nothing is illegalin the uk once you’re over the legal age, and as long as its between consenting adults in private.
something that Paul Gadd and Dirty Grahame Rix forgot. feh.
Woah Phil - those’re pretty harsh laws. Are they to be changed in the near future, or are there enough happy with the status quo to prohibit future rockin’ all over the world?
(okay that last joke was clumsy, but it’s at the end of a day at work and I never intended to post a joke when I started the sentence.)
Twist ah Rixy, Rixy. As a Chelsea fan this one hit close to home.
pan
Daniel said…
Then in the same post he said…
Apparently, you feel that the employer is well within his rights to inspect my bodily fluids as a condition of employment. So, you’re not in faveor of something, but you think it’s ok to do it. Does the phrase “cognitive dissonance” mean anything to you? As for telling him to stick the bottle where the sun don’t shine, you have obviously not been in the job market for some time. In many areas of the country, it is nearly impossible to get a job that pays a wage a human being can live on without having to take a piss test.
Maybe, maybe not, but the Georgia Supreme Court a couple of years ago upheld the sodomy laws, and I assume that if an act is illegal, it is OK for an employer to inquire as to whether you are engaging in such illegal acts as a condition of employment. You don’t get it, Danny. **Sodomy is illegal in Georgia.**If you live in Georgia, or any other state where certain sex acts are illegal, and you engage in those acts, you are a criminal, and employers have the right not to employ criminals, do they not? So why should the right to privacy include illegal sex acts but not illegal drugs? You have not answered this question in any of your posts, and yes Danny, I read them all. You keep dodging the question, rather than directly address it. You keep harping on the fact that drugs are illegal, but there are laws that may or may not protect your right to sexual privacy .
Now, spooje,
I checked the site. It is nothing more than a slideshow from an outfit that sells drug tests. All the statistics you quoted have been refuted. The sources cited are all organizations with vested interests in drug testing. No specific studies are cited, probably because if they were, we would know that they were carried out using questionable methods.(Partnership for a Drug Free America? We’ve all known for years that they are a cartel of alcohol and tobacco companies united to keep he competition from becoming legal) They are demonstrably false. For something to believable, for me it must be true, or at least factually accurate.
I refer you to www.aclu.org/news/1999/w121599a.html, which will link you to a 29 page report that cites actual studies done by, among others, the National Academy of Sciences. That is, spooje and Danny, if it doesn’t constitute too much of a challenge to your reading skills. There are an awful lot of those big words you don’t seem to think I’m capable of understanding.
um, somebody wanna grab that extra “e” for me?
agi, perhaps a little personal “drug testing” before you post your next babble-rant, hmm?
As for me not responding to your DEMANDS, why the hell do i have to do something becuase YOU demand it? I have answered your query some 3 times now, if you can’t figure it out, get an adult to help you with the big words, please. Or, perhaps, you were unable to read them as your head was stuck up Joes ass to your shoulders. Besides, you have not yet responded to my claims you are an “illiterate weasely pissant”, so then, I get to assume, like you have, that you have no rebuttal to that, thus you agree with it.
Lissenup, dannyboy. I think the fact that I am capable of reading and comprehending a twenty-nine page document which cites a number of scientific studies demonstrates that I am not illiterate. As for my being a weasly pissant, you’re the one who is “responding” to questions that require the use of a freaking brain that is capable of logic by sidestepping the issue rather that directly answering the question.
As for your so-called answers, they were not answers, they were dodges. Now. Tell me, why do you think an employer is within his rights if he bases hiring/firing decisions on one type of illegal behavior that is carried on away from the workplace,** and has no negative impact on job performance or safety** but not on another? You have not answered the question. You have danced circles around it so much, I wouldn’t be surprised if you puked on the keyboard. If you tell me one more time that drug use is illegal and therefore wrong, but then hide behind the assertation that there may or may not be laws protecting your right to privacy in regards to certain sexual practices which are illegal, and therefore wrong, I will take it as an admission on your part that you know that your position on the issue is logically untenable, and therefore, wrong.
Why should an employer be concerned about what drugs an employee uses on the weekend, but not about other potential illegal activities, such as violations of sodomy laws?
You have sidestepped the question. Now, face it like a man and answer it. If, in fact, you are a man.
By the way, I was injured on the job several weeks ago, and was required to take a drug test. Needless to say, I tested clean.
I don’t see where you’ve answered his query even once. I guess I at least need help with the big words, Daniel - can you clarify this for me? You can simply quote your previous answers to his query, if you like, then I’ll let you know which words are confusing me and we can go from there.
After a head clearing warm bath, I see it all now.
