Re: DRUG TESTING, ETC.

[Shawn Roth <ufpdev!shawnr@uunet.uu.net>]

Jim,

  Obvoiusly living in such a liberal country like England, random drug testing
  would be an eye opener.  In a country where you can get a "prescription" for
  heroine, or pot, or what junk your on, this would be a suprise.  So welcome
  back to the real world, and if you need any more enlightment, please feel
  free to ask as many questions as needed.

Shawn 

P.S.  This is of course, in jest....have a good day.

P.P.S. On a basketball note of my own, Pippen said today that he thought that
Jordan was retiring and he would probably not be back with the Bulls.  Although
he said he wouldn't make a final choice of teams until he could talk with "Pink"
Floyd....

Originally from Jim Meninno:
> 
> 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
> 
>