Pee Test

[ClayBarham]

An interesting article sent to me....

Many people in this country have jobs. They work, they are paid, and they pay taxes. The government distributes those taxes as it sees fit. In order to get my paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who do not have to pass a urine test. Should those receiving welfare checks have to pass a urine test too? I have to pass one to earn it for them. Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. On the other hand, I do have a problem with helping someone sitting on his or her butt and using drugs and alcohol. Can you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

[Deadshot]

An interesting article sent to me....

Many people in this country have jobs. They work, they are paid, and they pay taxes. The government distributes those taxes as it sees fit. In order to get my paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who do not have to pass a urine test. Should those receiving welfare checks have to pass a urine test too? I have to pass one to earn it for them. Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. On the other hand, I do have a problem with helping someone sitting on his or her butt and using drugs and alcohol. Can you imagine how much money the government would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?


Not for Welfare checks. Welfare is only given out if you have KIDS! But, I would be willing to go that route for Social Security or other benefits, but not Welfare - since it's SUPPOSED to be for people with kids.

[April15]

I am one of those who doesn't subscribe to urine tests for anyone.

[ClayBarham]

If you are a commercially licensed operator of equipment and an accident occurs, the pee test my be the only thing to save you in the case a lawsuit by a victim or relative(s) of a victim in the accident. At least, your employer would want the protection. The alternative? Don't operate equipment, drive buses, fly airplanes, etcc.

[AnnEsthesia]

I am glad for pee tests. If you are in a position where other people's lives could be damaged or ended by a mistake you make, you damned well better be clean. Threat of a random drug test increases the likelihood you *will* be clean.

[Buck Laser]

Not for Welfare checks. Welfare is only given out if you have KIDS! But, I would be willing to go that route for Social Security or other benefits, but not Welfare - since it's SUPPOSED to be for people with kids.

You really think I should pass a pee test to get my monthly Social Security check? Why, in God's name? Are you afraid I'm gonna be doing dope at 72?

[jafar00]

I am glad for pee tests. If you are in a position where other people's lives could be damaged or ended by a mistake you make, you damned well better be clean. Threat of a random drug test increases the likelihood you *will* be clean.


Good point. But the the issue is pee tests for jobs that don't involved killing people if you get drunk like a desk job in a crummy office somewhere.

[AnnEsthesia]

I am glad for pee tests. If you are in a position where other people's lives could be damaged or ended by a mistake you make, you damned well better be clean. Threat of a random drug test increases the likelihood you *will* be clean.


Good point. But the the issue is pee tests for jobs that don't involved killing people if you get drunk like a desk job in a crummy office somewhere.


At which point I would say that an employer who has stated they require their employees to be sober and not abuse drugs has the right to make sure they are complying. :) If you cannot stay clean, get a different job, no?

[quiet man]

no! an invasion of a persons privacy just to find out if they used drugs steps over many lines. i can see the lives in danger angle, but that is were personal responsibilty comes in and makes the difference.

[April15]

I would not take a job that had as a condition of employment random testing. I don't use alcohol or chemicals. I will not ask my employees to engage in testing. If they want to recreate after hours I don't care. I will send them home if they come in hungover though.

[lily]

Deadshot Wrote:
Not for Welfare checks. Welfare is only given out if you have KIDS! But, I would be willing to go that route for Social Security or other benefits, but not Welfare - since it's SUPPOSED to be for people with kids.

Whoa there........why shouldn't parents who are raising kids be forced to take a drug test? I would think that a) you would want sober people raising children and b) you would want the money to go to the kids and not for drugs.

[firefox]

I agree with Lily. Ending the War on Drugs would help in this arena a lot, because harmless and beneficial substances would not come into the mix (theoretically).

[jafar00]

I am glad for pee tests. If you are in a position where other people's lives could be damaged or ended by a mistake you make, you damned well better be clean. Threat of a random drug test increases the likelihood you *will* be clean.


Good point. But the the issue is pee tests for jobs that don't involved killing people if you get drunk like a desk job in a crummy office somewhere.


At which point I would say that an employer who has stated they require their employees to be sober and not abuse drugs has the right to make sure they are complying. :) If you cannot stay clean, get a different job, no?


So, you are advocating a complete ban on alcohol? I'm for that. :evil:

[Deadshot]

Deadshot Wrote:
Not for Welfare checks. Welfare is only given out if you have KIDS! But, I would be willing to go that route for Social Security or other benefits, but not Welfare - since it's SUPPOSED to be for people with kids.

Whoa there........why shouldn't parents who are raising kids be forced to take a drug test? I would think that a) you would want sober people raising children and b) you would want the money to go to the kids and not for drugs.


IF we had a place to take those kids to care for them, I'd be fine with that. But right now, in today's society, while we would spend thousands, hundreds of thousands even, to prosecute and house those that broke the law, I don't think that society would spend a few pennies to take care of those kids. So better to be raise by drug addicts then by the State. Though I will concede that if the State would prove that they would take care of those kids I'd change my stance.

Buck and Quiet, if you do not want anything from the Government, then there's no need to worry. But while I'M willing to legalize drugs, Uncle Sam is not. And like any parent, our Uncle's motto is "While under my roof you live by MY rules." So if the rules are "No Drugs" and you want a SS check, then I think you should pee in a cup. Peeing in a cup, once a month, I don't think is too much to ask.

But to be honest, let's take a step back from the problem and see if that would be possible. If they started to try and institute a program of having every person who got SS to pee in a cup it would be a bureaucratic nightmare. I've got a grandmother with Altz and she'd freak out if she had to pee in a cup. Also the different drugs they're trying on her would probably have her getting more bad hits on the test then Keith Richards! My wife's grandfather is suffering demenia and is in a home, so how and where does he pee in a cup? Also since, technically, it's their money, and not Uncle's, how could you legally hold it from them?

So while I think a test might do some good, IMHO you would legalize some drugs within the first 6 months, there would be no way to process the piss and get the checks out. Also if you failed the test, do you flood our prisons with a geriatric population? Old age home/prisons...nah, I think I'm wrong, we'll never pee test.

[AnnEsthesia]

So, you are advocating a complete ban on alcohol? I'm for that. :evil:


Not really, since it would never happen. However, I know that my husband randomly drug tests his employees. His company produces a product that is ingested. One small mistake and a lot of people are sick. If someone is hung over and not performing well, they get sent home. If it happens continually, they are fired. If someone is messing up and drugs are suspected, they get tested and if they test positive, they are given a chance to clean up their shit and if they test positive again, they are fired.

Why would anyone advocate that doing that is a bad thing? Your right to get high or drunk does not supersede the rights of others to have you perform your job correctly and accurately. That goes for situations of public health as well as the person who deals with my financial transactions, approves my insurance claims and responds to a fire.

[Truth_and_Power]

I think you should have to prove you're sober on the job, if necessary, especially if you're operating heavy machinery. However, what I do on my own time is my business. And just like the ATM doesnt ask if I'm sober, neither should my social security check. Besides, fiscal conservatives should be happy if 80 year olds are doing drugs.. shorter lifespan = less withdrawls.

If we want to test welfare moms for drugs we should make sure they're not spending money or time watching TV either. TV makes you dumber, makes your kids dumber, and they should be using that time to better their lives. I would venture that TV robs more impoverished people of the time and motivation they need to better themselves than drugs do.

[AnnEsthesia]

Sorry, but if you are doing drugs on your off time, just like if you are an alcoholic in your off time, it can and often does affect your job. Don't want to be tested? Don't take a job that will test you. Just like if you play video games all night every night, even without drinking, it will affect your job performance and if it does, you *should* be fired.

[Truth_and_Power]

Sorry, but if you are doing drugs on your off time, just like if you are an alcoholic in your off time, it can and often does affect your job. Don't want to be tested? Don't take a job that will test you. Just like if you play video games all night every night, even without drinking, it will affect your job performance and if it does, you *should* be fired.


So what you could do, and pardon me for being old fashioned, is measure job PERFORMANCE and make decisions based on that. I know in the modern age we prefer to add
(credit score * .75)/injuries on the job +3(sqrroot(haircolor on rgb scale)) - 4* failed drug tests + month of astrological sign and if the value is less than your age, you're fired!

But you could just evaluate performance and as long as they're not intoxicated at work, you let them keep working!

Also, if you're going to evaluate non toxic hobbies, be sure to outlaw TV, pulp-fiction novels, polite dinner conversation, and contact sports -- all of which have been shown to lower intelligence.

Achtung! The life police are here!

[AnnEsthesia]

Sorry, but if you are doing drugs on your off time, just like if you are an alcoholic in your off time, it can and often does affect your job. Don't want to be tested? Don't take a job that will test you. Just like if you play video games all night every night, even without drinking, it will affect your job performance and if it does, you *should* be fired.


So what you could do, and pardon me for being old fashioned, is measure job PERFORMANCE and make decisions based on that. I know in the modern age we prefer to add
(credit score * .75)/injuries on the job +3(sqrroot(haircolor on rgb scale)) - 4* failed drug tests + month of astrological sign and if the value is less than your age, you're fired!

But you could just evaluate performance and as long as they're not intoxicated at work, you let them keep working!


Because if you can find someone who is an addict and offer them a chance to get help and they take it, they are the better for it. Because an employer is responsible if an employee f ucks up on the job and if it is later revealed the person was an addict, gee, who would be blamed for not catching that before the issue occurred? If you don't like it, don't take the job. If an employer wants to drug test you to ensure that you will not f uck up due to your drug use (or alcohol use, since drunks also can be tested), then that is within their right and you would have signed an contract agreeing to it. :)

[Truth_and_Power]

Sorry, but if you are doing drugs on your off time, just like if you are an alcoholic in your off time, it can and often does affect your job. Don't want to be tested? Don't take a job that will test you. Just like if you play video games all night every night, even without drinking, it will affect your job performance and if it does, you *should* be fired.


So what you could do, and pardon me for being old fashioned, is measure job PERFORMANCE and make decisions based on that. I know in the modern age we prefer to add
(credit score * .75)/injuries on the job +3(sqrroot(haircolor on rgb scale)) - 4* failed drug tests + month of astrological sign and if the value is less than your age, you're fired!

But you could just evaluate performance and as long as they're not intoxicated at work, you let them keep working!


Because if you can find someone who is an addict and offer them a chance to get help and they take it, they are the better for it.

And then if you fire them because they didn't succeed, they're not better for it, but fuck 'em! Just don't butt fuck 'em because we'll also need to have them sign a contract specifying they're not gay or into watching reality TV.

I find it AMAZING that Deadshot actually said if there were willing and available parents he would advocate taking children away from any parents that test positive for drugs! WOW!!!!

No more life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, huh? More like life and the pursuit of an efficient society raising adults capable of furthering our nationalist goals!

[AnnEsthesia]

Your need to get high/drunk/whatever does not supersede your employers right to make sure you are able to perform your job. If they have determined that drug tests are necessary, and you have agreed to them by signing your employment form, then you really don't have a lot to bitch about. Case in point, my husband had an employee, he was a problem employee, turned out he was using drugs (no, I do not know which ones, none of my business) and so he offered to send the dude to rehab. Through the insurance, they got him inpatient treatment. He went, got treatment and all was well. A while later, one of his samples came up that he had been using again. He was offered treatment again and he said no. He wound up being fired.

He was given every chance to clean himself up and he, in the end, refused to do it. His rights to be a druggy are not more important than his employer's right to have a drug free employee.

[Truth_and_Power]

Your need to get high/drunk/whatever does not supersede your employers right to make sure you are able to perform your job. If they have determined that drug tests are necessary, and you have agreed to them by signing your employment form, then you really don't have a lot to bitch about. Case in point, my husband had an employee, he was a problem employee, turned out he was using drugs (no, I do not know which ones, none of my business) and so he offered to send the dude to rehab. Through the insurance, they got him inpatient treatment. He went, got treatment and all was well. A while later, one of his samples came up that he had been using again. He was offered treatment again and he said no. He wound up being fired.

He was given every chance to clean himself up and he, in the end, refused to do it. His rights to be a druggy are not more important than his employer's right to have a drug free employee.


Okay, do you watch television? Would you support a no-tv policy by an employer and unscheduled house visits to make sure the employee was following the policy? Of course if they are found watching TV they will be offered a chance to attend rehab or be fired.

The alternative to piss tests would have been to get together with the employee, talk to him about his problems, ask him if he was on drugs and offer him the rehab. If his performance didn't improve, you could fire him. Amazingly this performance-based system would have had the same results in this case without getting the life police involved![hr]

We aren't talking about the exception...we are talking about the actual rule. If you are going to use that as a defense for every inaccuracy you type then you won't be much of a debater here. You stated something inaccurate (not a fact)...then you obviously went to test my assertion and found out I was correct. Then you backpeddle. What's that all about?


These posts has been split from it's original thread by staff. It was either off-topic, personal attacks, or a bunch of useless bickering taking up pages of otherwise useful space!. Feel free to contact staff if you have questions. You may continue the Fools discussion in this thread and it will not be moderated.

[AnnEsthesia]

And yet, the use of drugs can go undetected and have consequences. Someone can seem fine be abusing drugs and you would never know. Sorry, your rights to abuse your body end when you are at work, especially if you could hurt someone else.

I get it, you do not like the system. It is an easy solution for you. Work at McDonalds, work anywhere where you will not be asked for a pee test. No one says you cannot work, you just cannot work in certain employment sectors.

Oh, and he agreed to the piss tests as a condition of continued employment after it was discovered he was an addict. Oops, there goes your argument that it is an invasion of privacy.

[Truth_and_Power]

And yet, the use of drugs can go undetected and have consequences. Someone can seem fine be abusing drugs and you would never know. Sorry, your rights to abuse your body end when you are at work, especially if you could hurt someone else.

I get it, you do not like the system. It is an easy solution for you. Work at McDonalds, work anywhere where you will not be asked for a pee test. No one says you cannot work, you just cannot work in certain employment sectors.

Oh, and he agreed to the piss tests as a condition of continued employment after it was discovered he was an addict. Oops, there goes your argument that it is an invasion of privacy.


Actually I'm a professional IT guy not some fry bagger like your B-E-A-utiful generalization assumes and at my work although you sign the contract they never test anyone who's not operating machinery or something like that. This is a bunch of bullshit in this society where you think you can go around telling other people to live. Probably 2/3 of all employers require that contract to be signed, or more, so with that collusion it IS an invasion of my privacy.

So I guess opiates are bad but the opiate of the masses (religion or TV, as you prefer) is ok. You know the idea behind the american democracy is that majority rules but the majority is not supposed to RULE. That's called freedom and when most of the nations' employers collude to deprive us of it because of a bunch of uptight religious types and liability nanny types, it is an invasion.

Apparently I'm the only one around here who thinks freedom is a good thing. I can guarantee you based on personal experience that smoking a joint at night does not impede my ability to code during the day.

[AnnEsthesia]

There is no such thing as absolute freedom. And no, I never said you were a "fry bagger" (what a nice term). It was a general you, if you are unable to discern the difference.

The point is, if you have willingly signed a form stating you agree to pee tests, exactly how are your rights being violated? Do you often sign forms and then scream when the agreement is actually used?

Get over yourself. You are responsible for acting like an adult and your employer is responsible for acting in a manner to protect themselves.

As I said before, if you do not like it, get yourself a job where you do not have to sign the paper. If you do sign the paper, you have agreed to a pee test. You cannot have it both ways.

[Truth_and_Power]

There is no such thing as absolute freedom. And no, I never said you were a "fry bagger" (what a nice term). It was a general you, if you are unable to discern the difference.

The point is, if you have willingly signed a form stating you agree to pee tests, exactly how are your rights being violated? Do you often sign forms and then scream when the agreement is actually used?

Get over yourself. You are responsible for acting like an adult and your employer is responsible for acting in a manner to protect themselves.

As I said before, if you do not like it, get yourself a job where you do not have to sign the paper. If you do sign the paper, you have agreed to a pee test. You cannot have it both ways.


I guarantee if it were anything but drugs you guys would be screaming about privacy. I guess as long as you disagree with it, you're ok with most of the nations' employers colluding to prevent others from doing it. Moreover if a company slips some money to the FDA and proves it helps old men get their penis hard, as long as no baptists or cotton lobbyists have a problem with it, it will also be fine with everyone.

Enjoy your TV tonight, try not to focus on the evaporation of your brain cells.

[AnnEsthesia]

There is no such thing as absolute freedom. And no, I never said you were a "fry bagger" (what a nice term). It was a general you, if you are unable to discern the difference.

The point is, if you have willingly signed a form stating you agree to pee tests, exactly how are your rights being violated? Do you often sign forms and then scream when the agreement is actually used?

Get over yourself. You are responsible for acting like an adult and your employer is responsible for acting in a manner to protect themselves.

As I said before, if you do not like it, get yourself a job where you do not have to sign the paper. If you do sign the paper, you have agreed to a pee test. You cannot have it both ways.


I guarantee if it were anything but drugs you guys would be screaming about privacy. I guess as long as you disagree with it, you're ok with most of the nations' employers colluding to prevent others from doing it. Moreover if a company slips some money to the FDA and proves it helps old men get their penis hard, as long as no baptists or cotton lobbyists have a problem with it, it will also be fine with everyone.

Enjoy your TV tonight, try not to focus on the evaporation of your brain cells.


*chuckle* Wah wah! I signed a paper and agreed to drug testing and my employer actually does it! WAH! What ever will I do?

Why, do you have an issue with men's penis's being hard? Not exactly sure what that has to do with pee testing, lol.

And I do not watch tv, generally. Nice try. ;)

[Truth_and_Power]

There is no such thing as absolute freedom. And no, I never said you were a "fry bagger" (what a nice term). It was a general you, if you are unable to discern the difference.

The point is, if you have willingly signed a form stating you agree to pee tests, exactly how are your rights being violated? Do you often sign forms and then scream when the agreement is actually used?

Get over yourself. You are responsible for acting like an adult and your employer is responsible for acting in a manner to protect themselves.

As I said before, if you do not like it, get yourself a job where you do not have to sign the paper. If you do sign the paper, you have agreed to a pee test. You cannot have it both ways.


I guarantee if it were anything but drugs you guys would be screaming about privacy. I guess as long as you disagree with it, you're ok with most of the nations' employers colluding to prevent others from doing it. Moreover if a company slips some money to the FDA and proves it helps old men get their penis hard, as long as no baptists or cotton lobbyists have a problem with it, it will also be fine with everyone.

