# Financial disacuity **URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949 **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share **Created:** [December 22, 2014, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949 "2014-12-22T20:10:44Z") **Posts on this page:** 1 **Showing post:** 545
### Author: ![Broomstick](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/broomstick/32/246_2.png) [@Broomstick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Broomstick) #### Post date: [January 9, 2015, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949/545 "2015-01-09T11:59:59Z")
> [@StarvingButStrong](#): > > Is it any more unfair to impose drug tests only on the lower levels than any of the other differences? Yes. > [@](#): > > Are all of those ‘unfair’ or simply the reality that Being the Boss is Better? WHY is the boss better? Drug testing and the “war on drugs” all carries a heavy dose of morality these days. Saying the rank and file need to be tested but not the executives is a double standard of morality. It’s saying the upper echelons are so moral they don’t need testing whereas the rank and file are inherently untrustworthy and must be tested. Outside of situations where testing really is a matter of safety - train operators, pilots, and truck drivers, for example, where it’s a matter of not just the worker’s safety but the safety of others - to test some and not all implies that a different social level, not professional level. It’s saying the wealthy are inherently better people - and they aren’t. There is just as much drugging and drinking in the executive suite as in the mailroom and loading dock. If it’s so damn important that the stockman stacking rolls of toilet paper be clean and sobet why doesn’t it matter that the guy running a multi-million dollar corporation is equally clean and sober, particularly when his decisions affect the livelihood of potentially thousands of workers. > [@Waymore](#): > > Addiction is a terrible thing, but making somebody comfortable in their disease doesn’t help. It’s often only after they’ve hit bottom that an addict will seek help. Starving people to hasten that is cruel and inhumane. The “hit bottom” thing is poorly understand by most people, and doesn’t usually involved lying in a puddle of one’s own piss on a sidewalk. > [@](#): > > It is relevant if you intend to wring your bread from the sweat of another person’s brow. If you really think giving people a pass on destructive behavior is the way to improve the situation you’re not helping. Feeding people isn’t giving them a “pass”. Hell, we feed people on death row, don’t we? It’s fulfilling one of the most basic human needs that there are. > [@](#): > > Most poor people aren’t skid row alcoholics. If a person really would choose drugs to the point of starvation, they need help food stamps can’t provide. True. So why don’t we expend more effect to give them that help? What does _depriving_ them of food stamps accomplish? Even the way we go about this is stupid - it’s not being an addict that keeps you off food stamps, it’s _having a drug conviction_. Even 20 years ago, when you’ve been clean and sober and a well behaved citizen for the past 15. It’s _stupid_. Meanwhile, someone drunk and high who has a clean record can easily qualify. > [@](#): > > It’s not a double standard. Any job I’ve had, I’ve submitted to a drug test because it was part of the agreement. I wasn’t being forced to work there or to pee in a cup, they weren’t forced to hire me. It was a voluntary agreement. I’ve actually never been required to piss in a cup for any job I’ve had, although it was required for one Federal job I applied for (which, arguably given the job, was a reasonable requirement). I have worked where those below me were required to do that, though. I thought it was completely hypocritical in those cases, where the lower ranks were considered depraved and unreliable and the executives, who drank to excess during martini lunches and talked about doing lines of coke at parties, were allowed such things without comment. Because they were the aristocracy and would not be held to the same standards as the unwashed peasants. Very biased. Not everywhere I worked was like that, but such places do exist. > [@](#): > > If a person owns a business, why would he force himself to take a drug test? To demonstrate he asks nothing of his employees he won’t ask of himself. That’s one of the marks of a good leader. > [@](#): > > Who would a CEO need to submit to a test for? Aside from demonstrating that he is following the law and NOT using illegal drugs? I mean, why should that be OK, that he’s breaking the law? A CEO is answerable to the board of directors, stockholders, owners - and the workers whose lives are directly affected by the decisions he makes. THAT is why he needs to be as clean and sober as anyone who works under him. > [@](#): > > Life isn’t a kindergarten classroom where all the students have the same roles and there’s a teacher to ensure fairness. Different people occupy different spots, and it’s petulant to bemoan those different people having different responsibilities. Don’t all members of a company have an obligation to _follow the law?_ Or are you saying executives don’t have to follow laws regarding drugs and their use in our society? If it’s so damn important to the company that everyone be tested to show compliance with the law (or morality) why do those at the top get a free pass? > [@D\_Anconia](#): > > Do you have any evidence, whatsoever, that random drug testing isn’t being applied equally? Since we aren’t even speaking of a particular company that’s a ridiculous question. Other than some companies test and some in the exact same industry don’t. The fact it’s not universal indicates it’s done for some reason that isn’t strictly business or profit based. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/financial-disacuity/707949)._