Re: DRUG TESTING, ETC.

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

I was just kidding.  Why don't you read an entire post before you jump on your
high horse.  Grow up!

Shawn


Originally from Nissen, David:
> 
> 
> A very well thought out reply Shawn.  If you cannot attack someones 
> arguments, attack the person.  Here in Melbourne Australia (which is
> probably 
> not part of the real world, not being an American colony or Annex), we are 
> currently having bad problems with Heroine usage.  I'm kind of sensitive to 
> the issue as a close friends sister died of an over dose.  
> 
> Every few years studies are done, those studies site results from other 
> countries, hard facts from past experience here and else where etc and 
> ultimately come up with the conclusion that de-criminalising dope would 
> drasticaly reduce heroine deaths (if you want me to spell out the reasons 
> why, let me know and I'll send them to you off list) - which has worked well
> 
> in a couple of Australian states that have taken such action.
> 
> Melbourne's response to such reports is to ignore them and bring in stiffer 
> penulties, more random blitzes of known trouble spots etc.  The results, 
> Heroine usage goes up, organized crime makes more money and more studies are
> 
> commisioned at tax payers expense.  Right now  Deaths from Heroine 
> here is in excess of deaths through road accidents.
> 
> Now I don't see any reason why the owners and players shouldn't AGREE to add
> 
> what ever they want to the list of banned substances, but before you start 
> slamming someone and the country in which they have lived for some time,
> just 
> because that country is taking active steps to try to solve some of its 
> social problems, you might want to take a look at yourself and your own 
> country.  After all, it was your country that taught the rest of the world a
> 
> lesson through prohibition (once again if you need someone to spell out what
> 
> that lesson was, let me know and I'll send you some info off list).
> 
> 
>         - David N.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> 
> 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
> >
> >
> 
>