Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesFIP
As far as Aswad saying no one should ever be drug tested, sorry I can't agree.
Don't put words in my mouth. I said no one should be tested without grounds for suspicion.
I want the same assurances you do. But I won't violate fundamental principles to get there. We can justify anything in the name of safety, and in the end all it does is leave us with nothing. There is nothing that assures us that the pilot of a plane didn't just eat a taco with some spice in it that he's allergic to. Except the real security measure: he has a copilot. In any job where drugs can lead to loss of life and limb, so can other circumstances, illustrating that the real problem is having what is known as a single point of failure (SPOF).
One of the most important tasks I am allocated in a professional context is to identify and eliminate dangerous errors in the planning and management of critical areas that can cause loss of life or limb, or major loss of business. And one of the most serious mistakes is when people rely on the integrity of one link in a chain to ensure safe operation. People fail, sometimes catastrophically, and sometimes even intentionally. And then there is "route 13" (the infamous bus that runs over critical personell on a regular basis in hypotheticals). No amount of drug testing will protect you from either problem, and if you don't trust a person in a critical position to remain drug free, then you've got other issues (like why you put that person there in the first place).
The argument regarding the store clerk is reaching, and I know your reasoning is more solid than that. If the store clerk needs to steal, the loss of her job will only lead to her needing to steal more to cover the lost income. For the community, a series of robberies or burglaries will be more harmful than a theft of money from a store (which insurance will generally reimburse, so long as the store files a charge with the police). And by the general argument you've made, police should then be allowed to stop random people in the streets to drug test them. Why not throw in a pat-down and checking your papers while you're at it?
As a general rule, it is not at work that drug use causes a problem. At the stage where people are still able to hold down a job, they are usually functional and not so impaired that it adds significant risks (compare this to sleep deprivation; a night of football and barbecue will impair as much as drinking a couple of units on the job, assuming you normally get sufficient quantities of sleep in a timely manner). Not to mention that there is a huge difference- in terms of impact- between e.g. stims, benzos and opiates.
An exception is where people have access to drugs as a part of their job, which effectively means police, nurses, doctors and the military in some areas. These can cover it up more readily, as well. This is usually resolved by preventing a single person from accessing stores, or having different people responsible for different tasks (e.g. in Norway, the nurses have the keys, while the doctors cosign the records, meaning you need one of each to avoid being caught within a few hours).
In short, drug tests solve as many problems as the war on drugs has: none on the best of days.
Spend that money on shiatsu and chiropractors instead. You'll turn a profit from that.
Finally, consider the implications of your arguments applied to pregnancy.
Health,
al-Aswad.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|
Oral sex and drug tests - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread