Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!mcewan
From: mcewan@uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU
Newsgroups: net.misc
Subject: Re: Drug testing
Message-ID: <10600214@uiucdcs>
Date: Fri, 30-May-86 19:04:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.10600214
Posted: Fri May 30 19:04:00 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Jun-86 10:12:55 EDT
References: <1929@ihlpg.UUCP>
Lines: 44
Nf-ID: #R:ihlpg.UUCP:1929:uiucdcs:10600214:000:1982
Nf-From: uiucdcs.CS.UIUC.EDU!mcewan    May 30 18:04:00 1986


>>> in a union shop better or qualified does not make any difference. The only
>>> criteria is time at the job. If you had any idea how it must feel to
>>> work with someone on a plate shear knowing he's just had a lunch of 2 jays
>>> you might see what I mean.
>> 
>>     And of course, since a four martini lunch could leave someone just as
>> debilitated, you would support firing anyone who had drunk any alcohol within
>> the last month, right?
> 
> First - I have no idea what your point is.

Simple. The drug testing which you appear to be endorsing would detect
any exposure to THC in the last month. If you aggree that alcohol misuse is
as dangerous as marijuana misuse, than to be consistent you would have to
support the firing of anyone who had used any alcohol up to a month before
hiring.

> If you mean would I fire someone who came back from a 4 martini lunch and
> did not perform thier job duties in a *safe* manner, my answer is this.
> 
> If it was determined that this person was an alcholic, I would treat it
> as a disease and make treatment a requirement to continue the job. If it
> was determined that he/she was not an alcoholic but merely irresponsible
> I would definitely consider job termination especially if this had happened
> more than once.

Is there any reason to treat other drug usage differently? (Yeah, I know,
"it's illegal" - but that argument is ultimately circular since it begs
the question "WHY is it illegal?").

> In a nutshell, if you come back from lunch stoned or drunk do not
> expect any breaks from an employer.  I will concede the point that
> the current tests are not adequate because of the reliability of the
> results. Being penalized for Friday night fun because of the THC
> level you exhibit on Monday. HMMMMMMM...I think I have changed my mind
> again...
> 
> I am re-converted (no thanks to you Jeff).

		Scott McEwan
		{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan

"The entire universe is permeated with the smell of turpentine."