Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!MC.LCS.MIT.EDU!KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU From: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU Newsgroups: mod.politics Subject: Drug tests Message-ID: <12238212472.24.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU> Date: Thu, 11-Sep-86 21:48:56 EDT Article-I.D.: RED.12238212472.24.MCGREW Posted: Thu Sep 11 21:48:56 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 12-Sep-86 08:41:49 EDT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 147 Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu From: James B Hofmann On personal beliefs and how they tie into drug testing: > That is between each individual employee and his employer. No, it is between the indivicual employee and his God. Certainly. It doesn't matter whether the employee is acting on instructions from God, or from his mother, or what. If he and his employer cannot agree on drug testing, he should seek work elsewhere. You Randroids think that just because you don't believe in God that everyone else should follow suit. I deeply resent your presumption about my religious beliefs. I have not mentioned my religious beliefs on this list simply because I do not think they are germane to the discussion. I hardly find this "symetrical" - I mean, I can't go up to my boss and ask HIM to piss in a cup and then send it away for testing, now can I? You sure can! You can tell him that is a condition of your continued employment. If he refuses to take the test, you can demand that of your next employer. If no employer is willing to do so, you will have to moderate your position or do without a job. Similarly, employers are free to ask employees to take such a test as a condition of their continued employment. If the employee refuses, the employer can demand that other employees take the test. If they all refuse, the employer can moderate his position or can do without employees. It is perfectly symmetrical. In an uncoerced economy there is no distinction between buyer and seller, and there is no distinction between employee and employer. ... To REQUIRE someone piss in a bottle and have his personal dignity trampled on in order to get a job where the safety or security of others isn't threatened is to PUT ASIDE the Constitution and the English Common Law principle of innocent until proven guilty. You misunderstand the constitution and the law. To be PRESUMED innocent until proven guilty is a right due to all criminal suspects. It has nothing to do with the behavior of private citizens and corporations. For instance if a bank suspects a teller of embezzling, they do not have to prove it in court and send him to jail in order to fire him for it. You mention jobs relating to the "safety and security of others" as an exception. Who decides which jobs those are? Doesn't the behavior of every employee affect the safety and security of fellow employees and of the company's customers and stockholders? > What about game show contestants on TV? Or people on the old > show "Candid Camera". Don't you think that behavior is > undignified? But I see no problem with it so long as > individuals agree that the compensation they are getting is > worth the indignity. You are mistaking TV with reality, Keith... ding dong. You in there? Just like Ayn, you have this problem of confusing the screen with real-life. Those game shows are fun and leisure - here we're talking about SERIOUS BUSINESS, Keith. Performing on TV is just as legitimate a job as any other. People who appear on game shows are not guaranteed a payment for their performance, but have to beg, and guess what's behind door number two, and demonstrate that they are willing to jump up and down and scream and make an ass out of themselves if they win something. Most of the people who do this do this because they need the money. Not because they think it's a neat idea to play the fool in front of millions of viewers. ... Will you then require people to get piss-tested in order to register to vote ... NO! 1) EVERYONE should be allowed to vote. Not just non-users of drugs. 2) The tests are not very reliable. 3) This discussion is about PRIVATE use of drug tests, not about government use, which I have made clear I totally oppose, just as I oppose all drug laws. What about MY grounds and MY right to apply for the job on the basis of my ability ... What about it? If you and your potential employer reach a meeting of minds on salary, job requirements, etc, nobody is stopping you. YOU are trying to infringe the employer's right to set requirements as he sees fit. ... what happens after a postitive is found on a person ... Well, if the employer intends to not hire people who test positive, the person who tests positive will not be hired. ... will the employer then forward the results to the authorities...? Well, as you know I oppose laws against drug use. In fact, as far as I know there ARE NO laws against drug use, only against possession, buying, selling, and manufacture. In any case, a positive urine test is not reliable enough to base a prosecution on. ... Will the employer eventually be required to forward the results to the police? ... You are not arguing against anything *I* advocate. In order to be fair to EVERYONE, the U.S. goverment will either have to make drug testing a priori ILLEGAL or have EVERYONE in the U.S. tested. People, even employers, have the right to be unfair. You seem to totally misunderstand my position. It doesn't matter if the employer uses a crystal ball and a horoscope to make employment decisions. That is his right. He has the right to be stupid. So, in essence what you are saying is that the employer should round up all the unemployed and give them piss tests and then file away everything (with cc's to the gov't of course) and classify everyone on the basis of a test that is 90% effective. No. In fact I got chewed out by my supervisor for having complained to our personnel officer about our company's drug tests. The personnel officer said that the tests were 99% accurate (which I disputed) and that it was none of my business anyway since I wouldn't have to take one, only new employees would. She also insinuated that maybe I was a drug user myself if I felt that way about the tests. I pointed out to her all the arguments that you have used, and I also said that I was aware of some employees who use drugs, and that they are more productive than others who don't. I said that the company should measure the worth of an employee to the company by examining the employee's work output, not his bladder output. My contention on this list is not that I think the drug tests are good (I don't) or that I think they are reliable (I don't), but that I think they are none of GOVERNMENT'S business. Just because somebody is doing something foolish is no reason to pass a new law. We have more laws than anyone can keep track of already. Do most of them do any good? ...Keith -------