the best part is that while all y'all quibble on about whether people should be drug tested, HSBC execs are too important to be prosecuted for laundering $80bil of cartel money down in latin/south america.

one thing i'll give our wonderful country: there's never a problem getting drugs here.

_________________

Stop attacking the job creators!!

_________________

this is no attack. i love their product. it serenades me with this song

_________________

Not really. In reality, they gave the government less power than anything they had been familiar with. They went as far as they thought they could.


So you're dismissing the Bill of Rights?

They knew times would change, that's why things were left open. Not because they thought the government should slowly takeover.



The power and rights of the individual were still way more valued back then.

People dont even want freedom anymore

I don't believe in any of the Constitution except the part about the right to bear arms.

_________________
Anybody here seen my old friend Bobby?
Can you tell me where he's gone?
I thought I saw him walkin' up to The Hill
With Elon, Tulsi, and Don

_________________

Couldn't one argue that drug testing identifies people who willingly break the law? If I run a company, employing people who don't break the law would be important. Especially in this market, where I can probably find an equal or better replacement who doesn't do that.

I understand it was better than most other countries but they gave a lot of power to the government. They basically said "anything we don't specifically grant is up to the individual states". The 10th amendment gave the government more power than it took away with the other 9.
The 10th amendment leaves everything else up to the states.

Now, states rights pretty much eroded, likely helping the United States function better as a country, but much of the work of the founding fathers was done more as a reaction to the treatment they received from a central authority and less about individual freedoms. The freedoms they granted are based in large part in how the King of England used them against the Colonies.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

So every person you employ should have a breathlyzer thing installed on your car so you can't operate it while under the influence. And your boss should randomally drop by your house and search through your things too.

_________________

What about the guys that steal cable, illegally download music and movies, cheat on their taxes, drive drunk, or beat their wives? Should we develop tests for employers to catch these law breakers?

_________________
Good people drink good beer - Hunter S. Thompson

<º)))><

Waiting for the time when I can finally say
That this has all been wonderful, but now I'm on my way

If they wanted to, sure. But then people wouldn't work for that company. Drug tests are common, and there is a reasonable expectation that you shouldn't do drugs due to the illegality and the potential negative effects on your work.

"We" shouldn't, but if a company really wanted to do that, they could. I (and everyone else), just wouldn't work there.

But driving drunk is a much more serious crime, with much severe penalties vs. getting caught smoking a little pot at a weekend party. Why shouldn't companies want to keep out the more serious criminals?

_________________

Maybe they should?

Drug tests are generally acceptable, so employers use them as a tool.

You have it reversed here. Ignition locks are an attempt to stop someone from doing an illegal act. Drug tests are designed to see if you have already committed one. I'd have no problem with an employer asking if you've ever gotten a DUI. In fact, I believe they do and will verify it.
They could certainly ask for this but they would be turned down. Many workplaces will search your bags upon entering or leaving.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

And again, if employers installed breathalyzers in employee's cars, people wouldn't work there. Like hardly anyone would. The majority of people pass drug tests, so it's not a major deterrent for hiring.

Many jobs will fire you if you get a DUI. What are you getting at here?

An ignition lock is not the same as a drug test. A drug test is designed to see what you have already done. An ignition lock prevents you from doing something. If there was a test to find out if you drove drunk last night I'd have no problem if I was asked to take it.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

What if it tested if you drove over .08 in the last 30 days?

I'd be fine with taking it too.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Were getting dangerously close to the alcohol vs weed debate

Lets save some time

Drinkers: Weed is illegal and irresponsible!!

Smokers: Drinking is worse especially when driving!!!


Repeat

Cool


You havent driven legally drunk since you got this job?

I'd hope not but it's of course it is possible. I passed the one random test I've had for it.

If my job depended on it and I got caught for it, I'd really not have any complaints though. It would be my fault.

_________________
You do not talk to me like that! I work too hard to deal with this stuff! I work too hard! I'm an important member of the CSFMB! I drive a Dodge Stratus!

Yes, it would be your fault that you did something that doesn't affect your work on your own time. Of course that's a great reason to get fired.

How far would you be willing to go?

Let the company decide what you eat off hours?

But in this case, you signed your letter of acceptance knowing random drug tests were a part of it. If you get caught, it's your fault. If you don't like it, don't sign it.

Has the employer? What if I want to know whether I'm enriching a druggie or drunk, or other type of criminal? As I said elsewhere, there's no reciprocity in this thing, and that's part of what bugs me about it.

And don't give me any garbage about going to find another job then, because that doesn't address my point, because I don't have any way of knowing if the next fella is a jagoff either.

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George

Reciprocity doesn't make any sense. You aren't paying him.

Correct.

I dont think its right overall, but once you sign up for it, you sign up for it.

good point but the slope is mega slippery

Id rather companies judge me on what I do at work and leave my private life private

Hey guys, I did some research this afternoon and am pleased to share that I have found the most offensive song that Elmhurst "It's purely coincidence that 'the brand' is also a term used to describe the aryan brotherhood" Steve could ever possibly hear.

I pray that somehow, someday, he's stuck waiting for a train in traffic and someone next to him with a proper audio rig in their car plays this song on repeat one a few times.

_________________

all of that only implies to people who dont interview the persons they are hiring. know who the fuck youre talking to and youll know if theyre on drugs or not.

_________________
the world will always the world. your entire existence is defined by your response.