Replies

As if they just decide to do this out of thin air. They were coerced by the Feds.

A requirement of employment does not constitute coercion. Your argument also conveniently ignores hundreds of thousands of employers that have no connection to any government work that also see fit to put substance use limits as a condition of employment. As a tax payer, I'm all for requiring people who get public money to be free of debilitating chemical influence at work. You can argue about what constitutes "debilitating influence", but your line of argument that anything that is otherwise legal cannot be restricted by a private or public employer is silly. Of course illegal substances are no different.

That's your types answer to everything, don't work for that company if you don;t like it. How about if they don't like your internet postings on your free time? Of if you own a gun? Or smoke cigarettes? This desire by people like you to turn companies in quasi-government enforcement agencies is absurd. BTW, 0.04 BAC is grounds for termination at my company. That's "a beer" for many people. Oh yeah, don't work for them if you don't like it....

Imagine that, my stock answer is free will. Grow up, stop whining that daddy won't let you smoke weed, and get another job. So one beer on the job can get you fired? Imagine that! Welcome to the real world, where employers can expect you to not drink for the eight hours you are on the clock. As for my turning companies into quasi-government enforcement agencies, you have a bad case of "the man's oppressing me". Let me repeat very simply. If you don't like your employer's rules find another job, or put your own capital at risk.

Companies that do not have stringent drug testing policies do not have any measurable increas in workplace accidents. You can do your research to prove that.

Wrong again. When the military started testing accidents dropped substantially. But again you're arguing that companies shouldn't do it. Good for you, argue all you want, but that argument is completely separate from stating that companies don't have the right to do it. You just don't seem capable of understanding that the employer has the right to set terms of employment, even if they are unwise or overly stringent. Its VOLUNTARY on your part. But you desire to swirl a stew of apples and oranges to try and force your employer to accept your pot smoking.

Government does tell you what you can't ingest, does tell you what you can ingest, and does tell you what you must ingest.

Please tell us what the government tells you that you must ingest? Was there a black helicopter involved? I think your hysteria just flew you out the window.

Morphine and opium dens were a problem, but restricted to certain segments and areas of society.

Restricted how? It wasn't at all restricted except by terms of employment, making it hard to continue the habit without a job (which you are against by the way).

Creating black markets always is worse than the previous paradigm.

So in your view, it would be a safer world if C4, small pox virus, and plutonium sales were over the counter, because we are just creating a lucritive black market with restrictions. Or does your logic only apply to things that you like to do?

I don't need to read drug literature to know my mind. As an employer, I'll set the expectations. As a worker bee, you can go somewhere else if you don't like it. I hear High Times is hiring.

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.