Should drugtesting be commonplace?
Or should it be allowable only for specific occupations?

I for one consider it to be an infringement upon common rights.
Testing positive for an illicit substance doesn't necessarily mean that one is currently under the influence or impaired by that substance. All that it means is that there are traces still in the system. It's very different to an alcohol test.

Different tests can procure different results. For example: A urine test will not show a positive result where a hair sample may.
The objective in the workplace is only to ascertain if the employee is currently impaired in their task. Anything else is none of the employers business.
That being said, employers readily condone the most treacherous enemy of workplace safety, which is lack of sleep.  
I recently missed a random swab test only because I'd left the building. If I had've been asked to provide a sample, I would've told the prick to go swab his asshole.

I fully support drug testing.
I am more than happy to test any drugs they will give me.

amadd - you hav a good point here


Quote:

............The objective in the workplace is only to ascertain if the employee is currently impaired in their task. Anything else is none of the employers business. That being said, employers readily condone the most treacherous enemy of workplace safety, which is lack of sleep.   .....

if they want workplace performance, they should also for alcohol, lack of sleep, emotional problems.
From the CEO downwards. CEOS's make decisions MUCH more far reaching than labourers.

Like you say, if a person indulged on the weekend at a party or whatever, it's none of their employer's business providing it doesn't have an effect on work performance.

Sprintcyclist wrote on May 20^th, 2010 at 9:50am:

amadd - you hav a good point here Quote: ............The objective in the workplace is only to ascertain if the employee is currently impaired in their task. Anything else is none of the employers business. That being said, employers readily condone the most treacherous enemy of workplace safety, which is lack of sleep.   ..... if they want workplace performance, they should also for alcohol, lack of sleep, emotional problems. From the CEO downwards. CEOS's make decisions MUCH more far reaching than labourers.

Yes, like who can be made redundant to finance their latest (lack of) performance bonus.

There are quite a few professions where I agree with mandatory drug testing..airline pilots for instance.

Quote:

There are quite a few professions where I agree with mandatory drug testing..airline pilots for instance.

I could understand airline pilots being tested to a degree, however, there are other tests available which don't involve taking body samples and which can assess the suitability to take charge of an aircraft far better than a "one size fits all" drug test.

As far as generally testing the population goes, it's rubbish. I took my first ever drug test the other week and flunked it because a small amount of codeine showed up from the panadeine I took over the weekend because of a cold I caught from working in the elements.
That was the first and last drug test that I'll be taking in the workplace. It was humiliating to fail it.


Quote:

I fully support drug testing. I am more than happy to test any drugs they will give me.

;D Yeah, you can't even joke about it to the wrong person these days.

It's my view that this widespread drug testing is just an excuse to gain acceptance in the eventual testing of the entire population. Maybe that's a good thing, but it's certainly an infringement and I won't be taking part in it.

Amadd wrote on May 20^th, 2010 at 4:55pm:

Quote: There are quite a few professions where I agree with mandatory drug testing..airline pilots for instance. I could understand airline pilots being tested to a degree, however, there are other tests available which don't involve taking body samples and which can assess the suitability to take charge of an aircraft far better than a "one size fits all" drug test.

You mean computer based impairment testing?  It doesn't work.
Drug and alcohol testing in the workplace serves one purpose only - as a deterrent. It's not the primary method of detecting impairment. The primary method is observation by peers.  

The number of casualties on the road in Australia in 1974 was around 3800. By 2001, that figure had halved while the number of cars on the road had doubled.

The reason - people changed their attitudes to drinking and driving.

If you look at the trends, you can see where RBT was brought in in the various states.

What drug and alcohol testing doesn't do is to test for impairment.
A baseline study was conducted on pilots using a flight simulator. None had been drinking. The errors rate was 10% (the criterion was task completed without error). After 6 standard drinks, and a blood level of around 0.1, the error rate increased to 89%. After a rest period of 14 hours and no further drinks, the alcohol levels had dropped to below the detection limit. At that point, the error rate was 68%. If anybody wants references to the study, I can provide it.  

The conclusion is that blood alcohol level is not a guide to impairment level.

Do I think that drug/alcohol  testing should be required for high risk workers? Yes,  as a deterrent.

At my place of work, we conduct random testing. It's totally random unless a positive result is obtained. That person is then subjected to targetted testing for a period of time.

We also do pre-employment medicals which include blood based drug testing. Even if not impaired, traces of THC indicate a possible drug habit. Anybody returning a positive result is denied employment because they are not considered worth the risk of employment.

An an example our criteria for a negative result are alcohol - zero detected and THC <4 ng/100ml.

The drug testing includes Cocaine, THC, benzodiazepines, amphetamines and Opiates.

Our last work based injury was in 2004.  It's a high risk industry.

I would have to agree with muso, but only from the point of personal observation, and anecdotal evidence, that impairment testing would not necessarily show if a person was intoxicated or not.

I know that many complex tasks can be completed very efficiently while under the influence of various drugs, and in certain circumstances some illegal drugs would even be considered performance enhancing.

If I had the choice of a chronically opiate addicted brain surgeon operating on me under the influence of opiates, or not, I would choose the former, because that has become his operating normality, and would be when he performed at his optimum.
If a non addicted person were given the same dose, I would not let them near me for all the tea in china, so you can see how a mere impairment test would not give consistent results, as one could function perfectly while under the influence of drugs, and another could not.

The thing about workplace safety is that consistency is required, and rules must be constructed that will deliver the best results for the majority, which may forestall the brilliant, but addicted doctor's career, but provides the greatest protection for the greatest number.

Quote:

You mean computer based impairment testing? It doesn't work. Drug and alcohol testing in the workplace serves one purpose only - as a deterrent. It's not the primary method of detecting impairment. The primary method is observation by peers.

Yes the primary method has always worked very well. Nobody wants to be working alongside somebody who is a danger to others whether they are under the influence or not.


Quote:

A baseline study was conducted on pilots using a flight simulator. None had been drinking. The errors rate was 10% (the criterion was task completed without error). After 6 standard drinks, and a blood level of around 0.1, the error rate increased to 89%. After a rest period of 14 hours and no further drinks, the alcohol levels had dropped to below the detection limit. At that point, the error rate was 68%.

So are you now saying that is does work?

Amadd wrote on May 22^nd, 2010 at 6:31pm:

Quote: You mean computer based impairment testing? It doesn't work. Drug and alcohol testing in the workplace serves one purpose only - as a deterrent. It's not the primary method of detecting impairment. The primary method is observation by peers.   Yes the primary method has always worked very well. Nobody wants to be working alongside somebody who is a danger to others whether they are under the influence or not. [quote]A baseline study was conducted on pilots using a flight simulator. None had been drinking. The errors rate was 10% (the criterion was task completed without error). After 6 standard drinks, and a blood level of around 0.1, the error rate increased to 89%. After a rest period of 14 hours and no further drinks, the alcohol levels had dropped to below the detection limit. At that point, the error rate was 68%.

So are you now saying that is does work?
[/quote]

This is going to take too long to explain, but the study was of a population, not an individual. In the study, they took them through a simulated take off and landing. They gauged each task on adherence to procedure. Now 10% had one or more faults even with no alcohol consumed. Would you fail that 10%?  I don't think so. Everybody goes through diurnal cycles, and we all perform better at certain times of that cycle. There is too much individual variation to use computer based testing as a valid method for an individual.

(That's a shortened version of the reply I should have given you.)

mozzaok wrote on May 22^nd, 2010 at 4:41pm:

If I had the choice of a chronically opiate addicted brain surgeon operating on me under the influence of opiates, or not, I would choose the former, because that has become his operating normality, and would be when he performed at his optimum. If a non addicted person were given the same dose, I would not let them near me for all the tea in china, so you can see how a mere impairment test would not give consistent results, as one could function perfectly while under the influence of drugs, and another could not.

Well it depends on the drug, but every drug has some unique effect on impairment depending on whether they are stimulants, depressants, hallucinogens etc . Small amounts of cannabis can actually improve the response time.

IMHO, the worst class of drug for impairment is benzodiazepines (sedatives), and some antihistamines can be just as bad.  

Even Oxytocin has an impairment effect. Don't drive when you're madly in love  ;D

Quote:

The number of casualties on the road in Australia in 1974 was around 3800. By 2001, that figure had halved while the number of cars on the road had doubled. The reason - people changed their attitudes to drinking and driving.

Don't you think that you may be leaving out a few factors there?

How about: Better and safer roads, safer modern cars equipped with airbags, abs, crash tested crumple zones..etc. etc.?



Quote:

This is going to take too long to explain, but the study was of a population, not an individual. In the study, they took them through a simulated take off and landing. They gauged each task on adherence to procedure. Now 10% had one or more faults even with no alcohol consumed. Would you fail that 10%?  I don't think so. Everybody goes through diurnal cycles, and we all perform better at certain times of that cycle. There is too much individual variation to use computer based testing as a valid method for an individual.

My expectation is that all pilots would require a very high degree of competency. I'd expect them to do very well in computer simulated tests regardless of any natural cycles. If they are found to fall below the required levels of competency on occasions, then I'd prefer that they not be my pilot.

But what I'm talking about here is Mr. Douchebag who drives around in his little van collecting information from ordinary working people. That's just not on IMO. There needs to be a line drawn somewhere.

Quote:

Don't you think that you may be leaving out a few factors there? How about: Better and safer roads, safer modern cars equipped with airbags, abs, crash tested crumple zones..etc. etc.?

If you control for these innovations and progressions in design but not for a shifted attitude towards drink driving, how much would things be different to how they are now?


Quote:

If they are found to fall below the required levels of competency on occasions, then I'd prefer that they not be my pilot.

But what if after repeated testing, or testing at different times, a 10% constituted of different pilots from that initial 10% is found to fail as well? I think that's what Muso was getting at; everybody is going to fail at some point in time.

Quote:

If you control for these innovations and progressions in design but not for a shifted attitude towards drink driving, how much would things be different to how they are now?

These innovations and progressions are very often (if not usually) discovered by racing teams, not automotive manufacturers or governments who are supposedly concerned for our safety. How many deaths needed to occur before something was done about our blackspots and pathetic road conditions?

Drunk driving is no doubt unsafe and education (and the whip) in this department has helped to lower the road toll, but it's not an exclusive factor, and maybe not even the major factor.


Quote:

But what if after repeated testing, or testing at different times, a 10% constituted of different pilots from that initial 10% is found to fail as well? I think that's what Muso was getting at; everybody is going to fail at some point in time.

Well that's where the line for competencey should be drawn shouldn't it?

If an airline pilot of 30yrs who hasn't done a drug or touched a drop in his/her life is found not to meet the required standards, then they shouldn't be in charge of an aircraft. Especially not a passenger aircraft.

Recommendations by The Privacy Committee of New South Wales

October 1992.

Recommendation 1:


Unless specifically authorised by legislation, workplace drug testing should only take place when:


i.  a person’s impairment by drugs would pose a substantial and demonstrable safety risk to that person or to other people; and

ii.  there is reasonable cause to believe that the person to be tested may be impaired by drugs; and

iii.  of drug testing to be used is capable of identifying the presence of a drug at concentrations which may be capable of causing impairment.



Recommendation 2:  


Workplace drug testing should be prohibited by legislation other than when:

i.  a person's impairment by drugs would pose a substantial and demonstrable safety risk to that person or to other people; and


ii  there is reasonable cause to believe that the person to be tested may be impaired by drugs; and


iii  the form of drug testing to be used is capable of identifying the presence of a drug at concentrations which may be capable of causing impairment.



Recommendation 3:


Workplace drug testing that is permitted should be subject to procedural standards, set out in legislation, to protect the privacy interests of those who are tested.


http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SGeBBfS43ZAJ:www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/privacynsw/ll_pnsw.nsf/vwFiles/drug%2520testing%2520complete.doc/%24file/drug%2520testing%2520complete.doc+workplace+drug+testing+disclosure+of+results+Australia+employees&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

Quote:

Drunk driving is no doubt unsafe and education (and the whip) in this department has helped to lower the road toll, but it's not an exclusive factor, and maybe not even the major factor.

Well I do not have the statistics, but I do have a long enough memory to remember when everyone drove pissed, really, really pissed.

We used to joke about it, "who is the most pissed? they can drive us home, ha, ha"

I remember driving home one night, and I just aimed for the white line in the middle of the thirty or forty white lines blurred in front of me.
I drove when I was too pissed to walk.
It was moronically stupid, and happened all the time.

The simple change from that attitude, to the one we see today, where anyone who even thought about driving drunk would be castigated by mates and strangers alike, to not be a bloody idiot, is certainly what I put the major drop in road toll figures down too.

You have the memory of being an 18 - 25 yr old driver - back in the 50's wasn't it?  ;) That age group and gender are still the most likely to come to grief on the roads, or anywhere else for that matter. Do we need to have hormone and testosterone tests as well? Or maybe just ban 18 -25 yr old males from doing anything other than moving bricks and fighting wars?

The 18-25yrs old males are still there, same as it ever was.
If you live in a buiilt up area, have a listen outside your door sometime and find an Abba tune that matches the words: Can you hear the male bravado?

Without looking at the stats, you might also consider adding these factors into the equation:

Would you consider that there are relatively more or less women drivers on the road compared to 30 or 40 yrs ago?
I'd say more, and I'd also take into account that women are generally more conservative drivers than men, but not quite as conservative as they once were.

Would you consider that alcohol abuse amongst women is higher or lower today than 30 or 40 yrs ago?
I'd definitely say much higher. That doesn't necessarily mean that there are relatively more drunk women on the road nowadays than 40 yrs ago, but it's another factor to take in account when assessing the overall effectiveness of "deterrent" measures.

If you've ever pulled out some old packing newspapers and had a good read of them, you'd know how much fun it is and how interesting it is to look back at just a few years ago.
The other day I was looking at some nine yr. old packing paper mainly for house and car prices, and I noticed an article on a car crash where the residents had been complaining about a notorious intersection for years.
What came to my attention was the absence of the words, "Police say that speed was the major contributiing factor". And no mention of alcohol either.
That's strange, I thought that all accidents were due to either speed or alcohol.

Recently, I've been privy to the fact that accidents can also be caused by residual elements in the ends of your hairs. Thanks for that bs fact moron liars, now go stuff yourselves!ii

Quote:

The simple change from that attitude, to the one we see today, where anyone who even thought about driving drunk would be castigated by mates and strangers alike, to not be a bloody idiot, is certainly what I put the major drop in road toll figures down too.

And here is where you have been fooled Mozz.
18 - 25yr olds like to be bloody idiots. They know it and accept it, just as you did. But they also know that they are nearing the major strength of any society, and this is true.
When you became all growed up (as in losing reflex response), you realised that the acts of bravado that you performed could have so easily been detrimental in so many ways, but you did them anyway, as did I.
The attitude that has been changed is the belief that hindering the natural development of young people will be a service to society. It won't, it will be a fkcuing disaster.
So please look over the stats in an open minded manner and you will find that the displayed figures are at best creative accountancy, but in truth they are downright lies.
The law should work within the bounds of what people are, not within the imaginings of what would seem nice. There's no use in robbing Peter to pay Paul; Peter has been pillaged to within an inch of his very existence.

Any thoughts of forcefully creating an imagined younger generation that
operates as you didn't or couldn't should be well and truly tucked away.

I also think that society lacks any strong rite of passage in our culture, so many people hold on to childish behaviour for too long, but what on earth are you talking about the stats for, because they totally contradict any argument you may be profferring.

When I was young we had over a thousand ayear die on our roads, just in victoria alone, now, with vastly more people, and cars on the roads, we are down to less than a third of that figure.
That is the fact of the matter.

Quote:

I also think that society lacks any strong rite of passage in our culture, so many people hold on to childish behaviour for too long, but what on earth are you talking about the stats for, because they totally contradict any argument you may be profferring. When I was young we had over a thousand ayear die on our roads, just in victoria alone, now, with vastly more people, and cars on the roads, we are down to less than a third of that figure. That is the fact of the matter.

One moment please (you should remember that one).
What is it exactly that you think that I am proffering?
I'm by no means suggesting that blood alcohol testing should not be allowed. All that I'm saying is to consider the other factors involved before stating that the road toll has been cut predominantly due to blood alcohol testing.
The real contradiction lies within Muso's stats that say that the effects of alcohol still exist to a great extent even after it is no longer detectable.

What I am saying is that drug testing is worth 2/10ths of fukc all. Cannabis may be detected long after it ever had any effect on competency, of which is arguable in itself. And depending on the method of testing employed, all sorts of results may be ascertained regarding perceived competency which in fact is no more useful than ascertaining which side of the bed an individual got out from.

But back the point of acohol testing being the predominant factor in cutting the road toll. Do you agree or disagree with my assumptions of what the true stats would show?
Do you remember when there was a large push by society to make roads safer for such things like: level crossings, blind spots, dangerous obstacles,
black ice..etc.?
Do you remember the introduction of roundabouts?
Do you remember owning a vehicle without abs, traction control or even power steering? Do you remember owning a vehicle which handled like a boat?
And do you remember when the shift occured to throw the blame back on society? The media added the line: "Police say that alcohol was the cause".
Now what we see is : "Police say that speed was the major contributing factor". Which is true, because if the vehicle wasn't moving then it wouldn't have come to a sudden stop.


Quote:

I also think that society lacks any strong rite of passage in our culture, so many people hold on to childish behaviour for too long, but what on earth are you talking about the stats for, because they totally contradict any argument you may be profferring.

That's a really disturbing comment Mozz, extremely disturbing.
In a nutshell, you are saying "Don't do as I did, be as I am now".
"Don't learn, don't grow..just be what I say you are."

You are talking about contradiction? "Society lacks any rite of passage in our culture" WTF!!  :o
Society has every rite in every culture. Without society, there is no bloody culture. Are you confusing the chicken with the egg?

Being a bit of a poker player, I sincerely hope that you are just trying to fire me up on that one.
I really really hope that's what you were trying to do with your inane logic, otherwise Mantra is very right in her insinuation that you've totally lost the plot.

Well I guess Mantra must be right, because it was not some ploy to fire you up, I feel that we could learn a lot from other cultures about rites of passage from childhood to adulthood, as it gives youth a goal, and a direction, and a sense of accomplishment, and finally a feeling of worth, and belonging.

Now they are all pretty major things in an individuals life, and while we may not have a mountain lion to wrestle, or an ikran to tame, as in avatar the movie, the whole rite of passage concept has served many cultures but it is something we have lost in ours.

The umption you put before your ass was that I was saying people should just grow up because I say so, when what I was saying was that we need to find a better way for kids to define their own rite of passage other than getting pissed and driving really fast, as I and many others before and after me have done, because it is a crappy stupid behaviour invented by dumb kids because they had no structure to follow.
How much of the silly posturing you see from use is them trying to assert their manhood?
Too much.

Maybe you did not watch as many old movies or read as many old stories as me, and you were unfamiliar with the whole rite of passage concept, but it is something that is pretty commonly understood, and many share my concern that our modern culture has no equivalent to offer our youth.

As far as what you say about drug testing, I agree with you completely, on everything except the point that muso was making, it is there as a deterrent, and while I think our drug laws are poo, I still like to know that some beanhead who reckons he drives really well when he is off his nana on ice, knows that if he gets pulled up at a booze bus he will go down for it.
So if that makes him take a little less, or drive a little more carefully, or not drive at all, it has helped, as a deterrent, and maybe some people will not get hurt who otherwise would have.
Because the person he may have hurt may have been someone you cared about.

BTW, I can drive really well on most things, but that is a personal assessment, which may not be totally objective, because I was "OFF MY FLIPPIN BRAIN, at the time.

Quote:

The umption you put before your ass was that I was saying people should just grow up because I say so, when what I was saying was that we need to find a better way for kids to define their own rite of passage other than getting pissed and driving really fast, as I and many others before and after me have done, because it is a crappy stupid behaviour invented by dumb kids because they had no structure to follow. How much of the silly posturing you see from use is them trying to assert their manhood? Too much.

Maybe I went off a bit half-cocked there, my apologies.
Yes I agree that kids don't have much structure to follow. But most have more common sense than they are given credit for and they'll see through the lies that society puts before them. Creating more lies doesn't go anywhere towards providing them more structure, it just builds another wall to tear down when the truth is discovered.
The truth is that many drugs can enhance performance for the short term.

If a truck driver is foolishly going to attempt to drive from Melbourne to Darwin and back in one hit, then I'd hope that he/she has some good drugs on board. The advent of log books may have helped to stamp out this type of behavior by drivers or their pressuring employers, but it still happens. So there's yet another factor that you may have overlooked when assuming that breath testing is practically the sole reason for lowering the road toll.

Would I condone taking drugs to enhance performance or experience in some areas? Not at all, ..well maybe. The truth is that they can be an enhancement. I probably would've never listened to 'the beatles' music, or many other bands, if they had never taken drugs.
The point is that it's none of my business to judge anybody because they may have residual substances in their system and i don't like to be judged in that way either.

The initial point of the topic was not to debate the finer details, but to gauge a line of acceptence. Unfortunately, I am disappointed.
My first ever experience with a drug test was unsavory to say the least.
Firstly, I was required to fill in and sign a questionnaire about what I may have ingested over the past ten days, to which I stated that I had a bit of a cold (from working in the elements all night) but had only taken a few panadeine.
I was then required to empty my pockets and piss on demand with the nurse listening on to make sure that I was actually pissing as instructed.
I was then notified that something had shown up and was required to fill in and sign another form to release my sample for further testing.
For a $100 fee I could contest the finding that I had told them in the first place.
"Doesn't the result show that it's a bit of codeine, like I said?", I asked. "It probably is (ie: you're probably telling the truth) but it needs further testing".
"How long will that take?", I asked.  "A couple of days" she said.

After 3 weeks, I finally got the all clear and won the right to continue to work in the freezing cold performing the same tasks that I have been for the past six months without incident or any reason to suspect that I may be under the influence (because I never have been) while at work.
Only now, if I want to keep my job, I need to fill in more forms contractually agreeing to ongoing random drug and alcohol testing.

Rite of passage? Don't even bother trying to fit into this load of poo young brothers and sisters.









i

aikmann4 wrote on May 23^rd, 2010 at 7:46pm:

But what if after repeated testing, or testing at different times, a 10% constituted of different pilots from that initial 10% is found to fail as well? I think that's what Muso was getting at; everybody is going to fail at some point in time.

You pretty well hit the nail on the head. Computer based impairment systems have had their day, but there are too many false positives and false negatives.  

You can certainly tell a lot about trends in a population, but you can't tell much about any one individual.

Fatigue affects people differently. I deliberately took a computer based test once while extremely tired. I would not have considered driving at that stage, yet I passed the test by focussing my attention on the test alone (and that technique could  be a dangerous practice if people are oblivious to everything else). Other people had trouble passing the test even while alert, but otherwise showed no signs of impairment.

This was a test which required the candidate to decide if all the shapes were identical or if one was different. Each frame had about 9 shapes.  

These tests do have their uses. Some people can use them to gauge their own level of impairment, but it doesn't work for everyone.  

Thanks for giving more detail there Ammad, it certainly shows why it would be annoying, and I think your circumstance is really more about the whole nanny state/big brother mentality that seems to be pervading every walk of life.

Now I accept that in some instances there is real need to police people's behaviour, for the greater good, but the boundaries are very much being blurred, when employers see drug testing as a tool to target workers they have concerns about for reasons other than safety.
There is also the trade off between the good we see from living in a safer environment, and the lack of spontaneity and excitement that probably provided many of us with our proudest and fondest memories.

I was a keen surfer, especially bigger surf, as well as loving rock climbing, snow skiing, sailing, even just jumping off cliffs into the sea, or pools for fun, in other words, some pretty high risk stuff, but all great fun, and the way we are going we will see governments wanting to protect us from exposing ourselves to such risky behaviours, which would see a major diminution of the joy of life for many people, and would be a horrible imposition on our freedoms.

I can see where we pose a significant risk to the well being of others, then our behaviours could be fairly restricted, but if we wish to be adrenaline junkies ourselves, then no bureaucrat should get in our way.
It is finding a sensible drawing of the lines between what is merely risky behaviour, and what is dangerously threatening to others, and we should be able to work that out without too much angst.

Amadd wrote on May 27^th, 2010 at 8:00am:

One moment please (you should remember that one). What is it exactly that you think that I am proffering? I'm by no means suggesting that blood alcohol testing should not be allowed. All that I'm saying is to consider the other factors involved before stating that the road toll has been cut predominantly due to blood alcohol testing. The real contradiction lies within Muso's stats that say that the effects of alcohol still exist to a great extent even after it is no longer detectable.

The psychologist who presented this information had been around the traps. There were other issues, but the main two issues have been seatbelts and attitude to drink driving and if you follow the l graphs you can see where seatbelts  and RBT came in in various States.  

As I said before, if people think they could get caught, they adjust their drinking habits, or just leave the car and walk or take public transport. Back in the 1970's there was a certain bravado about drink driving that doesn't exist today. Mozzaok talked about that too.

The testing itself is no direct measure of impairment, but it does have the indirect effect of reducing one of the causes.  If it means that overall we have to deal with fewer deaths or serious injuries then I don't really have a problem with it.

It's funny how a serious accident changes a person's whole outlook in life.

Quote:

The psychologist who presented this information had been around the traps. There were other issues, but the main two issues have been seatbelts and attitude to drink driving and if you follow the l graphs you can see where seatbelts  and RBT came in in various States.

Yes seatbelts are another factor. An Aussie invention I believe.
How many other factors besides the "fear factor" of RB testing have been discussed so far?
I haven't seen the graphs that you are talking about, but it would come as no surprise that a "fear factor" would come into play to a large degree there. Take for example, the AIDS fear factor. I'll bet that you saw a reduction in promiscuous sexual activity immediately after the "Grim Reaper" spoke his piece through the media.
But as Elaine Benice (Seinfeld) said, "Well, you know, you gotta live your life". And the orgies go on. Condoms being the major saving grace when they are used properly.



Quote:

You mean computer based impairment testing?  It doesn't work. Drug and alcohol testing in the workplace serves one purpose only - as a deterrent. It's not the primary method of detecting impairment. The primary method is observation by peers.   The number of casualties on the road in Australia in 1974 was around 3800. By 2001, that figure had halved while the number of cars on the road had doubled. The reason - people changed their attitudes to drinking and driving.

The media pushes many points which I most often agree to have a lot of merit, but push it too far and it becomes a lie.
Are you remembering RB testing as being "THE" reason? The media always added lines like "alcohol was the major contributing factor", as they do today with their "Speed was the major contributing factor", whilst they rip money from people left right and centre to the detriment of society as a whole.

Not being in the 18-25 age group means that you don't see what goes on as you once did. I'm sure they still do some pretty crazy stuff.
But is it fair to be using drug tests in the workplace as a deterrent to what they might get up to on the weekends? I don't think so. I think that it would be more of a deterrent to getting a job.

You said that computer based impairment testing doesn't work. And you also said that you passed one of these tests when you decided yourself that you would not drive a motor vehicle in your then current condition.
There was nothing within the law that stated that you couldn't drive, so why didn't you just mindlessly drive?
You have to assume that if it is not written, then it's OK don't you? Why don't you just follow the law?
I think that a $400 obligation would be fair penance....don't you?

I can't see how you'd think that computer based simiulations using our current technology, tailored to meet the requirements of specifiic tasks, which could be assessed over multiple readings relative to previous results to provide an accurate assessment of current competency, are worth less than our current random drug testing system. They would seem to be of far greater benefit to me.




ii

Amadd wrote on May 28^th, 2010 at 10:20am:

You said that computer based impairment testing doesn't work. And you also said that you passed one of these tests when you decided yourself that you would not drive a motor vehicle in your then current condition. There was nothing within the law that stated that you couldn't drive, so why didn't you just mindlessly drive? You have to assume that if it is not written, then it's OK don't you? Why don't you just follow the law? I think that a $400 obligation would be fair penance....don't you? I can't see how you'd think that computer based simiulations using our current technology, tailored to meet the requirements of specifiic tasks, which could be assessed over multiple readings relative to previous results to provide an accurate assessment of current competency, are worth less than our current random drug testing system. They would seem to be of far greater benefit to me.

Well to take the first point first, I self regulate. You'll probably think I'm boring, but I live by risk assessment. Hitting a kangaroo carries a number of possible consequences, including death of the driver. I really value my life.  

On the second point, it's not currently possible to determine if a driver is impaired using computer technology. However, if a person is reading 0.05 on a breath test, there is a fair chance that they are impaired.  The degree to which they are impaired depends whether that 0.05 reading was taken in the morning after a very heavy drinking session, or just after 3 standard drinks.

There is also the question of why the person was impaired. It's unreasonable to expect a person to realise that he's impaired if he's in love, or he comes from NSW and his team just lost the State of Origin again (although he'd be resigned to that by now), or he just got fired, or he just had an argument, or he's chatting on the hands-free or any number of other reasons that could cause impairment.

I agree with your point about "speed was a major contributor".  How can they tell that it was speed rather than unskillful driving that caused the accident? They can't.

On drug testing, saliva testing doesn't usually pick up casual use of drugs. It's a reasonably good way of detecting levels of drugs that can cause impairment only.  Most workplaces that do drug testing, use saliva testing.

Urine testing is much more sensitive, and more commonly used for job applicants.

Quote:

Well to take the first point first, I self regulate.

Why would I have anything against self-regulation? That's basically the entire point of my concern.  Self-regulation is the anti-thesis of being externally controlled and is the only real way forward IMO.
Education is far different than using fear as a tool. Fear is also a tool of God, but that's another story.
I say good for you that you choose to live all of your waking hours in regards to the stats that you have found to be true, but don't think for a minute that you are a messenger of God's ultimate plan.
There are others who are also free to choose their way, even if you might disagree with it.
The question is IMO, to what extent are they putting society at risk vs. the the risk of not allowing people to engage in some somewhat risky behavior?
A point that Mozz raised a few posts ago.

The risk is foregoing the freedoms that we have fought for to be self-regulating for the greater good. And that's just a personal opinion, I wouldn't want it to be enforced globally on my account.

But what I'm talking about is surrendering information to some other asshole who thinks that he/she is in charge of the wellbeing of society and it's future where I don't see fit.
I can self-regulate myself thankyou very much...can you?
If I choose to try a out a drug which will have no discernible effect by the time that I front up for work, then it's none of anybody else's business.

More often than not, those who spout that they have it all mapped out are the ones who display very extraordinary behaviour and they are most often the ones who fall to grief because they set themselves out of reach goals of enamouring a facade of being a direct descendant of God itself/whatself/whoself.

Do I want to protect my own self-interest to do drugs? Well, I might try something out once or twice a year, but alcohol is my vice, even though I always make sure that I front up for work sober. It's a pity that the company manager doesn't do the same... :D  but he is above the random testing so it doesn't matter to him.
And it's a also a pity that a certain St.Kilda supporting owner of the widespread company has a history of murder and running moonshine in his own residence.
Don't do as I did, do as I see fit now.

The company is of no concern to me. I do things, and pass over things in the workplacer now which in the past would have been of some concern to me, and that's because of the contempt I have for over the top rules and regulatios.iii

Amadd wrote on May 29^th, 2010 at 1:57am:

[quote] Do I want to protect my own self-interest to do drugs? Well, I might try something out once or twice a year, but alcohol is my vice, even though I always make sure that I front up for work sober. It's a pity that the company manager doesn't seem to have the same self-discipline... :D And it's a also a pity that a certain St.Kilda supporting owner of the widespread company has a history of murder and running moonshine in his own residence. Don't do as I did, do as I see fit now.

What you just said explains why high risk industries have these drug and alcohol testing regimes in the first place. It's a jungle out there. The occupational health and safety standards in general society are dismally low. Of course they are not quite as bad as say Indonesia or China, and nowhere near as bad as the US, but compared to Europe, they are abysmal.  

On one of our sites, we once tried to use a local plumbing contractor for example. He turned up in shorts and didn't have a clue about regulations or legislation. It's impossible to supervise these people 100% of the time, and he ended up with an injury as a result of poor work practices. It was a minor injury, but his attitude was totally primitive and unacceptable. He seemed to think that it was just part of the job to have an injury.  

If we didn't have a considerable amount of pre-employment screening and drug testing, we'd end up with people like that.  

To that out of touch response Muso, I just threw my hands in the air and asked myself "Pffftt..why bother?"

Firstly, the short answer to contractors who have little or no idea as to workplace safety standards is to not have them at all if possible.
Secondly, if a contractor is required, they should be properly inducted and assessed to meet workplace requirements. Obviously this did not happen in the case of your cowboy plumber. And obviously a pre-employment drug test would not have revealed that he was wearing shorts where eyes would have.


Quote:

If we didn't have a considerable amount of pre-employment screening and drug testing, we'd end up with people like that.

What you will end up with is a considerable amount of employees who are good at passing pre-employment screening. Not much else.

I don't agree at all that our OH&S standards are low, in fact I think that they are too strict in many departments regarding acceptable risk.

For example: The company employs a 10km/h onsite speed limit (to satisfy OH&S requirements) and requires that all employees sign documentation agreeing to adhere to speed limits, yet the workload requires that all employees at times travel onsite at 20km/h, and most often at 15 - 18km/h.

Management enforces that speed limits will be exceeded as long as their ass is covered by employee signitures.

If the existing employee will not sign, then there are others that will. And that's the basic company policy all over Australia. As long as they satisfy documentation and put the onus on the employee then all is well.
If the employee won't agree to overstep safety standards, then there are a zillion employment agencies who will supply workers with a "shorts and thongs" mentality to satisfy the requirements of both the agency and company management.

A common pre-employment check is to ascertan if the prospective employee has a mortgage. If so, they know that the prospective employee is malleable. They know that they will dance to the tune of company exploitation.

Getting back to drug testing and where the above fits into the argument: The standards are too high to meet with realistic company expectations and acceptable risk.
If an employee has an accident whilst travelling at 4km/h above the designated speed limit to that they have contractually agreed to, then of course they will be in breach of contract.
Similarly, with drug testing. If an employee is found to have any trace elements existing of a substance that they have contractually agreed to not have existing in any way in their system, regardless of how little impact on real performance, then they will be in breach of contract.

The real mentality is: The fear of losing your house, it's a brainstorm of Menzies that Howard ran with.
So forget "attitudes", it's all about the fear factor.

What is required is to make a realistic assessment between the relative impacts upon workplace safety, ie: between the "run of the mill" workplace pressures and practices and the impact of having smoked a joint within the past two weeks.

I'm sure there's a logical conclusion there somewhere as to where the "testing" is required. Test where testing is due.

Don't come atesting me fccuker, or I'll snot you one!  ...btw, not you muso - that hypocrite puppet fuccker who drives around in his little white van from workplace to workplace.ii

In response to the out of control drug testing, I have chosen to not give a damn and to flout the law, because I am in a position where I can cost this country big bucks if I so desire.
I specifically chose (where I usually would not) to do some coccaine and drive home after a very very fun night with no regard at all to the laws that be. That was a nice accomplishment, a feeling of success. I made it home fine and dandy, making sure that I was under the alcohol limit, because the drug testing buses have had their day anywho.
If it so happens out of sheer bad timing that I am requested to submit a test within my workplace, then so be it. The job is really not that important, it hardly compares to fun times.
..And it's not a deterrent, It's a challenge, and I fucd'em. Yeah baby, bring it on, I'll fucm all over town. And I'll do it again and again and and again, until I am ultimately caught and I will take all of my investments out of this clone nation.

So thankyou muso, without your help and encouragement, I wouldn't have realised that coccaine is the best drug on earth, and that you will never get caught doing such drugs whilst driving because firstly, it enhances your driving ability, and secondly, the government will not spend money on a futile attempt.
Just stay under the 0.05 limit and you'll be right. Do drugs and enjoy!!

You da man Muso, thankyou so very very much  :)


I dare say that I'll be quite cohesive by the time I front up for work. If I am expected to supply a specimen, then I hope I'll still be cohesive enough to drop that fccuker.i

So please don't forget about the "backlash factor" as well.

Further to the backlash factor, I have decided to give dope smoking a better opportunity. Cannibis stays in the system for far longer than any other drug. So I have decided to give cannibus ingestation a fair go because if used properly it is less harmful then paracetamol.

I really really want to be sure that I exercise my rights and my morals when it's time to throw in my job and further opportunities for employment.

I won't take the drug test ever again. I'll resign, from this country if required.
After an initial failure mark, I passed the first test I took because I rarely ever used drugs. Now I need to take them.
To be sure that I will follow through with my morals, I need to have some type of illegal drug in my system at all times. The drug of choice is cannibis for the afore mentioned reason that it stays in the system for by far the longest period and can be used without personal harm.

I want to be sure that I am stopped from being productive here so I can then claim a government disablity allowance and shaft them under the table before moving my investments offshore. Sounds like a good plan, u think?

I work for a hazardous industry. Naturally the standards are higher than those of society at large. Pre-employment drug testing is much more sensitive than post employment testing, and what that doesn't filter out, the psych testing will.

As far as stimulants go, yes they do improve driving ability if taken as a single dose in moderation. On the other hand, addicts (of stimulants and depressants alike) don't make good drivers and don't make good employees.

I do have a fairly conservative attitude when it comes to drugs and alcohol, but that's because I have a very little tolerance for people who endanger other people  (and themselves) at work.  

What they do outside work is their business.

mozzaok wrote on May 20^th, 2010 at 9:41am:

I fully support drug testing. I am more than happy to test any drugs they will give me.

You are missing the point. It is not about how good you are or appear to be. Drug addiction is a medical issue. The fact that you don’t understand how this issue is not personal,  indicates that you don’t have this set of personal circumstances  or this set of personal chemical reactions or a combinations of the two and you don’t have anyone close to you that has or might have this combination of circumstances.  Perhaps you need to get out and about a bit.

Quote:

What they do outside work is their business.

Where is the line between outside of work and inside of work?
Don't you mean that it's all inside of work now? There is no outside of work unless you go to a deserted island somewhere? Antartica would be nice  :)

Quote:

You are missing the point. It is not about how good you are or appear to be. Drug addiction is a medical issue.

Damn. I thought I posted a very insightful reply to that one but I fcuked up because of too many drugs.  ;D
Anyway, it was something about you needing to get out more if you didn't see Mozz's joke there, and also that, "One man's meat is another man's poison".
If I feed you my crap, then you may wither and die of malnourishment. But to another, it may be nourishment.
I hope those others are living happy and well... somewhere nice.

I think I will be fine for work Monday, but the contents will still show I'm sure.

Have a nice slumber..enjoy  :)

It's not such a bad thing you know. Just a little indulgence is OK from time to time.
You would be very disappointed to give away that right I'm so very sure.

So bring it on baby -  test me, fukc you. I'm happy to be a point of social study.
If I resign because of something that goes against my morals, then that's OK with me.
If you see fit that I shall be penalized for doing so, then that's not OK with me.

I'll do it for myself and you guys, because you have inadvertently become a part of my life.
Trust me, I am doing it.

Amadd,

I really don't mind what you do. If you think you can shock me, don't worry about it. I've seen just about everything. I agree about your point on personal freedom, and generally I like most of the things you post, and I think you have a great sense of humour.  Don't take things personally, man :)

On the subject of drug testing, I think it's horses for course. If you do a job that requires a great deal of concentration and the consequences  of making mistakes are enormous - eg airline pilots,  explosives workers, hazardous industries etc, then we need to be absolutely sure that people in these roles are reliable.  It brings about a totally new culture and a new way of looking at things when you work in such a job.

People who take on that kind of a role make personal decisions in their lives.

I don't drink and I don't do drugs. It comes with the scenery. I don't claim to be any better than you for that, it's just a requirement that I choose to accept because I like the work that I do.

But you see Muso, you are taking responsibilty for my actions when it really has nothing to do with you.
I may have pointed to you in a jokular way, but you are no more resposible than those who created the "Encyclopedia  Britannica".

..and do you know what I'm putting on the line Muso? Absolutely nothing. Nothing at all.
I want to leave the stupid job anyway. I thought that I may as well make an issue of it  ;D
But it's a good issue, and a fair issue, even though I'm not really putting anything on the line for it. Nonetheless, I am out to prove a point which I brought up here because I was going to prove the point regardless.
I was always going to do it Muso, I'm only here to tell you what I'm doing.

And it's funny that it seems so disastrous to dis the corporate attitude.
This topic is all about a null effect.i

Amadd wrote on Jun 6^th, 2010 at 1:42am:

In response to the out of control drug testing, I have chosen to not give a damn and to flout the law, because I am in a position where I can cost this country big bucks if I so desire. I specifically chose (where I usually would not) to do some coccaine and drive home after a very very fun night with no regard at all to the laws that be. That was a nice accomplishment, a feeling of success. I made it home fine and dandy, making sure that I was under the alcohol limit, because the drug testing buses have had their day anywho. If it so happens out of sheer bad timing that I am requested to submit a test within my workplace, then so be it. The job is really not that important, it hardly compares to fun times. ..And it's not a deterrent, It's a challenge, and I fucd'em. Yeah baby, bring it on, I'll fucm all over town. And I'll do it again and again and and again, until I am ultimately caught and I will take all of my investments out of this clone nation. So thankyou muso, without your help and encouragement, I wouldn't have realised that coccaine is the best drug on earth, and that you will never get caught doing such drugs whilst driving because firstly, it enhances your driving ability, and secondly, the government will not spend money on a futile attempt. Just stay under the 0.05 limit and you'll be right. Do drugs and enjoy!! You da man Muso, thankyou so very very much  :) I dare say that I'll be quite cohesive by the time I front up for work. If I am expected to supply a specimen, then I hope I'll still be cohesive enough to drop that fccuker.

You are crazy.
Cocaine is a shocking drug.
Coming down off cocaine is a fate worse than death.
You know that & you're lying.

Quote:

You know that & you're lying.

I'm older than you. I know my limitations.
If you think that coming down from coke is horrific, then wait 'til you see what the jews have in store for you pal.
You'll think that "coming down" is a pleasure to relish.

Amadd wrote on Jun 28^th, 2010 at 8:22am:

Quote: You know that & you're lying. I'm older than you. I know my limitations. If you think that coming down from coke is horrific, then wait 'til you see what the jews have in store for you pal. You'll think that "coming down" is a pleasure to relish.

What Jews?
Are you insane?

Quote:

Are you insane?

Yes, quite mad and on drugs, it's a good combination.


Quote:

What Jews?

They're marching outside your front door right now, don't you hear them?  ;D

Amadd wrote on Jun 29^th, 2010 at 6:45am:

Quote: Are you insane? Yes, quite mad and on drugs, it's a good combination. [quote]What Jews?

They're marching outside your front door right now, don't you hear them?  ;D

[/quote]

Amadd - you need Prozac.

They can crawl under your door disguised as cockroaches. I saw it in a movie once.  ;)

They're everywhere

Quote:

They can crawl under your door disguised as cockroaches. I saw it in a movie once.  ;)

I'm pretty sure it was a documentary. No insecticide will work on them, only throwing money to them will make them go away.

They also live inside your computer. They particularly favour nestling themselves between the pixels in your internet banking account and online shares portfolio.

Amadd - for how long have you been imagining these things?

Quote:

Amadd - for how long have you been imagining these things?

Are you a head-shrink Batsy?
It's little wonder that head-shrinks have an abnormally high rate of suicide. I'm one of those who would drive them there just to prove a point  ;D

Psychoanalyse at your own peril. Dig your fingers in deep to massage the brain, but don't be too alarmed when you discover that your fingers have long since dissolved.

Just checking to see if I have any replies to my "wise" comments.  ;D


In other words, I talk a lot of sh!t, and that's my right. So if you want to psychoanalyse my bs, then be warned that I take it far less seriously than you do.

Amadd wrote on Jul 1^st, 2010 at 7:42am:

Quote: Amadd - for how long have you been imagining these things? Are you a head-shrink Batsy? It's little wonder that head-shrinks have an abnormally high rate of suicide. I'm one of those who would drive them there just to prove a point  ;D Psychoanalyse at your own peril. Dig your fingers in deep to massage the brain, but don't be too alarmed when you discover that your fingers have long since dissolved.

That's alright Amadd - no one is against you.
I am your friend & I'm here to help.
Now:
for how long have you been imagining these things?

Amadd wrote on Jun 30^th, 2010 at 6:35am:

Quote: They can crawl under your door disguised as cockroaches. I saw it in a movie once.  ;) I'm pretty sure it was a documentary. No insecticide will work on them, only throwing money to them will make them go away. They also live inside your computer. They particularly favour nestling themselves between the pixels in your internet banking account and online shares portfolio.

Actually I think it was the Borat Movie...with the 'crawl under your door disguised as cockroaches' thing.....

Wow, gizmo, really?

Quote:

Actually I think it was the Borat Movie...with the 'crawl under your door disguised as cockroaches' thing.....

Yep Sacha baron Cohen is also a Jew.
Don't get me wrong, I found the show to be very funny, but the motivation of the Jew is always under suspicion. Well, not really, it's all about the money, so there's nothing very suspicious there.
If there is money to be made, then it's all fair game. If it furthers the Jewhood, then it's all good.
The self-effacing humour whilst raking in the big bucks, and at the same time insulting other races, is just a very clever ploy by a very clever cockroach.
But he's funny, I'll give him that.

Quote:

for how long have you been imagining these things?

You tell me Batsy. You have all the answers don't you?

The position that I feel that I am placed in, is that I am forced to take drugs, even though I don't really want to.

I will take them, because drug testing in the workplace is wrong.
Drug testing in the workplace merely procures pathetic answers as to why people want to take drugs in the first place.

Amadd wrote on Jul 4^th, 2010 at 12:16am:

Quote: for how long have you been imagining these things? You tell me Batsy. You have all the answers don't you?

Yes  :)       ( & my name is Bobby not Batsy )

Sometimes I like to imagine its Amadd's avatar that is typing his posts.

Quote:

Yes   :)    ( & my name is Bobby not Batsy )

Oh well, I choose to call you Batsy. It's an endearing term...get over it.

...And the answer of how long I've been imagining these things is??


Quote:

Sometimes I like to imagine its Amadd's avatar that is typing his posts.

It must be those blunt fluffy hands that cause a blunt and fluffy response  ;D

Amadd wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2010 at 10:02am:

In other words, I talk a lot of sh!t, and that's my right. So if you want to psychoanalyse my bs, then be warned that I take it far less seriously than you do.

Maybe it comes with the territory. Maybe you talk what you smoke.  (That was a gratuitous wise crack by the way. Don't take it personally.)

Quote:

Maybe it comes with the territory. Maybe you talk what you smoke.

In those instances, I am far more sensible.
In my case, reality is indeed an illusion caused by lack of drugs.

http://www.meditests.com/salscreen5te.html

These are really good and only $US 7.95 each. About 30% of the price of the ones you get from most Australian suppliers.

That means you can do more testing for the same budget.  


8-)

An interesting part of thier advertising states:

• The problem free pre-employment test - Saliva Multi Drug Test
  

• Perfect test in "for cause" and "reasonable suspicion" situations
  

What I am talking about that has really gotten my goat, is the ongoing tests where there has been no cause for suspicion, and where it is a distinct possibility that residual (long gone) substances will cause a positive test result.

Obviously I have had no problem performing my tasks as usual, and obviously I haven't been under any suspicion for any dire results that these residuals may have caused.
If a random test were to be conducted as recently as the past few weeks, I would've returned a positive result on many occasions.

They're doing a darned crappy job so far in regards to proving the  relevance of the implementation of ongoing random drug tests and safety in the workplace me thinks   8-)



 i

And believe you me, even though you disagree with the stand that I am taking (and always have had, as my acronym name suggests) , you will secretly thank me for doing so.
I am the one at an economic loss here, not you. I am the one who may find it harder to find work when I refuse this undemocratic blight.
You just sleep soundly OK? You just employ more blights upon human rights and be happy that your child will become the robot that you sow.



 

It cost much money in my country so we had better not use this^^
---------
Hire Java Developer

Amadd wrote on Jul 6^th, 2010 at 6:33pm:

An interesting part of thier advertising states: The problem free pre-employment test - Saliva Multi Drug Test Perfect test in "for cause" and "reasonable suspicion" situations What I am talking about that has really gotten my goat, is the ongoing tests where there has been no cause for suspicion, and where it is a distinct possibility that residual (long gone) substances will cause a positive test result. Obviously I have had no problem performing my tasks as usual, and obviously I haven't been under any suspicion for any dire results that these residuals may have caused. If a random test were to be conducted as recently as the past few weeks, I would've returned a positive result on many occasions.

All major industries around here have pre-employment and ongoing drug and alcohol testing. At one stage, one industry in the area didn't do drug testing, and they ended up with all the druggies. That's the argument I've heard anyway.

Saliva based testing is generally 'problem free' because it is not sensitive enough to register drugs that are at residual levels. So if you get a saliva test, you'd be very unlucky to register positive.

As far as marijuana is concerned, it will linger in the system for up to a month, and that will be picked up by a urine test, but not a saliva test - but that only applies to really heavy users anyway. Occasional users don't have the same retention issue.

Most industries opt for saliva testing because it's much less of a hassle, and it can be carried out by non-medical staff.

I agree. And I also agree that there is probably about a 48hr window to detect cannibis by use of the saliva test.
Until it can be catagorically proven that what is detected (and at which levels) is a danger to a specific task, similar to alcohol testing, then they are of no practical use in the workplace. In many cases, the fear of such tests may actually hinder a person's ability.

It wouldn't surprise me that a lot of the so-called "druggies" end up in a particular industry that doesn't do drug testing. Such is the fear-factor in our society today.
Who would want their entire career ruined just because they had a joint or two over the weekend?

And becasue these tests will shuffle "druggies" along to different industries, they will eventually find it nigh-on impossible to get work at all.
Then will we see mandatory drugs tests in order to collect an unemployment payment? You betcha!i

Amadd wrote on Jul 11^th, 2010 at 12:38pm:

And becasue these tests will shuffle "druggies" along to different industries, they will eventually find it nigh-on impossible to get work at all. Then will we see mandatory drugs tests in order to collect an unemployment payment? You betcha!

You could always get a job selling drug test kits to industry  :P

It varies between industries, but generally employees are given an extended opportunity to break their addiction, including free counselling etc.

I doubt if we'll ever see widespread use of urine test kits, and a casual user of marijuana will probably never be caught with most of the saliva testing kits on the Market anyway. The Australian standard is 20ng of THC.  There is one around that will detect 4ng, which claims to be sensitive enough to detect if somebody has smoked a joint within the previous 12 hours, so you can work it out yourself just how insensitive most of them are.  

Some of the kits don't even work.  They detect the metabolite that appears in urine, but this is not even found in saliva.

Well that sounds like a case of, they know not what thu bugger they do or what the results mean.
Believe you me, if there is a positive result in my particular chain of workplaces, then it's no questions asked..hit the road Jack.
Even more reason to mount a protest IMO.

I would sincerely like to give away my meagre protest of tempting fate as it requires a lot of self-discipline to ingest these substances which I would otherwise prefer not to ingest, even if it is only on a recreational basis and confined to the weekends.

But you know, this is the society that we are being forced to accept.
One chance in a thousand has the same value as a one in five chance in the eyes of our "progessive" laws.
I tend to disagree with that logic, and I dare say, so would any aspiring kindergarten math student.

I feel it necessary to negate the quashing of the acceptable risk factor by about 200:1
If I can negate the "dictatorship" value of 200 people who will succumb to the fear factor, whilst also being responsible for my own actions, then I've done what I've set out to do.

And it really is very easily done. I'm very confident that I could up the ante here to at least 1000 fearful people.








 

Also, I'd just recently heard a report on the radio that in over 5yrs of drug testing on the roads, about 2000 motorists had tested positive to an illegal substance. 83% of those were tested positve to amphetamines.

Now if that isn't an askewed result, then I don't know what is.

It's also highly likely that a good portion of that 83% were prescribed their "danger to society" drug by qualified physicians.
Therin, we are getting closer to the real answer of who the "real" dangers to society actually are.

Amadd wrote on Jul 15^th, 2010 at 7:44am:

Also, I'd just recently heard a report on the radio that in over 5yrs of drug testing on the roads, about 2000 motorists had tested positive to an illegal substance. 83% of those were tested positve to amphetamines. Now if that isn't an askewed result, then I don't know what is. It's also highly likely that a good portion of that 83% were prescribed their "danger to society" drug by qualified physicians. Therin, we are getting closer to the real answer of who the "real" dangers to society actually are.

Yeah - the MET test is reasonably sensitive.  I think a lot boils down to the risk associated with die-hard addicts as opposed to casual users.  Ice is terrible stuff. To start with they get the highs, but then they never quite get anything that compares to that original high, unless they keep increasing the dose. Meanwhile it rots the teeth, the brains and the testicles of those unfortunate bastards who are addicted to it. The seratonin levels go up and down like a seesaw and they go through bouts of depression and euphoria.

It's the addicts who have extreme personality disorders  who are the ones  likely to cause accidents or commit atrocities. It's the chronic toxicity effects, not the acute effects that do the damage.  

So why not throw the apples and oranges in the same basket hey?
"The addicts"? Who are they?
How many times must somebody use a particular drug in order to be bestowed with the label "addict"?
And isn't it extremely probable that an actual "addict" of prescription drugs will fly under the radar as being an "addict" in social terms? Whereas, a one time or very occassional user of other "illegal" drugs may be branded with the tag "addict" for all future employers to see in a documented resume' ; thereby, hindering their employment opportunities. ..and their "real" potential to service the community.

At the lower end of the scale comes the occassional cannibis users.
Anybody who has ever been in contact with the drug knows inherently that it is an extremely low risk on so many counts as compared to other drugs, most especially alcohol.
So please be at least partially honest and throw alcohol into your basket of apples and oranges ahead of cannibinoids.

Those 60mins reports on cannibis are total and utter bs. They could've done the same dramatic report on oodles of other drugs if it were to be their target.
They know very well what cannibus causes. It causes protests against wars. That's been very well documented and entrenched into history.

As far as detectability goes, cannibinoids have the widest window. It all depends on what they are testing for. But it's really up to their discression of the tester as to what they are testing for.

The objective may change from year to year, month to month, day to day, or even hour to hour, without any legislative change whatsoever. i

Amadd wrote on Jul 15^th, 2010 at 10:16am:

And isn't it extremely probable that an actual "addict" of prescription drugs will fly under the radar as being an "addict" in social terms?

Well they test for Benzodiazepenes (Sleeping pills) and  also opiates which will pick up codeine - and those tests are actually more sensitive that the one for grass.

there are many of those kits on interne. Of any kind

just google it.

paaddict wrote on Jul 16^th, 2010 at 1:01am:

just google it.

- and like everything, some are better value for money than others. I know. I authorised the purchase of some a week ago.

Quote:

- and like everything, some are better value for money than others. I know. I authorised the purchase of some a week ago.

Yeah right. All of them will spit out a result - good, bad or ugly.
It's up to your personal discretion to decide which is of the most value...if any of them at all.

My suggestion: Try another path. You're on the wrong track.


Quote:

Well they test for Benzodiazepenes (Sleeping pills) and  also opiates which will pick up codeine - and those tests are actually more sensitive that the one for grass.

I'm wondering if you are getting the point at all?

I failed the urine test because I had a cold prior to testing and had used some panadeine. But that was OK because I had already disclosed my reasons in the questionaire as to why I had a detectable substance in my system.
If I had a condition which allowed a prescribed medication, then that too would be OK, because there should be no discrimination where drug companies are concerned.
If I had said that I just felt like having a joint because I thought that that was the best way to unwind a bit considering my personal circumstances, and also that I ensured that it would have absolutely no adverse affects come work time, then surely a big "FAIL" mark would ensue; you are not required to employ your own judgement at any time or at any stage until you adhere to the propaganda.

I really don't give a rat's rosy red behind as to how sensitive drug tests are to certain substances. The point is that they are an unproven, unreliable abomination upon natural rights, and they should be seen as such.
It's a new experience for me to be confident enough that I can use a substance (out of sheer spite) and be certain that will have had no adverse affects when the working week comes around.
And there hasn't been any adverse affects. If anything, it's been much better. There's been a noticable difference in being more "switched on" at work where I would usually be apathetic. Workmates are relying on me more for answers where usually they understood that I don't give a sh!t.
But when that curtain call comes around for me, it may very well be the end of the start of something good.



i

Amadd wrote on Jul 16^th, 2010 at 8:03am:

Quote: - and like everything, some are better value for money than others. I know. I authorised the purchase of some a week ago. Yeah right. All of them will spit out a result - good, bad or ugly. It's up to your personal discretion to decide which is of the most value...if any of them at all. My suggestion: Try another path. You're on the wrong track.

On the wrong track for what? It's not the result that counts. It's the deterrent value.


Quote:

And believe you me, even though you disagree with the stand that I am taking (and always have had, as my acronym name suggests) , you will secretly thank me for doing so.

Now you've got me totally confused. I thought you were Indonesian. Amadd is a common name over there.

By the way, I really don't give a damn as long as you're not piloting the flight I'm on next week 'high' over the Great Australian Bight. I'm all for personal choice.

I also think that employers should be able to screen people in high risk jobs, and that those people in high risk jobs should accept the consequences of their choice of employment.  

Quote:

Now you've got me totally confused. I thought you were Indonesian. Amadd is a common name over there.

Indonesian?? Lol.
Australian Motorist Against Detection Devices.
I must say that the nick I chose opened my eyes not so much to discrimination, but to prejudice. People will pre-judge, and I have no problem with that. It's a necessary evil to pre-judge. What else can you do?
Depending on my posts, people usually catch on pretty quickly that I have nothing to do with Islam or to any other imagined reference that my nick may conjure. That's been very heartening.

But of course, I have always been against detection devices.
Not much has changed there. I probably can't change and I will always fight against those blights. I'm definitely cool with fighting for that  8-)

Quote:

On the wrong track for what? It's not the result that counts. It's the deterrent value.

You gave it in one.
That's my opinion. It's my opinion that the "deterrent" value is an oxymoron when you're speaking to people who are supposed to be of equal value.
That's fine when you're talking about teaching your dog, but your dog doesn't vote in a democracy. People don't get taught lessons by other inexperienced people, they experience themselves. They get educated and they realise.
So far, you have brought nothing to the education table. You haven't provided any facts at all as to why drug testing for unspecific drugs at unspecific and undisclosed levels will educate anybody at all.
You just want to teach people, like you would teach a dog to do a backflip without any rhyme or reason except that they just may, just might, get a bikkie at the end of it if they perform without questioning.

I could probably tell you more from the technical side, although I have tried to do that already, especially in earlier posts.

From the point of view of my workplace, everybody (managers included) had to do a one day course on Fitness for work, which included Fatigue Management, drugs, illness and stress related impairment.  Drug testing was a very minor part of that training. If you want a book showing the content, I have a spare one I could send you if you can supply a safe postal address in private.

I sent you a pm by the way. I hope you're not taking this too personally, because I'm actually getting some good insight from your perspective.

Why don't you just send me the bible Muso? That has all the answers doesn't it?
Does it explain to you how to rationally argue with your wife so that you you will be completely stress free when it comes time to work for the man?
Guess what? The man hasn't worked out how to procure a stress free argument with his wife either. He just grabs another money grabbing mistress.
More likely, "the man" will be out to swingers parties and cheating on his wife and mistresses with some obnoxious non-being just like that Rockefeller creep was.
Don't you get it yet?
The good people try. The assholes try and most often succeed to get the ordinary good people to do what they cannot. And they never had any  intention of trying to do what they teach.
If it drives you to drugs, then more fool you. At least I am making a choice of which I know I can handle in drugs to prove those frikin' assholes wrong. Just say YES

Amadd wrote on Jul 16^th, 2010 at 10:47am:

Why don't you just send me the bible Muso? That has all the answers doesn't it? Does it explain to you how to rationally argue with your wife so that you you will be completely stress free when it comes time to work for the man?

LOL. The Bible has answers for those who look for answers in it.   Clouds have  answers too. So do tea leaves  ;D It's called paradolia. You see what you think you should see, but if it helps to focus and organise your thoughts, maybe it has a purpose.

Is it possible to argue with your (ones) wife rationally? I tend not to.  I have never yet had any major successes in life as a result of winning any argument. It just makes you feel good at the time.  

I've had a lot more successes by making somebody think they had won an argument, and then allowing them to find out for themselves later that they hadn't.

There are much better ways of achieving objectives than by winning arguments, but it's important to understand how the other person thinks.  

Quote:

I've had a lot more successes by making somebody think they had won an argument, and then allowing them to find out for themselves later that they hadn't. There are much better ways of achieving objectives than by winning arguments, but it's important to understand how the other person thinks.

Mixed feelings there.
You let the other person win the argument for unknown results, but they educate themselves as you were not able to do in order for them to see the truth.

It's important to know how your competitor thinks in order to win. But isn't a marriage supposed to be a partnership? Obviously not.

Seems to me that it's nothing more than a competition. Who can't get that by playing checkers online? It's essentially worthless.

I'm just wondering what you have that is so much better than Rockefeller cheating on his mistresse's mistress to his wife.

Amadd wrote on Jul 16^th, 2010 at 11:22am:

Seems to me that it's nothing more than a competition. Who can't get that by playing checkers online? It's essentially worthless. I'm just wondering what you have that is so much better than Rockefeller cheating on his mistresse's mistress to his wife. Wow! It's all so deep and soulful that one would sincerely believe that hard drugs is the real answer.

LOL.  There is a balance between relating to people and manipulating people.

I try not to manipulate people unless it is really necessary.  :P

Understanding the way the human mind works is the key to success in everything.  

Quote:

Understanding the way the human mind works is the key to success in everything.

Are you saying that you've never succeeded in anything? I very much doubt that that is true.
I think that what you are talking about is predetermining expected results without actually understanding the mechanics of the mind - if there is such a thing as mechanics of the mind.

I take on board your suggestion that relating to people is key. I have a bad habit of spewing stuff that is only relative to certain groups within my own personal experience and understanding where nobody else would have any hope of understanding what I'm talking about.
Please disregard that comment about "Hard drugs is the answer", because that was just a piece of graffiti around my area that became a running joke. Of course I would in no way condone the use of hard drugs as being an answer to anything. It was just a cynical and flippant quote often used around my area because that piece of graffiti that said "Hard drugs is the answer" caught the attention of everybody (kids at the time) and was seen as being both humerous and disturbing.
If you failed at something, a passing comment might go something like, "Oh well, there's always hard drugs". It usually went without explaining what that comment meant and it usually brought about a lot of laughs.
Nobody talked much about seeing that piece of graffiti, but it caught the attention of practically everybody. In other words, it meant, "Well what's the alternative, to give up trying?" Hard drugs is not an option.

I know that I often spew a lot of garbage and then I pick and choose what may mean something to me, the rest I then disregard. It's an abuse of the forum and people in general to use it in that way.  
I suppose I'm being just as sinister, and I'm doing exactly the same thing as the authorities that I despise there.

I can't really ever see myself understanding my own mind, let alone anybody else's. Predicting actions may be the best that I could ever hope for or ever desire in that regard.
A quiet faith in God isn't such a bad generic answer for this lifetime IMO.

To make a little stand against what I think is wrong isn't such a bad thing IMO. I'm pretty confident that I'm not hurting myself or anybody else by doing so. If I'm wrong, then it wouldn't be the first time or the last. To be proven wrong, I will need to physically bugger up as a direct result of the soft drugs that I am using. I can't really see that happening. So far, I've been more competent and caring than what I'd usually expect of myself. Go figure.ii

Amadd wrote on Jul 16^th, 2010 at 7:37pm:

Quote: Understanding the way the human mind works is the key to success in everything. Are you saying that you've never succeeded in anything? I very much doubt that that is true. I think that what you are talking about is predetermining expected results without actually understanding the mechanics of the mind - if there is such a thing as mechanics of the mind.

We understand a whole lot more than you might think. Cognitive psychology is quite a hard science (As in not soft)


Quote:

Please disregard that comment about "Hard drugs is the answer", because that was just a piece of graffiti around my area that became a running joke. Of course I would in no way condone the use of hard drugs as being an answer to anything. It was just a cynical and flippant quote often used around my area because that piece of graffiti that said "Hard drugs is the answer" caught the attention of everybody (kids at the time) and was seen as being both humerous and disturbing. If you failed at something, a passing comment might go something like, "Oh well, there's always hard drugs". It usually went without explaining what that comment meant and it usually brought about a lot of laughs. Nobody talked much about seeing that piece of graffiti, but it caught the attention of practically everybody. In other words, it meant, "Well what's the alternative, to give up trying?" Hard drugs is not an option. I know that I often spew a lot of garbage and then I pick and choose what may mean something to me, the rest I then disregard. It's an abuse of the forum and people in general to use it in that way.   I suppose I'm being just as sinister, and I'm doing exactly the same thing as the authorities that I despise there.

Don't beat yourself up. I can see the humour in your replies. I have been around :)


Quote:

I can't really ever see myself understanding my own mind, let alone anybody else's. Predicting actions may be the best that I could ever hope for or ever desire in that regard. A quiet faith in God isn't such a bad generic answer for this lifetime IMO.

You can understand the traffic in a city enough to predict it, although you can't understand what every person in every car is going to do on a particular day.

Basically if you understand that all data processing is done at a conscious level, and that everything in the subconscious library is basically fixed like on a hard drive, you're starting to get the picture.  In order to process stored data, you first have to mount it into a part of the brain where it can be consciously processed before re-writing it to your hard drive.

A quiet faith in God can be useful to some, and I don't knock it. God is something you find in your mind as a bastion of stability.

We all have our 'gods'.

Quote:

You can understand the traffic in a city enough to predict it, although you can't understand what every person in every car is going to do on a particular day.  ...etc.

That makes some sense to me.
To be quite honest, I'm not really hard wired to do drugs on anything more than a very occassional basis, if at all.
What I am hard wired for is to be a stubborn mule.

Using your analogy of "general traffic flow", I can only see chaos resulting from the denial of rights to decide on a personal route.

Red flags, roadblocks and signs pointing to cliff-edges will predictably result in more people stopping in the middle of the street and doing U-turns, further aggravating the traffic flow problem.

Maybe your personal God says to you that the signs lead to a utopia, but mine says that they lead to a cliff edge.
Humanity already has been there and done that in countless societies throughout history. The results have always been very predictable.i






                                                 

Everytime someone mentions drugs I think of the weasel, have no idea why ?

Amadd wrote on Jul 18^th, 2010 at 12:54am:

Quote: You can understand the traffic in a city enough to predict it, although you can't understand what every person in every car is going to do on a particular day.  ...etc. That makes some sense to me. To be quite honest, I'm not really hard wired to do drugs on anything more than a very occassional basis, if at all. What I am hard wired for is to be a stubborn mule. Using your analogy of "general traffic flow", I can only see chaos resulting from the denial of rights to decide on a personal route. Red flags, roadblocks and signs pointing to cliff-edges will predictably result in more people stopping in the middle of the street and doing U-turns, further aggravating the traffic flow problem. Maybe your personal God says to you that the signs lead to a utopia, but mine says that they lead to a cliff edge. Humanity already has been there and done that in countless societies throughout history. The results have always been very predictable.

You're thinking at Computer game level when I was talking about machine code.  If you want to know what I'm talking about, Google Cognitive Psychology, have a good read, then Google "Neuro Linguistic Programming". The latter needs a good BS filter. There is a lot of nonsense spoken about it, but those aspects that can be shown valid through cognitive science can be successfully applied.  I used to have a fear of flying for example. I no longer have that fear.

I don't have a personal god. I only have a wooden one that somebody gave me in Africa. I asked what it was, and they said "It's a god". I replied. Well it certainly exists, so that means I'm no longer an atheist.

It doesn't do anything, except trigger a useful reminder that I must never go back to Africa, or I'll probably die there.

When I said  that we all have our 'gods', I just meant that we all have our personal mythologies that help us to get through life.

If society were to collectively ignore anything that was 'all in the mind', we'd be in dire straits. The Stockmarket would collapse, and the price of gold and diamonds would plummet.

We need the 'music'.

And in the streets the children screamed
The lovers cried, and the poets dreamed
but not a word was spoken
The church bells all were broken
And the three men I admire the most
The father son and holy ghost
They caught the last train for the coast,
The day the music died...

I don't mean music, and I suspect that Don McLean meant other things as well as music.

Computer game V machine code. Nice analogy.

Quote:

I don't have a personal god. I only have a wooden one that somebody gave me in Africa. I asked what it was, and they said "It's a god". I replied. Well it certainly exists, so that means I'm no longer an atheist. It doesn't do anything, except trigger a useful reminder that I must never go back to Africa, or I'll probably die there.

Well if you don't believe that it has magical powers and would have no trouble burning it for fear of unworldly repercussions, then you are still an athiest.

Amadd wrote on Jul 18^th, 2010 at 8:40pm:

Quote: I don't have a personal god. I only have a wooden one that somebody gave me in Africa. I asked what it was, and they said "It's a god". I replied. Well it certainly exists, so that means I'm no longer an atheist. It doesn't do anything, except trigger a useful reminder that I must never go back to Africa, or I'll probably die there. Well if you don't believe that it has magical powers and would have no trouble burning it for fear of unworldly repercussions, then you are still an athiest.

Nope. Unless you can define god in some way that fits the definition of every religion in the world, that is.  I don't find the word atheist to be even slightly descriptive of my world view, so I prefer to use the term Bright. To me, the term atheist is meaningless, except to differentiate between those people who believe in gods and those who do not, and that to me is is a trivial distinction.  

We all believe in imaginary concepts. Like I said before, we need the 'music'. It's part of being human. The supreme creator god is just a subset of god. Something is a god if somebody refers to it thus, because ultimately gods are defined by man.  

I use the definition that an atheist doesn't believe in gods (any gods), and my wooden god is a god.  I am as stubborn about that as you are about detection devices.  ;)

I can actually empathise with the Pantheist approach more than I understand the Atheist approach.  

In the Pantheistic position, God is described as a manifestation of the natural universe, its natural laws (the laws of physics, biology, etc., etc.), and the awe and inspiration it can stir within the individual.

Couldn't this be described as "god"?  There is no supernatural being, and no personification according to the Pantheist. God is nothing more than the total sum of the universe, and this is what draws from us the awe and inspiration that throughout the ages have been poured out of us like water into much of our great literature. It even spills a bit into science.

Is this pantheistic god capable of miracles? Well life is a miracle in a way. Intelligent, self sentient life is definitely a miracle if a miracle is something that awes and inspires.

Do you still think I'm an atheist?

Quote:

Nope. Unless you can define god in some way that fits the definition of every religion in the world, that is.

But you said "a" God, not "the" God, as most major religions (one in particular..ahhemm ) would have you believe.

Maybe my definition of atheism, or what atheism means to me, is somewhat different to yours.
In a more narrow sense of the word, an 'a'theist, is not a theist. It is merely an absense of theism.  An 'A'theist is by no means an anti-theist by definition.
You could go on forever trying to define atheist views into a particular category, however, the views are not the same, and they are not a religion unto themselves.
So there's no use arguing about it when most atheists just consider themselves as being "those who do not practise theism".

By "Personal God", I am meaning something as individual to yourself as your own fingerprint, comprising of your own genetic makeup, your own experiences, your own teachings, learnings, rationalizations....and whatever else goes into the moshpit.
It's not for me to say what your personal God is, because I can never really know, but I'm happy enough to listen.

"The day the music died"
Maybe you're reading too much into the meaning of the lyrics, or maybe not quite enough.
The song was powerful enough without reading anymore into it; three irresistible musicians gone in a flash without ever realising their potential.
And how about Richie Valens? His personal God told him not to fly. He had recurring dreams of a plane crash. His most dreaded fears were eventually cured..the day the music died.
It kinda reminds me of a woman who recently went to 'Monkey island' (off Thailand) to conquer her fear of monkeys.
She got surrounded and mauled by a pack of monkeys who could smell her fear, or had a wi-fi connection to her personal God who told the monkeys to "attack the unbeliever!!".

It's not for me to decide the path that anybody else should take unless I consider my personal God to be the omnipotent one.
In that vein, I take umbrage at others who consider their own God to be the omnipotent one.

Amadd wrote on Jul 19^th, 2010 at 4:29pm:

"The day the music died" Maybe you're reading too much into the meaning of the lyrics, or maybe not quite enough. The song was powerful enough without reading anymore into it; three irresistible musicians gone in a flash without ever realising their potential. And how about Richie Valens? His personal God told him not to fly. He had recurring dreams of a plane crash. His most dreaded fears were eventually cured..the day the music died.

Fair enough on the first part. I know the standard interpretation of  American Pie, and I know the references to Elvis, Bob Dylan  etc

Of course Don McLean was a Catholic, and there are religious overtones in the song. Even if he didn't intend it that way, it's much deeper than just a longer piece of music that DJ's used to play because they wanted to go to the can.

It's also a useful analogy for the spiritual nature of man. It's no coincidence that religions make good use of music in its rituals.  

What are your thoughts towards the Australian Federal Election?
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/KVYF99W

Your feedback is highly welcomed.

Quote:

It's also a useful analogy for the spiritual nature of man. It's no coincidence that religions make good use of music in its rituals.

Yeah but the (overly) religious make crap music. Could it be that they just don't get it?

I smoke weed about once or twice a month
I work at drake Foodland supermarket
they do drug tests I herd
if I get drug tested and its positive can they fire me
or is if I’m on drugs at the time they can only fire me then

They can fire you if they detect something on the banned list within your system.

How you function during your work hours has little to do with it, ..it's much more to do with what you do outside of your working hours when they can't keep an eye on you. That's where they're interest resides.

Aiden wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2011 at 3:45pm:

I smoke weed about once or twice a month I work at drake Foodland supermarket they do drug tests I herd if I get drug tested and its positive can they fire me or is if I’m on drugs at the time they can only fire me then

It all depends on their HR Policies and their testing methodology. If they use saliva testing, it's unlikely that you'd be caught unless you had pot for breakfast. Even so, most kits are insensitive, although there are some that will detect 8ng.

If they have decent drug testing policies, you would go through counselling, and perhaps more frequent targeted testing if you tested positive.  

It all depends upon whether they want to fire you or not.
If they want to fire you, then they will employ a different method of testing.
This is our free nation, it has absolutely FA to do with real worth.

My two-bob's-worth.......

If I was applying for a job, and discovered that drug/alcohol testing
was a part of the application process, I'd withdraw my application.

If, after having already OBTAINED the job, they
tried to bring it in, I'd refuse to participate.

If they pressed the point, I'd resign on the spot.

I will NOT comply.

Ever.

And that's PRINCIPLE.

NOT guilt.

I support workplace drug testing, it should be more widespread.

Most people who work for industries that do drug testing, approve of it. Of course those who don't, have probably left - and that probably makes it safer for those who remain.  

'My two-bob's-worth.......

If I was applying for a job, and discovered that drug/alcohol testing
was a part of the application process, I'd withdraw my application.

If, after having already OBTAINED the job, they
tried to bring it in, I'd refuse to participate.

If they pressed the point, I'd resign on the spot.

I will NOT comply.

Ever.

And that's PRINCIPLE.

NOT guilt.' - Kat

Well said Kat.  It IS PRINCIPLE.!! I absolutely agree.

Your post has made me think about  'stuff'.  
We as a society are clearly split . And not just over drugs obviously. Although it is a much more important issue than your straight thinkers can perceive, sadly. :(

We seem to have passed the line of no return.... stuck in a inward spiral to an event horizon that seems undeniable....  sucking us all into the nightmare world that MANY MANY earlier writers and philosophers have written of.
A HUMAN BLACK HOLE.  Where nothing matters except the ability to keep your head above the rising dark.
Other people in history have no doubt felt the same.

I'd like an alternative world, where money and machines of destruction do not subsume humans.. :'(....anyhow ...

I'm glad I am no longer in the 'workforce'.   No longer a 'wage slave'.  
Work isn't all it's cracked up to be.! :) Not if you are a 'wage slave"... a part-time, casual, no-one special.!!

Mind you -- 'work' as in 'activity to get something done, achieve something, write, build, paint' etc    IS good for the pysche.
Good to be constructive - not destructive.

Seems most 'high -end' jobs actually produce nothing but #$456$%%^$%%56.

Human decency and respect has disappeared, in my lifetime it seems,  or perhaps it's my illusions that have disappeared.

And.. I could go on ..  Why did Police raid ALL stockists of K2 last week in SEQ , and why are rules in place to enable that?
Why do our kids seem set on killing themselves with alcohol and fast cars???

Maybe because they despair, they see no future, and want to have fun while they still can. (or they see a future that brings up visions of something like 'Metropolis'...altho I doubt they'd have seen it,, being so OLD and all.)
 Unless they have been very fortunate and been able to reject the current dichotomy - and don't get sucked into the hole.

The BLACK DOG has a big hold on people, young and old, and I think it would be great for everyone's morale if the 'authorities' weren't so heavy-handed and smug in their righteousness.  Regardless of how WRONG  ..wrong!!  they are.

Sad really.

HHOOWWWWLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL . :( :(i

This Topic was moved here from Drug Policy by freediver.