Re: dad campaigns to stop school drug testing

greccogirl wrote:
> 
> R. Steve Walz wrote:
> 
> >ColoradoSkiBum wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"R. Steve Walz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>: ColoradoSkiBum wrote:
> >>: >
> >>: > : 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.
> >>: >
> >>: > That's not strictly true--private enterprise is indeed bound by what the
> >>US
> >>: > government considers legal or illegal.  They certainly could fire all
> >>: > employees who drink coffee or smoke, since coffee drinkers and smokers
> >>are
> >>: > not protected classes.  They could also fire all homosexuals since they
> >>are
> >>: > not a protected class, or all college students since they too are not
> >>: > protected.  They could *not* fire all women (or refuse to hire women);
> >>could
> >>: > not fire all blacks; could not fire all people over 55; could not fire
> >>all
> >>: > people in wheelchairs; and most certainly could not fire anybody who
> >>filed a
> >>: > workman's comp claim (although I'm sure many companies have tried).
> >>Anybody
> >>: > who's "protected" by federal laws cannot be excused from their job
> >>simply
> >>: > for being that way.
> >>: > --
> >>: > ColoradoSkiBum
> >>: -------------------
> >>: Then we need a better government, one that prevents that.
> >>: Steve
> >>
> >>One that prevents *what*???
> >>--
> >>ColoradoSkiBum
> >>
> >>
> >----------------------------
> >Prevents anyone from being fired unfairly, of course, such as for
> >drugs or homosexuality or other unreasonable intolerances. Better,
> >just take all wealth from the private assholes, and administer all
> >industry as a public trust, barring drivers from taking drugs,
> >but not barring others, and reassigning drivers to other tasks
> >if they can't pass testing.
> >Steve
> >
> The entire thing, of course, boils down to dollars and cents.
>  LIABILITY.
-------------------
If there are no duties that endanger anyone normally for any worker
smoking pot, then there is no liability.


> If  you hired someone you drug tested and  you knew took
> drugs and that person then hurt someone on the job, the liablity would
> ne enormous, not only from the person who as hurt but the person who DID
> it.
-------------------
The easy way around that is NOT TO TEST ANYONE! Then you simply absorb
the costs as CODB/workman's comp. There are countless jobs that are no
more dangerous on pot than on last nights alcoholic binge, or DayQuil.
If we simply prove statistically that there is no greater endangerment
from pot at most jobs than anything else, then they won't be able to
get away with that, and all it takes is a worker's revolt that is the
LEAST BIT problematic to business, business shit-cans ANYTHING that
shits on the smallest profit-margin!


> They could sue and say you knew they took drugs and you let them,
> say, operate machinery anyway.
------------------
Most jobs don't rely on any dangerous equipment. And Dayquil and any
number of other things are just as problematic.


>  That is what companies care about, they
> don't really give a shit if you take drugs or not.
------------------
Precisely.
Steve