Fly

*leaves thread w/ mouth closed*


good luck in the argument folks

__________________
BASTARD

SterlingStudios

subz

I think what an employee does on their own personal time is their own business. If I wanna light up after work or on the weekend, who is to tell me no? It doesn't hinder my job performance.

Now if I came into work all tweaked out or something then it becomes the employers business and problem.

orange monkeyee

what the hell? all of my friends cannot deny that i cook the best shit when i'm uber stoned. its a combination of understanding things in my stoned perspective of things. my greatest ideas come from me when i'm stoned. weed is brain juice, it causes more synapses to occur= more brain power (for me at least) math homework is a breeze when I'm z0n3d out of my mind, I don't know what you people are talking about being stoned and stupid, maybe it is just a stupid person toking up to begin with.

Tophat665

Folks, you are all missing the point. Corporate drug tests are not primarily tests for whether you have done drugs or not. They are tests to see that, if you do drugs, you have the self disipline not to do them when you have a good reason not to and if you have the intelligence to figure out a way to insure that you will be clean. Why else would they give you notice, as most places do?

It's not a drug test, it's an IQ test.

That said, I don't think it's anyone's business what I do with my time as long as it doesn't affect my work, or injure anyone or harm anyone's property.

As for washing dishes, how many of you waxing wroth over The_wall's expose of professional kitchen antics have ever washed dishes in a restaurant? Good lord, you have to be stoned. It's practically a job requirement. It's a filthy, soaking, incredibly hot, smelly, boring job that never ends until the restaurant closes. At the end of the day you feel like you've been beaten with sticks, and you get to take home minimum wage or less. This is not rocket science. This is (in this day and age) spray the dishes off, load them into a machine that's equal parts sauna and autoclave, pull the lever and load another rack. The parts you are worrying about are all taken care of by a machine.

How many of you have worked in a restaurant? Literally everyone I know who has worked in a restaurant did drugs of one sort or another during the time they were employed (not necessarily while working. Usually not, in fact). Almost all of them smoked cannabis, but quite a few of them also did amazing amounts of cocaine, and there were some who would drop acid every so often too.

These were not greasy spoons, either. We're talking 3 stars here.

And as for "well you shouldn't be trusted if you break the law," tell me about it next time you're speeding down the highway late for whatever. Everyone breaks the law (everyone interesting anyway). There are too many of them not to.

Nuff said.

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

raeanna74

I've done it. At a truck stop restaurant. I know what kind of job it is. I did it totally sober, and totally drug free. Are you trying to say you have to be high to be able to tolerate poor working conditions? Where are your guts? If you can't handle life with out drugs then get help or get out. Don't do my dishes or ANYTHING else while high.

It is a fact that drugs damage the ganglions in your brain. You will loose the ability to think as well if you do it too much.
What are some consequences of marijuana use?

"May cause frequent respiratory infections, impaired memory and learning, increased heart rate, anxiety, panic attacks, tolerance, and physical dependence.2
Use of marijuana during the first month of breast-feeding can impair infant motor development.3
Chronic smokers may have many of the same respiratory problems as tobacco smokers including daily cough and phlegm, chronic bronchitis symptoms, frequent chest colds; chronic abuse can also lead to abnormal functioning of lung tissues.4
A study of college students has shown that skills related to attention, memory, and learning are impaired among people who use marijuana heavily, even after discontinuing its use for at least 24 hours.5" http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/concern/mar...factsheet.html

Also if you are working at a minimun wage job - if you have any kind of family to care for then you should not be wasting your money on drugs or liquor, or tobacco either - instead of buying food and taking care of your family. Talk about irresponsible.

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

Tophat665

What the heck does guts have to do with this? I'm sorry if it offends you, but that Puritan work ethic schpiel is a load of dung. If you're doing a shit job, which, in my considered opionion and experience washing dishes most certainly is, and you don't do something to keep yourself amused, your brain gets soft and you start believing you have no right to be happy. Well no less a man than Thomas Jefferson said I certainly had a right to try to be happy, and if washing dishes is a fact of life, and getting stoned does the trick, that's my decision.

Proving one's manly by suffering for pennies? That's insane. Totally mental. If that's what sobriety does to you, I want no part of it.

(Man, we have got to figure out a way to tax self righteousness. Then we could afford its effects.)

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.

raeanna74

Your brain is already soft (if you have one at least) if you can't amuse yourself while doing a menial job without getting high. It isn't puritanial work ethic it's mind over matter. Everyone has something they have to do but don't like doing. They just do it because it needs to be done and if you need a crutch to get it done then you need help. Smoke on your own time and don't bring your pot addled brain to work for me and dont' leave me your penniless, parentless kids to care for.

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

Lebell

AHEM.

Anyway,

In highschool, our class valedictorian did his graduation speech stoned.

Fitting, as that was how he went through school.

He went to MIT. Don't know what happened to him after that.

But I've also seen workers in dangerous jobs who drink and/or smoked before, during and after the day.

To me, the problem isn't weed or booze per se, it's stupid people with additions and/or a poor work ethic.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

ApexgriN

So if a frequent weed smoker has "residue" in his/her system for two weeks (accurate) after they stop smoking, you think they are actually high for those two weeks? I think you need to look into drug testing a little further, and maybe www.dea.gov isn't the best place to do your homework.

These people are also applying for government financial aid, and can't goto school because even the smallest drug conviction means no money. However, you will be relieved to know that rapests and murderers are still good to go.

Think you "realized" all that? It was spood fed to you. Read some more on
it, from all sides.

__________________
-
apexGrin

ApexgriN

I hope you don't ski/snowboard, cause you won't anymore if you found out what most of the lifties "do" all day...

I mean jesus man, that's your life!

Of course it effects your judgement, but it doesn't always impair it. When I drive high (!) I'm much more concentrated on the driving and the drivers around me. I pay little attention to anything that does not have to do with driving the car. It's enjoyable, and it's safe (research it). I drive slower, obey more traffic laws (99.9% of them I'd say) and I've avoided some situations where the slightest distraction could have changed the outcome very much.

I'm not saying I get completely blazed and go driving, I know my limits. Do you know yours, or does somebody else know them for you?

__________________
-
apexGrin

ApexgriN

The funny thing is, the cutoff levels for tweak is much higher, 100 times as much than weed in some cases...

__________________
-
apexGrin

ApexgriN

God will tax pride, don't you worry...

Oh wait, god is fake. Nevermind.

PS: Sorry for n00b spamming.

__________________
-
apexGrin

Grasshopper Green

Rather than start a new thread, I'll just resurrect this one. Hubby and I were discussing drug testing in the workplace the other day, as both of our jobs do random tests and require tests before employment.

I don't do drugs. I have never done an illegal drug in my life, but I don't like the company I work for dictating what I can and can't do in my free time. I read the post about a company not wanting to employ someone who participates in illegal activities; what about the people who speed on their way to work? Lied on their applications? Lie on their taxes? Drink underage? Here in Utah...what about people who have any type of sex that isn't within marriage and isn't in missionary position? They participate in illegal activities...but they aren't going to get fired for them. Should anyone who does something illegal be fired?

The only real reason I can see for this is insurance or image reasons. If you are injured on the job, you may have to take a drug test...and I would imagine that the company's insurance might not pay for the care if someone was a drug user, and the company would have to pay out of pocket for the injury.

I'm not bringing this up to discuss doing drugs ON the job, just outside the job in free time. For certain jobs (such as a doctor/policeman, etc) I can see the reasoning. At my job (retail), I just don't see it except for the reasons I stated.
Any other thoughts on this?

__________________
"They say that patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings; steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king"

Formerly Medusa

maleficent

I don't have a problem with drug tests being given as a condition of employment for certain positions, I've taken enough of them over the years... Generally because I needed to be bonded as part of my employment.

However, when someone who is already employed by a company, and has not given the employer reason to suspect anything (meaning they come to work on time, do their job efficiently, and in a retail environment have not had till shortages), then a drug test is the same thing as an illegal search. It's not the employer's business.

__________________

Toaster126

My work has a post-accident drug testing policy. It seems to cover everyone's ass. The employees who break the law don't have to fear anything unless there is a problem at work, while the company can point to a failed drug test after an accident and prove that it is all the employee's fault it happened, letting them off the hook.

