Oh, I get it.

The exception is now the rule.

Gotcha.

Drug testing has nothing to do with safety just liability protection.

Drug testing is merely a function of risk abatement, specifically driven by the insurance industry. A company that has a testing program in place can get lower property and casualty insurance rates. Secondly there are some protections from civil and criminal cases offered by a testing program. A side benefit of a testing program is that it causes a self selection of sorts. People that routinely use drugs will not apply or want to work in an environment where they think they will get “outed’ there are exceptions and also a class of people that enjoy beating a system. So there is a net effect of a safer environment.

TJ - Is the state of Florida going to get a break on their insurance policy if they subject welfare recipients to drug testing?

No?

So it's just you waving a red herring around, huh?

Shocking.

And there's no correlation between safety and liability...


Wow.

The whole idea of drug testing is really nothing more than guilty until proven innocent.
Seems bassakwards to our form of justice system.
Drug testing should be for cause, and not used as a fishing tool.

"TJ - Is the state of Florida going to get a break on their insurance policy if they subject welfare recipients to drug testing?"

If the recipients live in state owned housing yes.




GH,

"And there's no correlation between safety and liability..."

Not what I said at all. I said the intent was to transfer liability ,safety was secondary. Risk abatemnet is additive and drug testing does not nessecarily eliminate risk. Insurance is defined as risk transfer. The risk still remains but the liability is transfered to muliple parties.

If you don't drug test you carry more liability a plain fact. An independant business owner can make that choice freely. In a publically held business a prudent person has a fudicary responsibility to protect his investors and in the case of government they have the fudicary responibility to protect the tax payers. What one wants and what one is required to do in those cases can be different.

It is clear that most of you are ideolouges with very limited if no practical expierence.

What was the question?

"not employers testing prospective employees which nobody is disputing the legality of"

I disagree with that one and hope to one day have a supreme court that isn't slanted towards the corporation. Myself I've never had to submit to a test but for those that do you are giving up your basic constitutional rights each time. Yeah the supreme court say's that's ok though. We are gradually approaching some perverse form of slavery where once you sign on you are owned. Your bodily fluids or hair are their's. Your credit is checked. Your background is checked. Your past online activity can be checked. Some, epecially the govt, interview your neighbors. You get paid for x number of hours but are owned 24/7. So, if a publicly owned corp can do all of that to you why can't you or shareholders expect to see the results of a quarterly drug test of all officers of the corp? Why not an annual background check to make sure an officer isn't in debt trouble and about to take the corp down? Who is more dangerous? As we've seen time and time again it's the officers who destroy a corp not an employee.

As usual TJ/TK is FOS. I've worked for plenty of large corps who don't test and would if it saved them a dime.

I'm willing to bet they have resumes that look far better than yours to any employer. ..........not likely Marsha....but it was a joke ya know...

Have you seen Toff's resume?

<== Would not have trouble passing a drug test...but doesn't think that's a good enough reason to not worry about them being given for unscrupulous reasons.

Fish on...

Todd

Geez I would think you dark side addicts would know a joke by now....pretty quick to freak out looking for a fight....try online Scrabble..

I think drug tests should be multiple choice.

I wish I could fail a drug test, but at this old I just can't hang anymore.

Welfair, in general, is in the form of aid to dependent children. In some ways, we are employing the parent or parents to raise the children. Do we really want to pay a bunch of druggies to raise children? The thought is that they are stealing from their children by cashing in the aid they get to buy drugs, thereforth putting the children at risk and defrauding the public in general.

So we're going to punish dependant children because their parents use drugs?

Not sure that's the right way to handle it.

That's only true if you assume that most people on welfare are drug addicts. But I don't believe the statistics will back you on that. If you'd check, I think you'd find that most people on welfare are sngle mothers who collect benefits on average of less than two years. They then enter the workforce like everyone else.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many Americans are willing to sacrifice the Bill of Rights.

Sg

They should remember that the next time some knucklehead from the other side goes after the 2nd amendment.

The way the right calls themselves conservative, and yet constantly attack the ACLU is pure comedy. All the ACLU does is protect YOUR constitutional rights. The right attacks the Constitution more than the bedwetters on the left ever thought of.

Why do you think they hate the U.S. Constitution so much?

Sacrificing the Bill of Rights is bad enough. But what I find especially appauling is those who call themselves conservatives that defended and even applauded the assault on our Bill of Rights during the Bush adminstration. When I saw that I had to ask myself: what is it exactly that these self-proclaimed conservatives are attempting to conserve? Whatever the answer to that question, it certainly doesn't include the Bill of Rights.