Fired For Recreational Drug Use - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-26-2006, 02:15 PM   #61
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 01:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Calluna
Remember guys, we're talking about adult cigarette smoking here not heroin.
Perspective is good lol

But my position isn't about the substance it's about random testing for any substance overstepping privacy.
__________________

__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 02-26-2006, 02:16 PM   #62
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:18 AM
Therefore, airport screening makes sense in limited cases.

Airport security involves both examination of the person and their property.

Drug screening involves urination into a different container. In a bathroom. With no one else around.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-26-2006, 02:21 PM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Calluna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cloud Cookoo Land
Posts: 3,542
Local Time: 06:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy


Perspective is good lol

But my position isn't about the substance it's about random testing for any substance overstepping privacy.
I understand and I support your position.
__________________
Calluna is offline  
Old 02-26-2006, 02:26 PM   #64
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 08:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Drug use does not remain a completely off-duty activity. Affects of drug use are brought into the workplace.


very interesting thread, sorry i've been away.

NBC: the above statement doesn't seem to be to be factual -- it strikes me that one has to first prove that an employee isn't performing to expectations, and then find a correlation to drug use. i think we all know that there are many people who's drug use is entirely off-duty and it never encroaches on their workplace performance.

it seems false to assume that drug use = poor performance, and it also seems false to assume that "lingering affects" which is probably little more than trace remnants of whatever drug is in the system, and which has no potential to affect performance, is tatamount to bringing drugs into the workplace.

while this is more theoretical, since we have fairly arbitrary distinctions between what is legal and what is illegal (i.e., alcohol vs. pot, oxycontin vs. pot, adderall vs. cocaine), but i think we can argue that many employees are on drugs that negatively affect their workplace performance yet they would not be fired due to their being perscribed by a doctor.

another question: what if someone were to have traces of ritalin or adderall in their system, yet could not produce a doctor's perscription for either drug. is this grounds for being fired?

i suppose what we're getting at here is that it seems awfully creepy -- as my earlier posts alluded to -- for corporations to sneak into people's back pockets, medicine cabinets, and refrigerators without any sort of probable cause, it creates a fascist state ethos of "well, if you have nothing to hide then why would you object to a drug test" -- essentially a presumption of guilt.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 02-26-2006, 02:37 PM   #65
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 01:18 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Therefore, airport screening makes sense in limited cases.
Why are you still comparing the two?

A no-exceptions security policy in an airport exists because anyone can be a severe security risk.

How can it be established that any employee in any job can pose a severe workplace risk?

Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

Airport security involves both examination of the person and their property.

Drug screening involves urination into a different container. In a bathroom. With no one else around.
I guess you missed a few posts earlier about the little cups and the nurse lol.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 02-26-2006, 08:32 PM   #66
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,451
Local Time: 07:18 AM
It's BULLSHIT plain and simple...
A little known fact...
One of THE first things the Third Reich did when it came to power in Germany in 1933 was...guess what...unleashed one of the strictest anti-smoking laws the world had ever seen.
And no I'm not saying smoking is good for you. It's just that this is the roots of the anti-smoking forces so just be aware.
__________________
Harry Vest is offline  
Old 02-27-2006, 12:00 AM   #67
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 01:18 PM
Canada tried a Hitler move in the early 90s by raising federal taxes on cigarettes to prohibitive price levels to get people to quit. It might as well have been prohibition. The black market became so strong, organized and efficient it created a whole marketplace in an underground economy. So the feds backed off and prices came down below pre-black market levels.
__________________
AliEnvy is offline  
Old 02-27-2006, 12:48 AM   #68
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 08:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy
Canada tried a Hitler move in the early 90s by raising federal taxes on cigarettes to prohibitive price levels to get people to quit. It might as well have been prohibition. The black market became so strong, organized and efficient it created a whole marketplace in an underground economy. So the feds backed off and prices came down below pre-black market levels.
Funny that you mention that since my mom's newest tactic for getting my dad to finally quit is that she's praying taxes will go up again because he can barely afford the habit as it is.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 02-27-2006, 10:43 AM   #69
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 05:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AliEnvy


Why are you still comparing the two?

A no-exceptions security policy in an airport exists because anyone can be a severe security risk.

How can it be established that any employee in any job can pose a severe workplace risk?
Because anyone pose a severe workplace risk due to drug use.

Both require an invasive investigation.

You could carry a gun on an airplane, but not be a terrorist.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-27-2006, 01:09 PM   #70
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,483
Local Time: 08:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Because anyone pose a severe workplace risk due to drug use.


you still haven't stated how drug use, if there are no discernable effects (i.e., chronic tardiness, falling asleep, lack of concentration), is a danger to the workplace.

it seems as if someone has probable cause, then a drug test might be in order.

but a standardized drug test seems like an invasion of privacy -- there is no cause for an invasive investigation because the drug use does not necessarily pose itself as a threat to the workplace.

i'm willing to bet that there are many people who use recreational drugs where you work, and you have no idea. (or maybe you do)
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com