Parental responsibility?

Great Debates
41

Hi y’all! Got distracted, but I’m baa-aack! :slight_smile:
doreen - In general, I do agree with you on the issue of ‘do as I say, not as I do’. It is very difficult to teach a kid not to lie when s/he knows that you are lying for your own convenience. Where I have problems is the stand that there are NEVER any exceptions or extenuating circumstances; IME, life ain’t that simple. Question: Do you agree with wring that it is better to harm your child by deciding to act ‘ethically’ (per wring’s definition) than to act ‘unethically’ (ditto) even if no one is harmed and the child does not know?

OTOH, to compare a parent/child relationship with an employer/employee relationship doesn’t work. As a parent, one is responsible for one’s child & zir behavior at all times. The employer is NOT responsible for an employee’s behavior when the employee is not at work. As a parent, one has rights over any and all aspects of one’s child’s behavior, conduct, associations, etc., limited only by one’s personal beliefs and the legal requirements of non-abuse. An employer has no such rights over employees, except when they are at work. Even then, the employer’s rights are quite limited.

In addition, at least in your example, the child in question has caused damage. (I’m sure that you could come up with a different example that doesn’t have this problem, but I still want to ask this question.) Skipping the minor child parameter, agreeing that we’re not talking about someone in one of the job categories where we’ve agreed drug testing may be valid, not talking at the moment about people drugged up at work - if someone (e.g., in a desk job, doesn’t come to work on drugs, etc.) falsifies a drug test…what harm does that person do? who is harmed and how are they harmed?

[/quote]

wring - ok, you agreed with the position summary. Based on that and on your statements in this thread & the other:

Since it is always wrong to avoid the predictable consequences of one’s behavior, anyone who attempts to avoid legal consequences of their actions by lying (verbally or otherwise) is reprehensible. (I’m skipping the ‘minor child’ at this point, since that’s not really the crux of the matter - you simply feel that involving a minor child is WORSE, not inherently different. Let me know if you feel it’s crucial - I can modify this to include that factor if necessary.) A hypothetical situation, using a simple extension of your position (y’know, I think I could get to like these :p):
Slaves escaping their owners (prior to the Civil War) were wrong to falsify passes, present those passes fraudulently, and/or lie to anyone in an effort to remain free. When asked, the only ETHICAL thing to do was to admit their status as escaped slaves and take the consequences, whatever those might be (e.g., re-enslavement, death, etc.). It was even worse that they accepted help from other people in order to further their nefarious ends. Abolitionists were wrong to assist those slaves in evading consequences, and wrong to lie about their own actions (even if to prevent the immediate capture of slaves) since those lies were not only wrong in and of themselves, but were merely furthering the effort to evade the predictable consequences of the slaves’ actions.

Yes or No?

[sub]Hey, at least I didn’t mention Nazis! OOPS!! :D[/sub]

42

Redtail, good to have ya back.
there is ONE point about your summary of my position that I Completely disagree with:

this is a false dilemma - the choices are not “do I hurt my child by acting ethically, or act unethically” It is, rather “do I hurt my child (by using drugs and set up a situation wherein I may have to lie, use them or face going to jail), or NOT hurt my child (by refusing to put myself in a situation where my job and freedom are in jeopardy”
In your situation, the person has many choices: work for an employer who drug tests or no? move to a place where drugs are legal or no? Use drugs even tho’ I KNOW if caught I’ll loose my job/face prison or no? It takes a series of decisions to get to the point of “do I get fired/go to jail or use my kid”. I would suggest that the ethical parent wouldn’t get to that point.
Re: the slave question.

BIG HUGE difference (and no, it’s not the "gee we all agree now that slavery was wrong). The slave did NOT ever have a choice about their lot in life. They were kidnapped or sold or born into slavery. The parent in the above situation, has a daily CHOICE “do I do something which I know will possibly send me to jail or cause me to loose my job???” They can choose to obey the current laws and work to change them. They can choose to move to where it is legal. They can choose to work with an employer who does not drug test. Lots of choices beyond.

