Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ames.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!hplabs!ames!barry From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) Newsgroups: net.followup Subject: Re: Drug Testing Message-ID: <1449@ames.UUCP> Date: Thu, 20-Mar-86 21:20:28 EST Article-I.D.: ames.1449 Posted: Thu Mar 20 21:20:28 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 22-Mar-86 21:59:21 EST References: <143@hhb.UUCP> <1837@brl-smoke.ARPA> Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 76 From Brint Cooper (brl!abc): >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. So why isn't ethyl alcohol illegal? And who, by the way, is EDS? Do they design radars and medical equipment? This is not a rhetorical question, I really don't know. >>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. Give that man a cigar! We don't let cops search our houses without probable cause, why should it be legal for anyone to force us to submit to a search of our bodies for no reason? > 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? Drunk driving is illegal; drinking isn't. With a little thought, you can probably see some guideline here for appropriate drug laws. > And science seems to be finding that the effects of >pot seem to linger 24 hours or more after they're no longer detectable. The wonders of science :-). I knew those guys were good, but I didn't know that they can now detect the undetectable! And what have *you* been smoking, besides that cigar I just gave you? :-) > Does that mean I should be pro-drug? Just what were you >smoking when you wrote your note? This is a civil liberties issue. One need not be pro-drug to see a problem with random invasions of privacy made under the guise of fighting a "war on drugs". >>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. The article you're responding to never appeared at our site, and perhaps the parts that offended you were not included in your article. If this is not the case, then I'm at a loss to understand why you're so offended. The quotes you include condemn enforced drug tests on random citizens; they do not support drug use. You say you aren't real pleased about this kind of testing, either. So what's your gripe with the original article? Sure sign of the anti-drug fanatic: they refer to all use of drugs as "drug abuse". - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry