Uhh, surely you can understand that if he's doing his job satisfactorily and not getting stoned at work then it isn't his employers business or yours either.
Uhh, surely you can understand that if he's doing his job satisfactorily and not getting stoned at work then it isn't his employers business or yours either.
Agreed. However, you have yet to see if he will do the job well or not, which is the whole point. THe employer must decide among alternatives, and generally speaking, joe citizen will likely be a better worker than joe stoner.
edit: the disabilities act also covers the use of illegal drugs, FWIW: "Qualified individuals do not include any employee or applicant who is currently engaging in the illegal use of drugs."
You've either been brainwashed or are watching too many movies. In my experience it is the stoners who solve most of the hard problems and think out of the box. All Joe Six-pack can do is show up every day, ontime, and get his nose brown.
That's great and all, but pretty much pointless; if that's what the employer believes, then he/she can go looking for stoners because it makes them better qualified, but they can still ask for the urine sample. (also note the edit a post up, I made it right as you posted, I believe)
It also has nothing to do with what I stated about eventual DNA testing. Anybody who doesn't think that will happen is naive. The bean counters already sift through the medical bills and see how much people are costing them and target them. iIve seen it happen on several occasions.
Once they can screen peoples DNA and know what genes to look for they will be doing that also because people like you beilieve they have that right. I guess that's one way to improve the gene pool.
I don't get what your refering to about the diabilites act? Are you trying to say that a drug problem doesn't count as a disability for hiring employees??
Edit: Oh, I think I see what your talking about with the disabilities act. Your saying that since the fed's say that even a disabled person has to submit to a drug test to quailfy for the program then it's fine for the employer to test anyone they want. You people are so short sighted. You will have a long time to think about how you handed all your rights over to your employers, the rest of your life and believe me if you people don't wise up soon you won't be treated any better then the slaves were.
Once they can screen peoples DNA and know what genes to look for they will be doing that also because people like you beilieve they have that right. I guess that's one way to improve the gene pool.
I don't get what your refering to about the diabilites act? Are you trying to say that a drug problem doesn't count as a disability for hiring employees??
Edit: Oh, I think I see what your talking about with the disabilities act. Your saying that since the fed's say that even a disabled person has to submit to a drug test to quailfy for the program then it's fine for the employer to test anyone they want. You people are so short sighted. You will have a long time to think about how you handed all your rights over to your employers, the rest of your life and believe me if you people don't wise up soon you won't be treated any better then the slaves were.
The disabilities act clearly states that illegal drug use is not protected under it. I assume it has to do with the concept that a disability is usually involuntary, whereas drug use is a choice.
The Act would theoretically ban such DNA testing......although I can certainly see where you are coming from on that. I'm not sure which would win out in modern society today: a tehcnologically advanced employer who could ask for such a sample, vs a lawsuit-happy society (made all the more obvious with that recent starbucks fiasco).
edit: As far as saying I would support DNA testing.....7200+ posts, and you are still putting words in other peolpe's mouths?
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
you bring up DNA, driving, and general living and are therefore missing the point: drugs are ILLEGAL!
THAT is what gives them the right to screen you, and that is what gives parents the right to sign their kids up for random screening, and it's what gives the schools the right to test the kids before they can play sports or attend a school function.
I applaud their efforts to keep the schools clean, because, once again (say itwith me boys and girls...): Drugs are illegal!
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Is it ok for employees to rob banks, mug people, or break into houses while they're not at work? You dont see the crimes as potentially impacting a company's bottom line or even just embarassing the company? So if one of my employees does these thingas, it's none of my business?
It's the same thing with drugs. Get that through your bonghit-clouded head! Last I checked, having brown hair instead of blonde, or being a high risk for diabetes are not illegal attributes. They are not criminal, and I highly doubt that either will ever be "illegal"... unless you're one of those tinfoil-hat types who believe that there is some massive neocon conspiracy taking place that will eventually outlaw left-handed people with brown hair...??
Originally posted by: screech
The disabilities act clearly states that illegal drug use is not protected under it. I assume it has to do with the concept that a disability is usually involuntary, whereas drug use is a choice.
The Act would theoretically ban such DNA testing......although I can certainly see where you are coming from on that. I'm not sure which would win out in modern society today: a tehcnologically advanced employer who could ask for such a sample, vs a lawsuit-happy society (made all the more obvious with that recent starbucks fiasco).
One of the problems with mandatory drug testing is that it doesn't differiniate between an ocassional user and a dope fiend who does have a problem, so I don't believe Employers should have the right to randomly test employees or require pre-employment drug screening. I think that it is pretty obvious when you have an employee who is abusing drugs.
I have about zero tolerance for these zero tolerance programs. If the big shots don't have to take them, then no one else should have to either.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Originally posted by: screech
The disabilities act clearly states that illegal drug use is not protected under it. I assume it has to do with the concept that a disability is usually involuntary, whereas drug use is a choice.
The Act would theoretically ban such DNA testing......although I can certainly see where you are coming from on that. I'm not sure which would win out in modern society today: a tehcnologically advanced employer who could ask for such a sample, vs a lawsuit-happy society (made all the more obvious with that recent starbucks fiasco).
One of the problems with mandatory drug testing is that it doesn't differiniate between an ocassional user and a dope fiend who does have a problem, so I don't believe Employers should have the right to randomly test employees or require pre-employment drug screening. I think that it is pretty obvious when you have an employee who is abusing drugs.
I have about zero tolerance for these zero tolerance programs. If the big shots don't have to take them, then no one else should have to either.
"but mr. bossman, sir, I only mug people some times, not every day! sheesh, please dont fire me!"
Oh come on. You need to reinforce your tin foil. People with jobs don't do that crap. It's the real drug addicts who do that. You would wast your time and effort on an occasional drug user? Hell, according to you GWB should have been put behind bars years ago.
LMAO, what an ignorant troll you are tonight. You forgot to mention that the stoners go around rapeing women while in there drug induced trance. :laugh:
As Palehorse points out rather bluntly, the problem isn't whether or not they do drugs a lot or infrequently, but rather, the legality of the drugs themselves. As long as a drug is illegal, and doing such a drug is a crime, then it can be tested for (and tests should be for big shots too, as you say). That is why I am against making hiring decisions on the basis of smoking, drinking booze, and so forth--those are all legal.
Yes, isn't oral sex illegal in many places also. I wonder how they could test fo that??
Why is it all the good things are either illegal, immoral, or just too damn expensive?
LOL...ok well see you are reaching. First let me say that if they want your DNA they could take it from the urine sample you provide for the drug test....with or without your consent.
But you are strating down the path of paranoid delusions. A drug test for the work place is fine, in fact I would rather pay higher proces to ensure that people are randomly drug tested rather than taking lives. For instance your in the hospital and some nurse who got fired from her previous employer for abusing prescription drugs, has her first day on the job she is under the influence when she reads the charts wrong and injects you with the wrong medication...about the time you have an alergic reaction your are gonna wish that someone would have found this out sooner say like though a drug test. That is probably going to be the argument your lawer gives at the trial when you sue the hospital driving up the cost of medical care for everyone else.
But hey, wtf ya know...drug screening for a job should not be forced on an employee...(come on everybody say it with me)..."it's not fair"
Yes you should pee in a bottle for a job and you should have to continue to do so at the behest of your employer. You can always say no. No one is forcing you, it is optional but then you want your cake and eat it too. You want the job of your dreams on your terms i.e. you can go to work and when your done get as high as you want. Reality check....sorry it doesn't work that way and you will be forced to make a choice...the dream job or the drug of choice...which is most important to you?
PS: did I mention that the nurse in my little scenario is just a recreational user...and you just happen to be the victim on her day of recreation?
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
like screech said, it all comes down to the legality of the attribute being screened. Anything that is illegal can be screened for by both employers and schools alike.
(i was exagerating before in order to make a point that you apparently missed anyways. a crime is a crime is a crime, no matter how frequently it is commited. daily, or yearly, it doesnt matter. this is not a discussion on the legalization of drugs for recreational use. that subject is another animal altogether...)
(i was exagerating before in order to make a point that you apparently missed anyways. a crime is a crime is a crime, no matter how frequently it is commited. daily, or yearly, it doesnt matter. this is not a discussion on the legalization of drugs for recreational use. that subject is another animal altogether...)
Sound to me like your the delusional, paranoid one.