Daniel is incapable of independent, logical thought. His beliefs of what is right or wrong, just or unjust, are dictated by current legislation. If we all get together and persuade our moronic legislators to change the law, for good or ill, that’s ok with Dannyboy. He doesn’t care about morality or individual freedoms, he only cares about what the law or the courts say. He may not like it personally, but, hey, it’s the law, so I guess it’s ok.
He just doesn’t grok the idea that if it’s ok for an employer to pry into one aspect of your personal life because it may be illegal, then it should be ok for them to pry into all aspects of your personal life that may be illegal.
Logic is wasted on you, Dannyboy.
*Warning polite hijack :eek: *
TwistofFate,
you posted ‘nothing is illegal in the UK once you’re over the legal age, and as long as it’s between consenting adults in private.’
I’m all for that.
But didn’t some sado-masochists make a video tape of themselves at play, and get prison sentences? (perhaps it was the publicity element).
I’ve got a vague memory that anal sex is illegal, too.
spooje,
you posted ‘Can you provide any info that illegal sex acts cause more absenteeism, accidents w/ injuries on the job, gobs of workmans comp. claims, and 300% increase in medical benefit utitization?’
Wow! Which sex act does all that? 
OK, you can get back to your argument now…
Ok, I read page three of the linked thread, and the discussion in here. Maybe I’m missing something, but it seems like some people are arguing that there is a “right” to be free of employer drug-testing, based on the right to privacy, and that Daniel is arguing that such a right does not exist. If this is the case, Daniel is correct–there is no such right.
Constitutional rights are not some cloud of freedom which descends upon everybody in the country–they are limitations on government. They apply automatically to the federal government; they apply to states and lower governments (which are creatures of the states, constitutionally speaking) via the 14th Amendment. They do notapply to private citizens (with one exception that has nothing to do with this matter). Thus, as an example, posters on this board have no First Amendment right of free speech vis a visthe SDMB Administration or the Chicago Reader.
Now, Congress and/or the state legislatures–and/or federal or state regulatory agencies–can impose rules on employers, and this could include a ban on drug testing that wasn’t reasonably related to the job being done. Indeed, I would be in favor of that–if it ain’t job-related, it’s none of their business. But there is no such right.
Do remember that this is the poster who claimed that the board had an anti-Christian bias and let all ther religions off scott free, and when presented with ample evidence that this was not the case and testimony from Christians themselves, simply said, “I have no evidence, but I cannot have my mind changed.”
They invented the :rolleyes: smilie for guys like Danny…
Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Five months, three weeks, four days, 21 hours, 53 minutes and 14 seconds.
7156 cigarettes not smoked, saving $894.56.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 3 days, 20 hours, 20 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!) **
Myster Ecks-
You are partially right- yes, employers do have a legal right to drug-test employees. There are those of us who think they should not, but that’s another debate.
The reason I brought it to the Pit is that Joe Malik, peace be upon him, asked Daniel why he thought an employer’s right to check up on an employee’s off-the-job illegal activities should not logically extend beyond drug testing and into other areas of a person’s private life, such as illegal sexual activities. Daniel has refused to directly answer the question, based on the idea that there may or not be laws protecting a person’s right to privacy in the bedroom. At least one state Supreme Court has upheld a sodomy law, and in doing so, effectively stated that the state’s interest in proscribing certain sexual activities negated the right to privacy.
Satan, thanks for reminding me.
Sorry, satan, you presented NO evidence to the contrary, and I did not say I had no evidence, I said I did not wish to debate the subject, and did not wish to present my eveidence. See, I know full well, that no matter how much evidence I presented, you can’t convince a bigot. You, sir, are that bigot. I really did not want to say this, I just wanted to drop it, but you insisted, and you have kept coming back, over & over, bringing up the same subject, week after week. You, satan, yes, you, are an intolerant anti-Christian bigot. Oh, yes-IMHO.
Agi, I answered the question some 6 times. First, I want to point out that, anti-sodomy laws in Georgia have nothing to do with Employer drug testing, and you cannot show a link. Two, no company requires that its employees be “sodomy free”. 3- there is no test for sodomy, anyway. 4th, if aliens from the Planet Remulac forced you to do sodomy, the answer would still be they same (just anticipating the next, entirely off topic “what if”). But, finally, if you agreed to an anti-sodomy-at-home clause in your contract, then, yes, I suppose that your employer could fire you if he found out you had violated that clause in your contract, assuming that said contract was legal under the laws of the United States, which it likely is not. So, IF something that has never happened, would never happen, has never even been tried, and would be illegal if it WAS done- DID happen, then yes, you would be out of luck. Not to mention having a pot of water spontaneously boil next to you, even tho the heat was not on. If you signed a anti-alien-abduction clause in your contract, and were abducted (THEN sodomized) by aliens, then they could likely fire you also. :rolleyes:
agisofia
Oh, you mean the same Joe Malik who lost it on this Pit Thread? What? What is this “peace be upon him”? Is he dead now? Or did he just embarrass himself so much that he’s lost most of his credibility on this Board? Personally, I think he has some emotional “issues”. To be honest, I kinda feel sorry for him.