So, no, the slave, by virtue of their lack of acquiecence to the situation they were in, were not behaving unethically.

[sub] and thanks for no Nazi’s - I swear some day there will be a thread entitled “no Nazi arguments, please”

43

redtail,
As I said in a previous post,I don’t think deception is wrong in all situations ( I don’t think I believe anything is wrong in all possible situations).However, there’s a big difference between where you see the choice and where I see the choice( or else we’re speaking about different choices) As I said in response to someone else’s post, if the choice is lying or starvation ( or joblessness), I agree it would be **worth[b/] giving a bad example (but it still would be a bad example).However, at an earlier point, a different choice was made. At that point, the choices were

1)don’t take a job requiring a drug test

2)stop using drugs

3}take the jobs, continue to use drugs, and hope you won’t be found out

Only if you choose #3 do you encounter the problem of a test you’re going to fail. It’s at that point that I think the poor decision was made- there were two other options that would not even have brought the dilemma up, yet the one that may cause a problem is chosen.

Regarding the harm, well that rather depends on what you consider harm.If you’re only considering dollars, probably not. The employer thought he was hiring someone, who at least was willing to take a drug test ( and most likely a person who didn’t use)and in fact wasn’t.If he knew the person wouldn’t comply with a drug test, presumably someone else would have been hired. If I want a job with a flexible schedule, and take a job where I am led to believe I will have one, am I harmed if it is not given to me? I think I am, although it may not cost me a dime.
Please do not take the above to mean that I am in favor of drug tests. If employer drug tests were made illegal for most jobs, that would be fine with me. My issue is solely the example given to a child.

I have never said a thing about the employer’s responsibility for an employee’s behavior even while at work. An employer has no rights over an employee’s behavior except while they are at work in a sense, but they have a very big right- barring a union contract or a law prohibiting a particular reason,or at least an employee manual that can be seen as a contract, they can refuse to hire someone or fire someone for any reason.Employer A doesn’t have any rights over my behavior outside of work, but neither do I have any right to work for employer A.Employer A may not legally be able to fire me or refuse to hire me because I’m Catholic, or a woman, etc but he can if he wants someone in the postition who plays golf and I don’t. If employer A doesn’t want to hire me (or wants to fire me just because she doesn’t like me personally, she’s within her rights ( barring the above restrictions).

44

What in the world is this debate about? Have people become so morally and ethically bankrupt that they will conjure up elaborate scenerios in order to justify illegal and irresponsible behavoir?

This is basically what I believe Wring is saying…and I happen to agree…

He doesn’t give a rat’s hairy ass if you use drugs for “casual” or “recreational” use. But he does take issue with the fact that someone would make the decision to use drugs and then USE their child to cover their tracks. He doesn’t care about the circumstances and neither do I. If you are concerned about the circumstances then DON’T USE DRUGS at all. To try and justify using your child in this manner is ridiculous. It’s despicable behavior. Who’s cares if you don’t agree with the drug laws, they do exsist and you have to abide or pay the piper when caught. You can’t even call someone a “recreational user” that is willing to do something as parentally irresponsible as this. You have crossed the line from “casual” or “recreational” use into problem use. Because your drug use have become more important than the message you are sending to your child.

If you people can’t see that then I do hope you don’t have children. Talk about avoiding responsiblity.

Needs2know

45

Unfortunately, ( or fortunately rather ) not everyone sees the world as one dimensionally as you, Needs.

I sometimes wonder why ( or if ) you bother to read opposing arguments since the other side is so obviously wrong.

Have you ever considered that your hysterical rhetoric is unlikely to sway someone who doesn’t share your view?
Or are you just posting to vent?

46

This thought has probably been covered before, but I’ll ramble on about it again: Some of you almost act as if taking drugs is some mandatory thing. Unless you have some illness that is documented to be helped by the use of a drug, this isn’t so.