__________________
"The question isn't who is going to let me, it's who is going to stop me." (Ayn Rand)
"The truth is that our finest moments are most likely to occur when we are feeling deeply uncomfortable, unhappy, or unfulfilled. For it is only in such moments, propelled by our discomfort, that we are likely to step out of our ruts and start searching for different ways or truer answers." (M. Scott Peck)

Sp0rAdiC

Alright, I read through all the responses and I'm surprised nobody commented on this. I've used marijuana for less than a year, but I've had periods where I used it heavily, and periods where I didn't use it at all. But I can tell you, no matter what you're puffing, if it's weed, it won't do this to you (Unless you take a few dozen puffs, then maybe.) I think drugs might be the scapegoat in this situation, because that's a ridiculous claim. I forgot small things, like what I need to buy at the grocery store, but I don't "high dial" people and profess my love. That's more of a very drunk thing to do. The only time I've ever not remembered doing something was when I got pretty drunk, smoked a few bowls, and then drank some more. What I remember was a lot of fun, I was with a lot of people and I was safe, and I'd do it again.

I've gone to work high, and I do more/better work than people there that are sober. The thing that matters in these cases is your work ethic, not if you're high or not. I work at McDonalds, just for some spare spending money in college this semester, and it's not the most demanding job mentally. If I know it's going to be a busy night and we're going to get some busses, then I won't smoke. But if I know it'll be a slow night, why not? Just being there is mind-numbing, so I lighten it up a bit. Like I said, I get my work done, and I pick up the slack for the lazy sober people there.

Last summer I worked for an engineering/contracting firm in my hometown. I had to be there at 7am every morning, and I smoked pretty much every night. The smoking never impaired my work, and I never smoked so late that I'd have a residual high when I woke up. The company used me, and I did more for them than I should've, but that's over and done with.

Personally, I'm not very good at doing homework and schoolwork when I'm high, but I know some people that are. That's just a personal thing.

On the original topic, drug testing in the workplace: I think anything other than a post-injury or serious complaint drug test is an invasion of privacy.

highthief

A lot of people are just generally dishonest. This is just another aspect of it. Some will try and justify it one way or the other ("what I do I on my own time is my business, dude"), but at the end of the day the people who want to "fool" tests are dishonest - and certainly the last people I'd ever want working for me, because they are likely dishonest in other aspects of their lives.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

Sp0rAdiC

How does that make sense? What if an employer had a no-alcohol or no-tobacco policy, or just to create a point, no-dairy or no-sugar policy, and tested prior to employment for that? (hypothetically) All this is is the employer dictating what you can and cannot do when you are off the clock, completely on your own time. That seems as if the grasp is being extended a bit. Maybe in a case where housing and everything is provided, and you live on the employers campus or something, but other than that I don't think it's at all fair. Tobacco creates much more of an insurance risk, and alcohol is a much larger problem in the workplace and at home, so why is marijuana the bad guy?

I'm not saying it's ok to come to work high or drunk, because that would affect performance, but if you want to spark a joint at night and relax, why should that be looked at in such a different light as cracking open a cold beer?

highthief

The original point was to people trying to "fool" drug tests. People generally know, if they are going to be a cop, pilot, doctor, investment banker, or whatever, that their employer will be screening you for drugs - sometimes this is for statutory reasons and sometimes it is simply company policy.

The point is you know this when you begin working for them, and if you choose to accept the position knowing you will be drug tested and you plan to continue using drugs, then you are being dishonest. There's no nice way to say it, but there it is. If you don't want to be drug tested, work somewhere else, don't lie about it.

The only time I might have a bit of sympathy is when a person has been working for years at a place and then the firm starts drug testing out of nowhere for no real reason.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

stevie667

There is a difference between using drugs to unwind, drugs addiction, and using drugs at work. Drugs in work time are a definate no-no, i couldn't give a crap where you work.

Things like cannabis really i don't see issue with for people using out of work, as residual effects are smaller, but harder drugs, ecstacy, cocaine e.t.c, those will mess with your head for several days afterwards. I'd fire anyone on the spot i saw with those in their system after a drugs test.

Whatever way you look at it, drugs are against the law, take something legal if you want to get around a drugs test.

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

n0nsensical

Total invasion of privacy. Random drug testing by the government would be illegal under the 4th and 5th amendments, and while unfortunately private corporations are not bound by the same standard, it would be nice if they would actually try to respect people's rights on occasion. No, that would probably be some sign of the apocalypse. If using drugs really affects your work performance, you should be fired for poor performance, not for failing a test.

I would pose a different question, that is, what is it that makes people have such a pretentious and condescending attitude toward, and want to interfere with the personal lives of, a group (responsible drug users) bringing no harm to others?

And you must know this from experience, right?

__________________
"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln

analog

The problem i have with random drug testing is the invasion of privacy. As long as i'm sober at work, on their time, it shouldn't matter if I go home and relax by rolling a joint, any more than if i went home and cracked open a beer.

Alcoholism is a far more dangerous addiction, and (in many cases) results in violence towards others. The use (especially recreational) of marijuana does not have nearly the same psychological effects towards violent tendencies, but is still demonized nonetheless.

Considering this sort of "gap" in memory is very common in the use of alcohol, I have to say that this one isolated incident doesn't mean anything. At all. Everyone in the world reacts to every chemical differently. Many reactions are similar to most people, but sometimes shit happens and your body reacts badly.

I have an adverse reaction to over-the-counter Ibuprofen. If i take more than one pill, it alters my mood and sends me into crazy mood swings, including irrational anger, sadness, and a few others. Ibuprofen. Many people hallucinate on common prescription pain killers, such as codeine or morphine- and some have much more severe reactions. I had one patient at the pharmacy where I work took one prescription percocet and woke up on the other side of town, having wandered in a daze for 6 straight hours while the drug messed with him. He was confronted by a police officer who thought he was high, and the guy couldn't remember his name, where he lived, how he'd gotten where he was- anything. Also, I had a coworker/friend from a previous job that had memory gaps every time she drank. If she got even a little drunk, she'd have no memory of maybe a 30 minute period somewhere in the previous evening, sometimes a little more. Every time. You can hardly take her example and say alcohol is the devil because of one person's reaction to it. Hell, some people are allergic to alcohol and go into anaphylactic shock from as little as a sip or two of beer, wine- anything with alcohol in it.

I know it's easy to demonize something you know little to nothing about, but some people in this world (not referring to anyone in specific here) need to get a clue.

So taking that one night and using it to gauge the drug as a whole is completely ridiculous. Also, it may not have been the marijuana, he might have also been having a drink to go with it. Drugs (meaning all drugs, legal or otherwise) interact with each other in different ways... often times predictably, sometimes not.

Dismissing marijuana, writing it off as a dangerous plant, is foolish. Educate yourselves- and for the love of everything decent in this world, don't insult us by posting bullshit numbers/rhetoric from a biased source like the DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. While you're at it, why don't you go consult Fox News on how President Bush is doing, or go to a pro-life web site to learn about abortions. You have to consider your source, and gather information from multiple places- places not biased by their motives.

(for the record, I don't currently smoke pot and haven't in some time.)

stevie667

Yes.


......

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

jwoody

Suppose you were an employer of 10 people. Monday morning you do a
drug test on all your employees and, to your complete and utter surprise, your 5 best employees all have trace amounts of cocaine in their system. You don't know this but they all took it together on Friday after work.


Would you really fire them all, on the spot?

__________________
.

highthief

What makes drug users so callous and non-chalant about the effects that drug trafficking (which their habit is part of) have on millions of people around the world?

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

n0nsensical

If it has negative effects as you seem to imply, it's only because prohibition has forced trade into a black market.

__________________
"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln

Psycho Dad

When I first saw this I thought "holy shit, another drug testing thread". but then I saw that it was quite old.

Where I work, one particular employee was fired from a manufacturing position where he had to work with hydraulic presses. He reached into the platen area, lost a finger, got a piss test while they were trying to put his finger back on and tested dirty. He was terminated and later rehired after a rehab program. Later he failed a random and was terminated again.

Another failed a random one month. Was able to argue that he was using an over the counter flu medicine and was reinstated. The next round of randoms he won the lottery again, tested dirty and was gone.

Many an employee passed pre-employment screenings and then failed randoms. I doubt they started using after they got the job.

And lastly, every employee under the random policy was subject to testing. New hires, probationary, 20 year people, leads, supervisors, managers. One day a supervisor refused a random (voluntary resignation under the policy) and was back in the same job position a week later. Since that episode, we no longer have a random policy.

No random policy and the pre-employment screen is a joke. BTW, every employee that has lost a piece of finger, hand, foot etc. has failed the post accident test.

I used to think drug screenings worked, but now I'm doubtful. In the end there is no substitute for good pre-employemnt interviewing and on the job supervision.

__________________
Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

stevie667

Well, since you gave me a pretty crappy scenario, yes i would. I have almost as little tolerance for cocaine as i do for crack and heroin.

Edit: let me clear up my position on drugs with this little analagy.

Say someone has smoked cigarettes for X amount of years, then caught lung cancer because of it. They immediatly gave up smoking and eventually beat the cancer, but suffered lots of associated problems due to the beating their immune system took fighting the cancer.
Now, would that person be preaching the wonders of smoking, even if they did know the pleasure that it once instilled in them, or would verminantly against it?

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

stevie667

So, therefore, heroin wouldn't have negative effects around the place if it was a state run monopoly?

__________________
Office hours have changed. Please call during office hours for more information.

highthief

Imply? I'm pretty sure there are hundreds of thousands of people held hostage on land that would be put to better use as farmland, forced to grow coca and poppies, and made into slaves just so someone in the US, Canada or the Netherlands can get a cheap high. Nothing implied about it.

It's funny. The same people who wouldn't buy a shirt that says "made in Burma" on it for fear it was made in a sweatshop are happy to drop hundreds on coke, heroin or other drugs grown by people who live in worse conditions than many sweatshops, because they feel entitled to use drugs.

I don't blame some dumbass kid who doesn't know any better, some guy on the Rez or Hood whose life is so limited and screwed up that he would neither know nor care about such moral questions. I do think that educated people - effectively, the majority of people posting on boards like this - would know and care a bit, rather than relying on "but dude, if it was legal it'd all be cool" instead of thinking about the vast criminal activity and cycles of poverty this sustains.

__________________
Si vis pacem parabellum.

pig

First, there are ways to acquire quality cannabis that have zero impact on organized drug trade.

Two, pharmaceuticals. Prescribed Vallium, percocet, lithium, etc. I'll take being around a person under the influence of marajuana anyday to someone who is the "worst case scenario" of the professionally medicated community.

Three, I hope that employers, whose companies recieve money from the federal government via tax writeoffs or subsidies, can vouch that all those tax dollars were contributed by people who weren't under the influence of any drugs. Alcohol (bars, liquor sales, people who go to bars, drink wine, take communion, etc) or other substances. Otherwise, it would almost seem as though they were standing on the shoulders of working men and women, many of whom have consumed some manner of chemical innebriant or mood altering substance. That would seem, to me, just plain crazy go nuts hypocritical.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

Redlemon

Interesting that this thread popped up from the dead. Our "high quality" local alternative weekly newspaper (the New Haven Advocate) just had a cover article "Drug Testing 101: How to Beat your Boss' Test", along with the sidebar "Best bong shops in Connecticut". There's the news you need to know, thanks.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

Rodney

Mmmm, a little historical perspective.

Back in the '70s, there was no drug testing of any kind in general industry; I can't speak for jobs involving security clearances. Employers approached it as a competency issue: if you did the job competently, you were fine. If you did the job incompetently, for any reason, you were out. And that was it.

If you were failing on the job and it was known you had a drug or alcohol problem, a good employer (big corporations, anyway) would call you in, bring up the problem, and ask you to address it. If you refused, you continued to work until your job performance became unacceptable. If you agreed to address the problem, a program of treatment was suggested; usually HR would hook you up with something. I worked for an insurance company that would actually pay for 30 days of drying out and counseling, no questions asked. And usually, the problem was alcohol, or mainly alcohol.

