Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23

Thread: Do employers really need random drug testimg? Do

  1. #21
    Real American™ nam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    23,971
    Rep Power
    137815
    PK, the problem is for every every example of OMG THEY ARE WORKING AT NUCLEAR REACTORS, there are hundreds of people subjected to random drug testing where there is no crisis situation that will result if the person is high, or mildly high enough that supervisors/managers won't notice.

    I admit that I am going too far in the orthodoxy of my position, but this is needed to combat the extremes we have gone to in our drug war culture. I am well aware of the fact that the anti-drug position is the default. I came of age during Reagan's acceleration of the drug war, and went through my early adulthood with Clinton's affirmation that the drug war was a good thing and watched his policies further exacerbate the conditions and inequality the drug war was responsible for.

    I remember the crack-baby propaganda. Those were the type of stories that made even the most libertine spirited among us pause and re-think our positions. The longer I have lived the more I have learned that the drug war was never waged on honest grounds, that it was cover for racism, classism, and political warfare against those with unpopular political opinions.

    Drug testing, I will acknowledge here, may be necessary with nuclear reactor operators. Sure. But we've gone too far in not only conceding to government powers it should not have for the sake of the drug war, but in conceding to the vast majority of employers powers to investigate the liesure activities and the personal enjoyments of their employees. When it comes to drugs, and the sometimes reasonable need to regulate them and their usage, we need a new paradigm. Instead of the current assumption that drugs use is a bad mark on character or a mental health issue, and working policy and law from there, we need to return to a freedom ethos, and the oldest constitutional understanding we had about a persons right to consume what they wish to consume and work from there.

    Let's begin all conversations on drugs the right of persons to consume them, and to which extent governments and employers have an interest in regulating their use or manufacture, with the assumption of liberty of the person over that of any institution (government or employer) that may have power over her, and work from there.
    If you are not willing to fall flat on your face, then the only thing you will have is a pretty face.

  2. #22
    Moderator purplekitty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    84,625
    Rep Power
    622376
    I thought I was pretty clear in my position about drug testing when in the matter of public safety.

  3. #23
    If you bring the monkey, I'm leaving puppylove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    On my 33 acres in Virginia! (Thank you Sars for the reminder) ;)
    Posts
    14,533
    Rep Power
    359904
    Quote Originally Posted by Andee View Post
    My brother in law worked on an oil rig and had an accident. They tested him right away and was found to have weed in his system. They didn't have to pay any of his medical bills. He lost 2 fingers out of the deal.
    They test everyone right away if there is an accident. I don't have a problem with it in that environment. It only takes a second to kill someone.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    -Donna- People first. Dogs second. Things last.

    http://countdowntoasimplerlife.blogspot.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •