Replies

As usual, these debates are going nowhere so a few final thoughts...

First of all, nowhere did I say or imply that I use "illegal" drugs, you conclusion jumper. Obviously, you feel comfortable with public-private partnerships to enforce societal goals, and I don't.

I believe in individual rights as an absolute, and you really don't. You believe an employer has the right to nose into an employee's personal business that has nothing to do with employment, and I don't.

Although workplace safety is a concern to everyone, drug-testing does not test for actual impairment, which is why I'm against it. And the only substance that has any statistical relevance is alcohol, which amazingly, is legal. And, BTW, I very rarely drink. So, I don't use drugs and I don't drink (which does not necessarily mean I haven't in the past) so why do I care? Erosion of liberty. My vice is I smoke cigarettes, and now you can't even smoke in a bar (I do go to bars, usually have a Coke) or a bowling alley. This (IMHO) is a direct result of the mentality of the WOD.

I believe my way maximizes individual liberty, and you believe your way maximizes public safety. If one must choose between the two, I'll take liberty.

I have a family member that was very screwed up on "drugs" some time ago. Caused all kinds of problems. But it being "illegal" didn't stop it from happening, and in fact the illegality of it kept this person from seeking help. So, why is this even treated as a law enforcement issue in the first place when it's clearly a medical issue? I think you know why.

You can take your chances.

Constitutionally speaking, the pot smokers and hemp growers that wrote that document would look upon your position with disdain. I'm with them-- I'm for limited government, and abhor government by lawsuit. And these companies that adopt drug testing policies do not do so of their own free will.

Well you got your parting shot made up of half-baked rants. Good for you.

I don't think I ever said you smoke pot. I said you want to be free to smoke pot (which you keep saying that everyone should be free to do), and that if not being free to do so is an issue, you should find an employer that doesn't have a problem with it, instead of trying to force the rest of the world to lower the bar.

I'm always amazed at the large number of pot advocates who never touch the stuff. There always seems to be a bit of paranoia about it too. I wonder what could cause that?

I'm

Constitutionally speaking, the pot smokers and hemp growers that wrote that document would look upon your position with disdain.

Historical footnote here. You're reading too much mj propoganda. Hemp was grown for rope, not for smoking, and its not the same plant as mj. Also, the founders made state and local laws far more restrictive of vice than anything we have today, so you're just wrong about the Constitutional aspect. The Constitutional issue that we agree on is that the federal government has overreached it's authority in the WOD. Good luck with that part. I'm there for you.

IMHO, after getting the federal government out, stay with the practical arguments for state legalization, its a better argument, which is far more likely to work for you.

I said: Well you got your parting shot made up of half-baked rants. Good for you.

I apologize. I overreacted. It wasn't a rant.

We do disagree on the rights of the employer. I think they have the right to be overly stringent, and you would like them to be told by the government what they must accept. Your characterizing my position as favoring making businesses governmental agencies is intellectually flawed.