|
|
Posted by Norcal Dave on Thursday, July 03, 2008 at 19:45:48 :
In Reply to: Re: You're mixing up two completely different things posted by David Sherman on Thursday, July 03, 2008 at 19:32:22 :
You've put way more words in my mouth than I uttered. I didnt say a word about adding more law enforcement. I didnt say a word about prohibition. I only said that in this country many of those drugs are illegal, and if you oppose that do something about it. Heck, in California we did something about it and now much of the country is upset with California for legalizing medical marijuana. For the record, I would prefer less laws and less liability. If that were the case Im sure there would be alot less drug addicts breaking into homes because the homeowners would be much more likely to be armed; and more drunk drivers would be run off the road on purpose because they were deemed a threat.
This is about an employers right to urine test to ensure the safety of his employess and to mitigate his own liability. He is simply testing for illegal drugs, or drugs taken in quanity to impair judgement.
I'm very open minded but you havent provided a sufficient arguement to justify why I as an employer should accept the lowest common denominator, someone on drugs, work in my workplace. I havent heard an arguement to justify the existance of crack either. Provide those arguments and Im very happy to listen.
Follow Ups: