Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!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: <12250749796.19.MCGREW@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Wed, 29-Oct-86 16:38:31 EST
Article-I.D.: RED.12250749796.19.MCGREW
Posted: Wed Oct 29 16:38:31 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Oct-86 06:27:54 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 82
Approved: poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu


    [ On urine tests, its easy to fake it.  ... you'll have to watch
    your subject urinate, and take the container from him/her; unless
    you want to strip-search the subject... - CWM]

  I do oppose drug tests.  I think they are a stupid idea.  Certainly
if people are to be allowed to smoke tobacco at work, they should be
allowed to shoot heroin and snort cocaine.  Those may interfere with
their productivity - in which case their employer should tell them to
straighten out or leave the company - but they are not as likely to
interfere with other employee's productivity as is smoking.
  In any case, I do not think it is really any business of an employer
to enquire into what a person does on their own time.  If it decreases
their productivity, the employer should be concerned about that and
only about that.  There may be people who can do better work drunk
than I can sober.  They should not be fired.
  I have in fact complained to the management of the company I work
for about their requirement for all new employees to take a urine
test.

  HOWEVER, I firmly believe that a person's association with their
employer should be purely voluntary, which means that either party can
terminate the association at any time for any reason.  Employers have
the right to require urine tests of employees as a condition of
employment.  Similarly employees have the right to require urine tests
of their supervisors as a condition of employment.  Either party has
the right to refuse such a test, in which case the other party can end
the association or not as he or she sees fit.
  An employer can examine tea leaves to decide who to hire or fire.
An employee can cast horoscopes to decide which company to work for
and what salary to ask for.  I agree that these aren't rational.  But
there is no limit on individual rights that says that they only apply
if they are used rationally.  If there were such a restriction, the
rights would be worthless since they would be at the whim of whatever
bureaucrats set themselves up as supreme arbiters of reasonableness.
  But no two people ever quite agree on what is reasonable.  If Pat
Robertson were to be elected, all sorts of things would be considered
reasonable and unreasonable by the administration that would come as
quite a shock to non-fundamentalists who are not part of the
government.  Should the rights of the latter be vetoed by the former?
Is there such a thing as inappropriate use of the first amendment, for
instance?  Voltaire is supposed to have said "I disagree with what you
say but will fight to the death for your right to say it".  Today, it
seems, people would add "... so lng as it isn't TOO disagreeable, and
so long as Meese doesn't find it obscene".
  So what rights do businessmen have?  Less than the rest of us?  The
supreme court seems to think so.  Several times in recent years they
have concluded that "commercial speech" is less protected that other
forms.  This term "commercial speech" does not appear anywhere in the
constitution.  Does anyone know where it came from?  Marx, perhaps?
  They have ruled that cigarettes cannot be advertised on radio or TV,
and seem close to ruling that they cannot be advertised in the print
media either.  Nobody hates cigarettes more than I do, and I make it a
point never to buy magazines in which cigarettes are advertised, and
to encourage others to do the same, but I would be willing to fight to
protect the tobacco companies' freedom of speech.  I couldn't disagree
with their message more if they were advertising communism, but they
have the right to say what they choose no matter how repugnant to how
many or to whom.
  The right of free association is just as valuable as the right of
free speech.  Nobody can be compelled to associate or to not associate
with anyone against their will.  Just as nobody can be compelled to
speak or to keep silent against their will.  Anti-discrimination laws
have casually discarded this fundamental right, and for no benefit.
  You think there is a benefit?  Well, if women work just as hard as
men, and are willing to work for a lower salary than men, then a
company which discriminates against women is at a strong competitive
disadvantage.  We don't NEED anti-discrimination laws, even if we
could somehow have them without violating more fundamental rights.
Their only function seems to be to stir up old antagonisms, to make
employers look like bad guys, to encourage members of officially
recognized minority groups to become more strident instead of more
competent in order to advance, and to encourage million dollar
lawsuits instead of years of hard work to become wealthy, and in
general to soften us up for further socialist steps.
  The most dangerous enemies of this country aren't in Moscow, but in
Washington.  You don't need to consult secret papers or look for
microfilm in pumpkins to find out who they are.  Just look at their
voting records.
                                                              ...Keith

-------