Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hao!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!abc From: abc@brl-smoke.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: Drug Testing Message-ID: <1837@brl-smoke.ARPA> Date: Fri, 14-Mar-86 23:40:08 EST Article-I.D.: brl-smok.1837 Posted: Fri Mar 14 23:40:08 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 18-Mar-86 01:44:36 EST References: <143@hhb.UUCP> Reply-To: abc@brl-smoke.UUCP (Brint Cooper (SECAD/CSMB) ) Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL) Lines: 103 In article <143@hhb.UUCP> bcb@hhb.UUCP (Bob BField) writes: > >I recently heard on some AM news station that Our Friend E.D.S. conducts >drug testing on some employees. This shows us just what kind of company >concerns itself with such victimless crimes as the use of illegal substances. Victimless crime? Yeah, drug abuse is victimless until some programmer, judgement impaired by chemicals, write incorrect software to control biomedical instrumentation, air traffic control radars, or some other crucial function. >The thing drug-free people don't understand about this new fanaticism to >test for drugs, is that it resembles the way we behaved toward former >members of the Communist Party during the 50's. Note how professional >athletes must fess-up to their sins in public, denounce drugs, agree >to future testing. Oh, what a day for an auto-da-fe'!* In the 50's, Maybe wholesale drug testing of present and prospective employees is an abuse. I certainly would resent being arbitrarily selected for random or blanket drug testing without some reasonable suspicion. But let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. We're now hearing of airline pilots using pot and coke while flying. I suppose this is victimless, too? And science seems to be finding that the effects of pot seem to linger 24 hours or more after they're no longer detectable. >Does anyone remember Nancy's War-on-Drugs? She traveled around the >country and the globe lecturing audiences on how drugs are bad. Does >anyone remember those by-gone days when her husband, acting as >President of the Screen Actor's Guild, told the public that the Guild >would not participate in blacklisting? Of course, Guild members were >required to have their names cleared with the American Foreign Legion >as a simple, painless loyalty check. You're confusing issues. Are you against mass drug testing or you in favor of unrestricted substance abuse or both? I'm no Reagan fan, either. Does that mean I should be pro-drug? Just what were you smoking when you wrote your note? > >I should not simplify this complicated issue. After all, Professional >Sports is house-cleaning to improve its tarnished image. Drugs abounded >among professional athletes for quite some time. News coverage of it is >recent. Were it not for the Drug Scandal, testing would not be the problem >that it is becoming. Pro athletes, unfortunately, are role models for many of the depressed kids who turn to drugs and for whom you profess so much concern. Much is demanded from those to whom much has been given; the pro athletes have called attention to a severe problem that we should have been working on all along. > >Another observation: Drug testing punishes drug users, not pushers. People >who blow a joint, snort some lines, drop a pill, or down a shot every now >and then do not damage our social fabric. People who abuse grass, cocaine, >speed, alcohol to the point that it affects the way they function at work, >do not damage our social fabric either. They are the rent in our social >fabric that we wish to mend. Punishing severe drug abusers pushes them to >more extensive abuse. They have more to escape from. Well, there are enough unwarranted, unproven assertions in that paragraph to run this news group for the next year. I suppose that the Chessie System engineer who killed a few folks in a wreck caused by his error committed when he was 'high' on something didn't cause any damage to our 'social fabric?' > >We have a serious drug problem in America. Impoverished teenagers turn to >drugs to escape their miserable lives. Other impoverished teenagers get high school diplomas, financial aid, athletic scholarshops, and educations and lift themselves up by their own bootstraps. > >Nancy would like to solve the Drug Problem, but all she can do is stand before >an audience to speak her mind. She is unable to stop the flow of drugs >and alcohol. In the interim, her husband wants us taxpayers to help out >Miami drug smugglers who seek to invade Nicaragua and Cuba. The Cuban Mafia >adores his vicious anti-communism. These are separate issues. Are you really making a pro-drug, anti-testing argument, or is this a "What I hate about everything" letter? > > >Drug testing is a latter-day McCarthyism. I can actually sympathize with this one. Also, I'm mightily fearful of the widespread use of lie detectors. But that is VERY DIFFERENT from wanting to make a dent in drug abuse and in things like espionage. Let's not 'throw out the baby with the bath water.' It's a good thing that this is about over. I'm rapidly losing my patience with most of this and really hope that you're pulling our collective legs. You must know that my employer is in no way responsible for my opinions. My employer knows it. -- Brint Cooper ARPA: abc@brl.arpa UUCP: ...{seismo,decvax,cbosgd}!brl!abc