BF2S Forums Urine Test

ReTox wrote:

lowing wrote:

You have conveniently forgot that I said RANDOM drug testing, which means not everyone all the time, but a certain percentage unannounced. If you get caught you get stung. What is the problem??

You have an absolute right to your privacy, and unfortunately when you expect to use public money to live off of, your right to privacy should be superseded by the tax payers right to know what you are doing with THEIR money. What does piracy laws have to do with welfare recipients getting drug tested as a contingent for benefits?

Be sure you don't fall off the cliff with such a long stretch reaching for an argument.

You keep assuming that a welfare recipient has never paid taxes.  Why should they not be allowed to use programs they may have paid into all their working lives?  And no matter how public your life is or your job or the money you bring in you are still, by law, granted privacy rights.

Or is it your contention that anyone who lives off tax payer money should be held to the same standards?  If so then call the white house and order some tests... pretty sure someone's been into the crack there.


And just for the info:  Substances that cause false positives as of Jan 8th 2008


hint... there's a shitload!

Nope, not assuming that at all

So it must be your position that no company has the right to drug test their applicants or employees because it is an invasion of their privacy? They have no right to be assured that their new employee or current employee is drug free? After all just because you want a job or want to keep one, does not mean you should have to forfeit your privacy to achieve this. Airline passengers do not deserve the knowledge that the mechanic working on the airplane that they have strapped little Johnny in, is drug free That would be an invasion of privacy for the mechanic?

Major.League.Infidel wrote:

[Idea came to me from an email]
If I have to pass a piss test to get/keep a job, from which I pay taxes to help such establishments such as Welfare, shouldn't people recieving welfare checks have to pass a piss test to receive them?  Seems fair to me.

Does it take any effort to piss in a cup?

lowing wrote:

Nope, not assuming that at all

So it must be your position that no company has the right to drug test their applicants or employees because it is an invasion of their privacy? They have no right to be assured that their new employee or current employee is drug free? After all just because you want a job or want to keep one, does not mean you should have to forfeit your privacy to achieve this. Airline passengers do not deserve the knowledge that the mechanic working on the airplane that they have strapped little Johnny in, is drug free That would be an invasion of privacy for the mechanic?

I've already posted on this more than once.

A private employer is not the same as a public government assistance program.  It's their money that they made, that they want to pay to you for services rendered.  Not a public program that many recipients have probably paid into themselves over and over again.

Let me be absolutely clear.  I'm against drug tests for welfare because they are not 100% reliable, even double testing is flawed.  The cost is likely more than what would be saved, and without probable cause I consider it a witch hunt that is funded by MY tax dollars when those funds are better spent elsewhere and lastly, that forcing someone to have a drug test for a public, non-military non-employment, program is outside a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I've also stated over and over again that if a social worker suspects drug abuse and can show probable cause then fine have several drug tests over a few months to be sure, but the dragnet of testing everyone or even randomly doesn't sit with my conscience.  Not because I want someone to get away with being stoned but that I don't want someone who never has been stoned (illegally) suffering because of a mistake in the system.

Last edited by ReTox (2008-03-09 09:13:03)

ReTox wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope, not assuming that at all

So it must be your position that no company has the right to drug test their applicants or employees because it is an invasion of their privacy? They have no right to be assured that their new employee or current employee is drug free? After all just because you want a job or want to keep one, does not mean you should have to forfeit your privacy to achieve this. Airline passengers do not deserve the knowledge that the mechanic working on the airplane that they have strapped little Johnny in, is drug free That would be an invasion of privacy for the mechanic?

I've already posted on this more than once.

A private employer is not the same as a public government assistance program.  It's their money that they made, that they want to pay to you for services rendered.  Not a public program that many recipients have probably paid into themselves over and over again.

Let me be absolutely clear.  I'm against drug tests for welfare because they are not 100% reliable, even double testing is flawed.  The cost is likely more than what would be saved, and without probable cause I consider it a witch hunt that is funded by MY tax dollars when those funds are better spent elsewhere and lastly, that forcing someone to have a drug test for a public, non-military non-employment, program is outside a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I've also stated over and over again that if a social worker suspects drug abuse and can show probable cause then fine have several drug tests over a few months to be sure, but the dragnet of testing everyone or even randomly doesn't sit with my conscience.  Not because I want someone to get away with being stoned but that I don't want someone who never has been stoned (illegally) suffering because of a mistake in the system.

You are not consoistent in your answers, first you said you were against this because it treated people like criminals, then you say you are against this because you think that the false positives are too great, which is bullshit because they always take 2 samples for testing. SO which is it? Then you say you are against this because it is a violation of our personal privacy. Your argument for this last excuse does not hold water because regardless as to who is driving the program it is still a persons privacy being violated.

Also you say companies can do what they want, it is their money, well no they can't, a lot of these drug testing programs are govt. mandated programs.

lowing wrote:

You are not consoistent in your answers, first you said you were against this because it treated people like criminals, then you say you are against this because you think that the false positives are too great, which is bullshit because they always take 2 samples for testing. SO which is it? Then you say you are against this because it is a violation of our personal privacy. Your argument for this last excuse does not hold water because regardless as to who is driving the program it is still a persons privacy being violated.

Also you say companies can do what they want, it is their money, well no they can't, a lot of these drug testing programs are govt. mandated programs.

I am consistent, my argument has more than a single point... you just can't seem to accept that it does.

False positive Bullshit eh?  Ahem:

http://www.aclu.org/workplacerights/dru … 71231.html
http://www.ukcia.org/culture/drugtesting1999.pdf (PDF!)
http://www.workrights.org/issue_drugtes … brief.html

I have to say though, when I read the part of your post about the government mandate for employers to force drug tests I damn near fell out of my chair in disbelief.  That the government would or even could compel private employers to do drug tests must have the founding fathers spinning in their graves at that kind of "just bend-over and take it" mentality.