Replies

I'm squarely against mandatory DNA fingerprinting. The idea itself is laughable; It flies in the face of the first, fouth and fifth amendments, and probably some more. Can a government that can't track a few thousand illegals really track DNA on every citizen?

I agree that these things are a gift from above, but I also believe that gifts from above, left to the devices of man, are frequently squandered.

Do I care what you put in your body? No. But I do care and should have a say if your behavior will negatively affect me and mine.

You can't even get a decent job without submitting to a piss-test, for God's sake.

The government is not mandating this. It's the corporations, to shield themselves from liability, and to ensure that they have a healthy workforce. Contrary to what Mr LR says, his use will skew my insurance pool. If he's not weeded out for drug use I pay a penalty in higher premiums, thus subsidizing his use. He will likely suffer job injury, or cause it in someone else; He will be a less productive employee, my stock will suffer. Duh.

The thing about Mr LR's WOD threads is that they're all the same. The guy has one purpose in life, it seems, and it's all pro-dope, all the time. His arguments are dishonest; he keeps moving the end zone and pooh-poohing points that make him look like a nutball, demanding proof of my view when 15 seconds with Google will disprove him point for point.

That's why I don't bother going back. Drop a few zingers, let him rip with some falsehoods and move on.

"OK, Mr LR, we're all wrong and you're the only smart one here. Let's stop the WOD and let the floodgates open. Now what?"

If he's so damn sure, why doesn't he run for office on the platform? We'll see how far he gets. Here he gets a forum, anywhere else he's 'Lunatic Fringe'.

You know what? I've formed my point of view from talking with family members and friends on all sides of the argument (addiction and treatment, recreational and criminal use and abuse, doctors, prosecutors, counselors). More importantly, I've buried friends and family who had the same arrogance Mr LR has. In the real world, Mr LR's views have no merit.

My main problem with the WOD people is that they won't admit what they know to be common sense and what is right before their very eyes. They're fixated on an academic point of law and are willing- nay, determined- to throw the whole society overboard in pursuit of it.

Geez. Get a life. There are other things going on in the world.

I don't cheer the WOD. Far from it.

It is with grim observation that I conclude the alternative is worse.

_{_{And the rest of you, before you reply, put the bong down. This is NOT a pro-dope thread. I repeat: This is NOT a pro-dope thread.}}

The government is not mandating this. It's the corporations, to shield themselves from liability, and to ensure that they have a healthy workforce.

The government mandates drug testing all of the time, since the mid-80's (thanks, Ronnie), for pretty much any company that does business with the federal government, as well as for government employment. They cannot deny employment for any pre-existing medical conditions, which skyrocket the cost of "insurance", so your claims about companies caring about the health of "their" workforce are hooey. The REAL danger is tying healthcare "insurance" to employment in the first place. We were all warned about this, now everyone that has benefits through an employer has lost their privacy rights (I know, there is no right to privacy, right?)

Here's something interesting....
________________________________________
snip

COURT VOIDS LOUISIANA DRUG TEST LAW

NEW ORLEANS ( AP ) -- A federal judge on Friday struck down a Louisiana law requiring random drug testing of elected officials, rejecting arguments that the governor made in court in support of the law. U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon said the law violates the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search and seizures. He said the state failed to show a special need to test elected officials.

Ruling after a hearing Friday, Fallon quoted from writings by George Washington as well as a 1997 Supreme Court decision that forbade Georgia from drug testing political candidates.

``There is established law that a drug test is a search,'' Fallon said. ``Warrantless searches must depend upon reasonableness.''

Republican Gov. Mike Foster said he feared for the future of private industry drug testing programs if the ruling stands. ``I wonder if, in fact, the majority of all drug testing programs all over the country might fail,'' he said.

Foster, who is not a lawyer, had backed the legislation and sought permission to speak on its behalf in court.

``Why not test elected officials?'' Foster said to the judge. ``I can't think of a profession that can influence our lives more.''

Foster noted that drug testing is often a part of corporate life in America, an argument lawyer Bill Rittenberg said was irrelevant. ``Governor, you didn't take an oath of office to defend corporations. You took an oath of office to defend the Constitution,'' said Rittenberg, who argued for Rep. Arthur Morrell, D-New Orleans, and the ACLU.

The law, which was to go into effect in January, required 10 percent of state and local officials to be randomly tested each year. An official who refused would have faced a $10,000 fine and censure. Challenges are in the works against two other laws that require random testing of welfare recipients, students on state scholarship and virtually anyone else who gets state benefits.
_________________________________________

Isn't this hysterical? The sales rep for the chemical company has to gt piss-tested while government, taxpayer funded employees at the highest level don't. Hahahaha! I used to sell lots of drug testing stuff in the early nineties, boy we made a killing on places like Rahway State Prison and LabCorp and other beneficiaries of the raping of the 4th Amendment (amongst others). It was a joke---all about money, that's all.
Contrary to what Mr LR says, his use will skew my insurance pool. If he's not weeded out for drug use I pay a penalty in higher premiums, thus subsidizing his use. He will likely suffer job injury, or cause it in someone else; He will be a less productive employee, my stock will suffer. Duh.

