It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Cio88
If I am subjected to a drug screen , then so should anyone else. I have nothing to hide therefore I am not mad.
On another note, are political figures subjected to drug screens?
Originally posted by wookiee
Originally posted by Cio88
If I am subjected to a drug screen , then so should anyone else. I have nothing to hide therefore I am not mad.
On another note, are political figures subjected to drug screens?
Drug testing is not 100% accurate. You will be mad when you get a false positive.
GUILTY until proven innocent!
Originally posted by logician magician
If you want to be employed by a company, then you'll agree to take their drug test if they require one. If you don't agree to the hiring requirements then you can find work somewhere else.
Originally posted by tezzajw
Any 'random' drug/alcohol testing for any type of work is a breach of privacy and an abuse of rights.
Originally posted by Chucktah
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
I disagree here. The employer should have every right...depending on the job and its' demands. Would it be okay for an air traffic control operator to be "recovering" or "going through withdrawls" while directing flight paths? Or better yet, how about the pilots?
When you hold a position that empowers you with the trust and safety of others, I think some of your personal life and decisions made in them, have got to come into play.
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Originally posted by Chucktah
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
What a person does on their own time should have no bearing on their professional life.
[edit on 25-1-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]
So you would hire a serial killer.
... hey, as long as he is not killing on company time, right?
Originally posted by logician magician
So you would hire a serial killer.
... hey, as long as he is not killing on company time, right?
Originally posted by logician magician
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Originally posted by Chucktah
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
What a person does on their own time should have no bearing on their professional life.
[edit on 25-1-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]
So you would hire a serial killer.
... hey, as long as he is not killing on company time, right?
I believe it is correct to label this a straw man. The logic is completely flawed.
Do you have a test to find serial killers? If so, then perhaps it is something that should be shared with law enforcement.
Getting in the position of managing people's vices is not the job of government, nor our employer. It completely flies in the face of the purpose of our nation. The US was founded on a principle of freedom and liberty.
The same can be said of prostitution. I have never used one (and wouldn't, i am too modest), but do not want to make that decision for others, either. The same with drugs. It is their own personal decision.
What SHOULD be done is to develop a test that can identify if you are currently under the influence. That is all the employer needs to worry about.
I, until very recently, managed over 300 people in a call center. I could care less what sorts of things they did at home, as long as when they showed up for work they were prepared to provide world class customer service. I know that 2/3 of them used some sort of substance daily, be it alchohol or something labelled as a drug...but if they were clear when they came to work, then they were clear with me.
Originally posted by Chucktah
In my line of work...without the threat of random drug testing, people that know they can get away with somethings, will try to get away with a little more the next time. Only after it's too late will people start asking questions.