But other than that, I find this whole thing is just too amusing.
See what I mean? Dodges the question, then insists that he answered it. Can’t see that it’s logical that if an employer is concerned that his employees not engage in one kind of illegal activity, then he should be concerned about all illegal activities his employer may be engaged in.
Incapable of logical thought, reasoning, and extrapolation.
yosemitebabe, are we talking about the same Joe Malik that you and Dannyboy drove to the point of exasperation by refusing to see logic and reason, instead dodging questions, falling back on emotional arguments, and cited statistics that are well known to have been gathered using questionable methodologies, and which have been refuted by scientific studies?
Yeah, that Joe Malik.
OK, for some warped reason I feel like wandering in here out of the blue.
Agisofia: to quote Daniel from the thread you referenced above,
You’re focusing on the activities of the employee - are they right? are they wrong? do/should they have any rights to privacy? Daniel is focusing on the employer. Do they have the right to force people to take drug tests? Yes. Why? Because it’s been upheld in courts of law. To extrapolate, then, companies will continue to make demands of their employees they feel a) benefit the company and b) are allowed by law. Whether drug testing has proven conclusively that it affects job performance or not, the companies believe it and courts have upheld it.
A quote from Agisofia,
Well, there’s the key, isn’t it? So far, in relation to both drug use and sexual content, the courts decide a person’s expectations of privacy. Next, the employer has to decide what activites negatively impact an employee’s performance or safety. That is an entirely seperate debate…usually one that happens in a court of law.
Just to touch on the original questions…
And then…
Not touching on the government here, because this began as a debate on employer/employee rights.
Again, not commenting on legal aspects. This debate started as one of employer/employee rights. If you want to debate the moral aspects of drug use or sexual conduct or anything else in a LEGAL aspect, that’s another topic. Why? Because employers are only concerned with ethical/moral/legal issues as relate to their business or personal beliefs. They’ll “force” them on you as the laws allow, or “compel” you with them where it doesn’t.
Daniel, I hope I’ve been able to present your case in a new light for Agiesofia. I hope even more that it makes sense.
Satan, if you’ve even read this far, I hope you don’t think less of me for my interjection here (you probably don’t think of me now, so any less and I might cease to exist). I’ve jumped in only to try and point out how two people seem to be arguing two points of view so different that they’re not even the same argurment any more.
inkblot
Inkblot, you’re missing the point here. I started this thread as an answer to Daniel’s challenge.
The debate here isn’t so much about employer vs. employee rights as it is about whether an employer’s concern about, and right to base hiring/firing/disciplary actions on, an employees potentially illegal behavior away from the workplace should extend beyond drug use and into other areas of the employee’s private life.
I have already conceded that the employer has the right to regulate an employee’s conduct while at work. Yes I did address the dress code issue.
Don’t forget, if there’s a law against something, and the courts uphold that law, then obviously you have no right to privacy in the area where that law is concerned. So why should my employer pry into one area of my private life, but not another, if both areas/activities have legal sanctions against them.
This is the point that Daniel can’t see.
Why you BASTARD! Why I oughtta…
Actually, I don’t care about this issue. I merely commented to the open-ended portions of this, calling the way Danny uses logic and all, since he has a past.
I mean, this is The Pit after all. And since I gave Danny ample time to retract an indefensible statement elsewhere with the whole board breathing down his neck, and he still insisted he was correct, I have trouble looking at the issues.
Fortunately, in The Pit, I am not obligated to. 
Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions
I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Five months, three weeks, five days, 21 hours, 51 minutes and 55 seconds.
7196 cigarettes not smoked, saving $899.55.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 3 days, 23 hours, 40 minutes.
agisofia wrote:
Oh, you mean Mr. “I want everyone to know how smart I am, so I’ll tell you all about it?” The thin-skinned fellow who started a thread in the Pit, and ranted and raved about how smart he is (and then got flamed thoroughly by everyone)? That Joe Malik? Hey, no one “drove” him to anything. His own emotional instability did that.
Sheesh - give me a freaking break. Just because he feels that someone “refuses to see logic and reason” (according to the Great Joe Malik, of course) does not mean that he was “driven” to crash and burn in such a dramatic way in the Pit.
OK, I give up.
Danny and his consort yosemitebabe are obviously incapable of seeing logic. Danny still thinks that he can answer a question by sidestepping it, and yosemitebabe obviously prefers to argue from emotionalism rather than fact and reason.
I’ve asked Lynn to close this thread. If I keep this up much longer, my head is going to explode.
Daniel and yosemitebabe, I hope the two of you are happy together.