Enjoy your TV tonight, try not to focus on the evaporation of your brain cells.


*chuckle* Wah wah! I signed a paper and agreed to drug testing and my employer actually does it! WAH! What ever will I do?

Why, do you have an issue with men's penis's being hard? Not exactly sure what that has to do with pee testing, lol.

And I do not watch tv, generally. Nice try. ;)


As I mentioned, my employer does not. In addition, I think you should check into rehab for that tv relapse you had recently.

Yeah I'm whining and crying for my freedom, way to keep it mature, ann. Why don't you get over YOURSELF and your need to see employers govern the private lives of their employees rather than judge them base on their performance.[hr]Oh BY THE WAY, while we're into invasive medical testing, lets make sure we test for cancer, AIDS, herpes, and any other illnesses that could cause an employee to make mistakes at work. Since many of those are incurable, might as well just fire them. Is that the kind of values you promote for our free and just society?

[AnnEsthesia]

I don't NEED to see employers govern their employees private lives. I do, however, support their right to determine that someone who is using drugs may make a mistake that can hurt others and I do agree that they have the right to make testing a basis of employment. Gee, they also tell you that you must dress in a certain manner and *gasp* they may even tell you that you have to wear a uniform.

No, you said they do not make you take a pee test, but you also said you had to sign the form, which means that you could go to work tomorrow and be presented with a cup and you would have to pee in it, since you agreed to it. If you had this much of an issue with it, you should never have signed the paper.

Oh, and if my watching HGTV ever was a potential to cause someone else harm while I was at work, then sure, my employer could require that I not watch it. And your point is?[hr]
Oh BY THE WAY, while we're into invasive medical testing, lets make sure we test for cancer, AIDS, herpes, and any other illnesses that could cause an employee to make mistakes at work. Since many of those are incurable, might as well just fire them. Is that the kind of values you promote for our free and just society?


Talk about trying to piece together an argument. You actually feel that a disease (that is not a choice) is the same as choosing to use illegal substances (or abusing legal ones)?

Get real.

[ClayBarham]

Sounds like any imposition of a rule set by others on one's behavior is wrong, like driving on the right side of the road and stopping at red lights, right?

[AnnEsthesia]

Aw, thanks for the neg Truth. It means a lot to me. :)

[Truth_and_Power]

I don't NEED to see employers govern their employees private lives. I do, however, support their right to determine that someone who is using drugs may make a mistake that can hurt others and I do agree that they have the right to make testing a basis of employment. Gee, they also tell you that you must dress in a certain manner and *gasp* they may even tell you that you have to wear a uniform.

No, you said they do not make you take a pee test, but you also said you had to sign the form, which means that you could go to work tomorrow and be presented with a cup and you would have to pee in it, since you agreed to it. If you had this much of an issue with it, you should never have signed the paper.

Oh, and if my watching HGTV ever was a potential to cause someone else harm while I was at work, then sure, my employer could require that I not watch it. And your point is?[hr]
Oh BY THE WAY, while we're into invasive medical testing, lets make sure we test for cancer, AIDS, herpes, and any other illnesses that could cause an employee to make mistakes at work. Since many of those are incurable, might as well just fire them. Is that the kind of values you promote for our free and just society?


Talk about trying to piece together an argument. You actually feel that a disease (that is not a choice) is the same as choosing to use illegal substances (or abusing legal ones)?

Get real.


STD's are a choice you make based on your behavior, in many cases so is cancer.

TV has been shown to negatively affect brain function.[hr]
Aw, thanks for the neg Truth. It means a lot to me. :)


Keep it personal, Ann, thanks for the insults.[hr]
Sounds like any imposition of a rule set by others on one's behavior is wrong, like driving on the right side of the road and stopping at red lights, right?


All impositions of rules are OK as long as they don't conflict with your political beliefs or lifestyle, right Clay? Your way is the right way.

[AnnEsthesia]

*chuckle* And yet if I watch HGTV, my performance the next day is the same. If I shoot heroin or party all night, my performance is affected.

While you really are trying hard to make a case, it is not working. The fact is, if you accept a job and sign the contract, your employer can test you. If you do not want to ever be tested, do not sign and do not take the job.

Not really a hard concept.[hr]Yes Truth, thanking you for a neg rep is just *such* a horror. :)

[TheStripey1]

I am one of those who doesn't subscribe to urine tests for anyone.


even for those whose jobs involve public safety?[hr]
I am glad for pee tests. If you are in a position where other people's lives could be damaged or ended by a mistake you make, you damned well better be clean. Threat of a random drug test increases the likelihood you *will* be clean.

good point... and I have no doubt that many will want to fight with you because of it...


[hr]


I am glad for pee tests. If you are in a position where other people's lives could be damaged or ended by a mistake you make, you damned well better be clean. Threat of a random drug test increases the likelihood you *will* be clean.


Good point. But the the issue is pee tests for jobs that don't involved killing people if you get drunk like a desk job in a crummy office somewhere.


At which point I would say that an employer who has stated they require their employees to be sober and not abuse drugs has the right to make sure they are complying. :) If you cannot stay clean, get a different job, no?


mayyyyyyyyyyybe... if the job does not involve public safety, then it may not be the employer's business what you do in your spare time... he/she pays you while you are ON the job, not while you are on your own time... if drinking or doing drugs interferes with your job performance, then she/he has a beef... if not? he/she should butt out...



[hr]
So, you are advocating a complete ban on alcohol? I'm for that. :evil:


don't forget banning tobacco, too...

[hr]


Sorry, but if you are doing drugs on your off time, just like if you are an alcoholic in your off time, it can and often does affect your job. Don't want to be tested? Don't take a job that will test you. Just like if you play video games all night every night, even without drinking, it will affect your job performance and if it does, you *should* be fired.


So what you could do, and pardon me for being old fashioned, is measure job PERFORMANCE and make decisions based on that. I know in the modern age we prefer to add
(credit score * .75)/injuries on the job +3(sqrroot(haircolor on rgb scale)) - 4* failed drug tests + month of astrological sign and if the value is less than your age, you're fired!

But you could just evaluate performance and as long as they're not intoxicated at work, you let them keep working!


Because if you can find someone who is an addict and offer them a chance to get help and they take it, they are the better for it. Because an employer is responsible if an employee f ucks up on the job and if it is later revealed the person was an addict, gee, who would be blamed for not catching that before the issue occurred? If you don't like it, don't take the job. If an employer wants to drug test you to ensure that you will not f uck up due to your drug use (or alcohol use, since drunks also can be tested), then that is within their right and you would have signed an contract agreeing to it. :)


If you have to take a drug test to keep your job and signed a contract so stating, then you have no beef... IMO...

If the public's safety is at risk, by all means, test them...



[hr]
And then if you fire them because they didn't succeed, they're not better for it, but fuck 'em! Just don't butt fuck 'em because we'll also need to have them sign a contract specifying they're not gay or into watching reality TV.

I find it AMAZING that Deadshot actually said if there were willing and available parents he would advocate taking children away from any parents that test positive for drugs! WOW!!!!

No more life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, huh? More like life and the pursuit of an efficient society raising adults capable of furthering our nationalist goals!


pssssst... truth... drugs are illegal...

you should be able to pursue your happiness without having to do drugs to attain it...

ditto getting drunk every night...



[hr]
Your need to get high/drunk/whatever does not supersede your employers right to make sure you are able to perform your job. If they have determined that drug tests are necessary, and you have agreed to them by signing your employment form, then you really don't have a lot to bitch about. Case in point, my husband had an employee, he was a problem employee, turned out he was using drugs (no, I do not know which ones, none of my business) and so he offered to send the dude to rehab. Through the insurance, they got him inpatient treatment. He went, got treatment and all was well. A while later, one of his samples came up that he had been using again. He was offered treatment again and he said no. He wound up being fired.

He was given every chance to clean himself up and he, in the end, refused to do it. His rights to be a druggy are not more important than his employer's right to have a drug free employee.



seems logical to me...
[hr]

And yet, the use of drugs can go undetected and have consequences. Someone can seem fine be abusing drugs and you would never know. Sorry, your rights to abuse your body end when you are at work, especially if you could hurt someone else.

I get it, you do not like the system. It is an easy solution for you. Work at McDonalds, work anywhere where you will not be asked for a pee test. No one says you cannot work, you just cannot work in certain employment sectors.

Oh, and he agreed to the piss tests as a condition of continued employment after it was discovered he was an addict. Oops, there goes your argument that it is an invasion of privacy.


Actually I'm a professional IT guy not some fry bagger like your B-E-A-utiful generalization assumes and at my work although you sign the contract they never test anyone who's not operating machinery or something like that. This is a bunch of bullshit in this society where you think you can go around telling other people to live. Probably 2/3 of all employers require that contract to be signed, or more, so with that collusion it IS an invasion of my privacy.

So I guess opiates are bad but the opiate of the masses (religion or TV, as you prefer) is ok. You know the idea behind the american democracy is that majority rules but the majority is not supposed to RULE. That's called freedom and when most of the nations' employers collude to deprive us of it because of a bunch of uptight religious types and liability nanny types, it is an invasion.

Apparently I'm the only one around here who thinks freedom is a good thing. I can guarantee you based on personal experience that smoking a joint at night does not impede my ability to code during the day.


if your job doesn't involve the public's safety, then I don't have a problem with your nasty habits at home... as long as they don't spill over, that is...

but if you signed something that says you are willing to be tested to keep your job, then... sorry... you've WILLINGLY given up your right to privacy...

did you sign something like that?





[hr]
Yeah I'm whining and crying for my freedom, way to keep it mature, ann. Why don't you get over YOURSELF and your need to see employers govern the private lives of their employees rather than judge them base on their performance.[hr]Oh BY THE WAY, while we're into invasive medical testing, lets make sure we test for cancer, AIDS, herpes, and any other illnesses that could cause an employee to make mistakes at work. Since many of those are incurable, might as well just fire them. Is that the kind of values you promote for our free and just society?


if you do drugs but don't want to be tested for drugs, don't get a job where they test for drugs...

simple...

TV, cancer, whatever has nothing whatsoever to do with this topic, why are you continuing to bring these into the debate? Is it self-inflicted short term memory loss? I've heard it said that smoking weed causes that... do you find that to be a true statement, truth?

[hr]
Sounds like any imposition of a rule set by others on one's behavior is wrong, like driving on the right side of the road and stopping at red lights, right?


Only to those that drive on the wrong side of the road and whiz through stop lights and stop signs... sounds like those people should be tested for drug use, too...

oh wait... the police have been known to administer breathalyzer tests to those they suspect of abusing one form of drug or another... do you think the police are wrong in that aspect of their job, truth?

[hr]

Sounds like any imposition of a rule set by others on one's behavior is wrong, like driving on the right side of the road and stopping at red lights, right?


All impositions of rules are OK as long as they don't conflict with your political beliefs or lifestyle, right Clay? Your way is the right way.


Are you saying you disagree with the rules of the road as well?

Surely you jest...

[Truth_and_Power]

Ok you guys have fun on your pedestals, I have no argument to refute comparisons between HDTV and heroin addicts, but if you find some ruby slippers be sure click them three times.

No one here is even able to see the logical comparison between drugs and other free-time behaviors which could effect your performance at work. That is the reason given for testing for them, right? So what is another free-time behavior that affects your performance at work which your employer can or does test/spy for? If abortions were made illegal again (not an unreal possibility) could they have a doctor examine you to see if you have had an illegal abortion and not hire you for that reason? I am clearly dealing with people that have a set view on the issue and don't care for that reason alone, if they are unable to draw a comparison to something. I used TV because it is very common and has been featured in many studies connected with mental abilities.

The argument makes so much sense that the Equal Employment Act put in a provision to specifically say that all the general language talking about how you should judge an employee's performance did NOT mean that employers couldn't discriminate based on drug use. You will note that they do not test your blood at work which i would be fine with because that speaks to how your current state, they want to know what you've done in your free time.

The alcohol industry has such a beautiful monopoly going. I cannot think of another monopoly that has such an endemic government, corporate, and religious policy supporting it and inhibiting competition. It boggles the mind to find a comparison, I request that anyone who can think of one please post it in reply.

[AnnEsthesia]

That is because there *is* no comparison between drugs and other leisure activities. Show me one study that shows that playing basketball just before you go to work will decrease your job performance. Show me one study that says if you watch the morning news, your job performance will suffer.

The whole reason that we have drug clauses in contracts (which you are free to refuse to sign, BTW... I notice you keep glossing over that fact), is because using drugs affects you and if you are a drug user, your employer is under no constraints to keep you. If you do it based on performance, then they potentially have to keep you for months while they document their problem with you (unless you are working in an at will state, and then they can fire you for bad performance the first time you show up late, provided they can prove it was a valid and real problem, say, you lost them a contract). In the meantime, your employer now has someone who is a liability. Get into an accident while on the clock? Your employer is in trouble. Make a mistake that costs someone a lot of money, hurts someone or in some other way creates an issue and gee, who is in trouble for having a drug user or alcoholic on staff?

Yep, have your personal freedoms... and refuse to sign the paper. But if you sign the paper, you really have nothing to complain about.

BTW, it is really hard to "discriminate" against someone who is choosing to do something. I am sure all the people who are actually discriminated would be thrilled that you feel an employer firing a drug user is the same as someone who fires someone for getting close to retirement age, someone who becomes pregnant or someone who is injured on the job.[hr]Oh, and please link to the studies that show that watching TV has a direct link to decreased job performance. Thanks.

[TheStripey1]

Ok you guys have fun on your pedestals, I have no argument to refute comparisons between HDTV and heroin addicts, but if you find some ruby slippers be sure click them three times.

No one here is even able to see the logical comparison between drugs and other free-time behaviors which could effect your performance at work. That is the reason given for testing for them, right? So what is another free-time behavior that affects your performance at work which your employer can or does test/spy for? If abortions were made illegal again (not an unreal possibility) could they have a doctor examine you to see if you have had an illegal abortion and not hire you for that reason? I am clearly dealing with people that have a set view on the issue and don't care for that reason alone, if they are unable to draw a comparison to something. I used TV because it is very common and has been featured in many studies connected with mental abilities.

The argument makes so much sense that the Equal Employment Act put in a provision to specifically say that all the general language talking about how you should judge an employee's performance did NOT mean that employers couldn't discriminate based on drug use. You will note that they do not test your blood at work which i would be fine with because that speaks to how your current state, they want to know what you've done in your free time.

The alcohol industry has such a beautiful monopoly going. I cannot think of another monopoly that has such an endemic government, corporate, and religious policy supporting it and inhibiting competition. It boggles the mind to find a comparison, I request that anyone who can think of one please post it in reply.


pedestal schmedestal...

You are completely disregarding my posts...

I said if you have signed a paper stating that you are willing to comply with your employer's request for drug testing, then there is no way you can complain about it when he/she asks you to pee in a cup... don't like it? Don't sign it and look for a job elsewhere...

I also said I agree with AnnE regarding the public's safety... if the public's safety depends upon you doing your job straight, I don't have a problem with testing you to ensure that you are complying with the employer's stipulation for employment.

Also: Show me the study that says watching TV is as bad as doing drugs.

[AnnEsthesia]

[hr]


I am glad for pee tests. If you are in a position where other people's lives could be damaged or ended by a mistake you make, you damned well better be clean. Threat of a random drug test increases the likelihood you *will* be clean.


Good point. But the the issue is pee tests for jobs that don't involved killing people if you get drunk like a desk job in a crummy office somewhere.


At which point I would say that an employer who has stated they require their employees to be sober and not abuse drugs has the right to make sure they are complying. :) If you cannot stay clean, get a different job, no?


mayyyyyyyyyyybe... if the job does not involve public safety, then it may not be the employer's business what you do in your spare time... he/she pays you while you are ON the job, not while you are on your own time... if drinking or doing drugs interferes with your job performance, then she/he has a beef... if not? he/she should butt out...



Except, if it is in the employees manual and the employee contract you sign that you will not use drugs and that you agree to drug tests if they tell you to, then it does not matter if you are mopping the floor or driving a bus load of children. If you have a problem with the stipulations of employment, then perhaps it is not the job for you.

Around here, you have to sign a form saying you agree to random drug tests before they can test you. Why would you sign it and then cry invasion of freedom? That is like handing someone your SSN, etc and then crying identity theft.

[TheStripey1]

If the employee agreed to drug testing before being hired, they have nothing to whine about when the employer asks them to pee in a cup... don't want to pee in the cup, don't take the job...

It's really quite simple... not sure why Truth is having so much trouble grasping the concept.

[AnnEsthesia]

Because he is offended that people do not see the pee test as one of the great freedom fights of our day, I guess. Riding on the bus, the right to vote, the right to do drugs with no ramifications... all equal. :)

[Jaaaman]

Every job that I have had as a nurse has required me to take a pee test. It would serve no purpose for me to become angry about it...

[TheStripey1]

Because he is offended that people do not see the pee test as one of the great freedom fights of our day, I guess. Riding on the bus, the right to vote, the right to do drugs with no ramifications... all equal. :)


last I checked, doing drugs was illegal... so there is NO right to be able to do them... drink? sure if you're OLD enough... but even with that, there are rules... don't drink and drive for instance...[hr]
Every job that I have had as a nurse has required me to take a pee test. It would serve no purpose for me to become angry about it...



good point... I just do not understand what Truth is complaining about...

[AnnEsthesia]

Because he is offended that people do not see the pee test as one of the great freedom fights of our day, I guess. Riding on the bus, the right to vote, the right to do drugs with no ramifications... all equal. :)


last I checked, doing drugs was illegal... so there is NO right to be able to do them... drink? sure if you're OLD enough... but even with that, there are rules... don't drink and drive for instance...[hr]
Every job that I have had as a nurse has required me to take a pee test. It would serve no purpose for me to become angry about it...



good point... I just do not understand what Truth is complaining about...



You must have missed the first draft of the constitution where they had "Life, liberty and the pursuit of one bitchin' rush..." I think the second draft had it changed to "... one killer fattie..." But then some buzz kill changed it to ".. the pursuit of happiness..." and things just have not been the same since. :)

[Truth_and_Power]

All corporate employers require the pee test for liability reasons. They are both protecting themselves against being sued for injuries that could result from an employee, because if you are at all non-sober, then injury is 100% blamed on that. Note that I don't at all argue against or resist blood tests which detect sobriety. Also they are using it as a tool to fire employees whose PERFORMANCE is the problem because trying to actually fire someone for performance directly is a total nightmare in the current u.s. legal system. As was mentioned above you have to document things and it takes months. In reality if I was in charge of hiring (have done before) and didn't have liability to consider I would hire & fire within two weeks. I guarantee you can get a good employee in a month in the great majority of cases. However, you can't do that, so you need other excuses and the problems in your organization bleed you slowly while you attempt to get rid of them. I'm sure many of us have had the experience of picking up the extra work that results from one of these lethargic paychecks. It is a search for morally-justified quantifiable data in a world where judgement calls are targets for discrimination lawsuits and other legal action.

[Josepha]

no! an invasion of a persons privacy just to find out if they used drugs steps over many lines. i can see the lives in danger angle, but that is were personal responsibilty comes in and makes the difference.


I am for some pee testing, when lives are at stake - but only when lives are at stake. I kinda decided that after the airlines fired the pilots for flying drunk. My main issue with mj and pee testing is you could flunk a test weeks after you got high.

On the other hand, around here you have to get pee tested to be a grocery clerk or work at a call center - hardly lives at stake. Fire anyone who comes to work in a state where they can't do the job - but pee testing is an invasion in those cases.[hr]
Ok you guys have fun on your pedestals, I have no argument to refute comparisons between HDTV and heroin addicts, but if you find some ruby slippers be sure click them three times.

No one here is even able to see the logical comparison between drugs and other free-time behaviors which could effect your performance at work. That is the reason given for testing for them, right? So what is another free-time behavior that affects your performance at work which your employer can or does test/spy for? If abortions were made illegal again (not an unreal possibility) could they have a doctor examine you to see if you have had an illegal abortion and not hire you for that reason? I am clearly dealing with people that have a set view on the issue and don't care for that reason alone, if they are unable to draw a comparison to something. I used TV because it is very common and has been featured in many studies connected with mental abilities.

The argument makes so much sense that the Equal Employment Act put in a provision to specifically say that all the general language talking about how you should judge an employee's performance did NOT mean that employers couldn't discriminate based on drug use. You will note that they do not test your blood at work which i would be fine with because that speaks to how your current state, they want to know what you've done in your free time.

The alcohol industry has such a beautiful monopoly going. I cannot think of another monopoly that has such an endemic government, corporate, and religious policy supporting it and inhibiting competition. It boggles the mind to find a comparison, I request that anyone who can think of one please post it in reply.


Actually employers now use credit records - which I also consider an invasion of privacy. Yes, a deadbeat may be a bad employeee - or they may have a relative with cancer, or they may have had a house fire, or....there are some reasons why people have bad credit which wouldn't make them a bad employee.

[lily]

[color=#0000FF]IF we had a place to take those kids to care for them, I'd be fine with that. But right now, in today's society, while we would spend thousands, hundreds of thousands even, to prosecute and house those that broke the law, I don't think that society would spend a few pennies to take care of those kids. So better to be raise by drug addicts then by the State. Though I will concede that if the State would prove that they would take care of those kids I'd change my stance.

I didn't say anything about taking away the kids. I've read pages here where you are in favor of employers giving drug tests and giving their employees help if they are on drugs. If mothers are using the money for drugs, instead of feeding their children, why should we continue to pay for their drugs?[hr]


Not really, since it would never happen. However, I know that my husband randomly drug tests his employees. His company produces a product that is ingested. One small mistake and a lot of people are sick.

Your husband is allowed to give his employees something to ingest and the employees aren't complaining? Is that even legal?

[Anti-Racism]

Not for Welfare checks. Welfare is only given out if you have KIDS! But, I would be willing to go that route for Social Security or other benefits, but not Welfare - since it's SUPPOSED to be for people with kids.


Doesn't that encourage people to breed just so they get benefits?! Insane!

[Truth_and_Power]

Not for Welfare checks. Welfare is only given out if you have KIDS! But, I would be willing to go that route for Social Security or other benefits, but not Welfare - since it's SUPPOSED to be for people with kids.


Doesn't that encourage people to breed just so they get benefits?! Insane!


subsidizing any problem could be said to encourage it. That doesn't mean it's the intent.

[AnnEsthesia]

Your husband is allowed to give his employees something to ingest and the employees aren't complaining? Is that even legal?



lol... no, they *produce* something that is ingested, lol.[hr]And again, it is hardly an "invasion of privacy" if you have signed the form agreeing to be drug tested. If you don't want to be tested, don't sign the form. The employer can require you to wear your hair up, to dress in a uniform, to be toned and tanned... if it is in your employee contract and you agree to it, you don't have any right to complain. :)

[Josepha]

[color=#0000FF]IF we had a place to take those kids to care for them, I'd be fine with that. But right now, in today's society, while we would spend thousands, hundreds of thousands even, to prosecute and house those that broke the law, I don't think that society would spend a few pennies to take care of those kids. So better to be raise by drug addicts then by the State. Though I will concede that if the State would prove that they would take care of those kids I'd change my stance.

I didn't say anything about taking away the kids. I've read pages here where you are in favor of employers giving drug tests and giving their employees help if they are on drugs. If mothers are using the money for drugs, instead of feeding their children, why should we continue to pay for their drugs?

I think they get swipe cards nowadays - not cash, or checks. I doubt most dealers would carry swipers.:unreal:

[lily]

I think they get swipe cards nowadays - not cash, or checks. I doubt most dealers would carry swipers.:unreal:


Josepha........there is a way around everything, even if you get pennies on the dollar.

[AnnEsthesia]

And yet, if you refused to give the drug addicts help (who probably need it more than a lot of people who get help), exactly what happens to their kids? Do we turn a blind eye and stop caring if they starve? Do we become a society who cares about you only if we approve of your parents?

I cannot say I feel sympathy for any drug addict who refuses to get clean, but I would never condemn their children for drawing a loser for a parent.

[Truth_and_Power]

And yet, if you refused to give the drug addicts help (who probably need it more than a lot of people who get help), exactly what happens to their kids? Do we turn a blind eye and stop caring if they starve? Do we become a society who cares about you only if we approve of your parents?

I cannot say I feel sympathy for any drug addict who refuses to get clean, but I would never condemn their children for drawing a loser for a parent.


