drug test or ten helps his case a bunc tho and he is able to get rid of his problem...you.

Lazs, I dunno what you are talking about here... lots of employers test during the application process. How can you be a problem if you aren't even working for them yet?

Sure, it circumvents a lot of problems with burn outs, meth-heads and other major drug abusers.... but it still won't tell you if the guy you are about to hire is an alcoholic (with just as much problems as any other drug abuser) or someone who gets all hopped up on pain meds. SOME tests will detect pain meds... most won't, except for really strong pain meds.

If you are going to use drug tests as a means to detect who will be a good employee and who won't be, wouldn't it make sense to have a "dumb ass" test too?

I know plenty of people who are not only un-productive (because of themselves, no drugs involved) but also extremely unsafe to work around... again, not because of drugs...

But, if you wanna subscribe to the belief that the current drug tests are anything but another shoddy shot in the dark at the failing drug war, then go right on ahead.

It's still BS, any way you slice it.
-SW

capt. apathy · « **Reply #89 on:** October 29, 2002, 10:59:48 AM »

I second that. I would rather work with someone who comes in high every couple days than someone who is stupid. at least the high guy will run out from time to time and have a good day. stupid people are stupid every day of their lives.

testing is a waste of money that could be used to pay higher wages and get better employees. if someone does a good job for you don't screw with them, leave them alone and let them make you money. who gives a damn what they do with their spare time.

and if a guy is a screw up, does it really make you feel better to know he's sober and this is as good as it's ever gonna get.

you could get rid of about 95% of the pages in every companys saftey manual and company policy if they would just have a 'moron free workplace'