mithrandir2001
Diamond Member
- May 1, 2001
- 6,545
- 1
- 0
<< Your post indicates that you favor lawlessness without consequences. >>
Nobody fully complies with the law in every dimension, nor should they, really, because not all law breakage harms others. Living a goody two shoes life has to be miserable.
<< By the way, most responsible employers require mandatory drug testing during the course of employment, not just at the start. Truck drivers are required to be tested on a regular, unannounced basis. There are many more positions that require testing, and rightfully so.
Do you defend drug use at school and in the workplace? >>
I don't defend use AT school or AT the workplace, but what people do in their private lives behind closed doors is really not my concern. Should pilots and train conductors be tested? Well, I'm fine with that because that's more of a "fitness" test. But for a desk job? Bah. By making drug testing such an issue, they are basically saying that drug use is the only negative factor affecting job performance. Why not also test people for martial stress, abusive relationships, alcohol abuse, gambling addiction, pornography addiction, etc.?
I've pee'd in cups, been tapped for blood, had my hair pulled out. Bullsh!t. All tests came up negative. Could have told them that and saved both of us the hassle and expense. It's oddly ironic, isn't it: We're told that any drug use whatsoever is bad, but people with a track record of success are still tested. Why, then? It's like "Mr. Jones, you've done an excellent job at GE and your references spoke highly of you, but your drug test shows traces of THC, so I'm afraid we cannot hire you." Hey, it's their loss for having a jihad against the bogeyman.
