RE: Drug Testing (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

farglebargle -> RE: Drug Testing (1/9/2007 6:16:33 AM)

quote:

and everything to do with protecting their assets and their current employees. Does it go too far? I tend to think so, yes.


The next obvious question: Does it protect their assets and employees?

I don't think so, no.




Mercnbeth -> RE: Drug Testing (1/9/2007 6:38:42 AM)

quote:

Tell me, how is someone supposed to stay OUT of trouble under these circumstances?  When does the person STOP paying for something they did wrong?  It certainly isn't when he's square with the prison system.  That is the last of my somewhat off topic rant - my apologies to the OP.


Mz Suz,
Sad situation - no need for any apology. There is no answer to your question about how to stay out of trouble. On the brink of adulthood I used to, and still do, tell my underlings to "project out" the consequences of their actions. Whether that action is getting behind the wheel after drinking, drugs, or any illegal activities. Sometimes the folly of youth isn't just the feeling of indestructibility, but the misplaced belief that there actions don't have consequence. I'd attribute this to a school system that plays to the lowest common denominator and who accepts and congratulates the effort and intent of an "almost correct" answer of 3 to the question; "what is 2+2". How can we expect youth to respect that there are laws and right answers if we train them at an early age that law is arbitrary and an actions "intent" is more critical than its consequence? When all of a sudden they get into a situation where there is a life changing reaction to their action it is a difficult concept for them.

Private drug testing focusing on the lowest end of employee hiring is prejudicial. It bothered me to think that a person who smokes pot recreationally, or for medical reasons, won't try to get an entry level job. Without that opportunity, illegal methods of obtaining cash become a viable, and perhaps only option. If anything, drug testing should be required for management, not the guy who stocks shelves or bags groceries. Drug testing is yet another example of good "intent" - bad result.

People on the public dole should meet the same requirements as the people funding the dole. Especially those people in the same basic economic situation. It creates a disincentive to try. If the condition can be exposed through pointing out the dichotomy it should. Ultimately is also addresses the futility of a failed drug prohibition program.



farglebargle -> RE: Drug Testing (1/9/2007 6:53:10 AM)

" Drug testing is yet another example of good "intent" ",

I disagree, it's a coercive attempt to deny people the full range of choices they have regarding their selves and actions.

Free people have an absolute right to do with their selves what they choose.

There's nothing good about telling a FREE PERSON what they may or may not do with their body.

People who cannot freely choose what they will do with their own selves are called "Slaves".

What do you say about a Government or Artificial Legal Entity created by that Government which treats The People like Slaves and denies them control over their own selves? Well for starters, it'll torture prisoners, won't it?

Is that government in line with the principles of the Declaration of Independence?






meatcleaver -> RE: Drug Testing (1/9/2007 7:31:28 AM)

Hmm I would insist on drug testing for legislators because drugs can be the only reason for some of the laws the enact.

Drug testing winds me up, it should only be compulsory where safety issues are involved, otherwise it is nothing to do with your employer. If you aren't working up to standard they should get rid of you for just that, not working up to standard.

Having witnessed the economic destruction of an area and then watching drugs and weapons move into the area, I'm of the opnion drugs are a symptom of a wider malaise.

Unless your one of the City professionals and like a little recreational sniffing in your porche. Now I don't have time for them because they are invariably conservative and expect druggies from the ghettoes to be locked up and the keys thrown away. I would advocate that their employers should be able to drug test them, for no other reason that their hypocrisy.



farglebargle -> RE: Drug Testing (1/9/2007 7:34:42 AM)

quote:

If you aren't working up to standard they should get rid of you for just that, not working up to standard.


DING DING DING!

HOT DOG! We Have A Wiener!

That is exactly the point. You don't need to piss test anyone to know if they're dangerous to have about is you are PROPERLY Hiring, Supervising, Disciplining and Retaining people. It's when people are neglectful in actually doing those core management tasks, that they fall for the bullshit associated with drug testing.




ownedgirlie -> RE: Drug Testing (1/9/2007 8:19:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

and everything to do with protecting their assets and their current employees. Does it go too far? I tend to think so, yes.


