cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (01/17/90)
I'm shattered. One of my heroes, former Surgeon-General Koop, is actively encouraging employers to begin drug testing their employees [and is involved in get a bill passed that would standardize such tests and give employers guidelines on how to conduct them in a "suit proof" fashion]. On an interview on NPR, he referred several times to the notion that employers should do this for the employee's own good --- even in circumstances where he agreed it makes no difference at all to the employer or to the employee's performance on the job. He was esposing this intrusion into the employees life because *HE* thinks it will be "for the persons own good" [a catch phrase that almost always covers shoddy thinking], and that this is an important thing to do because it _might_ turn into a full-scale, life-ruining addiction, or it _might_ cause a real degradation in the employee's quality of work. How sad. Koop is so popular, and they're approaching this so diagonally [he's trying to help Orrin Hatch get a "federal standards for drug testing" bill pushed through], that he may well pull it off. After that it will be VERY hard to stop, since it has now been defined to be "not an intrusion" to require that employees pass regular drug tests. How very very sad for us all. I wonder if the next thing will be to require that we get our teeth checked every six months, and if there'll be a vigilante squad to come by my house and insure that I'm tucked into bed at an 'approved' hour so that I get my rest and I'm not too tired the next day... couldn't have me sleepy on the job, now, right???? GRRRRRRRRRRRR..... And even MORE worse (if you can believe that), is that Koop isn't doing this because he wants to further the war on drugs. He's doing it because he thinks it is RIGHT... that is, his paternalistic view of what the all-knowing benevolent employer should be doing to help look out for and help the poor, ignorant, bumbling employee includes these sorts of intrusions into the employee's lives. What is this world coming to???? I wonder why Koop has abandoned using the force of his personality and the force of logic, which seemed to be doing just fine and at the least garnered *MY* attention and respect, and instead is stooping to use the crude tools of force and coercion? /Bernie\
larry@csccat.UUCP (Larry Spence) (01/17/90)
In article <51002@bbn.COM> cosell@BBN.COM (Bernie Cosell) writes: >I'm shattered. One of my heroes, former Surgeon-General Koop, is >actively encouraging employers to begin drug testing their employees > >On an interview on NPR, he referred several times to the notion that >employers should do this for the employee's own good --- even in >circumstances where he agreed it makes no difference at all to the >employer or to the employee's performance on the job. He was esposing >this intrusion into the employees life because *HE* thinks it will be >"for the persons own good" [a catch phrase that almost always covers >shoddy thinking], and that this is an important thing to do because it >_might_ turn into a full-scale, life-ruining addiction, or it _might_ >cause a real degradation in the employee's quality of work. I just heard the same NPR interview. I want to puke, projectile-style. Koop also said that regular drug testing "improves employee morale." Huh? Check out Soviet Russia for examples of "employee morale" in totalitarian environments! He also claimed that studies had shown that 2 out of 3 Americans favor mandatory testing. Please say it ain't so! The worst part was that statement about testing even if the employee is having no problems with productivity, etc.! Arrrrrggghh! So my employer can come in zombied and laughing on Xanax (legally, of course), and that's OK -- they're looking for ILLEGAL drug use, just as a matter of principle! LEGAL drugs don't cause anyone ANY problems with their lives, OH NO! >How sad. Koop is so popular, and they're approaching this so diagonally >[he's trying to help Orrin Hatch get a "federal standards for drug testing" >bill pushed through], that he may well pull it off. After that it will be >VERY hard to stop, since it has now been defined to be "not an intrusion" to >require that employees pass regular drug tests. Really? The last I heard was that most decisions supporting testing had been overturned, except for pharmacists, pilots, etc. >How very very sad for us >all. I wonder if the next thing will be to require that we get our teeth >checked every six months, and if there'll be a vigilante squad to come by my >house and insure that I'm tucked into bed at an 'approved' hour so that I get >my rest and I'm not too tired the next day... couldn't have me sleepy on the >job, now, right???? And where do you stop? What if an employee spent several hours boning his girlfriend/wife one evening, and was still a bit out of it the next day? Is this going to be subjected to governmental controls, too? I think you'd see a lot more protest over THAT than over regulations designed to stop "those drug fiends." >And even MORE worse (if you can believe that), is that Koop isn't doing this >because he wants to further the war on drugs. He's doing it because he >thinks it is RIGHT... that is, his paternalistic view of what the all-knowing >benevolent employer should be doing to help look out for and help the poor, >ignorant, bumbling employee includes these sorts of intrusions into the >employee's lives. What is this world coming to???? Good fucking question. People seem all too willing to approve of this crap, since they see it as not directly affecting them, except that it helps rid the world of "drug scum," who are of course responsible for America's declining productivity, moral decay, MTV, the economy, etc. Didn't someone post a while back that there was a study that showed NO higher productivity at companies that did drug testing? I'd like to see that publicized more. [Please note that the example I gave involving my employer being fucked up on Xanax is PURELY hypothetical.] -- Larry Spence larry@csccat ...{texbell,texsun,attctc}!csccat!larry
callisto@blake.acs.washington.edu (Finn) (01/17/90)
In article <51002@bbn.COM> cosell@BBN.COM (Bernie Cosell) writes: >How sad. Koop is so popular, and they're approaching this so diagonally >[he's trying to help Orrin Hatch get a "federal standards for drug testing" >bill pushed through], that he may well pull it off. After that it will be >VERY hard to stop, since it has now been defined to be "not an intrusion" to >require that employees pass regular drug tests. How very very sad for us (and lots of other reports of atrocities both here and in the press..) I am beginning to think that the bill of rights and other legal provisions only apply when there is significant public pressure that they be applied. Apparantly a few people are on some kind of Control kick and have enough of the rest of the population fooled or apathetic enough that they are going to be able to continue this nonsense. Perhaps the only way to end this nonsense is to encourage them for a while. Perhaps when there are mandatory blood tests for school kids and routine stop and search blokades on the roads, people will come to their senses. Of course, history shows that even when ones neighbors are being packed into boxcars and sent off to "Kindler Gentler Camps", most folks will just thank God it isn't THEM (this time) and remark about how well the trains are staying on schedule...
dmcanzi@watserv1.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) (01/18/90)
In article <5353@blake.acs.washington.edu> callisto@blake.acs.washington.edu (Finn) writes: > I am beginning to think that the bill of rights and other legal provisions >only apply when there is significant public pressure that they be applied. Give that man a cigar. A constitution is only a sheet of ink-stained paper, and sheets of ink-stained paper have no power of enforcement. People in power have generally gone to a great deal of effort to get there -- you have to suspect that a desire for power itself played a part in their motivations, and if so, there is the danger that they will try to circumvent the parts of constitutions, such as bills of rights, that place limits on their power. If the people are unwilling to resist encroachments on their freedoms, they will lose them. I have seen, in recent years, people who I formerly considered to be quite moderate use immoderately angry language when referring to drug *users* (not pushers), and it's this kind of anger that makes people willing to break provisions of the Bill of Rights to *get* the ones they hate. Look around you -- society is full of groups motivated by anger, hatred, or resentment, begging the government to censor communications for them, to search and confiscate for them, and to punish not only suspected criminals but their families and friends *prior* to conviction. The stimulation of anger, hatred, and resentment is the perfect tool for getting a people to give away their freedoms. The politics of anger, hatred, and resentment are all around us. We are in deep shit. -- David Canzi
bob@delphi.uchicago.edu (Robert S. Lewis, Jr.) (01/18/90)
In article <650@watserv1.waterloo.edu> dmcanzi@watserv1.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) writes: >In article <5353@blake.acs.washington.edu> callisto@blake.acs.washington.edu (Finn) writes: >> I am beginning to think that the bill of rights and other legal provisions >>only apply when there is significant public pressure that they be applied. >Give that man a cigar. A cigar! But nicotine's a drug. Give this man a urine test, fast! :-)
larry@csccat.UUCP (Larry Spence) (01/18/90)
In article <650@watserv1.waterloo.edu> dmcanzi@watserv1.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) writes: > >The stimulation of anger, hatred, and resentment is the perfect tool >for getting a people to give away their freedoms. The politics of >anger, hatred, and resentment are all around us. In addition to anger, hatred, and resentment, let's not forget laziness. Over the last ??? years, a lot of nasty problems have been festering in the US: poverty, crime, national debt, poor response to foreign competition, etc. True solutions to those problems (1) are long-term in nature, (2) may require drastic changes in the economy and social structure, (3) will cost money and effort, (4) will often not be very exciting or telegenic. Politicians are not willing to bite the bullet and start working on long- term, realistic solutions, with few exceptions. It's not entirely their fault, they get elected on the basis of whether they made their constitu- ents financially successful and secure during their term. This is not always the case with all voters, but it's my opinion that most voters go with the candidate that will disrupt their lives the least and put the most money in their pocket. Call me cynical if you like. Since these nasty problems are growing, and recently discovered ones like global warming are appearing, we need a QUICK FIX. Well, there really aren't any, so what to do? Distract the voters. It's DRUGS that are the cause of poverty, poor productivity, amorality, debt, etc.! Yes, that's it! There have been numerous polls that have found that Americans think that drugs are the Number 1 Problem Facing The Nation. So this strategy appears to be working. It now seems a bit archaic to rage about "those damn Commies," since we've finally figured out that they're real people who aren't really so different from the rest of us. But everyone Knows that drug users are Bad People, Criminals, etc. Very little in the War On Drugs addresses compassion or rehabilitation, since we've been taught that these people are Scum. If you were a very poor ghetto black person, and you had no hope of doing any better, and you were offered drugs that would make you feel good again, even for just a short while, don't you think that YOU would take them? Let's not fool ourselves! Thus, attacking the drug problem is substituted for attacking all the other problems that we face as a nation. The average American doesn't have to make any unpleasant changes in his/her lifestyle in order to attack the Drug Menace. Just let the government do what's appropriate -- random searches, blood and urine tests, stepping on the Constitution in general. "I don't do drugs, so that's fine with me, right? Sure, I don't like to see the Constitution stretched, but this is Our Worst Problem!" I think that this is the attitude of many people. They feel that saying things like this is "doing their part to attack the Problem." And it's easy, just open your mouth and say it. No sacrifices. In a way, it would be neat for all illegal drug use to be wiped out. It would then become obvious that it wasn't responsible for most of our crime (although the illegal status certainly adds to it), most of our economic problems, most of our schooling problems, etc. I think that's one of the aspects that the government finds most attractive: they know they can't possibly win this war in any conclusive sense. They'll always be able to say "we're not trying hard enough," spending enough money, doing enough monitoring and testing, etc. They'll always have this scapegoat around to blame. Meanwhile, major corporations foul our air, land, and water. Homeless people starve while our President asks for a cut in the capital gains tax. These things are occasionally mentioned in the media, but the term "war" is not used. >We are in deep shit. Exactly. -- Larry Spence larry@csccat ...{texbell,texsun,attctc}!csccat!larry
andy@lightning.cis.ufl.edu (Andy Wilcox) (01/18/90)
In article <650@watserv1.waterloo.edu> dmcanzi@watserv1.waterloo.edu (David Canzi) writes: >If the people are unwilling to resist encroachments on their freedoms, >they will lose them. Wasn't it Truman that said "The people will get exactly the kind of government they deserve"? (pardon the paraphrase, I can't find my Bartletts...) I was unfortunate enough to WATCH this program on C-SPAN. As some of you may recall, Koop spoke here at UF recently (I posted a summary). So, I was eager to watch his performance again. As the original poster (Bernie Cosell <cosell@bbn.com>) said : "I'm shattered". I just *couldn't believe* the BS Koop was throwing around. One reported asked about the inclusion of Alcohol in this Bill. Koop replied something like "The alcohol user, impaired on the job, is easy to spot. Thus, there is no need to test them or include provisions for alcohol in this bill." Uh, Excuse me? My money says that alcohol causes the most "lost" work hours nationwide. Tobacco was not mentioned one little bitty bit in the whole nasty affair. It just stuns me, over and over, to see such numbers like mortality and sick time overlooked when counting beans for "the drug problem". And oh boy do I get pissed when I hear "my *GOD*! How can you advocate cocaine legalization when we've lost Len, John, ..." Sure, I'm sad their gone, but there were 1,000 funerals for cigarette smokers on the day their respecive funerals where held. >We are in deep shit. No shit. -Andy Wilcox (andy@ufl.edu)
wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) (01/20/90)
In article <ANDY.90Jan17230443@lightning.cis.ufl.edu>, Andy Wilcox said: > And oh boy do I get pissed when I hear "my *GOD*! How can you > advocate cocaine legalization when we've lost Len, John, ..." Okay, "Len" is Len Bias, aka St. Len of Bias, the college kid who celebrated being drafted in the first round by the Celtic by going out and getting himself a cocaine-induced coronary. But who's this "John?" -- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>