[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]Apoklyps wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]flipcollar wrote:
[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]Captnoblivious wrote:
Drug tests are an invasion of privacy. Period. [/quote]
Not when you privacy may hurt other people.
[/quote]
The word you are looking for is “might”.
Plenty of our constitutional rights, might increase the risk of injury.
[/quote]
And you have the right to not be drug tested for a job, same as the person giving the drug test has the right to not hire you if you don’t. [/quote]
First off, I don’t do drugs and have passed numerous drug screenings.
Secondly, what people do during their own time is just that their’s. It is a serious infringement of personal liberties telling someone what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.
I’m sure these comments will bring out the nanny state.
[/quote]
I didn’t drug test at my company for years. An employee lost a finger 2 years ago because he was high. He also received a 6 figure settlement. I drug test now. And I should have been then.
You’re living up to your screen name if you don’t see a need in many industries to drug test. This was a minor injury, as compared to what can happen. But since you’ll never be in an employer’s position, I guess it doesn’t really matter to you.[/quote]
I work for a school district. All of our bus drivers are drug tested regularly. Can you imagine the shit storm that would descend upon us if we didn’t do that and a high bus driver had a wreck injuring or killing children?? Not only would the bus driver be in trouble but we would also be liable for not assuring the safety of children. Are you trying to say that the drivers right to use drugs supersedes our right to protect ourselves from litigation and children from potential harm?? [/quote]
You said the key word: liability. That’s why drug tests are performed. They are well aware that anyone with half a brain can beat it, and keep costs down with low quality tests for only the NIDA 5. In most cases, they don’t actually care if you do drugs, the company just doesn’t want to be liable if you fuck up while you’re on drugs. It shifts responsibility to the individual.
The problem I see with drug tests is this: they don’t discriminate between the guy who gets high at home on weekends and the guy who uses at work. While I agree that an employee absolutely shouldn’t be using at work under any circumstance, there is no reason for most jobs to exert such authority over employees’ personal lives. They also fail to discriminate between stoners and cokeheads. In fact, they punish people for weed more than anything, since it has the longest detection time.
Sure, the accidents people get into while high may be publicized a lot, but how often do they actually occur, considering the high number of people who work while drunk/high? Having worked in construction, I can honestly say that if you started firing guys for operating machinery while drunk/high, you wouldn’t get anything done. It’s not drug users’ rights that supersede safety, but practicality that sometimes must.[/quote]
Again way off.
This is like the broscience of lifting[/quote]
Instead of being blatantly dismissive, perhaps you could instead discuss the pros/cons of the points I made. Or don’t. Because you’re right, this is like discussing broscience topics or politics. It’s not like we’re going to have a reasonable debate and change anyone’s opinion anyway.
Notice that I didn’t say that drug testing never has a purpose, or that, until we can differentiate accurately between those who get drunk/high on the job and those who don’t, that there’s necessarily a better system.
Generally what seems to happen anyway is that both the recreational user and addict both beat the drug test, but the recreational user keeps his nose clean (pun intended) at work, and usually keeps his job. The addict cannot, and eventually gets caught out.