rcook@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU (02/09/86)
I don't buy the issue of "well maybe I don't want to hire someone who
uses drugs -- so there!".
Is this because they fear it will harm them, or are they afraid my work
will deteriorate(sp?)?
Will they fire me for having a couple glasses of wine after work?
Will they check my blood every morning when I come to work to see if
I had any liquor this morning or yesterday or whenever?
Do these companies ignore the effects of alcohol but don't ignore the affects of
for example, marijuana, uppers, downers, etc., all of which (alcohol
included) have adverse affects if used abusively?
Are they severe differences between these controlled substances and
alcohol(which is a legal drug) when it comes to job performance?
Don't forget alcohol is easier to abuse than any other drug!
Disclaimer: I do not, in any way, condone the use of alcohol(the drug) or
any other mind-altering substances.
Rob Cook
UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!rcook
'Life is just a cocktail party on the street'
-Mick Jagger- stup@whuxl.UUCP (Raggedy-Ann @ Dollhouse) (02/10/86)
> > I don't buy the issue of "well maybe I don't want to hire someone who > uses drugs -- so there!". > > Is this because they fear it will harm them, or are they afraid my work Employers DO like to know if employees are taking controlled Rx drugs because, yes, they can affect work performance. Pain killers such as codeine and Darvan can make one drowsy. Even antihistimines and cough suppressents can do that. Some bosses even want to know when one of his/her employees take aspirin! Some Rx drugs can and do affect one's personality. But, not to hire someone in these cases would be discrimination, I guess. -- ann @ dollhouse
hes@ncsu.UUCP (Henry Schaffer) (02/12/86)
The tests can also be thought of as *protecting* the atheletes. At least on the high school and college levels much of the use of steroids, painkillers, etc. has been alleged to come from the coaches supplying the drugs and pressuring the atheletes to use them. I have heard some the same on the pro level (clearly excepting the use of "recreational" drugs.) --henry schaffer
jah@packard.UUCP (JA Harrison) (02/19/86)
I personally believe that drugs should be legalized (after all what right do I have to tell someone else how to lead their lives?) However, on the issue of drug testing I agree. The police cannot search your home or your car unless they can show just cause; so allowing an employer, or any other agency to search my body or mind without just cause is unconstitutional. I might also add that drug testing isn't the only area involved; several large corporations of late have taken to administering lie detector tests as a condition for employment. Companies justify this by saying that they are trying to reduce employee theft!
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (02/20/86)
> I personally believe that drugs should be legalized (after all > what right do I have to tell someone else how to lead their lives?) > 100% agreement with on THIS point. > However, on the issue of drug testing I agree. The police cannot > search your home or your car unless they can show just cause; > so allowing an employer, or any other agency to search my body or > mind without just cause is unconstitutional. > There seems to be a big misunderstanding about what the Bill of Rights controls. The Bill of Rights is a set of restrictions on the Federal Government's power; the Fourteenth Amendment extends those protections (well, most of them -- the courts are a little inconsistent in this area) to restrict the States and their subsidiary governments. The Bill of Rights was NEVER intended to restrict or control private entities, because in the view of the Founding Fathers (and myself), only the government has the monopolistic power to abuse us so severely that restrictions needed to be part of the Constitution. That doesn't mean that the government doesn't have laws to restrict what a private employer can do as far as searching or requiring lie detector tests, and it doesn't mean the government can't make laws to restrict these issues -- it just means the Constitutional protections we have don't necessarily apply to private companies.
strickln@ihlpa.UUCP (Stricklen) (02/21/86)
> I personally believe that drugs should be legalized (after all > what right do I have to tell someone else how to lead their lives?) I disagree somewhat with your assertion. If continual usage of a particular drug renders a person less capable or incapable of supporting herself or himself, various welfare systems, either federal or state, are likely to be called upon to take up the slack. This is an unfair burden on the tax-paying populous, and their legislators should have the right to limit use of that drug. Steve Stricklen AT&T Bell Laboratories ihnp4!ihlpa!strickln
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (02/23/86)
In article <1137@ihlpa.UUCP> strickln@ihlpa.UUCP (Stricklen) writes: >> I personally believe that drugs should be legalized (after all >> what right do I have to tell someone else how to lead their lives?) > >I disagree somewhat with your assertion. If continual usage of a >particular drug renders a person less capable or incapable of supporting >herself or himself, various welfare systems, either federal or state, >are likely to be called upon to take up the slack. This is an unfair >burden on the tax-paying populous, and their legislators should have the >right to limit use of that drug. > >Steve Stricklen >AT&T Bell Laboratories >ihnp4!ihlpa!strickln Okay, fine. Then I guess what you're saying is that if the use of a given drug does NOT render a person less capable, then it should not be illegal. Now the question becomes: which drugs incapacitate users? The burden of proof should be on the people making the assertion that they do indeed cause a problem. So now let's hear some scientific evidence to support the claim that these drugs cause "incapacitation of the ability to support one's self." And, of course, it's no fair citing the price of the drugs, because the price is set be virtue of the fact that the drugs are illegale - actual production costs are extremely low. 1) Marijuana and its derivatives (hashish, hash oils, etc) 2) Cocaine 3) Opium 4) Heroin 5) Tobacco 6) Alcohol 7) Tylenol :-) 8) LSD 9) Peyote 10) Speed 11) Barbiturates 12) Caffeine It is my opinion that there are indeed some drugs that can be shown to possess the detriments you mention, but that set of drugs is not equal to the set of currently illegal drugs. On top of that, you have the question of: is it USE or ABUSE that causes incapacitation. If only ABUSE, why punish the USERS who use the drug responsibly? ANY substance can be abused to the extent that it causes incapacitation, although some lend themselves to abuse more easily. I guess I would like to see some SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE supporting the illegality of certain drugs, rather than the typically hysterical ravings we see now. -- --MKR When you ain't got nothin' you got nothin' to lose. - Dylan
ran@ho95e.UUCP (RANeinast) (02/24/86)
> > However, on the issue of drug testing I agree. The police cannot > > search your home or your car unless they can show just cause; > > so allowing an employer, or any other agency to search my body or > > mind without just cause is unconstitutional. > > > > There seems to be a big misunderstanding about what the Bill of Rights > controls. The Bill of Rights is a set of restrictions on the Federal > Government's power; the Fourteenth Amendment extends those protections > (well, most of them -- the courts are a little inconsistent in this > area) to restrict the States and their subsidiary governments. The > Bill of Rights was NEVER intended to restrict or control private > entities, because in the view of the Founding Fathers (and myself), > only the government has the monopolistic power to abuse us so severely > that restrictions needed to be part of the Constitution. --- Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons and things to be seized. --- Notice that when Congress is prohibited from doing something, then the Amendments clearly say "Congress". As I read the 4th amendment, it says people are secure in their persons, etc. PERIOD! This is clearly a general prohibition on anybody, not just the government. PS. I realize that it doesn't matter what the Constitution says, it's what 9 old people say it says. But it sure looks pretty clear to me. -- ". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch." Robert Neinast (ihnp4!ho95c!ran) AT&T-Bell Labs
vsh@pixdoc.UUCP (Steve Harris) (02/24/86)
We have (at least) two legal drugs that have caused enormous social problems:
alcohol and tobacco. [ This is the classic argument against legalization of
marijuana and other "recreational" drugs ]
How does a society balance the wants of its citizens to use such substances
against the social harm they inevitably produce? I certainly don't know.
Comments???
--
Steve Harris | {allegra|ihnp4|cbosgd|ima|genrad|amd|harvard}\
xePIX, Inc. | !wjh12!pixel!pixdoc!vsh
51 Lake Street |
Nashua, NH 03060 | +1 605 881 8791jah@packard.UUCP (JA Harrison) (02/24/86)
In article 3049 Steve Stricklen writes:
"If continual use of a particular drug renders a person less
capable or incapable of supporting herself or himself, various
welfare systems, either federal or state, are likely to be called
upon to take up the slack. This is an unfair burden on the tax-paying
populous..."
I suppose this is true; however, the taxpayer generally picks up the
tab for many mistakes people make -- business is a good example:
If I told you that I wanted to start a business selling wax mosquitos
as paper weights, you could probably predict the failure of
that business. If I chose to start it anyhow, the taxpayer would
ultimately pick up the tab for this failure through tax writeoffs.
Drug use, alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking, etc., are all
habits of choice. They may be bad habits, but if people choose to
engage in them, they should be allowed, as long as there is no direct
effect on others.
I don't believe there is any significant action that has no consequence
to the taxpaying public. Drug use has been singled out, as has
prostitution (on the state level anyway) for mostly moral, i.e.
religious reasons that to me are unacceptable.
John A. Harrisondoug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (02/25/86)
An unusual viewpoint on whether to legalize drugs...
About ten years ago the U.S. virtually closed the border with Mexico.
Every single car returning from Mexico was thoroughly searched. That
means it was partially dismantled, with the owner having to put it back
together. Even with the border traffic reduced by more than 90%, it
still took 7 hours to cross at best, 15 hours during the day. [This
situation only lasted a week or so, until Mexico convinced the U.S. that
the Mexican border towns were being economically devastated.]
Anyhow, one of the local law enforcement officials was on the TV news
pointing out that because of this strict enforcement, the street price
of heroin had doubled in just a week.
I suppose he was thinking that because of the higher price, junkies all
over the Phoenix area were convinced to go cold turkey. He probably
imagined that within a few years those junkies would all be high-ranking
managers in Fortune 500 companies, grateful as heck for the day that
high prices forced them to see the light.
What I was thinking was, "Great. Now those junkies will have to steal
*twice* as many TV sets in order to support their habits. Then my house
insurance will double next year."
In addition, my taxes are going to have to increase in order to pay for
the extra Customs agents. And to pay for additional foreign aid to
Mexico to offset the loss of trade (both legitimate and illicit). And
to pay for prosecution of any smugglers that the Customs folks caught.
And to pay for extra police to investigate the additional stolen TV
sets. And to pay for prosecution of smugglers and junkie-thieves. And
to pay the court costs for trials of smugglers and junkie-thieves. And
probably to pay for the Public Defenders assigned to the smugglers and
junkie-thieves. And then (for those cases in which a conviction is
actually obtained), for incarceration of the smugglers and junkies. And
for Probation Officers, and...
What in heaven's name are we doing???? If we had left the smugglers and
the junkies alone, they would have left *us* alone. It would save us a
*ton* of money.
A junkie isn't useless because he's a junkie. He's a junkie because
he's useless. If you take away his heroin, he won't become a pillar of
the community; he'll become a street criminal.
But... a system seldom survives for long if there isn't a reason for it
to exist. And the anti-drug system has existed in the U.S. for over 50
years. Why has it survived?
I believe that the anti-drug laws continue to exist for two reasons.
First, the drug enforcement provides an excuse for the high price of
most drugs; it is a *very* lucrative industry for certain people. Those
people use some of their money to assure that the enforcement continues.
Second (and probably more important), it provides a relatively harmless
job for the kind of person who thinks he is the right hand of God. Make
him a DEA agent, and send him off to harrass junkies. Remember, junkies
are of no value to society anyway. If you think that the IRS, traffic
police, and Child Protective Services folks are overly zealous, they've
got nothing on most drug agents. I'd hate to think of drug agent types
on traffic patrol with radar guns. The streets would be at a total
standstill.
For this second reason, I lean toward keeping laws against "junkie"
drugs (basically heroin). Even though we all pay for it.
--
Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {hardy,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!dougcramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (02/28/86)
> > > However, on the issue of drug testing I agree. The police cannot > > > search your home or your car unless they can show just cause; > > > so allowing an employer, or any other agency to search my body or > > > mind without just cause is unconstitutional. > > > > > > > There seems to be a big misunderstanding about what the Bill of Rights > > controls. The Bill of Rights is a set of restrictions on the Federal > > Government's power; the Fourteenth Amendment extends those protections > > (well, most of them -- the courts are a little inconsistent in this > > area) to restrict the States and their subsidiary governments. The > > Bill of Rights was NEVER intended to restrict or control private > > entities, because in the view of the Founding Fathers (and myself), > > only the government has the monopolistic power to abuse us so severely > > that restrictions needed to be part of the Constitution. > --- > > Amendment I > > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, > or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of > speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to > assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. > > > Amendment IV > > The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, > and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be > violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported > by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, > and the persons and things to be seized. > > --- > > Notice that when Congress is prohibited from doing something, then > the Amendments clearly say "Congress". As I read the 4th amendment, > it says people are secure in their persons, etc. PERIOD! This is clearly > a general prohibition on anybody, not just the government. > > > PS. I realize that it doesn't matter what the Constitution says, > it's what 9 old people say it says. But it sure looks pretty clear to me. > -- > > ". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch." > Robert Neinast (ihnp4!ho95c!ran) > AT&T-Bell Labs Yes, but the PURPOSE of the Bill of Rights was to establish protections for the people and the states from Federal intrusion. The PURPOSE of the 14th Amendment was to establish protections for the people from State and local governments. The text alone is not the only issue in determining the intent of the Founding Fathers -- this is why the original debates on particular amendments to the Constitution are relevant to do. Without the historical background, it is easy to become a strict constructionist. A strict constructionist is to the Constitution as a fundamentalist is to the Bible.
travis@cucca.UUCP (Travis Lee Winfrey) (03/02/86)
In article <417@packard.UUCP> jah@packard.UUCP (JA Harrison) writes: >In article 3049 Steve Stricklen writes: > >"If continual use of a particular drug renders a person less >capable or incapable of supporting herself or himself, various >welfare systems, either federal or state, are likely to be called >upon to take up the slack. This is an unfair burden on the tax-paying >populous..." > >I suppose this is true; however, the taxpayer generally picks up the >tab for many mistakes people make -- business is a good example: > >[omitted example of bad business decision impinging on taxpayers] > >Drug use, alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking, etc., are all >habits of choice. They may be bad habits, but if people choose to >engage in them, they should be allowed, as long as there is no direct >effect on others. > >I don't believe there is any significant action that has no consequence >to the taxpaying public. Drug use has been singled out, as has >prostitution (on the state level anyway) for mostly moral, i.e. >religious reasons that to me are unacceptable. [Warning and advance apology: this is my first posting to net news.] No, it's not as simple as self-appointed "religious" and "moral" people deciding that you shouldn't ingest demon rum, or smoke marijuana, even in the privacy of your own home. Society does have a valid right to reegulate your drug usage. Every drug I can think of right now, with the quasi-exceptions of nicotine and caffeine, seriously affect one's ability to get along in life, for a long or short time. By that I mean driving while drunk, stoned, or on anything else (including antihistamines!) has the possibility, however great or slight, of not killing just you, but also any number of people who are on the road with you, and who had no choice in the matter of your drug usage. Not only driving skills are affected, of course: the crimes of alcoholics or addicts inflicted on their immediate family, friends, and neighbors is also well known. Lastly, there is the involuntary consumption of drugs, such as cigarette smoke in the office, or pot at an average concert. All of these things have an immediate and obvious effect on other people, but there is more to society's cost than welfare payments and other aid programs. To pick two examples of celebrity abuse of drugs (why? I dunno. I'm making this up as I go.), both Richard Pryor and Ricky Nelson had serious problems with freebasing cocaine. Richard set himself and fire and lived; Ricky set fire to his plane, killing himself, his friends, and the plane's staff. In both cases, society had to go about picking up the pieces. Richard Pryor used enormous amounts of resources, beginning with the emergency services, which could have been elsewhere, and ending with the lengthy recovery from his burns. I'm sure he paid handsomely for all of these things, and I'm definitely not saying that his intense suffering didn't count for something, but the simple fact remains that had he not been trying to process the cocaine in order to get a better high, he wouldn't have set his face on fire! With Ricky, it's obviously worse. Not only did he kill himself and others, but the nature of his accident brought in emergency and government resources which would not otherwise have had to be spent. The friends and relatives affected by this tragedy paid for his fun with with suffering; the rest of us paid in higher taxes and insurance premiums. As wealthy men, these were the only costs inflicted on society that I can think of right now; if they were common street junkies, we would also pay, individually, and in terms of society, by the various crimes performed to pay for their freebasing. And I don't even want to think about the crimes which pregnant junkies inflict on their unborn babies -- but it happens every single day. Don't get me wrong: I like drugs of all kinds, honest. I wish that there were less regulations on many of them. But the facts surrounding drug usage should force us to realize that there are many, many people who cannot handle their usage, and this, sadly, affects everyone. (quick digression: the same applies to gambling. I haven't spent a buck on a lottery ticket, ever, but how many stories have you heard of people blowing hundreds of dollars *every week*?) To think of drug usage only in terms of individual rights ("why can't I do ...??") is simply wrong. Although I am in favor of deregulation, I think our society must face the problems of abuse much more aggressively and with less tolerance. t
olsen@ll-xn.ARPA (Jim Olsen) (03/05/86)
I think the discussion under this topic has missed the basic ethical
issue. As I see it, the reason for banning addictive drugs is that the
drugs affect the user's decision to continue using them, and therefore
their use is cannot be truly voluntary. Of course, drawing the line
between addictive and non-addictive drugs is difficult, but many drugs
(e.g., heroin) clearly fit this line of reasoning.
--
Jim Olsen (olsen@ll-xn.arpa) ...!{decvax,lll-crg,seismo}!ll-xn!olsen