Re: dad campaigns to stop school drug testing

"proffsl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Bob LeChevalier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > "ColoradoSkiBum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Not likely.  Drug testing where there is a legitimate
government
> > > > > purpose (in this case setting a good example for kids) has
been
> > > > > repeatedly upheld by the courts.
> > > >
> > > > What a crock of shit.  What next, they get to follow us around
on
> > > > weekends?  To make sure we're "setting a good example for kids"?
> > > > Oops--OMG--I just used a cuss word in a newsgroup post--what a
poor
> > > > example!
> > >
> > > if we want to 'set a good example for kids' we will protest the
idea
> > > that they should be treated like criminals with no cause
> >
> > Since non-criminal adults are regularly subjected to the same
treatment
> > (either by government or by employers who have no constitutional
> > restrictions), it is the attitude that drug testing is "treating
like a
> > criminal with no cause" that needs to change.
>
> Since non-criminal adults were never before subjected to such
> treatment (either by employers or by government who ARE
> constitutionally restricted), it is the attitude that "the attitude"
> against such treatment "needs to change" that needs to change!  It is
> this complacency to such changes in attitudes concerning the
> boundaries between Rights and Wrongs that needs to change.
>
> Despite the fact our nation has undergone many technological advances
> and changes since it's founding, the boundaries between Rights and
> Wrongs have always been and still are inherent in their nature, and
> therefore fixed in their inherent definition.  While it may be
> appropriate that methods of enforcement change with changes in
> technology, it is never appropriate that the goals of enforcement
> change either with, for, or because of changes in technology.
>
>
> > Having to get a physical is not being "treated like a criminal"
either.
>
> The only inherent prerequisite to any employment is that the applicant
> possesses the skills inherently necessary to perform said tasks.  When
> one is seeking employment in certain tasks, the only inherent claim
> they are making is that they posses the skills inherently necessary to
> perform said tasks, therefore the only inherent, and Rightful,
> prerequisite is that they posses such skills.
>
> Every applicant to employment to certain tasks has the Right to
> privacy in their personal lives, and therefore the Right to not be
> required to divulge any aspects not inherently necessary to the
> performance of said tasks, as such aspects are not inherently claimed
> by such applicants.
>
> Drug tests do not test sobriety, but instead they only test prior use
> of drugs, marijuana testing positive for as much as a month prior to
> use.  If sobriety is necessary to the performance of any said tasks,
> there are far more accurate means of testing one's immediate sobriety
> than drug tests, and far less invasive into one's personal life, and
> outside the inherent scope of such employment.
>
> Indeed, as drug tests require certain tests which extend beyond the
> ordinary shift of employment, even contiguous to their next shift, and
> as overtime rates are multiples of one's base pay, any employees being
> required to perform drug tests are entitled to overtime rates
> multiples of their base pay for each consecutive shift following their
> initial day of employment.  By the end of the first week, with 20
> consecutive shifts following their initial day of employment, a $5
> minimum wage employee would be rightfully entitled to $100/hr during
> the last shift of that first week.  Each consecutive week would
> continue to accumulate multiples.  Additionally, if the employee is
> actually required to work beyond their regular 40 hour/week shifts,
> the current multiple would be doubled again.  Needless to say, one's
> first week of employment would yield a considerable paycheck.  As such
> overtime rates would inherently apply to such tests being a
> prerequisite, if an employer is not prepared to pay these multiplying
> wages, they should best be prepared to be severely prosecuted for even
> suggesting such tests, much less requiring such tests.
>
> The boundaries of Right and Wrong are quite fixed in their inherent
> nature, and those who would infringe those boundaries should be dealt
> with in the most strict and necessarily forceful terms, otherwise
> there will never be any enforcement of Rights, and Wrongs will surely
> trample us into history.

Now how come I have not heard that before?

voodoo disease 666

Death to the christian military.