The next obvious question: Does it protect their assets and employees?

I don't think so, no.




65% of accidents on the job are caused by substance abuse (O.S.H.A.) and employees that abuse drugs file 6 times more worker’s compensation claims. (Occupational Health & Safety Magazine)

Based on this, I would say you may not think so, but you would be wrong.



farglebargle -> RE: Drug Testing (1/9/2007 8:33:48 AM)

quote:



65% of accidents on the job are caused by substance abuse (O.S.H.A.) and employees that abuse drugs file 6 times more worker’s compensation claims. (Occupational Health & Safety Magazine)

Based on this, I would say you may not think so, but you would be wrong.


You HAVE testing, and STILL 65% are of those test positive after the fact ( as opposed to CAUSED ), and you call that effective in protecting anything?

In other-words, AT BEST you can say that it isn't a factor in 35%, of accidents.

NO-ONE calls that a passing grade. Well, yeah, the Feds would. And the labs making money off of it.

And the Insurance Companies who can deny a claim for smoking a joint the night before a forklift topples over, but hey, they'd NEVER do that, would they?






Mercnbeth -> RE: Drug Testing (1/9/2007 9:35:31 AM)

quote:

Hmm I would insist on drug testing for legislators because drugs can be the only reason for some of the laws the enact.


MC -
They are some of the biggest users of the public dole so they would come under the testing plan. Legislators are admitted abusers of one "drug"; money from corporate contributors. It is obvious that addition is the direct influence that generates many if not most of the laws enacted. Logic and pragmatism are least likely to be considered.

Existing drug laws are counter productive at every level. Having drug "laws" enter into the private sector as they have compounds the problem. Look at the focus of these programs. How likely is a person seeking an entry level job going to fight the system by claiming his/her rights are violated? They don't have the resources and lack the knowledge to do so. Apparently the ACLU is too busy fighting for the rights of Muslim taxi drivers in Minnesota to deny a ride to an arriving airport passenger with a guide dog or a bottle of wine to consider this as a meritorious pursuit.

Ridding hypocrisy is a ongoing program. There are some who want strong application of some laws while jousting with windmills and simultaneously disregarding or down playing others.



MizSuz -> RE: Drug Testing (1/9/2007 9:38:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
On the brink of adulthood I used to, and still do, tell my underlings to "project out" the consequences of their actions. Whether that action is getting behind the wheel after drinking, drugs, or any illegal activities. Sometimes the folly of youth isn't just the feeling of indestructibility, but the misplaced belief that there actions don't have consequence. I'd attribute this to a school system that plays to the lowest common denominator and who accepts and congratulates the effort and intent of an "almost correct" answer of 3 to the question; "what is 2+2". How can we expect youth to respect that there are laws and right answers if we train them at an early age that law is arbitrary and an actions "intent" is more critical than its consequence? When all of a sudden they get into a situation where there is a life changing reaction to their action it is a difficult concept for them.


Mercnbeth,

I agree with you that we should teach our youth to project out.  I tell that to people who tell me they want to go back to school.  "Envision yourself in classes all week, studying at night and on the weekends, for a few straight years.  Is that how you want to spend the next few years?  Then envision yourself doing the job you've trained for every day.  Is that how you want to spend your days?"  This has helped me, unfortunately one of the folly's of youth is their inability to see that far in advance.

I also agree with you regarding causative factors.  In addition to the ones you've mentioned I'd also have to include the basic litigousness of our society.  50 years ago it was an embarassment to tell someone you got a settlement in a law suit.  Today it's considered a coup and entire subdivisions are being built on the speculation of the outcome of class action lawsuits.  We have bred a society of walking victims with no sense of personal responsibility.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
People on the public dole should meet the same requirements as the people funding the dole. Especially those people in the same basic economic situation. It creates a disincentive to try. If the condition can be exposed through pointing out the dichotomy it should. Ultimately is also addresses the futility of a failed drug prohibition program.


