Re: DRUG TESTING, ETC.

["Jim Meninno" <jim_meninno@hotmail.com>]

I guess this was directed at me, so I'll answer.  

Obviously I am out of touch with current American corporate hiring 
practices.  I lived in England from '91 to '97 and, I'm happy to say, I 
must have been out of the country when they added the brainwash juice to 
the water supply.  

We're not talking about coming to work drunk or stoned here.  You don't 
need testing to fire someone for being unfit to do their job.  We're 
talking about checking into people's private lives just to see if they 
happen to be breaking the law.

We're not talking about saving you from your workmate's assault rifle, 
either.  If so, we'd do regular mandatory screenings for depression and 
fire anyone who failed.  Of course maybe that's happening too, and I 
missed it.

If this is a liability issue, as someone has suggested, it is just 
another example of the affects of rampant litigation in the US.  Take 
all the lawyers out and shoot 'em.  (except Jim McMaster.  Sorry, if 
you're not a lawyer, you sound like one).

Being against testing does not make me for drugs.  It makes me for 
people's rights.  And, I'm sorry, but I think I have the right to earn a 
living without being suspected of crimes I haven't committed (at least 
not recently).  

Jim

PS On a basketball note, careful readers will also notice that I was in 
England during the demise of Celtic Basketball.  I hope my return, 2 
games before the end of the 15 win debacle, heralded the start of a 
resurgence of the team we all love.

>From: "Dorine" <norine@sover.net>
>To: "Celtics" <Celtics@igtc.com>
>Subject: DRUG TESTING, ETC.
>Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1998 21:24:24 -0400
>
>I work in a bank.  When you are hired you agree to abide by a dress 
code and
>any other codes they subscribe to.  If you don't want to do this, you 
don't
>sign and you don't get hired.
>The NBA simply wants the players to allow Marijuna to be added to the 
list
>of substances, right?  They probably do test for drugs.  Maybe at 
random,
>who knows, or maybe it's a regularly scheduled thing.  I've never been
>tested for drugs, but I would not object if it were required.  Why?  
People
>who are either spaced out on drugs or loony are walking into former 
places
>of employment and shooting people at random.  It amuses me that some 
people
>think smoking regular cigarettes is awful, but smoking pot is not.  
You're
>still putting smoke in your lungs, aren't you?  I guess this makes 
sense to
>you, it doesn't to me.  And smoking cigarettes does not alter your 
brain
>waves as do both pot and alcohol.  I'm not against alcohol, either, 
after
>all that is legal, but I should think it not unreasonable to expect 
players
>not to drink for a few hours before they play a basketball game or any 
other
>professional sport for which they're being paid.  I think bankers could
>relax their dress codes a little, but until they do, I have to abide by 
the
>rules.  It was a term of my employment many years ago, and I abide by 
it.
>You do not have the right to use an illegal substance, even though you 
might
>think you should.  As long as the law says it's illegal, you're 
breaking the
>law whether you agree with it or not.  If you're job is to play on a
>professional sports team for which you're being highly paid, and the 
rules
>say you won't use drugs and will agree to testing, why should you be 
any
>different than any other employee?  I think the players should have no
>objection to having an illegal drug added to the list of substances not
>allowed.  Makes sense to me.
>Dorine
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com