The words “recreational”, “casual” and “occasional” are used here, but I think with some of you, it almost sounds “mandatory”. Seriously, if it’s all so casual, how come you think it’s OK for someone to use their kid, falsify evidence, risk losing their job, risk getting put in jail? All for something that apparently is so “casual” and “recreational”? It obviously ain’t Disneyland. I wouldn’t risk any of the above things for Disneyland, even though I love going there a lot. I know that there is this whole other issue of “it’s none of their business what I do on my own time.” Fine. But as it is, it is illegal to use these drugs. Is it worth losing your job, and all the rest, for this “casual” thing? Sheesh.

47

Thank you so much Yosemite. One dimensional my foot!!!
People who are raising children often are required to place their own desires in check for the benefit and well being of their minor child. Once your so called “recreational” drug use has escalated to the point that your job, freedom, finances, or ethics are being compromised it’s no longer “recreational” it’s a damned problem. Anyone that would continue to use drugs and enlist the help of their child to cover for them needs to face the fact that they have a problem. Denying to do so simply proves that drugs have usurped the importance of your other responsibilities. What’s so hard to figure out about that? It doesn’t matter if you don’t like the current drug laws. They are there and you are sending the message to your child that they can disregard a law because they don’t agree. This might not be so bad if you don’t mind bailing your 16 year old out of jail on a possession charge. But what if they decide that isn’t the only law they don’t like? Kids have a way of justifying their ridiculous actions the same way as adults. Could be they’d decide they don’t care which laws they break. Why should they? Dad gets high, cheats on his taxes, owns an illegal hand gun, etc. etc. etc.

And people wonder why juvenile crime has gone up. Couldn’t possibly be that their parents aren’t much better.

Needs2know

48

I know how much folks hate anectdotal stuff… BUT

I was talking to a client at the county jail. One thing I often recommend to them is to not “celebrate” (ie get high) right after getting out, 'cause that will often postpone job seeking and all the other positive stuff they’re supposed to do. This client assured me that her first act upon getting home WAS going to be smokin a J. Yep, she had a small kid in the house. Now, she’d just managed to have her child go motherless for a period of several months due to mom’s difficulty with the law, and her first act is going to be to light up again? She was going to be on probation for god’s sake. which equals having to do drug drops. Geez. I just don’t understand the mind set.

I’ll admit that one of the things that prevents me from doing ANYTHING I know will get me arrested, is that I refuse to put my son through that. How do you get from the place where as a parent you care and tend and protect your child, but, by the way, ‘I know I can get put in jail for this and be gone from you for a while, but I really, really, really want to’???

See, if your “recreational, casual use” actively harms you, your family, your children, isn’t this one of those signs that you’re no longer a “casual” user?

49

Assuming responsibility as taught in my high school by my glorious World Civ teacher: Assuming responsibility for your actions means accepting consequences good or bad, known or unforseen of everything you do. Everything is your fault.

You go for a walk to the park at night and discover the answer to life? Your fault, congrats. You go for the same walk and get hit by a car and die? Your fault again, suavo.

In this case, using someone else’s urine to obscure your actions is avoiding responsibility. The wonderful people who did fight slavery and racism accepted that bad things could happen to them, thier families, their jobs, but it was important enough to them that they were willing to assume responsibility for going against the law.

Laws may not always be right, and following them may not be right, but whatever you choose to do, please have the spine to stand up for it. “Yes, I did that. That was me.” None of this the dog ate my homework crud.

This situation is avoidance of responsibility. If drugs are so important accept that you can go to jail or lose your job. If they aren’t, don’t use them. Palming it off on society, your kid, your job, politics, whatever is all spineless.

Consequently, try to only do things that you are proud of. That way when you, being the responsible people you are, stand up for your actions you will have no problem.

50

“Recreational use” refers to how you use the drug. It has nothing to do with the legality of the use. Legal consequences are irrelevent to this description. If the bad things that can happen due to use of a substance are legal issues then why in the hell is the drug illegal in the first place?
Oh wait, I know this one. It’s because those damn Mexican’s will go crazy if we don’t stop them from using the locoweed.

I don’t consider drug use mandatory. I consider it my choice. An employer should keep their nose out of my choices unless it affects them.

My body is mine. Keep your paws off it. This goes for the government, who can exert legal pressure, and employers, who can exert economic pressure.

51

Actually, it has gone down: http://www.cjcj.org/jpi/newstribune121299.html

52

That really isn’t relevant to this topic. We can hammer away at whether or not drugs should or should not be legal - that would be a new thread. The REALITY is, it is currently illegal. And there can be dire consequences if you are caught using this illegal substance.

Well, yeah, there are a lot of “shoulds” in this world. All women “should” be treated like godesses, no matter how old or how fat they are. But the REALITY is, they aren’t. There are a lot of realities to this world that we don’t like. That doesn’t make the REALITY, and it’s consequences, go away.

Besides you are missing my point completely.

Let me give you a weird analogy:

Suppose a person is in a weird Alternate Universe where going to Disneyland is frowned upon by some employers (not to mention a lot of society.) Some employers will not hire people who go to Disneyland, and they will fire them if they discover they attend Disneyland. Even if it isn’t really any of their business, that’s what some employers can do, and it is somehow legal.

What would most people do? Would they take a job where Disneyland is frowned on, but secretly go to Disneyland anyway, hoping they wouldn’t get caught? And then whine and bellyache if they get fired, and act as if they “had no choice”? OR, would they going to find a workplace that doesn’t worry about Disneyland, as long as their employees show up on time, not wearing Mickey Mouse ears? OR - would they just stay away from Disneyland - even though they love it, because the risk isn’t worth it? They decide that the security of their job is more important to them? After all, what kind of lame person would value going to Disneyland over their job, (or their freedom?)

I am not talking about what “should” be, or whether the laws “should” be changed - maybe they should. I am talking about the realities right NOW. And the reality is, some employers do drug tests. So what do some people do about these realities? Lie, falsify evidence, use their kids, in order to do something that does not seem (at ALL) to be that life-sustaining? It’s just some thing they “like” to do, or they “want” to do?

Please, I really want to know. WHY is it SO damned important that you use drugs? It must be pretty damned important, that you risk so much. I am not talking about how it’s unfair, that the government should stay out of your life - that’s a different argument, and I may even agree with you.

I am talking about RIGHT NOW. The reality is, a person who uses drugs takes certain risks. I am guessing many people feel those risks are worth it, and that’s fine. But if it’s SO damned important for some of you to use the drugs, why aren’t you willing to take on the risks as well?

I love Disneyland, but I don’t think I’d go there if I had to risk as much as a drug user risks. So I just don’t get this.

53

yosemitebabe:

The ACLU would not be proud of you.

Why is it so damned important that a student post a web page that makes fun of his teachers and principal? He knew it was going to ruffle some feathers and possibly bring consequences at school, so that page saying “Mr. Baker is fat and he talks like Urkel!” must have been pretty important for him to take that risk.

Why is it so damned important that we be able to read books like Catcher in the Rye or The Joy of Sex in a public library? After all, they’re offensive to some very vocal groups of people, and you can get the books elsewhere anyway. A library that stocks such a book must think that reading dirty books is pretty damned important if they’re willing to take that risk.

What’s “damned important” is privacy. What I do at work is my employer’s business; what I do at home is my business. He shouldn’t be able to exert any control over my personal choice of religion, friends, food, television shows, or drugs.

My employer has the right to require me to show up on time, be productive, and maintain a professional appearance at work; he has no right to require me to go to church, watch Frasier, or abstain from alcohol or Tylenol. Similarly, I can expect him to give me a paycheck every Friday; I can’t expect him to lend me $20 if I run into him at the casino.

54

I’ve just started here, so apologies if I repeat anything.

2sense,

I think you’re confusing two issues.

You say ‘If the bad things that can happen due to use of a substance are legal issues then why in the hell is the drug illegal in the first place?’.

Drugs tend to be classified as legal or illegal for these reasons:

historical (time of discovery - the earlier, the better)
popularity (who wants unpleasant experiences)
lethalness (if it kills you quick, you can’t tell others about it)
money (once companies make profits, they’ll lobby to keep it legal).

(I personally would make marijuana legal, but that’s a different debate.)

But if you cheat on a drug test, then you’re evading responsibility. If you involve your child, you’re setting them a bad example.
(Asmodean - it’s not an easy solution to say ‘the parent doesn’t tell the child what he is using the urine for. Therefore the child is not involved.’
First, what happens if the kid finds out? Second, you’re telling yourself that deceiving is all right - a slippery slope!).

My point is that if you object to company drug testing, then lobby for a change in the law. You live in a Democracy. Don’t say ‘I think this is a bad law, so I’ll evade responsibility and cheat.’

redtail23,

you posted about slavery. If you live in an unjust undemocratic society, then it becomes far more difficult to behave correctly. I would lie about my documents if I were an escaped slave. It wouldn’t make me happy - but then I shouldn’t have been enslaved in the first place.

If I travel to a country where alcohol is forbidden, I don’t drink while I’m there. I won’t drop litter in Singapore (of course, I try to be tidy anyway, because that’s socially good.)

55

And he had to take the heat for that risk, right? He probably got in trouble for it? Did he lie and say he didn’t do it, or cower behind someone else’s back and try to cover his tracks? No, presumably he took responsiblity for his web page. He felt it was important enough that he was willing to take the heat for it. But that’s NOT what a drug-user who wants to use their kid’s urine is doing. They want to weasel out of it, not take responsibility.

Anyway, you are deliberately missing my point. We are going around in circles here, and you refuse to comprehend my point, or answer it. You bring up totally irrelevant things about libraries, and such, which really have no relation to my question. I used the Disneyland analogy specifically, because Disneyland is “fun” and “recreational”. It is not life-sustaining, it is something people do for “enjoyment”. Which is (I assume) the same reason people use drugs. Because they “like” to, they “enjoy” it. And so the question I ask is - are drugs THAT important? Given the reality of today’s world, where you can lose your job, why would someone feel compelled to risk unemployment for something “fun”? Why not just choose a job where they don’t drug test? Or, if a job is one you REALLY want, choose the job, and give up the drugs? Sure, you can be an activist and fight to change drug screening laws, but the REALITY is, that employers are currently allowed to screen for drugs. That’s just the reality.

And please, once again - we can go 'round and 'round about what an employer “should” do, “should” expect. Or all about your privacy, yada yada. And those are important issues, but they do not in any way answer my question. I am not talking about what some employers “should” do. I am talking about what employers ACTUALLY DO. Acting as if you don’t have to face the concequences of something that is so obviously a current reality (some jobs drug test, you will lose your job if you take drugs anyway) seems pretty stupid! And makes the rest of us wonder why someone would risk a good job for something “fun”. It makes us wonder if the drugs are more important than they are letting on, or admitting to themselves.

56

yosemitebabe:

Yes, he was suspended. However, he contended that he shouldn’t be held accountable by the school for what he did on his own time, and the ACLU and the state agreed with him. The school had to admit him back.

Well, the fact is that a single average person is unlikely to convince anyone that he’s right or make any kind of statement simply by allowing himself to be fined or put in jail for possession. There are already hundreds of thousands of people in jail for that and no one seems to care.

I think the inner satisfaction a drug user might get from knowing there are millions of people like him continuing to get good jobs while thwarting their employers’ efforts to peer into their personal lives, that all the testing still can’t put an end to people sticking up for their own privacy, is better than any satisfaction he might get from “taking responsibility” and being put in jail for it.

I’ll admit that someone who takes a job that requires drug tests, knowing that he might be caught and fired, is not thinking very rationally.

But if he’s had a job for a while and drug testing has only become an issue recently, the risk of being found out might be outweighed by the hassle of finding a new job and losing whatever seniority or benefits he has accrued, or of having to give up something he enjoys.

Of course reducing the risk would make him more likely to want to take it, and this very thread is about reducing the risk.

57

Mr2001,

you said ‘Of course reducing the risk (of being caught in a company drug test) would make him more likely to want to take it, and this very thread is about reducing the risk.’

No, it isn’t!

Wring started the thread with ‘Situation: A parent uses drugs that would turn up in a drug screen. When faced with a required drug screen, said parent obtains a urine specimen from their minor child in order to avoid the detection of their drug use.
Question: Is this parents actions justified? Morally right?’

I think this is why we’re struggling a bit. By all means say that company drug testing invades your privacy, or that it’s unfair to change company policy after you join. But those are different threads.
I don’t much like the idea of lying to the company, but I think it’s morally reprehensible to use a kid in this way.

58

Absolutely Glee…thank you very much…that is the subject here.

But in case you hadn’t read some of these posts we have a couple of folks here that are struggling to find a JUSTIFICATION for using their child in this manner.

The issue here is, once again…Is it defensible for a drug user to enlist his child to cover up his drug use?

I SAY NO…I SAY NOT ONLY SHOULD YOU NOT ACTIVELY USE YOUR CHILD IN THIS MANNER BUT YOU SHOULD NOT EVEN PASSIVELY USE THEM. Such as…smoking in front of them and expecting them to keep their little mouths shut about daddy’s funny cigarette.

In my not so humble opinion on this subject…if you do, if you can continue to find some kind of vague justification for this behavior then you have a drug problem or at least a serious problem with your reasoning. In other words you’re a selfish piece of shit and shouldn’t be raising children! Your children come first! Their health, safety and well being come first! Not your need to get a buzz. They don’t have a damned thing to do with drug laws, employer testing or anything else. It’s despicable to even entertain the idea of using them to cover your tracks.

Needs2know

59

Regarding the high school kid:

And the point I was making was, the kid didn’t lie, didn’t cower behind someone else’s back and try to cover his tracks. Which is what a person who would use their kid to “cover their tracks” in a drug test is doing. This kid publicly fought his suspension. And yes, he was suspended for a while. That was a consequence of his actions.

But that still does not really answer my question.

I asked, why, with the current reality of drug testing, would someone risk losing a job (or their freedom) over the “recreational” use of drugs? The fact that they get satisfaction over “getting away with it” is nice, but does not answer my question. Why do these people choose drugs? Why this particular thing? What is the great gratification they get from getting high, that it’s worth the current reality of perhaps losing their job, or worse?

It almost sounds as if you are saying thes the sole reason these people take on the risk of drug use to “prove a point”. Like they take drugs to prove that they should be able to do whatever they want in their homes, and retain their privacy. But I cannot believe that’s what you mean. I don’t believe the average drug user continues to take drugs with the motivation, “I do not really enjoy the ‘high’ I get with this drug, but I will continue to use it, just to prove a point.” Noooo… they use drugs because they enjoy the high, or the buzz they get from using drugs. Right? And I am asking - why is a buzz or a high so damned important that they would risk so much?

60

Needs2know:

I disagree with someone forcing his child into helping him cover up. If the kid isn’t old enough to understand the parent’s reasoning that led to him asking for help, or the difference between legality and morality, then he shouldn’t be involved.

I also disagree with your point about “passively using” children. Are you passively using your children by speeding with them in the car, or copying tapes for them?

yosemitebabe:

That was a situation in which he could draw attention and make a point by taking responsibility. The average drug user is not in such a position.

I can’t tell you why a particular drug user would choose to do it when he might be tested. That’s going to depend on each person’s judgement.

But you’re asking “why is using drugs SO IMPORTANT that someone would take this risk?” I mentioned the student’s web page and the library as examples of things that aren’t important in themselves, but stand for important principles.

Did the student who made that web page think it was damned important that the world know what he thinks of his teachers? No, he probably made the page in five minutes when he was bored, as a joke. But it’s important that he be able to say what he wants on his own time without fear of punishment at school.

Does a library think it’s damned important that patrons be able to check out The Joy of Sex? Probably not. But it’s important that the library be able to stock whichever books they deem worthwhile, even if the content might offend some people.

Does a casual drug user think it’s damned important that he be able to smoke his weekend joint? Probably not. But it’s important that he be able to keep his private life private.

Or perhaps I’m still not understanding you.