It's Time to End All Drug Testing

Yoda said:
You cant differentiate between what occupations are necessary to drug test and which are not.

Police, Fireman, Teachers, all first repsonders certainly cant be stoned. Airline pilots and anyone that has the responsibility assure people safety. Then theres any occupation that operates machinery that poses a risk to individuals. Truck Drivers, bus drivers, heavy equiptment operations.

I totally disagree drug testing should end, there should be drug testing and employers have the right to avoid mishaps because their employees are stoned, avoid lawsuits and injury to other employees.

Soon weed is going to be legalized and thats going to make it even more important to drug test individuals.

Ive always found it to be the case that the people that hated drug testing were worried the most about getting busted.
Click to expand...

Ya know, there is a difference between getting high at home and at work right? Just like most people can't drink at work, or show up drunk.
 
Abraxas said:
The way I see it is that unless the person is engaged in an activity which could endanger lives, drugs testing is a fundamental violation of that person's rights.
Click to expand...

Tell me an activity (job) that a person wouldn't have the ability to engage in an act that could endanger lives; because the possibilities are endless, but I'm willing to see what you have to offer.
 
Abraxas said:
So where does that end? Are they entitled to find out about your sexual history and who you are friendly with as well? Anyway there is a difference between peeing in a cup to get a job and regular testing whilst in employment. My son works for the U.S. company Cisco in London but nobody is asked to do drug tests, why is that? If the brokers in the City had to take drug tests there would hardly be anyone left.
Click to expand...

How does a person's sexual history place anyone else at risk?
What London does or doesn't do, has no bearing on what the companies do in the US.
 
Abraxas said:
Cisco is an American company. A person's sexual history could put them at risk, they might have an STI or even HIV.
Click to expand...

But the company is based in London, therefore it only needs to adhere to the regulations of the UK.
Don't companies, in England, teach everyone to treat all bodily fluids as possibly infectious?
 
Taft2016 said:
Don't want to take the test? Don't take it. Walk out the door and never come back. No rights violated.

Worried about your boss finding out you're a criminal? Easy peasy. Don't be a criminal.
Click to expand...

The justification used by every fascist police stater ever: no reason to worry if you're not a criminal. Taft is just a corporate fascist, who thinks only corporations have rights, the workers who actually produce and create wealth be damned.
 
Tyrion the Imp said:
The justification used by every fascist police stater ever: no reason to worry if you're not a criminal. Taft is just a corporate fascist, who thinks only corporations have rights, the workers who actually produce and create wealth be damned.
Click to expand...

No, the problem is that you're a pothead above all else. You view the entire world through a warped prism created by the incomprehensible injustice of you being unable to legally toke up.

Just because you're content to sit your fat ass down all day in a double wide and huff your life away, others of us like to travel on airplanes, trains, buses, walk city streets, etc.
 
Yet, incomprehensible injustice it remains. Surely it is still unconstitutional, even if the purpose for prohibition is simply to piss people off and make a joke out of liberty?
 
I suppose my only problem is what you do outside of work is your business, I personally have never used drugs but do not consider it my business what you do outside the workplace. I do not condone drug usage as it is against the law, but I am aware that drunk driving is a major killer of all ages, I also do not drink, but do not frown on those who do, only those who do it and get behind the wheel.
 
This is just more evidence of hypocritical nature of the alleged libertarians, a.k.a., the pothead conservatives.

These allegedly "small government" rightists now want government to step in and tell businesses how to run themselves and what they may or may not do to protect their interests.

As I've said before, "liberty," to the contemporary libertarian, is entirely about drug use, debaucheries, and gay sex. The actual size and influence sphere of the government, which is paramount genuine libertarians, is immaterial to these phonies
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top