Free Republic

blah, blah, blah.

All I can say is - live in your delusions. Your arguments a specious and without merit.

Now have a nice day!

When they take away your rights...then we will talk.

"The moment we want to believe something, we suddenly see all the arguments for it, and become blind to the arguments against it." - George Bernard Shaw

Now I am moving on since this is getting tedious.

"A company may do that with employees and to a lesser extent customers. The employee isn't forced into how to act on or off the job. They chose to work for the company according to the agreement between them and the company."

-- This wasn't a policy when the employees first started working for the company. It was added on at a later date.

"The company isn't invading the privacy of the employee while the employee is on their free time. If they do the employee can take it to court."

-- They are invading their privacy....doing testing to see if you smoke (even when you are not at the company). Don't have a problem with them enforcing a "no smoking" policy at work, but do have a problem with them telling you that you can't smoke at home or on your off time.

"An agreement between a company and employee may include a provision where the employer is allowed access to the employee's home. I don't know of any existing company-employee agreement like that but it's possible for both parties to structure such an agreement."

-- When the agreement is made by both sides I agree it should be honored, but this agreement was NOT agreed to by the employees.

"My guess is: sacrifice free-association rights for the greater good of the group. A collectivist fallacy foisted on people Status quo, political agenda imposed by government-controlled public-school indoctrination and facilitated by mainstream media."

-- You have your point of view and I have mine. I believe that when you start taking rights away (what you do on your own "free time") then you are stepping close to a police state.

"You're rights are not infringed. Do whatever you want on your free time. The business owner can hire or fire anyone he or she chooses. If you want to work for a company you have to meet their requirements. Likewise, if you want to work for a company it has to meet your requirements. You chose where to work. A company choose who to hire. It's by mutual agreement that employment happens. They are not forced to hire you nor are you forced to work for any business. It's called free association."

When the company tells you when you can eat, sleep, have sex, etc., then maybe you too might think there is something wrong in trying to control people on their off time. Sure the company has a right to set rules and procedures to follow, but when they start peaking in your house and watching everything you do or don't do -- you'll be the first to complain. When certain rights are eroded every day, eventually you too won't be free.

Today it's smoking, tomorrow it will be something else.

"I am not looking for "perfect." But, from the hysterical tenor of your response, it seems you think no one has the right to look for the best--near-perfect, at least. "The best-qualified, the most willing"--God, what are you, a pre-school teacher. We're NOT all equal. Deal with it."

Yes, you are looking for perfect. As far as being hysterical, I was quite rational (unlike you). We may not all be equal, but we are supposed to be. Now I am moving on since you seem to be quite persnickety.

"How is controlling your own business "socialist"?? I would think EVERYONE on this site would support a persons right to hire/fire ANYBODY for any reason if it is thier personal company. Man you guys all like freedom until it cramps your style. I don't smoke, don't care if you do...but I DO own my own business."

Don't have a problem with how he wants to operate his company, but I do have a problem with him infringing on my right to what I can or cannot do on my off time.

First of all, I am not talking about myself.

As you pointed out:

"but don't employers have a right to hire the person who projects more energy, confidence, self-control--and is, statistically, less likely to miss work because of illness, and more likely to be productive?"

I don't see how you can prove that someone who might carry a little more weight, eat junk food, or drink/smoke moderately would be less productive. After all, there are plenty of people employed who do fit those categories.

Second of all, your point about:

"I will default to paraphrase what many people say on this forum all the time: If you don't like the rules of your company, you are free to find another company.

So if you follow the rules like a robot instead of an individual then your opinions and attitudes don't matter..after all, we should all just march to the beat of one drummer.

Third of all, your point about:

"a functional alchoholic can "perform" his job--but I'd rather have someone else performing it, thanks. Someone who's more productive, doesn't increase my liability, and is less likely to cause injury to himself or others."

I've meet plenty of people who are "as pure as the driven snow", but yet still are terrible workers. They may not drink, smoke, eat junk food, or suffer from lack of exercise, but that doesn't make them IDEAL workers. It is all based on the work ethics and morals.

Fourth of all:

Be honest: If you bid out a remodeling job in your home, are you more inclined to give the job the the trim, clear-eyed, articulate contractor...or the slovenly slob who projects an image that sets off your alarms"

I think I would hire the person who has the best skills and not based on what they looked like. I've met plenty of people who are nothing but a bunch of suits with no work experience or knowledge.

Fifth of all:

"No, I'm not an employer."

It's a good thing you are not, since I believe you would have difficulty finding the "perfect" person for the job.

What's next? Not hiring someone because they drink, eat junk food, don't exercise, etc. The more these companies make stringent rules and regulations, more people will end up being unemployed.

What you do on your off time should not concern the employer as long as you perform your job!

"Are the dates on that (Buffalo.edu) pic site deceptive or did I lose more sleep than I thought?"

No, most of those dates range from the 1800's to early 1900's (when it was legal to advertise drugs, since they were not illegal back then).

The site was updated last in 1999/2000.

"Physicians are experimenting with Ecstasy on seriously ill (cancer??) patients. They won't experiment with pot (?) but with something that is known to have killed people? What's with that?"

What I heard was that they were going to use Ecstasy on soldiers who suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Haven't heard anything about treating cancer patients.

Not everyone in Germany is anti-Bush and anti-American.

Here is a blog from Germany. This guy got people together to put on a demonstration supporting America.

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog

Here is another site you both might find interesting:

http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/preprohibition.htm

Sorry it took me so long to reply. I read the whole posts and some of it made me laugh, some of it I found hard to believe, and others I found were uninformed of what the article actually stated.

Here is a website that give you most of the history behind drugs and how they came about and why they were categorized as "illegal".

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

Anyone who has had a loved one with Alzheimer's knows how horrible it is when that person no longer is able to comprehend or interact with others. It really is the "long goodbye". Anything that can be done should be done in medical research.

Mugs99: there are articles in the link below for your biblical references. I read how people didn't believe what you stated.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/potbible.htm

People must be educated about AIDS or more children will be harmed, mutilated, or injured beyond repair.

Your welcome.

Now read this: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2005/02/16/933042-ap.html

it will shock the socks off you.

Here is an excerpt:

U.S. let in risky Canadian meat

WASHINGTON (AP) - The U.S. Agriculture Department allowed Canada to export 20 tonnes of questionable meat to the United States, despite restrictions in place since the discovery of mad cow disease in Canada, investigators said Wednesday.

The investigation resulted from a U.S. judge's ruling last April preventing the department from expanding Canadian beef imports.

The agency's inspector-general faulted agriculture officials for allowing more kinds of Canadian meat products into the United States before the judge's ruling. Such "permit creep" let in products that were at greater risk for the disease, the report said.

Here is a blog written by a German who consistently tells you what is wrong with Germany and their politicians:

http://medienkritik.typepad.com/blog

Here you go:

http://www.usagnet.com/story-national.cfm?Id=1261&yr=2004
http://www.meatnews.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&artNum=8660


and this excerpt from: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/2005-01-11-madcow-canada_x.htm
Canada is estimated to have lost $4 billion because of the border closing, mostly in the sale of younger animals to U.S. ranchers,

James Hodges, president of the American Meat Institute Foundation, advocates the resumption of Canadian beef imports, saying the science-based protections now in place are working.

"The U.S. should move forward with its decision to import live Canadian cattle and meat products because the firewalls to ensure BSE prevention and food safety are intact," he says.

But Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., called on the administration to withdraw the rule. "Enough is enough. The border needs to stay closed," Rehberg says.

"But it's just possible that if that tenacious, upstart Aussie had been treated better way back in 1977, he might not hold so many grudges against those Europeans today."

No, don't think he is holding a grudge....just think the Euroweenies can't handle the truth. They don't like Mr Howard for the same reason they don't like Pres. Bush...they both say what they mean and mean what they say.