Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucsfcgl.ucsfcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!arnold
From: arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL)
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: Urinalysis...Lie Detectors...all th ( really drug safety )
Message-ID: <9857@ucsfcgl.ucsfcgl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-May-86 21:54:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucsfcgl.9857
Posted: Wed May 21 21:54:52 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 24-May-86 21:31:25 EDT
References: <402@bu-cs.UUCP> <108@gumby.UUCP> <1239@dual.UUCP> <287@gumby.UUCP> <1486@udenva.UUCP> <929@puff.UUCP>
Reply-To: arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL)
Organization: Computer Graphics Laboratory, UCSF
Lines: 38

In article <929@puff.UUCP> mading@puff.UUCP writes:
>In article <1486@udenva.UUCP>, showard@udenva.UUCP (Mr. Blore) writes:
>> 
>> Research has _proven_ LSD to be non-addictive.  
>> 
>Research has also proven that LSD is a hallugenic drug. It should not
>be tolerated. I could not hire anyone who uses LSD as that person
>might have hallucinations on the job and make a big error that would
>cause major problems.

Alchohol is hallucinagenic.  In other words, when under the influence
of alchohol, one sees, feels, or hears things that would not be seen,
heard, or felt if not under its influence.

LSD is also hallucinagenic in this way.  When under its influence, one
sees, feels, or hears things that would not be seen, heard, or felt if
not under its influence.

When not under the influence, there are no such affects.  Therefore, a
user of LSD who does not work under its influence will not have
hallucinations on the job.  An irresonsible user (of any drug) may,
indeed, have job-affecting problems, but there is nothing unique about
LSD in this regard.  (The much-touted "flashback" is a myth; it has
never been experienced by any person of my acquaintance who has used
LSD (anecdotal evidence), nor has any scientific study been able to
discern such a phenomenon.)  I have not heard any person contend that
an employer who has reasonable cause to suspect that any drug is
interfering with an employee's performance should *not* be allowed to
take steps.

Mr. Madding, you continue to operate with prejudices and myths as
facts.  Since you are addressing hypothetical issues, as far as I can
tell, this is only sad.  Should you some day be in the position to hire
or fire people, it will become more than sad.  It will become an
interference in the privacy of your employees without any reasonable
cause.  Please inform yourself before you get in such a position.

		Ken Arnold