Opinion:: Random Drug/Alcohol Testing at work /poll\

[IgnoreMe 5,000+ posts]

You don't like a law that allows an individual to operate his/her company as he/she deems fit?

so it should also be legal to not hire the black guy because hes black if the company deems that as being good for the company?

pretty sure we have a law against that.

 

[IgnoreMe 5,000+ posts]

A law that allows companies to run their houses the way they want. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

You guys scream about it being YOUR business to do what you want at home. Well the workplace is the companies HOME. Why shouldn't they be able to run it how they want? My mom didn't want a pothead in her house and I was kindly told to move out. Seemed simple enough to me then and it seems simple enough to me now.

rebuttle in my post above

 

[Rich B 5,000+ posts]

So now you have the right to drive while intoxicated too?

The problem with that is that both you and I know the wealthy will be able to either get a waiver for the device, or use some other loophole in circumventing that kind of law.

Can you seriously believe a rich guy wouldnt want a cognac or fine wine with his expensive dinner?

These types of laws are passed solely for the purpose of keeping the rest of us in check, the rich can get out of being held to the same law the rest of us are forced to abide by.

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

we have a legal system to keep order. unfortunately the laws that were created to keep order are no longer viable for todays society, risks, problems, etc. the const. and the BOR were both GOOD concepts...FOR THAT TIME. at this point, we either need a "new" const. or name it something else, and re-vamp the entire governmental system; but thats wayy too much work for this generation apparently, so i dont see that happening.
i see a law, or i hear about one, i think about it...for example...heres my thought process on a controversial law:

- prohibition of cannabis sativa/indica/ruderalis

how does this law affect me.... i'm not allowed to smoke a plant that i love to smoke.

why is this law in place.... to apparently control what people put in their bodies. alcohol is legal and taxed, why can't cannabis be.

should i obey this law.... no. there is no understandable reason to not smoke cannabis. this is an entire different argument and trust me, you won't win, i will throw out more studies than you can shake a stick at, and will probably resort to calling me a druggie, a liberal, or whatever stupid *** phrase you think up because you have nothing to say.

tangent

This one is easy to answer...you choose to break the law, whether you agree with the law or not, you need to pay the consequences.

If you have more studies than I can shake a stick at you need to start spreading the info, lobbying congress, funding lobby groups, etc, etc, etc. Until that legalization effort works though, its still illegal and if you knowingly break the law, you have to be cool with the consequences.

/tangent

 

[IamDeMan 5,000+ posts]

I realize it had little to do with this thread. It just irritates me. I think about what the next 20 years will have for this country, and i see Communist Russia all over again. We will have cameras all over the roads/sidewalks/ hell they might even put them in your house. And it will all be in the name of safety. Saddens me really. Thats when ill have to move out into the country with my guns and wait for the govt to come get me.....//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crap.gif.7f4dd41e3e9b23fbd170a1ee6f65cecc.gif

I can agree in this segment. I just can't agree with the workforce dictating what and employer can or can't do //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

As for government control over our lives, I agree it is getting out of hand. I was also against states making anti-smoking laws FOR establishments. I don't think the government should be able to tell a company people can't smoke cigs there. I am not against drug users or their choices. I believe in people making their own choices and this includes entities like companies being able to freely implement policies such as this.

 

[IgnoreMe 5,000+ posts]

What would your solution be?

unfortunatly, im not at the front lines of the drug testing field.

i think it needs to be put to rest until we can find a way that will be able to detect a time from of say...8 hrs or so (like a typical work day). that way you can catch someone who is high AT work, which i consider a problem. not someone who was high, 3 weeks ago.

duece212: as far as i know, no

imdeman: so, what i consider a invasion of privacy is ok, because there is nothing currently better?

 

[2002XLT 5,000+ posts]

tangent This one is easy to answer...you choose to break the law, whether you agree with the law or not, you need to pay the consequences.

If you have more studies than I can shake a stick at you need to start spreading the info, lobbying congress, funding lobby groups, etc, etc, etc. Until that legalization effort works though, its still illegal and if you knowingly break the law, you have to be cool with the consequences.

/tangent

So your saying that as long as the law is on the books, and someone breaks that law, whether the law is just or not, they should be punished? Nowadays you dont even have to vote for a law, congress just inacts them and its done. There are many laws that many people dont realize they exist. I know some of them are compltely rediculous. Saw this website that had all the "most rediculous laws." Had one city that you couldnt spit on the sidewalk. I mean, come on, someone should be punished for spitting?

 

[duece212 5,000+ posts]

So your saying that as long as the law is on the books, and someone breaks that law, whether the law is just or not, they should be punished? Nowadays you dont even have to vote for a law, congress just inacts them and its done. There are many laws that many people dont realize they exist. I know some of them are compltely rediculous. Saw this website that had all the "most rediculous laws." Had one city that you couldnt spit on the sidewalk. I mean, come on, someone should be punished for spitting?

What I'm saying is: Don't ***** about the consequences of your illegal actions if your not willing to put some time in to change the laws.

Ignorance is no excuse....laziness and denial aren't either

 

[Chevillac 5,000+ posts]

yes we signed it, but that doesnt change the fact that we are also arguing about the validity of these tests.
there has to be a better way to do testing on the job, and the current way isnt even close to the right answer.

I kinda posted about this. But the piss test is only the first thing. If you fail or the test comes up inconclusive, theyll test you again, and/or use hair for the test. supposedly more accurate. thats neither here nor there though.

Not too many of you are arguing the validity of the tests, but the ability of a private corporation to test you at all.

I agree with that. These drug tests are so inaccurate its not even funny. And I think there should be a better way to test that can detect all drugs within a equal limit. I mean if coke doesnt show up after 3 days, they should discount any marijuana thats been in my system for over three days. Dont single out a drug, the least dangerous of them, and not worry about the others. But as ive said im against random testing. I do not mind first being hired drug tests. You are told about those in your first interview. If you cant clear your system in a week then your an idiot.

^

I can agree in this segment. I just can't agree with the workforce dictating what and employer can or can't do //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif
As for government control over our lives, I agree it is getting out of hand. I was also against states making anti-smoking laws FOR establishments. I don't think the government should be able to tell a company people can't smoke cigs there. I am not against drug users or their choices. I believe in people making their own choices and this includes entities like companies being able to freely implement policies such as this.

this i agree with too, but I cant lie and say when I go to places in tampa or st pete and its smoke free now, sheeeeeeit, its 10x better.

 

[jimmclrk1 10+ year member]

Seriously this thread makes me realize why I hate our government so much. Colbert ftw

He identifies himself as a democrat.

 

[BreakingBad]

tangent This one is easy to answer...you choose to break the law, whether you agree with the law or not, you need to pay the consequences.

If you have more studies than I can shake a stick at you need to start spreading the info, lobbying congress, funding lobby groups, etc, etc, etc. Until that legalization effort works though, its still illegal and if you knowingly break the law, you have to be cool with the consequences.

/tangent

well, i don't think so.

thats Your opinion, not mine.

 

[2002XLT 5,000+ posts]

I can agree in this segment. I just can't agree with the workforce dictating what and employer can or can't do //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif
As for government control over our lives, I agree it is getting out of hand. I was also against states making anti-smoking laws FOR establishments. I don't think the government should be able to tell a company people can't smoke cigs there. I am not against drug users or their choices. I believe in people making their own choices and this includes entities like companies being able to freely implement policies such as this.

Completely understand your point. I personally will fight against any rules/regulations that are not NEEDED for survival. I think if this country lost its superpower status and went back to a "thrid world country" many people would die because there would be no laws to "control" them and they wouldnt know what the fck to do. I for one, would survive. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/biggrin.gif.d71a5d36fcbab170f2364c9f2e3946cb.gif

Back to the topic at hand though. If they are going to test for substances, then they need to find a 100% test that does not shoot out false positves. You are messing with peoples lives. Their families lives. And the tests they use are not even close to being 100% accurate. I think thats where my biggest problem lies. Not that they do the tests, i do understand why, just that they are not compltely accurate and they are destroying lives with it.

 

[Chevillac 5,000+ posts]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Testing

go down to the chart.... it didnt paste as a gif.