From: Brian Phillips (deepbluehalo@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Aug 07 2002 - 13:30:51 MDT
From: Mike Lorrey <mlorrey@yahoo.com>
<<While I greatly dislike the drug laws, being able to
smoke a doobie on occasion doesn't improve my civil
liberties and lifestyle to anywhere near the same
degree as my ability to freely pack heat when I feel
it is warranted, and both Bush and Ashcroft have
therefore done light years more good for my civil
rights in the last year than any left wing
administration or organization has ever, or will ever,
accomplish.
These days I comply with the drug laws because it is a
mandate of my job, enforced by random testing. I
currently cannot afford to get any cloning done, so
I'm not so worried about that, and when I do I'm
likely to wish to keep it so private that the
government will never find out about it anyways, since
it's one of those things entirely outside the
Constitutional powers of the feds, IMHO.>>
Thanky you for a cogent reminder about the lesser of
two evils. Will avoid further comment as it's Off-Topic.
Question.
Is it at all unjust for a company to make drug testing
(random, entrance or incident/suspicion based) a condition
of hiring or retention?
Seems as a libertarian I can't really complain about a private
employer who makes this stipulation...a honest contract is
sacred after all. (Of course to be fair I think employers
should be able to do lots of things via hiring/retention that
are presently unlawful :)
Thoughts anyone?
regards,
Brian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:56 MST