Dr. J
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2001
- Messages
- 1,423
You ignored one of my most important questions that goes to the heart of your "sobriety" tests. Should the drunk, who just took 5 shots of vodka, has a BAC of .20, but can function, or at least appear to function, normally, be allowed to continue his work?
And, my guess is someone who has a nasty coke or meth habit is going to test positive just about any day of the week, so yes, I believe testing can be a useful tool for employers. Consider this, my employee Jim works hard, seems to be doing everything right. His name comes up in a random test and he tests positive for cocaine. As an employer, even with his good work, I would not want him as part of my staff. I know many coke and meth users, and they are, or at times can be, shady people. They may one day need to steal money their fix, miss work, who knows. The point is, and I believe it is undeniable, a drug user, by his or very nature of using drugs, inreases the likelihood of probems at work. Does this mean all users are bad? No. But, why take that risk, especially when I have to worry about the success of my company? If you are that dead-set on having your right to snort coke or smoke a bowl, and you're working for me, in what I deem a sensitive position, you're damn right I'm going to tell you to find a new job.
As far as my pilot scenario, you missed my point. YOU, as a passenger of this pilot know he did some mad drugs about 4 or 5 days ago. Since you are focusing on sobriety and not things in his system, are you honestly still going to pick this pilot over another who you know hasn't used drugs? It's scary, because if there weren't drug testing, you could be getting on a plane with a pilot who was up all night the night before in Las Vegas doing lines off his hotel bathroom counter. I just don't buy your argument that he is going to be normal the next day.
Furthermore, I stress again this is from my experience, weed is not a one day thing. I would never smoke weed the week I have an exam or have to write a paper. Maybe that's me. But even if it is just me, why take the risk that it could be other people too who are limited after smoking weed. And, even if you were right about one joint not having an effect, who's to make a one joint rule?
I never said there were many moral reasons not to drug test. Are there some, sure. There are also moral reasons against abortion, but we still allow it. You know why? Because sometimes we have to strike a balance. Somtimes the scales are tipped in one direction more than the other, but it all depends on your perspective.
First of all, the military is the largest organization that drug tests. Smaller, blue collar companies are NOT the dominate users of drug tests, partly because of the costs. And, when these companies do test, it USUALLY is for sensitive positions, such as those who have to use company vehicles, or have extensive contact with the public, that sort of thing. So, drug testing really isn't harming the people you think it is.
I agree that not all jobs should be tested, especially jobs that aren't sensitive. But, you have the freedom to choose where to work, it't not as if someone is forcing your hand to work at just one place that drug tests its employyes. Again, I offer the following. If you seriously can't find a job that doesn't drug test, and working is THAT important to you, perhaps examining the role of drugs in your life should be the next step, not screaming at the system.
The Califronia system works a bit like this, as an example:
Under a balancing test, an employee shows a violation of the right to privacy if he or she has a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances and the employer's testing violated that expectation. Employers can take affirmative steps to reduce the reasonableness of an employee's expectation of privacy, such as adopting a clear policy stating when and how testing will be administered, providing written advance notice and requiring employees to agree prior to employment that they will submit to testing. On the other hand, an employee's privacy rights are strongest if there is no notice or if the particular process used is very humiliating or invasive.
Even if the employee shows that his or her reasonable expectation of privacy has been infringed upon, drug testing is still lawful if the employer can demonstrate that its legitimate business need for the test outweighs the employee's privacy rights. The employer is on strongest ground when the employee's job deals with the safety or security of others, or when it has a reasonable suspicion that the employee is using drugs at work.
We could debate this for hours, but it won't change anything. You think drug testing is bad all the time, I think it has its place in some situations. The courts have ruled in my favor, but have gone too far in my opinion, espeically allowing testing in the schools.
And, my guess is someone who has a nasty coke or meth habit is going to test positive just about any day of the week, so yes, I believe testing can be a useful tool for employers. Consider this, my employee Jim works hard, seems to be doing everything right. His name comes up in a random test and he tests positive for cocaine. As an employer, even with his good work, I would not want him as part of my staff. I know many coke and meth users, and they are, or at times can be, shady people. They may one day need to steal money their fix, miss work, who knows. The point is, and I believe it is undeniable, a drug user, by his or very nature of using drugs, inreases the likelihood of probems at work. Does this mean all users are bad? No. But, why take that risk, especially when I have to worry about the success of my company? If you are that dead-set on having your right to snort coke or smoke a bowl, and you're working for me, in what I deem a sensitive position, you're damn right I'm going to tell you to find a new job.
As far as my pilot scenario, you missed my point. YOU, as a passenger of this pilot know he did some mad drugs about 4 or 5 days ago. Since you are focusing on sobriety and not things in his system, are you honestly still going to pick this pilot over another who you know hasn't used drugs? It's scary, because if there weren't drug testing, you could be getting on a plane with a pilot who was up all night the night before in Las Vegas doing lines off his hotel bathroom counter. I just don't buy your argument that he is going to be normal the next day.
Furthermore, I stress again this is from my experience, weed is not a one day thing. I would never smoke weed the week I have an exam or have to write a paper. Maybe that's me. But even if it is just me, why take the risk that it could be other people too who are limited after smoking weed. And, even if you were right about one joint not having an effect, who's to make a one joint rule?
I never said there were many moral reasons not to drug test. Are there some, sure. There are also moral reasons against abortion, but we still allow it. You know why? Because sometimes we have to strike a balance. Somtimes the scales are tipped in one direction more than the other, but it all depends on your perspective.
First of all, the military is the largest organization that drug tests. Smaller, blue collar companies are NOT the dominate users of drug tests, partly because of the costs. And, when these companies do test, it USUALLY is for sensitive positions, such as those who have to use company vehicles, or have extensive contact with the public, that sort of thing. So, drug testing really isn't harming the people you think it is.
I agree that not all jobs should be tested, especially jobs that aren't sensitive. But, you have the freedom to choose where to work, it't not as if someone is forcing your hand to work at just one place that drug tests its employyes. Again, I offer the following. If you seriously can't find a job that doesn't drug test, and working is THAT important to you, perhaps examining the role of drugs in your life should be the next step, not screaming at the system.
The Califronia system works a bit like this, as an example:
Under a balancing test, an employee shows a violation of the right to privacy if he or she has a reasonable expectation of privacy under the circumstances and the employer's testing violated that expectation. Employers can take affirmative steps to reduce the reasonableness of an employee's expectation of privacy, such as adopting a clear policy stating when and how testing will be administered, providing written advance notice and requiring employees to agree prior to employment that they will submit to testing. On the other hand, an employee's privacy rights are strongest if there is no notice or if the particular process used is very humiliating or invasive.
Even if the employee shows that his or her reasonable expectation of privacy has been infringed upon, drug testing is still lawful if the employer can demonstrate that its legitimate business need for the test outweighs the employee's privacy rights. The employer is on strongest ground when the employee's job deals with the safety or security of others, or when it has a reasonable suspicion that the employee is using drugs at work.
We could debate this for hours, but it won't change anything. You think drug testing is bad all the time, I think it has its place in some situations. The courts have ruled in my favor, but have gone too far in my opinion, espeically allowing testing in the schools.
Last edited:
