Gee Whizz

by West Virginia Rebel

Posted by FPrefect on 10/16/08 at 09:43 PM from

Hey, I work for a company that makes primary flight displays.  There is a GOOD FSCKIN reason that I can’t go to work after one beer.  Let alone if I went in stoned.  Hell, even if they are not PFD’s, I’d want to know that at least the people building and testing the avionics are sober.

Posted by on 10/16/08 at 10:50 PM from

The trouble is that ‘way too many companies where safety is not such an urgent factor are also using these tests.  I don’t blame the companies---in this lawsuit-happy time, they’re probably terrified of being sued if someone does something wrong, and want to show that they did everything possible---but I do blame the Drug Warriors.

Posted by Lee on 10/17/08 at 01:00 AM from

WVR, I think you misread what was written.

Despite the predictable public safety angle, it’s likely that most of Puck’s customers were pot smokers seeking to avoid a positive test result for marijuana consumption off the job, as opposed to employees who operate tractor-trailers, buses, or airplanes while stoned.

In all my years of reading Reason, I have never heard a single person calling for the abolition of drug testing for people who work in dangerous jobs, or upon whom other’s lives depend.  What he’s talking about here is widespread drug testing for average people who work in offices and stuff.  Why do they care about drug use?  Because, as the article states, the mandatory drug testing of federal employees, instituted by Reagan, is still in place, and corporations looking for government contracts will enact a drug testing program not because their employees are surgeons or bus drivers or airline pilots, but simply to suck up to the government.  Thus people who DON’T work in dangerous positions are being drug tested unnecessarily.  Reason’s argument has always been that, in a free society, what you do on your own time should be your own business, UNLESS you work in a job where drug testing would be appropriate.

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 10/17/08 at 01:16 AM from

You’ll get no argument from me about unecessary testing...I guess it sounded like the writer was trying to make all drug testing sound unwarranted.

BTW are you back in Australia or something? (I do prefer it to the world’s last superpower Commie flag, lol.)

Posted by on 10/17/08 at 04:47 AM from

Also, unlike alcohol, a positive test for pot does not mean you are high.  You can test positive for weeks after the high is gone.  I agree, though, that certain positions demand that companies perform due diligence, but not file clerks or grocery store baggers.  Those types of professions are tested as a means of controlling the population.  No one is going to die because you put a gallon of milk on top of the bread.