Just look at you. Go ahead, look at yourself. What else will you ban in your quest for your precious health care premiums? You claim that drug use causes higher premiums, but it DOES NOT. Any stats you can dig up to "prove" your point are BOGUS. The data is simply not there. I was there in the beginning, I know. Figures were estimated, extrapolated, and twisted three ways till Sunday in order get the proper "result". The percentage of employees that use "illegal" drugs that may cause detrimental health effects is so tiny, that the effect they have is neglible. The only "drugs" that consistantly show any employment effects are alcohol, and to a lesser extent, cigarettes.

The real dangers are obesity, hypertension, cancer, sickle-cell anemia, etc. So, should those people be denied employment? How about those intrepid souls who skydive, or ride motorcycles? How about running with scissors? I've done that a few times myself. The best alternative would be to demand to NOT have your employer pay your benefits and to take the cash equivalent and buy your own damned insurance. I tried that once and was laughed at, then threatend when I persisted. Maybe you can do better.

The thing about Mr LR's WOD threads is that they're all the same. The guy has one purpose in life, it seems, and it's all pro-dope, all the time. His arguments are dishonest; he keeps moving the end zone and pooh-poohing points that make him look like a nutball, demanding proof of my view when 15 seconds with Google will disprove him point for point.

You must be living in the Bizzaro World. You and your buddies get destroyed every time...I barely ever even comment anymore, because it's a waste of time.

"OK, Mr LR, we're all wrong and you're the only smart one here. Let's stop the WOD and let the floodgates open. Now what?"

Not much would change except our attention could be focused on important stuff like catching terrorists and real criminals. You know, the stuff they're supposed to be doing in return for letting me use some of their money.

Do I care what you put in your body? No. But I do care and should have a say if your behavior will negatively affect me and mine.

What are you, a pre-cog? The only likely violation of your rights occurs because these substances are illegal, and therefore not subject to free market forces. There are no gang fights over alcohol anymore, yet it is the most dangerous drug out there and the most likely to get an innocent bystander killed. And, sorry, driving under the influence of pot or cocaine is no more dangerous than a 70-year old sober man driving a car. Or any Asian woman.

Of course, driving while intoxicated is and should be a serious offence. But that doesn't mean we should ban alcohol.

You know what? I've formed my point of view from talking with family members and friends on all sides of the argument (addiction and treatment, recreational and criminal use and abuse, doctors, prosecutors, counselors). More importantly, I've buried friends and family who had the same arrogance Mr LR has. In the real world, Mr LR's views have no merit.

Maybe you should have formed your opinion by reading the Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and perhaps a bit of philosophy and the study of human nature. I have a family member that has "battled" drug abuse for going on twenty years now. The worst part of the situation is not the drugs, but the legal jeopardy involved with trying to get treatment, and the underworld scum she has been dealing with in her quest for drugs. Again, drugs being illegal did not stop her, or anyone else in her position. Some people are naturally inclined to abuse intoxicants; "the law" will not EVER change that.

My main problem with the WOD people is that they won't admit what they know to be common sense and what is right before their very eyes. They're fixated on an academic point of law and are willing- nay, determined- to throw the whole society overboard in pursuit of it.

Well, that's all a big bunch of lies. Morally, the WOD is an abomination. Ethically, the same. Legally...well that does not even matter anymore since we do NOT follow the Constitution anymore. Basically, the pro-WOD arguements remind me of the Southerner's arguements for slavery back in the 1840's. Full of "common sense" and fixated on "points-of-law". Do some research on Anslinger the racist father of the drug-prohibition movement...and you'll find out the motivations of the "prohibitionists" real fast.

Geez. Get a life. There are other things going on in the world.
I don't cheer the WOD. Far from it.
It is with grim observation that I conclude the alternative is worse.

Get a life LOL!!!

You cheer on the WOD, then you're gonna bitch when all those pesky little constitutional protections which have been flushed away aren't there to protect you anymore.

All because you hate hippies. How droll.

But, egads, the alternative is worse, you say! People being able to buy recreational intoxicants without fear of prosecution....Oh MY God!!!!

So, you're basically saying that the law, and only the law, is what keeps you and your cadre from using drugs. If the laws were repealed, why everyone would just lose their minds and go out druggin' and dancing to jazz music.

THE whole point of this screed is just to let you and your solemn "we know what's best for you" club that your own savage desires to denigrate, classify, divide, and control people has been a smashing success. And whether you believe it or not, your time will come, much sooner than you think. If you think that DNA fingerprinting is not related to "personal sovereignty" and privacy, you're dreaming. And the US has already decided that you only have privacy rights when it's convenient for the government. Just make sure you stay on their good side....