You know, we had a Doctor in this statesome years back who liked to kill people. He injected something like 8 people and was able to cover it up. When he got caught, they found out that not only was he NOT EVEN A DOCTOR, but he had done the same thing in another state.
I have no proiblem with FORCING people to take drug tests as long as EVERYONE has to submit to it. I mean EVERYONE. If were going to do it then let's be fair and let everyone else show how clean and free of the demon drugs they are.
If it's good for the goose then it's good for the gander.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
so your entire beef with this entire issue is that it's not being applied to everyone?
If it makes you feel any better, I don't know of anyone in the government, or the large contractors that I work for, who is exempt from random testing. There are some who may get around the requirement illegally, somehow, but that's another crime altogether.
that said, it seems to me that your real beef has to do with recreational drug use being illegal, not the testing itself...
Yeah, I have a friend who got caught with a little dope a while back. He also had a pistol in his glovebox. The law in the state had just been changed, and having dope and a "concealed weapon" was a felony. If the gun would have been laying on the seat he would have been fine, but it was in his glove compartment, where he always carried it and it used to be fine in there until they changed the law. Now, as a felon he can't even vote.
Hell, this guy is like Larry the Cable Guy, he's just a plain old "Git'r'done" kind of guy. Lucky for him he's self employeed as an electrician or he would probably have a hard time even finding a decent job.
I think this new "zero tolerance" crap all sucks the big one. Like i said, if were going to test then test EVERYBODY right on up to and including the POTUS.
Sorry no.
Why should everyoone have to? No one ever said life is fair, nor should it be. You sound like a little kid...
"MOM!!! Billy has an ice cream cone I want one tooo!!!"
"No 1EZduzit you can't have one sugar is not good for you."
"IT'S NOT FAIR!!!"...WAAAAAAAAA
sad really. if you don't want to be subject to a drug test, then don't apply for a job that requires you to take one. Don't work at a position where you are subject to random testing OR...and this might be a stretch...DON'T DO DRUGS.
I fail to see why this is such a difficult concept.
likewise if these kids don't want to get kicked out of band, football, basketball or the freakin chess club then don't do drugs or at the very least show you have some intelligence and figure a way to beat it.
No, I object to being forced to do anything.... especially when it come to any of my bodily fluids.
I do dislike the fact that I can't have an occasional toke anymore. The only time I ever smoked is out at the farm, after planting season, or when harvest is done, ir after a real good day of hunting. There is no better feeling then sitting on the hill (we have a big hill on out property that is the hightest place for probably 50 miles in any direction) and have a few tokes, but I can't do that anymore because I'm job hunting and everyone one drug tests anymore. Christ, it's been 2 years? I think 3 coming up here at hunting season since I even had a toke. I hardly ever drink anymore and when I do (2 or 3 times a year) it's never more then 3 beers so I'm kind of a boring guy these days.
If the tests are so easy to beat then they aren't they a waste of time and money? DUHHH!
When I need a lesson in morals, I won't go to a twit like you. I'll bet your one of those who screams the loudest when they don't get there way. I even kind of wish I could be around when you get it shoved up yours so I could snicker right back at you. Go troll someone else, you didn't even make one intelligent point.
I would say that we need to have a very clear idea as to what kinds of things we have a right to legislate and become clear as to where we draw the lines. Are you your brothers keeper or are you not? Do you have a right to try to legislate your notion of morality. Why should anybody have to do what you think they should if they don't affect your rights and they want to. How far do you stick your nose up another person's ass. For example, we know that ghettos create drug addicts and drug crime and the culture of crime and violence. Instead of laws against drugs, why not just sterilize people in the area or state raise their kids on farms in the country. How about shooting the poor to get rid of poverty. Lets find out where our motives lie. There's a huge industry all legal that deals with feeds off the illegality of drugs and lots of people get rich off of prisons. Similarly creating a nation that lusts for things via advertising insures a steady stream of thieves, and frighted people who rely on the cops. We are a sick people, my friend.
- Apr 27, 2001
- 1,244
- 106
- 106
Posession of <1oz of MJ has a very good chance of becoming not illegal in CO this upcoming election. How do you defend your position if THAT comes to pass? I'm sure you'll find a way 'cause you did watch ReferMadness too many times
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter