Hi John Pen,

I didn't think you were harsh. The moderators will quickly let you know if you are. It's just that in this forum we seem to appreciate opinions that are a man's own. When you said you were beginning to sound like your dad I suppose you meant it as a compliment, but to my eyes it looked as though you were simply parroting him, rather than thinking through the subject yourself.

This is an issue about your personal freedoms, and a lot of people, for good reason, are very concerned about how they are eroding daily before our very eyes. It is not about an impaired school bus driver and your kids. I wish you would read this thread from beginning to the end, consider it, and then repost your opinion. If it's unchanged, I'll respect that, but then I'll know it's your own opinion.

regards

 

billsco,

Just went through and read all 5 pages again...talk about a can of worms....

Ok, first off, re: sounding like my dad, I was refering to what my opinion would have been in 1974 as opposed to what it is in 2004. In '74 Im sure my opinion would have been totally different than now, with my present opinion sounding like something my dad would have said back then...totally my opinion now though...

Ill still stand with the fact that Im ok with drug testing. I dont like the process as it really tells nothing more than whether or not a person has done a specific drug in the past x amt. of days. A more effective test would be one to measure whether the person is using drugs\under the inflence while in the employers charge. Unfortunitly , I havent heard of that test yet. On my job, if im involved in an incedent or accident, I am mandated to be drug tested. This was a term of employment that I new when I was hired. But, I havent heard of a better test yet..Im sure somewhere there someone comming up with a more comprehensive test..

Just a note...I have a close friend who neither drinks nor does drugs ( Ive known him forever and believe this to be 100 percent true). last year he went for a drug test as a condition of a summer side job he works and tested positive. He was immed. removed from the position (one he's had for over 10 years). It took legal action and another test, both at his own cost, to get things straightened around....So I do know first hand that there are two sides to everything...

Ive got a few more ideas to throw out, but I think Ill stew on them a bit more before putting it in print

 

I am "randomly" tested about half a dozen times a year

Down side: It bugs the hell out of me to take the test, because in the AF, there’s someone standing there watching you do your thing (talk about stage fright!).

Up side: There is no doubt in my mind that the guy standing guard for me with an M-16 isn't stoned and neither is the guy turning the wrench on the plane I’m about ride in.

 

I disagee. military drug testing is done in batches. They test 1 in 12 bottles. If a bottle pops positive they test the rest of those twelve. 1-12 chance to beat it. It isn't there to catch people its there to deter them.

P.S. could you imagine the lab trying to test all 200 specimens in a company versus 12-15! Remember lowest bidder!

P.S.S. On a side note, what if a fellow employee had the card making it legal for them to smoke pot. Would you look at him any different then another employee who likes to tie one on? Is there a difference?

 

I work for a Fortune 100 Company that just instituted mandatory drug testing. To be "PC", they are randomly selecting 25% of their employees, annually, to submit a hair sample for drug testing. One of the first tested was a VP, pure show, no doubt.
I think that this is a horrible trend that is taking place in industry today. I wonder why the ACLU isn't up in arms about it. I guess it isn't "fringe" enough for them.

 

I am a big fan of testing, suprise testing everyone too.
One day I walked into work, and several nurses and assistants were in the bay. Urine tests and an breathalzers for everyone. At 8am a few people were sent home for being over the legal alcohol limit. Several were sent home the next day for controlled substances in their system. Ofcourse counseling and treatment were provided for up two months, after which, if you couldnt pass the screening, you were let go.
All of this just to work EMS. Yea, I'm for testing.

 

I have no problem with testing. It's the random testing without cause that troubles me. Maybe we should start random STD testing of employees, too? Genetic testing for predisposition towards alcoholism? Cancer? Sickel Cell Anemia? Diabetes? Heart disease? Where does it end?
I'm sure that a company could make the argument that it's just trying to limit its health insurance benefit expenditures, after all.

If and employee shows up stoned, by all means test him. But if it doesn't affect his job, it's nothing more than another intrusion into our private lives.
If you are an airlines pilot, bus driver, or anyone in a position that risks others' lives, that's one thing, but janitor John Q Public isn't putting anyone's life at risk.

 

I can agree with that to a point.
Lets say your a business owner. This is all your money we're talking about. Its your lifestyle, your product, and your and your families name on the line out there.
Do you want your counter person stoned? Do you want a stoned employee producing 2nd rate stuff because its all good to him? Is it okay if your accountant is wacked out on drugs? How about that janitor.....smokin the reefer in the closet, comes out, mops the floor, leaves it wet, doesnt post a sign. Someone slips and falls............thats a million dollar lawsuit you have to fight. Your lawyer is on acid......at your trial. Wow dude. Now the question remains........is it okay for all those people to be stoned on your time, money and reputation? A blatant risk to you families stability isnt it?

 

As I said above, if it doesn't affect their performance, I would never know, nor should I. If it does affect their performance, then I agree that they should be tested. To me, this is no different from random sobriety checks on the highway. I see them as an illegal invasion of privacy. Innocent until proven guilty SHOULD have some meaning, IMHO.

 

Appearantly you nor your car are in Texas. I believe its the no insurance drunk driver capitol of the world. Sobriety check points are to keep people alive. The guilty get mad, the innocent appreiciate the help in staying safe. Drinking does effect ones performance with driving....therefore according to your statement..... "if it doesn't affect their performance, I would never know, nor should I. If it does affect their performance, then I agree that they should be tested." ......consistancy would dictate random checks of sober drivers would be okay with you?
I say 'sober' drivers because, ofcourse, everyone is innocent till proven guilty.

 

My two cents,
It is all about creating more jobs.
Look at all the testing that is going on in every aspect of your life.
Different driving tests
Contractor license tests
Drug tests
Construction equipment operator tests

That is just a few of the many that I am aware of.
Think about the millions of people employed to:
devise the test
administer the test
check results
inform the testee
council or educate the testee
keep track of all the above

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by peppy
Appearantly you nor your car are in Texas. I believe its the no insurance drunk driver capitol of the world. Sobriety check points are to keep people alive. The guilty get mad, the innocent appreiciate the help in staying safe. Drinking does effect ones performance with driving....therefore according to your statement..... "if it doesn't affect their performance, I would never know, nor should I. If it does affect their performance, then I agree that they should be tested." ......consistancy would dictate random checks of sober drivers would be okay with you?

Wrong. If you're not exhibiting suspicious behavior then there's NO REASON to pull you over. And maybe SOME of the innocent don't like being treated like suspects just because they happen to be out driving on the wrong highway.
I've heard the argument "Well, you don't have to worry if you're not doing something wrong" so many times I could scream. Since when do we have to sit still and have our freedom and rights trampled over? "Oh it's only a full body cavity search; you don't have anything to worry about as long as you're innocent....Now, bend over"


I say 'sober' drivers because, ofcourse, everyone is innocent till proven guilty.

I could care less if someone's legally drunk if he's driving in a legal manner. Ben Franklin had it right.