You are using "drug addict" in the same breath with anyone who uses any drugs ever. When pressed you refer to heroin addicts, glossing over the fact that many people (most people?) have a beer or a joint at night and the only problem they see from it is the employer's disdain in the case of the joint.

[AnnEsthesia]

I am, dear? You know how I am using all my words? Really?

No, when I say 'drug addict' I mean... 'drug addict'. When I use 'drug user'... I mean 'drug user' and when I say 'heroin addict' I mean... can you guess?

Sorry, you will not get my sympathy for your need to ingest an illegal substance. Smoke, get high, but you are an adult and you take the consequences, just as you would if you choose to blow a stop sign or any other thing you do that breaks the law and doesn't necessarily hurt anyone... and yet if you get caught, you pay the price.

[Truth_and_Power]

Oh, and please link to the studies that show that watching TV has a direct link to decreased job performance. Thanks.


Here's one for children:
Sitting passively in front of the tube for hours is taking its toll on the bodies and minds of the nation's children. Studies have documented unhealthy effects on weight, attention span, reading skills and socialization among children who spend hours a day watching television or playing video games. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9806E6DC163CF930A3575BC0A9629C8B 63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=print)

Here's one for sleep deprevation:
Sleep deprivation instigates serious industrial accidents. "Sleep deprivation can reduce attention and vigilance by 50 percent, decision-making ability by 5 0percent, communication skills by 30 percent, and memory by 20 percent, says Mark Rosekind, board member of the NSF and president and chief scientist at Alertness Solutions. (http://communications.fullerton.edu/facilities/tvfilm_studios/content/safety/sleep.htm)

Here's one that talks about what TV does to your brain:
"Psychophysiologist Thomas Mulholland found that after just 30 seconds of watching television the brain begins to produce alpha waves, which indicates torpid (almost comatose) [slow] rates of activity. Alpha brain waves are associated with unfocused, overly receptive states of consciousness. A high frequency alpha waves [sic] does not occur normally when the eyes are open. In fact, Mulholland’s research implies that watching television is neurologically analogous to staring at a blank wall.

I should note that the goal of hypnotists is to induce slow brain wave states. Alpha waves are present during the 'light hypnotic' state used by hypno-therapists for suggestion therapy." (http://pages.prodigy.net/unohu/brainwaves.htm)

Here's study that shows being mentally active (as opposed to what is discussed above) increases brain function:
Bulking Up Your Brain
From the MacArthur and other longitudinal studies has come a guiding principle known as “use it or lose it.” A recent brain-scanning study appeared to show this principle in action. As reported in the January 22, 2004 Nature, 23 healthy people, average age 22, learned how to juggle. After three months, MRI scans showed enlargement of the gray matter in their brains—the part responsible for higher mental functions. Either existing cells had grown denser, more numerous connections, or the sheer number of brain cells had increased. When the study participants stopped juggling, their brains shrunk again. This doesn’t mean we should all juggle our way to cognitive vitality. But it does strongly suggest that mental exercise has real and positive effects on brain function. (http://www.memorylossonline.com/use_it_or_lose_it.htm)


All of this to try to demonstrate to you that many things can decrease your job performance besides using drugs. Probably until now you thought that parking in front of the boob tube for several hours a night had no negative effect on your mind... yeah right.

[AnnEsthesia]

*chuckle* How many people do you know that only watch TV when they are not at work? Honestly. Yes, definitely, watching TV is the same as drug use. *rofl* How do you compare them with a straight face?

Sure, if you never do anything except watch TV all day, you will not increase your brain function, but I do not know anyone who only exists in such a two-dimensional world. Oh, and since when does watching TV cause sleep deprivation? One could also say that that can come from drug use, so I guess that one is a moot point, lol.

Now go show me all the impartial studies that show how drug use is benign and that it has no impact upon the user. Show me the studies where drug users perform at the same level as people who do not use drugs. And not just mj, but ALL drugs, since that is what drug testing is all about.

Again, and since you keep neglecting to deal with it, if you are willing to sign the paper giving them the right to test you, you have no complaint. Don't want to be tested? Get a different job. It is no different than any other job requirement. If you cannot fulfill it, take a different job and let someone who can fulfill the requirement have it.

[Deadshot]

You can't control drugs because you can't control people. That's whether the drug is opium, "the opium of the masses" or reruns of the Simpsons.

[AnnEsthesia]

True, Deadshot. But you can pee test to see if someone is on drugs. And in order to pee test, they have to sign a paper agreeing to such. Once you have, you loose your argument that it is an invasion of privacy and an invasion of freedom. That is my point. Go for it, get drunk, get drugged, run a red light, whatever... but you will, at the end of the day, be responsible for your actions.

[ClayBarham]

I think everyone should have the right to take drugs, drink booze, watch the Simpsons and all other mind-numbing exercises, just as long as they are living at the top of Everest or McKinley and they don't mind that first step, and as long as taxpayers don't have to clean up the rotting bodies. However, there is something to be said for living in community and being responsible for one's actions, and when the mind is sufficiently numbed, one's responsibility from an absence of ability to think is reduced. I think you can add soap operas to the Simpsons, something which may stimulate a need for drugs and booze, lots of it.

[Truth_and_Power]

Again, and since you keep neglecting to deal with it, if you are willing to sign the paper giving them the right to test you, you have no complaint. Don't want to be tested? Get a different job. It is no different than any other job requirement. If you cannot fulfill it, take a different job and let someone who can fulfill the requirement have it.


This is in the politics board, not the crime & law board. I'm pretty well aware of this point since you've stated it every single time you've posted.

My point wasn't that tv causes sleep deprevation. I was noting that many things can cause poor performance at work, but drugs is the only one that's tested for. Sleep deprevation would be among those things.[hr]
However, there is something to be said for living in community and being responsible for one's actions, and when the mind is sufficiently numbed, one's responsibility from an absence of ability to think is reduced.


Lay off the drugs.. that ain't grammar.

[AnnEsthesia]

And yet politics and law and order are intertwined. :) But if you want to just post and complain about your freedoms being taken away when you sign a legal agreement allowing your employer to drug test you, go ahead, I will stop posting. :)

[Truth_and_Power]

I will stop posting. :)


God bless.

[AnnEsthesia]

I love you too sweetie. ;) *hehe*