When the "war on drugs" ramped up in the late '70s and early '80s, more and more companies started requiring drug testing -- for no good reason. It was just the fashion, spurred on by politics and propaganda. Drugs were bad. We didn't want to employ people who used them, even off the job. There was no sudden explosion of drug-related issues on the job. Then as now, most of the corporate drones I know with "drug problems" are boozers. On the other hand, I know a guy who every night sits down to television with a nice joint and has worked in IT for a huge national bank for 20 years, completely competently.

I just got a job at a university, and nobody required a blood test. But if I wanted to work as a sales clerk at the Salvation Army store, I would have to have a blood test. What is the difference here -- except some employer's idea that he or she has the freedom to evaluate an employee's _entire_ life and lifestyle, not just the part from 8 to 5. That is unacceptable.

Ustwo

No one owes you a job, and the drugs are illegal.

If you want to do illegal drugs, good for you, enjoy it, the world needs ditch diggers too, but that doesn't mean anyone has to hire you.

Start your own company, be '420' friendly, and see how that goes for ya if you like.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Rodney

Private industry is a piss-poor law enforcer, and shouldn't try to be one beyond obeying the laws that cover their own fields of business -- not that corporations don't break plenty of laws themselves, _all the time._ And some of the top bananas use the same illegal substances as the guys in the stockroom. Believe me, been there. Seen EVPs snorting the white stuff, and more. ON the job.

Whether drugs are illegal or not is not the issue. Whether corporate testing is _appropriate_ or not in a civil society is something else. I find it all laughable. Hell, I remember when it was fairly common to have to get a physical when joining a company. I haven't had a company physical in 25 years, and nobody's asking me to submit to a TB test or a hep test to avoid endangering my fellow employees.

The law is the law until it is ridiculous and flouted. When too many people flout the law, it's time to change the law, not the people. Or risk that all laws lose potency in the eyes of the people.

Psycho Dad

Depends on the law. I'd rather change the law enforcers in most cases.

__________________
Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

BigTruck1956

Thats why I grow my own.

__________________
so much to do, so little time.....at least i aint bored.

n0nsensical

You merely implied it in your post. Had you posted this in the first place, it wouldn't have been an implication. Sorry, but I just don't buy the vicarious responsibility for crime argument. If I buy a car from a guy who takes some of the money to buy a gun to kill his wife, am I responsible for that then? There's no way to say what the money will be used for, and likewise there's no way to say what money someone uses to buy drugs will be used for, and you can hardly say in every case or even most cases that it will be used for immoral purposes.

Furthermore there are e.g. plenty of "poor farmers", if not the vast majority of those in the trade, who benefit more from growing coca or opium than from growing whatever other legal crop; why is it that opium production has skyrocketed in Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban? Well, I'll guarantee you it's not because Afghan farmers as a whole are being held hostage by anyone; if anything it was with the Taliban that they were held hostage. It's not like if all drug growing stopped today that suddenly there would be no more starving people in the world and everything would be peachy. Drug production is simply the market winning, and no market so large can be sustained only by coersion of the people involved.

__________________
"Prohibition will work great injury to the cause of temperance. It is a species of intemperance within itself, for it goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation, and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes. A Prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded." --Abraham Lincoln

Meier_Link

I don't have a problem with pre-employment drug tests, but only if, to be fair, they also test for the following drugs:

acetominophen
asprin
anti-depressants
anti-anxiety medication
caffiene
ibuprophen
nicotine
prescribed painkillers such as vicodin, percoset, ultram, etc
pseudoephedrine
wellbutrin
I'm certain there's quite a few more I've missed.

Fact is that all of these substances are potentially mind and performance altering substances. Perhaps a better way to do it is to test if someone gives you a reason to,for instance if they're acting funny or something. And if you find that it's because they've drank 5 cups of coffee and their nerves are shot... discipline them, perhaps not as severely as you would if it was because they had done a half gram of coke that morning, but still... a drug is a drug regardless of weither or not it's condoned by society.

__________________
life is a sexually transmitted disease

Ustwo

Lets see an illegal mind altering drug vrs asprin........... yea you got apples in the oranges.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.