[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
I don’t know about that. It is a crime, after all. (if we’re talking about wacky weed) And even Cecil hisself said dope smokers tend to apathetic. http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_225.html
We did? What did we do?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by spooje *
Sure, but so is speeding and, in some areas, oral sex. Whether something has an effect on your character is independent of whether it’s legal.
“But it’s never been proven that marijuana causes apathy. In fact, the panel found, it may well be the other way around–maybe apathy causes you to use marijuana.”
In any case, if you’re trying to get rid of apathy in the workplace, why not just go after apathetic workers, instead of the ones who participate in an after-hours activity that has a vague correlation with apathy?
If someone is drunk on the job, you fire him for being drunk on the job. You don’t need to hire only teetotalers; just deal with the consequences if and when they occur.
I disagree. First, just because something is legal or illegal does not make it right or wrong. Second, I will accept that my employer has equal rights to control my non-work behavior when the consequences of me doing without him are equal to those of him doing without me.
I’ll pee in a bottle, but only for a taste test.
Danielinthewolvesden:
Do you believe your employer has more of a right (in the moral sense, not a legal right) to fire you for using marijuana on Saturday night than he does to fire you for going to church on Sunday morning?
Both are choices you personally make, which may or may not have an effect on your productivity. Both can be stopped - people convert to different religions all the time.
wring:
Thank you for clarifying your position.
You think that it is OK for you to be tested because drug use is illegal.
Your situation is no different than that of a person who works for a bank. I do not support this invasion of your privacy… blah blah blah.
You get the picture.
He has no right to limit my reasonable pursuit of religion, as that right is guaranteed by the US Constitution. Dope smoking is not. The ONLY “rights” are legal rights.
I said “in a moral sense, not a legal right” for a reason - I know it’s illegal to fire you for your choice of religion. I wasn’t asking whether it was legal, I was asking whether YOU agree with it on moral grounds.
If it weren’t illegal for an employer to discriminate on the basis of religion, would you support him equally in firing you for your drug use and for your religion?
Or perhaps religion is not going to get my point across. What if your hypothetical employer devises a test so he can find out what you and your wife do in bed, including some things that may be illegal in your area? Should he be allowed to fire you based on those results?
If an employer wishes to participate in law enforcement, he or she (or it) should abide by the Constitutional restrictions placed on ordinary law enforcement issues.
Make that “ordinary law enforcement institutions”
Mr- your straw men are starting to run out of straw. We also have a right to privacy, so that would be illegal also.
And, “would you” with increasingly odd & bizarre situations is really adding nothing to this debate.
I don’t see how asking what potentially illegal things you do in bed with your wife is any more an invasion of privacy than asking what potentially illegal plants you smoke in your spare time. Can you enlighten me?
I’ve been proposing situations and asking what you’d do because I want to know what your motivations for drug testing are… I’ve been hoping to find another similar situation where you would feel the same way as you do about drug testing, but it seems like drugs are unique as something unrelated to work that you think an employer should be concerned about.
WOULD YOU READ MY FREAKING POSTS?! I have NO “motivations for drug testing”. I do NOT “think an employer should be concerned about” moderate drug use at home (except those listed exceptional occupatations. Again, I do NOT approve of drug testing, except in those limited situations. Coming to work under the influence is wrong, and they should fire you. Doing any sort of illegal drugs, anytime, when you are a cop, is also fireable.
BUT. The employer has every right to be “concerned”. They are paying you. They can ask for drug tests. You can tell them to stuff it. They can require you to wear a freaking tie. You can tell them “no ties”, and walk out. If you do not like an employers 'silly rules", then get another job. If you do not want to- then you don’t dislike them enuf, now do you?
And next, I assume you are going to ask me “what if they wanted you to wear your underwear on your head?”. But enough “what ifs”. We are discussing DRUG TESTS. Not dress codes, or sexual perversions, or whatever. Drug tests. Got it?
All right, I understand you here. You don’t approve of drug tests themselves, you just believe it should be left up to the employer.
But you don’t believe everything should be left up to the employer. I asked about an employer testing for sexual behavior and you don’t support him that far, because of a right to privacy.
This is where my understanding gets vague. Do you feel this way because there exists a legal concept of the right to privacy, or do you have a moral belief that some things are private and not your employer’s concern? Do you believe sexual behavior counts as privacy but drug use doesn’t?
yes, the Supreme Court has said there is a 'right to privacy", altho this has not been spelled out. It seems to be rather limited.
Inasmuch as drugs are illegal, there is a difference.
Again, we are talking about DRUG testing. Not sexual privacy. Start a new thread if you want to debate that topic.
Danielinthewolvesden:
Well, like I’ve said, some sexual behavior is illegal, depending on where you live. I was asking to see if you had the same stance on employers being concerned about illegal sexual behavior that you do about illegal drug use.
Hmmm…the differences between illegal drug use, and illegal sexual practices, and why employers (and other people) might be more concerned about one and not the other.
Are people who practice “illegal” sexual acts apt to be “under the influence” of said “illegal” act while at work? Is there much risk of this? Do most people who practice “illegal” sexual acts (in the privacy of their own homes) have a habit of calling in sick, are tardy, or are unstable at the workplace? Most people who practice “illegal” sexual acts do not need to go to rehab, etc. The list of differences between illegal drug use and illegal sexual practices is a long list.
Now, mind, I’m not saying that all drug users do these things. Probably many keep their habit private, and under control. But “drug abuse” is something that certainly does exist. An employer (right or wrong) might worry that the person who uses illegal drugs at home might bring it to work. The lines between a “casual” drug user, and a drug user who is abusing their drug habit might be hard to determine. Or an existing habit might escalate…it is something that might be a concern (right or wrong) to an employer. And, if given the chance, many employers might want to weed out one less risk factor. Drug abuse is definitely a risk factor, on many levels.
It it not commonly believed that a person who practices some illegal sexual act (anal sex, for instance?) is going take it to work. There is probably little worry that they will be frequently late to work, will call in sick more often, or be any more unreliable than the employee who does not practice anal sex, for instance. Of course, more severe illegal sexual acts, (like child molestation) might be frowned upon by any employer. For obvious reasons. So by just using the term “illegal sexual acts”, what do you mean, exactly?
yosemitebabe:
You seem to be coming at this from an entirely different angle than Danielinthewolvesden - he supports employers’ ability to test because drugs are illegal, you support it because you think drug users make bad workers.
Any of your arguments can apply to alcohol just as well as they apply to drugs. Do you believe that (assuming it were possible) employers in general should be able to test to see if you’ve used alcohol in the past month, and decide not to hire you if you test positive?
Are people who drink occasionally apt to be drunk at work?
The answer is no. Neither are people who use drugs occasionally.
Most drug users do not need to go to rehab. Most drinkers do not join Alcoholics Anonymous.
You’re implying that most do, if not all.
Just as alcohol abuse exists, or even sex addiction.
An employer might worry that a gay employee would hit on the other male employees, or that an employee with a hobby of stamp collecting was too antisocial. Mere “worries” aren’t enough, and these worries are just as groundless as your portrayal of drug users.
Consensual acts that are prohibited essentially for moral reasons, like anal or oral sex. I wouldn’t be surprised if masturbation was illegal somewhere.
Acts that, like drug use, don’t have an immediate victim; the supposed indirect victim is society as a whole.
How could you possibly know what most drug users need or do not need? Hey, you may know some people who seem to handle getting loaded without consequences, but let’s not over-generalize. They really don’t keep numbers on people who don’t have problems with drugs. There are some stat’s on people who do have problems.
Uh, actually, no. I am trying to put myself in the place of an employer. And trying to make the distinction between illegal sexual behavior and illegal drug use. Don’t assume that I have discounted the illegal part.
I don’t drink, so this point is moot with me. But since drinking is not illegal, that is outside of what we are discussing. We are discussing illegal drug use and illegal sexual acts, and why an employer might not care about one as much as the other when hiring.
More apt than people who don’t drink at all. And more apt to have a drinking habit escalate into abuse. But, once again, drinking is not illegal. It’s the illegal part that also worries employers. And no, I’m not saying it’s a big possibility that any random drinker will start to abuse alchol. It’s probably a minute chance with many people. But that chance exists. And it can’t possibly exist with a person who never drinks. Just like the chance for abuse can’t exist with a person who never uses drugs. Illegal drugs, mind you.
What is “occasionally”? And even if a person uses drugs “occasionally”, does that mean that they will always be responsible in their use? Why should an employer have to take this chance? They might not want to take a chance hiring a potential problem drinker, but the fact is, drinking isn’t illegal. Drug use is.
No, I’m showing the distinction between illegal drug use and illegal sexual acts. One has a larger potential to put a person in an altered mental state. One has a larger potential to require the user to need rehab. One has the larger potential for the person to perform in an unstable manner while at the workplace. The other is not an act that is “mind-altering”. By “larger potential”, I do not mean “always”. The potential is there. And an employer has a right to be concerned. Not only is it illegal, but the potential for erratic and dangerous behavior is there. It isn’t there with the “illegal” sexual behavior.
A worry over a gay employee or the stamp collector is not the same as worrying that a person will come to work in a mind altered state, high on an illegal substance, possibly causing injury to himself or others. Ah, the liability!
yosemitebabe:
I guess I misjudged your position… in this post, you seem to acknowledge that other activities pose the same risks as drugs, but you don’t believe employees should be tested for them because those activities are legal.
This sums it up. The employer needs to take preventative measures to make sure he won’t have employees in an illegal altered mental state. I’m willing to bet that if I asked “what about an altered mental state caused by depression, prescription medication, or a fight with his wife?” you would brush it off and say “those are legal, they aren’t the same”. Would you have a different view about drug testing if those drugs became legal? What if an employee tests positive because he used drugs in an area where they are legal?
As another poster mentioned, employers are not policemen. If they want to enforce the law, they can do it by the same rules as the government-sanctioned police force.