Re: dad campaigns to stop school drug testing

The smoking issue is already here.  A lot of companies simply won't hire 
you if you smoke, period.  They don't care if you only do it at home.

Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> > > > Drug use also affects medical insurance costs. Thus they have
> > > > good reason for you to demonstrate good physical and mental health as
> > > > a condition of employment.
> > > >        
> > > Slippery slope. Employers may *want* their employees to live what some
> > > define as a healthy lifestyle, but how far should they be able to go?
> > >
> > > Macrobiotic diet? Mandatory religious observance?  Compulsory
> > > marriage? Pet ownership?
> > >      
>
> Employers can go as far as they like, though the civil rights act may
> prevent religious discrimination.  They are *private* enterprise.  You
> aren't obliged to work for them.  IBM used to expect their employees
> to live in enclaves, dress a certain way, join certain clubs, etc.
>
>  
>
> > > > > If the purpose of a physical was to find out if you were commiting
> > > > > illegal acts - then that too would be "treating you like a criminal".
> > > > >
> > > > >          
> > > > The purpose is to find out whether you are using drugs.  That they
> > > > happen to be illegal is one reason they might be concerned, but just
> > > > knowing that you are doped up is an issue.
> > > >        
> > > Many drugs that are detected by routine screening aren't illegal per
> > > se. Opiates for example might be prescribed.
> > >      
>
> Private enterprise isn't bound by what the US government considers
> legal or illegal.  They could, if they choose, fire all employees who
> drink coffee or smoke.
>
>  
>
> > > Suppose you are taking a prescribed opiate and are confronted by a
> > > drug test. Now, in order not to be thought of as a junkie, you have to
> > > reveal your medical history to your employer. Even if you paid for
> > > your treatment out of your own pocket and do not intend to avail of
> > > any group health plan. That seems like a needless invasion of privacy.
> > >
> > > Most drug testing detects cannabis metabolites, which, as I'm sure
> > > most readers are aware, does not indicate being "doped up," but merely
> > > having used within the past few weeks.
> > >
> > > Why would this information be germane to the average employer?
> > >      
>
> Because they want to.  You have no privacy from a nosy employer.
> Don't like their nosiness and protest; they fire you.
>
>  
>
> > > > In the world of rampant lawsuits, privacy is dead because everyone you
> > > > deal with on a business level has plenty of reasons to need to know
> > > > all about you.
> > > >        
> > > No. Sorry. They may *want* to know, but their need is less compelling
> > > than they suppose, certainly less compelling than a human being's need
> > > for basic privacy.
> > >
> > > And while I agree that privacy is, if not dead, moribund, I don't
> > > think that it is a good or even acceptable state of affairs.
> > >      
>
> You are wanting a utopia.
>
>  
>
> > > First the issue is health care costs, then its liability exposure, now
> > > it's being a good citizen. 
> > >
> > > I don't know about you, but I think that's a bit much to put on an
> > > employer's plate.
> > >      
>
> All those are reasons for them to be nosy.
>
>  
>
> > > > But as you noted, marijuana is neither legal nor societally approved.
> > > > Tolerating your use exposes everyone else to liability, which is not
> > > > the case for coffee.
> > > >        
> > > Tolerating use in the workplace certainly would, I agree. The problem
> > > with testing is that it reveals use done while off the clock, on
> > > vacation or even prior to employment. Frankly I don't know of very
> > > many employers that pay enough to control their employees' behavior
> > > 24/7.
> > >      
>
> Then quit.
>
> Of course, if all employers take that attitude, you find yourself
> financially lacking.
>
> I don't say that any of this is "right", but those who oppose
> government regulation and support the free market especially have to
> realize that private corporations can be as nasty as the government in
> regulating behavior, unless constrained.  And they are harder to
> constrain than the government.
>
> lojbab
>