Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!caip!lll-crg!lll-lcc!ucdavis!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!arnold
From: arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: Urinalysis...Lie Detectors...all th
Message-ID: <9840@ucsfcgl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 5-May-86 14:25:38 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucsfcgl.9840
Posted: Mon May  5 14:25:38 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 8-May-86 08:40:13 EDT
References: <402@bu-cs.UUCP> <108@gumby.UUCP> <1239@dual.UUCP> <287@gumby.UUCP> <632@tekig5.UUCP> <884@puff.UUCP>
Reply-To: arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold)
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab
Lines: 64

In article <884@puff.UUCP> mading@puff.UUCP (Eric Mading) writes:
>> In fact, I would rather hire someone who has a knowledge of drugs and
>> their affects, better education equals better drug awareness.
>> 
>But do you have to use drugs to have a knowledge of durgs?  NO.  And I
>would rather hire someone with a knowledge of drugs and their affects,
>because then they would know to stay off them.

Considering that Eric stated that (a) one hit of marijuana gets you
high for a month, (b) caffeine is not addictive, (c) marijuana is very
addicitive, and (d) LSD is very addictive, I would contend that he is
hardly the person to be telling us where people should get about
knowledge of drugs.  He could use some basic education himself, free
from propaganda.  For example

	Marijuana is not addictive, nor is LSD, with the normal
	exceptions about peculiar individuals, such exceptions existing
	for every drug in existence.

	Caffeine is addictive, in the normal sense of the word.  People
	become reliant upon it for basic daily acts, and quitting has
	withdrawal symptoms and cravings.  It is not, by any means, the
	most addictive drug, but it sure beats the heck out of
	marijuana or LSD, which do not generate chemical dependencies.

Another concept he might think about is that his (putative?) employees
have a reasonable expectation of privacy.  If he wishes to regulate
off-hours activities of his employees, he should state so at hiring.
If he wishes to invade their privacy with drug tests not engendered by
syspicions raised by on-the-job performance, he is (I belive -- there
has been no legal resolution of this question) invading their right to
privacy just as surely as if he had conducted a search of their houses
without court warrant.  More so, maybe, since my body is certainly more
personal and private than where I happen to lay my head down to sleep
at night.

While we're at this, Eric has changed his mind, due to arguments posted
on the net, about his statement that drugs are made illegal due to
their addictive properties, which is clearly false.  I admire people
who are open to re-evaluating their opinions upon presentation of
evidence.  However, his resolution of this is less than appealing.
Citing Prohibition, he states that making tobacco illegal would not
work.  This is proably true.  However, he says that the less popular a
drug, the more properly it is made illegal.  Two counter-arguments come
to mind.

	(1) Eric's argument about Prohibition is reasonably
	    compelling.  Why doesn't it apply to marijuana, cocaine,
	    and other popular illegal recreational drugs?  It sounds
	    like it does to me.  Marijuana has been illegal for over 50
	    years.  Has it disappeared?  Is it possible that its
	    illegality actually *contributes* to its popularity?
	    (Hint: This is a rhetorical question)

	(2) If only one person in the country likes drug X, but drug
	    X, as used by that individual, causes no harm to those
	    around that person, or serious harm to that person, should
	    drug X be made illegal because it is unpopular?  What
	    *should* the popularity of a drug have to do with whether
	    it is legal?  I would argue none -- the popularity of an
	    action which causes no public harm should have nothing to
	    do with its legality.  (The definition of public harm may
	    be the only issue here -- certainly definitions will
	    differ.)