thats a pretty good idea. even better if they ask for a blood sample. just slit your throat right in front of your boss...

Good idea, try that and get back to me.

ill slit your ass with my penis you fahg

You're going to forcibly put your penis in my ass? And you're calling me the dong huffer?

Looks like you should lay off the angel dust, Ike, and take a long look in the mirror.

did you have to do research to reach that winded conclusion?

Nothing wrong with drug testing. If you haven't done anything you shouldn't, you have nothing to worry about. Employers want to know that they have employees worthy of the investment they make in them and that they are not likely to have accidents caused by the fact they are under the influence of drugs/alcohol. Ballplayers get drug tested all the time.

Nothing wrong with drug testing. If you haven't done anything you shouldn't, you have nothing to worry about. Employers want to know that they have employees worthy of the investment they make in them and that they are not likely to have accidents caused by the fact they are under the influence of drugs/alcohol. Ballplayers get drug tested all the time.

Ike's employer doesn't own him. All he needs to worry about is his performance on the job. Ballplayers aren't workers. They're entertainers. Someone should drug test Phil Mickelson.

Nothing wrong with drug testing. If you haven't done anything you shouldn't, you have nothing to worry about. Employers want to know that they have employees worthy of the investment they make in them and that they are not likely to have accidents caused by the fact they are under the influence of drugs/alcohol. Ballplayers get drug tested all the time.

In that case do you mind if I or the police come over to your house later and investigate whether or not you have any contraband in your house? After all, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about.

If the police had any reason to believe that there were drugs in my home and asked for my consent to search, I would grant them permission. You....not so much. You have no authority and there would be no reason for me to grant you permission. The only contraband I have ever had in my home was Cuban cigars (Cohiba) that were smoked long ago. They were outstanding though....The point is really that the employer wants to be assured that for safety reasons, he doesn't have people with drug/alcohol problems posing a safety risk while in his employ. Who wants disability claims due to some stoned asshole getting hurt?

If we want to be sure that people aren't up to no good (ie. growing/smoking weed, downloading music/movies illegally, housing illegal immigrants, running a brothel, tearing mattress tags off, etc.) in their homes or apartments why not make random police searches mandatory for anyone who wants to own a home or rent an apartment?

Employers don't test employees just to see if they are up to no good. You want to be sure nobody is coming to work under the influence of drugs/alcohol and presenting a danger to themselves or others. As stated earlier, no employer wants a disability claim made because some druggie gets hurt (or gets someone else hurt) due to the fact they are under the influence of drugs. It's about safety.

Employers don't test employees just to see if they are up to no good. You want to be sure nobody is coming to work under the influence of drugs/alcohol and presenting a danger to themselves or others. As stated earlier, no employer wants a disability claim made because some druggie gets hurt (or gets someone else hurt) due to the fact they are under the influence of drugs. It's about safety.

Except for the silly little fact that drug tests really don't tell you if someone is coming to work under the influence, do they? You can find out if someone has BEEN under the influence sometime over the last 3-4 days for harder drugs or 30 days for weed, but really not if someone is UNDER the influence currently.
It's not really about safety.

Exactly. If someone's errant spliff lights their house on fire and subsequently burns down my house, or if someone backs over my son in my condo complex while high on goofballs I'm going to sue the perpetrator's insurance company. If I win everyone else's insurance rates go up. Wouldn't it be better for everyone if we were able to avoid these claims by having people live under the fear of random searches?

It allows the employer to know only if that person is using drugs, not necessarily when they were taken/used. But if you know someone is using, the prudent thing to do, is to terminate their employment to ensure that they don't pose a safety risk. Even if one used drugs the night before, the subject may still be under the influence to some degree. Safety is most definitely the number one reason for testing for many employers.

There is no fear of random drug tests, if the employee isn't using any drugs.

There is no fear of random drug tests, if the employee isn't using any drugs.

And there's no fear of random house searches if you aren't using any drugs.

So can I just kinda come into your bedroom and look thru your drawers? I mean if you have no drugs then obviously there's nothing there that you would have reason to wish privacy over right?