As for those on the dole - I have to say that the system only gives lip service to the notion of helping people get on their feet.  It's not enough to live on unless you are squeezing the system for more than the usual entitlement.  Here in upstate NY if you're on welfare and you go X amount of days without getting a job they expect you to work for the state for 40hrs a week - your only recompense for same is the welfare you are already getting.  How is someone with 5 kids and no transporation and no job skills supposed to look for a job if they are spending 40 hours a week working for 200.00 a month plus food stamps?  It makes no sense.

I have long maintained that all bureaurocracies, whose original intentions are altruistic, which are staffed with people who are dependent on the perpetuity of said bureaucracy for their own living, will inevitably feed off the people they were formed to help.  I whole heartedly believe that our welfare system is a glaring example of same.

I agree that there should be no disparity between management and the entry level person when it comes to testing.  I also understand the notion that someone who uses any drug illegally is potentially someone who doesn't come to work regularly, either because of the effects of the drugs or because they got popped and are in jail or have court imposed appointments and such.  The same could be said for alcohol, though, and we don't test for alcohol unless we have reason to believe someone has come to work inebriated.

The entire war on drugs is a stupid waste of resources that, in large part, would be alleviated by simply legalizing and regulating the drugs.  Put that money into free rehab, eventually the social stigma of being an addict won't be as all encompassing as it is today and more people will recover.  I think alcohol prohibition is an example of same.  Sure, we still have alcoholics and they can be destructive, but we've learned that the best way to deal with it is to hold those people responsible for their actions when they are inebriated.  Trying to stop them from drinking all together is a bit totalitarian and fascist for my tastes.  I feel the same about drugs. 





Fawne -> RE: Drug Testing (1/9/2007 9:43:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MizSuz

I think it could probably be argued that pre-employment drug screening is an invasion of medical privacy. 
Urine testing is as much a waste of resources as the war on drugs, irrespective of social and economic situations. 


Thank you for pointing this very important point out, MizSuz.

It IS an invasion of privacy. I regret I don't have time to find links right now ( I am supposed to be working.. :p) but this is a debate discussed at the highest level of academia, politics + .   Just as you state.

Now, I can see that it is a valuable ( yet flawed - false positives) tool and necessary as used for jobs of public safety such as transportation.

But to invade the human body, at government/business/ political whim; to my mind - is an ultimate act of invasion of privacy. 

The destruction of quality of life for any who may have made a single, victimless mistake can haunt that person in ways so beyond the original intended purpose.
(I do wish your son the best). 

Respectfully, Fawne



Mercnbeth -> RE: Drug Testing (1/9/2007 9:51:20 AM)

quote:

As for those on the dole - I have to say that the system only gives lip service to the notion of helping people get on their feet. 

I have long maintained that all bureaucracies, whose original intentions are altruistic, which are staffed with people who are dependent on the perpetuity of said bureaucracy for their own living, will inevitably feed off the people they were formed to help.  I whole heartedly believe that our welfare system is a glaring example of same.


Miz Suz,
We are in total agreement.

Your quoted section above should be memorized and considered as the "why" answer for every question regarding the failure of all government programs. It is counterproductive for any bureaucrat to succeed. If the problem the bureaucracy was established to solve is solved the bureaucrat has no job. This philosophy extends from the lowest clerk to the highest ranking political appointment. It is a shame that more people don't realize this.

On your other issue of litigation. Is it a surprise that the vast majority of our politicians passing these laws and implementing these programs are in fact themselves lawyers? Their collective goal is to propagate the species. Law and justice are just buzzwords for them and do not influence their actions or activities.



farglebargle -> RE: Drug Testing (1/9/2007 9:52:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

As for those on the dole - I have to say that the system only gives lip service to the notion of helping people get on their feet.

I have long maintained that all bureaucracies, whose original intentions are altruistic, which are staffed with people who are dependent on the perpetuity of said bureaucracy for their own living, will inevitably feed off the people they were formed to help. I whole heartedly believe that our welfare system is a glaring example of same.


Miz Suz,
We are in total agreement.

Your quoted section above should be memorized and considered as the "why" answer for every question regarding the failure of all government programs. It is counterproductive for any bureaucrat to succeed. If the problem the bureaucracy was established to solve is solved the bureaucrat has no job. This philosophy extends from the lowest clerk to the highest ranking political appointment. It is a shame that more people don't realize this.

On your other issue of litigation. Is it a surprise that the vast majority of our politicians passing these laws and implementing these programs are in fact themselves lawyers? Their collective goal is to propagate the species. Law and justice are just buzzwords for them and do not influence their actions or activities.



To Simplify: The Purpose of Government is to hire Government Employees.




ElectraGlide -> RE: Drug Testing (1/9/2007 10:35:06 AM)

I agree with Mercenbeth, if someone wants welfare they should pass a drug test to get it. I do not want my  taxdollars going to someone holed up in a section 8 house with a bunch of other unemployed drug users. It is very common, another common thing is they trade their food stamps or independance card for money to get drugs and alcohol. Yes there are people down on their luck that do need welfare to get back on their feet, but it will take them next to forever to get it, because the waiting list is jammed with drug users and drunks. I have a welfare complex down the street from me, when the social worker comes around once a month to check on their housing, they have to clear their apartments out of all the bums living there that are not suppose to be there for the day. Most of the bums go out in the woods behind the complex for the day and have a weenie roast and drink beer until the social worker leaves, true story.



yourMissTress -> RE: Drug Testing (1/9/2007 10:43:21 AM)

Drug testing is usually more of a scare tactic than any real test.
 
First, not all samples are tested.  Most employers have a set percentage of samples from their current and potential employess being sampled that are actually tested.  In some cases they will do a group test where 20 samples are tested en mass and then there's a specific level that has to be reached (or certain types of drugs) before that group will be flagged and seperately tested.
 
Second, most employers (unless they have a no-tolerance policy) will not preclude an applicant that tests positive for marijuana, mainly because of how long it is stored in your body. 
 
Third, screens or cover up products that claim to "clean" or "cover" any drug in your urine are also tested for and they are a bigger flag than any drugs.
 
Most employers want to know if you are a "heavy" user.  Cocaine and opiates, while generally quick to leave the body (48-72 hours), will remain in your system longer if you use large amounts.  It all has to be processed by the liver which can only work so fast.
 
Back in the days when I was a drug user, and a heavy user at that, I had more than one drug screen for employment.  I have had both urine and hair samples taken.  In every case I was hired and never questioned about drug use, and not because I tried to hide anything.

Edited to add:

For those on welfare, I agree absolutely that they should be required to pass a drug test with no tolerance.  The exception of those in poor health with prescribed medicine is a tricky one though.  While I would never deny someone in severe pain to have pain killers, those addicted to pain killers are the fastest growing group of addicts and users in the country today.  They are usually prescribed to them and if on welfare, we would be paying for them to feed their habit.
 
In some states, anyone having been convicted of a drug related crime is not eligible for welfare.



LaTigresse -> RE: Drug Testing (1/9/2007 11:21:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kisshou

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
It also makes sense from a "fairness" perspective. If a person making $10 / hour needs to pee in a cup to qualify to work why shouldn't a person collecting money from that person's taxes be subject to the same scrutiny?


because if we denied benefits to the scum who take advantage of the tax payers by drinking and doing drugs instead of getting a job , the ones who would really suffer are their children. The children are innocent of the wrong doing and would be the ones being punished even worse than they are by having the parents they do.

There is a man who says 'I am alcoholic and working for someone else causes me anxiety'. So his family gets food stamps and his 1 year old is on full medicaid. At least she will get fed sometimes and have medical care if she gets sick (the 1 year old) even though he sits home everyday and gets drunk.




This would be my only concern also. The parents abuse and the children suffer even more.

I was having a discussion with someone the other day about a radio programme on NPR. It was about a study regarding gays having children and how the lack of monogomous relationships was first and formost a concern. We said that perhaps everyone should be temporarily sterilized prior to child bearing age. When they thought they wanted children, give them a sensitive plant. If the plant survived a set amount of time, several years or so, get them a dog. Check up on the dogs well being periodically with some doggy shrinks. If the dog did well after several years then maybe they could handle having human children.

Now granted, that is a very bizarre and unlikely idea but it works similarly in this context.

In reply to someone's post about employers testing employees. While I run a small company and it is something we would never do I have seen abuse of different substances have an effect on work performance. Fortunately we are not a union shop so it is not that difficult to dismiss someone for poor work performance. I have seen firsthand in another company where drug testing was used as a tool to defend dismissing a poor performing employee. This company had a very strong union and it was nearly impossible to get rid of a bad egg. The company needs to balance an, out of control, union presence with excessive measures on their part to operate effectively.

So, again, while on the surface there may be easy answers, when all the facets are observed there can be additional issues that are affected and need to be carefully considered.



farglebargle -> RE: Drug Testing (1/9/2007 11:31:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ElectraGlide

I agree with Mercenbeth, if someone wants welfare they should pass a drug test to get it. I do not want my taxdollars going to someone holed up in a section 8 house with a bunch of other unemployed drug users.


So you'll give it to the drug testing labs instead.

Oh, and if you had respect for peoples rights to do with their bodies WHATEVER THEY CHOSE TO, you wouldn't have any financial incentive in the drug trade ( well, exactly as much as in the cigarette, beer and booze trade ), nor any of the grief associated with unlawful drug possession and sale.

Of course, the damage done to society by drugs PALES in comparison to that done by alcohol and tobacco. I don't see you demanding section 8 recipients be tested for cigarette use...

That seems quite hypocritical, doesn't it?




luckydog1 -> RE: Drug Testing (1/9/2007 11:59:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

" Drug testing is yet another example of good "intent" ",

I disagree, it's a coercive attempt to deny people the full range of choices they have regarding their selves and actions.  Agree or not, we have laws against people making these and other choices

Free people have an absolute right to do with their selves what they choose.  Do they have the right to start a bussiness and drug test employees with thier bodies?

There's nothing good about telling a FREE PERSON what they may or may not do with their body.  use their body to murder others?  Use thier body to pollutue?
People who cannot freely choose what they will do with their own selves are called "Slaves".  would that not also apply to the bussiness owner you are telling what he can nad cannot  do with his body?

What do you say about a Government or Artificial Legal Entity created by that Government which treats The People like Slaves and denies them control (any controll?, this would imply that everysingle law is invalid and makes you a slave) over their own selves? Well for starters, it'll torture prisoners, won't it? No having laws does not require torture(unless you define torture so openly that it has no meaning).

Is that government in line with the principles of the Declaration of Independence?  Such a biased question no answer is needed.


First I do smoke pot, and have lost a job at a ski resort when younger because of a failed test.  I took the self employed route, after that.   I do understand that insurance for a ski resort is very expensive due to inherent danger, and they do what ever they can to minimize thier risk.  If a lifty or cook burts someone, the company can be sued, if the person is high, the company can be ruined.  I like having the ski restort there and operating.  They can counter sue the employee, but what can you get from a cook or lifty.  Remove the liability for the comapny for the workers actions and you might get less drug testing, but I doubt you want that.  All the managers were drug tested.  Drugs should be legal, and companies should be allowed to test for them if they want. 




farglebargle -> RE: Drug Testing (1/9/2007 12:27:39 PM)

The quoting system here is pretty good, please use it.


quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

" Drug testing is yet another example of good "intent" ",

I disagree, it's a coercive attempt to deny people the full range of choices they have regarding their selves and actions. Agree or not, we have laws against people making these and other choices


And the tolerance of those laws explains why we have torture, secret prisons, and complete domestic surveillance of all long distance and internet traffic.


quote:


quote:


Free people have an absolute right to do with their selves what they choose.

Do they have the right to start a bussiness and drug test employees with thier bodies?


Knock yourself out. Without government subsidies, it wouldn't be worth the investment though.

quote:


quote:


There's nothing good about telling a FREE PERSON what they may or may not do with their body. use their body to murder others? Use thier body to pollutue?



Yes, it's called FREE WILL. You're also free to experience the consequences of your choices.

quote:


quote:


People who cannot freely choose what they will do with their own selves are called "Slaves".

would that not also apply to the bussiness owner you are telling what he can nad cannot do with his body?


I'm not telling a business owner anything. Methinks you're responding not to what I've said, but to your own spin.

Without government subsidies, ( OUR TAX DOLLARS ) drug testing wouldn't be worth investing in, and I'm not seeing in the Constitution where it's delegated to the Federal Government, so it's not really their duty, is it?

quote:


quote:


What do you say about a Government or Artificial Legal Entity created by that Government which treats The People like Slaves and denies them control (any controll?, this would imply that everysingle law is invalid and makes you a slave)



That's absurd. Just obey the Constitution and there's no problems.

quote:


First I do smoke pot, and have lost a job at a ski resort when younger because of a failed test. I took the self employed route, after that. I do understand that insurance for a ski resort is very expensive due to inherent danger, and they do what ever they can to minimize thier risk. If a lifty or cook burts someone, the company can be sued, if the person is high, the company can be ruined.


Which is a problem with the courts, and assigning liability. As long as people buy into the propaganda, they won't ever reform the things that are actually wrong.

quote:


" I like having the ski restort there and operating.


Buy it when it's being liquidated after the lawsuit! ;)

quote:


Remove the liability for the comapny for the workers actions and you might get less drug testing.


How about just testing incident to an accident?



Fawne -> RE: Drug Testing (1/9/2007 12:30:59 PM)

quote:

farglebargle
"  respect for peoples rights to do with their bodies WHATEVER THEY CHOSE TO, you wouldn't have any financial incentive in the drug trade ( well, exactly as much as in the cigarette, beer and booze trade ), nor any of the grief associated with unlawful drug possession and sale.

Of course, the damage done to society by drugs PALES in comparison to that done by alcohol and tobacco. I don't see you demanding section 8 recipients be tested for cigarette use...
That seems quite hypocritical, doesn't it?


Please excuse me if I am interupting. A few more thoughts, as I drink afternoon coffee in my home office, on a break.

- Crime pays - the government. The prison industrial system is now for profit.

-Personal responsibility. Every day we here espouse this rule in WIITWD. I think along Libertarian lines. Freedom and responsibility. Too bad it doesn't work in reality. Help those in need of assistance, who made a mistake, paid there dues and are willing to become productive members of society. But:  aren't we all ultimately responsible for our actions? ( I hear it here all the time - or is this another hypocricy?)

-- We vote. We have a voice. Is it all "big brother" or are we as a society, so afraid of responsibility - we leave it to the churning, anonymous system?

-- Grass roots efforts that mean well. Parents who don't want to supervise or are inadaquite ( as LaTigresse said above, TY) etc. ( and of course, teens are free enough to do as they will and children are people too). Some want to relinquish control, refuse themselves to be responsible - so we all lose freedom in the name of protection. Where is foresight to future consequences? 

- While there appears to be little choice - the people, voters, political activists ideally can have some voice.

-Many, many prefer, out of fear - to allow these lawyers, law makers and such to decide for them what is best. Then whose self interest takes over? greed?

- Blaming the victim. Hell, yeah... the able bodied should get a job! But.... is this ultra restrictive system giving all a chance? It is a shame that those few who exploit welfare, ruin it for those who truly fall hard times. So... the cycle repeats itself and so on and so on...

< go sit down, bad fawne>
Thank you, all



Mercnbeth -> RE: Drug Testing (1/9/2007 1:18:08 PM)

quote:

< go sit down, bad fawne>
Thank you, all


Quite the contrary - we need to hear more fawne.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125