Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

SilverMK2 wrote:You obligation to your employer ends when you clock off. Their right to know about your private goings on or your time and activities out of work is nil unless your work is impacted to such a degree that they need to bring you in and discuss it - in which case certain questions can be asked if they are thought relevant.

this is, of course, entirely dependent on your line of work... I mean, if you (a general person, not you specifically) flip burgers for McDs or any other fast food chain, scan groceries, or are a gas station attendant, or [insert suitable 'entry level' work here], then sure, once you clock off work should have no bearing on you.

However, if you work in any sort of public service environment then there are certain standards that are often required of them even when not at work

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

SilverMK2 wrote:You obligation to your employer ends when you clock off. Their right to know about your private goings on or your time and activities out of work is nil unless your work is impacted to such a degree that they need to bring you in and discuss it - in which case certain questions can be asked if they are thought relevant.

this is, of course, entirely dependent on your line of work... I mean, if you (a general person, not you specifically) flip burgers for McDs or any other fast food chain, scan groceries, or are a gas station attendant, or [insert suitable 'entry level' work here], then sure, once you clock off work should have no bearing on you.

However, if you work in any sort of public service environment then there are certain standards that are often required of them even when not at work

How about no? We aren't talking about elected officials : nowhere does it state that you become a public figure the second you start working for a public organisation...

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
However, if you work in any sort of public service environment then there are certain standards that are often required of them even when not at work

This is only true if you are "On Call" for such a job. You are never on call 100% of the time for any job. Ever.

Palindrome wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Your comparing using drugs to driving a couple of miles over the speed limit?

Why not? Speeding is arguably more dangerous than non class A drugs. Either way both are illegal so if you exclude one you must exlude them both.

I used to live in a crack house and to my observation, going 5 miles over the speed limit is far safer than using drugs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In point of fact, every body that lived at that complex doing crack, heroin etc. started out on lighter drugs.
An employer wants to take some of the variables out of how dependable their workers are, and this is one of those ways.

Relapse wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Your comparing using drugs to driving a couple of miles over the speed limit?

Why not? Speeding is arguably more dangerous than non class A drugs. Either way both are illegal so if you exclude one you must exlude them both.

The way I break the law is not as bad as the way other people break the law. Enforcement should be arbitrary.

Fixed that for you.

Relapse wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Your comparing using drugs to driving a couple of miles over the speed limit?

Why not? Speeding is arguably more dangerous than non class A drugs. Either way both are illegal so if you exclude one you must exlude them both.

I used to live in a crack house and to my observation, going 5 miles over the speed limit is far safer than using drugs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In point of fact, every body that lived at that complex doing crack, heroin etc. started out on lighter drugs.
An employer wants to take some of the variables out of how dependable their workers are, and this is one of those ways.

Going 5mph over the limit isn't comparable with crack, maybe cough syrup, or weed. Crack would be comparable with 80mph over the limit.

Also if you lived there, and everyone who lived there did crack...

dæl wrote:Also if you lived there, and everyone who lived there did crack...

Really? You're implying that someone who says he used to live in a crackhouse, used to do crack? You actually think that the insinuation is required?

I lived there because it was a cheap rent at a time in my life when I couldn't afford anything else. It gave me a pretty good observation point a few mo ths on people who use drugs and how they got there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
At first I was thought to be a cop because I didn't do drugs or drink alcohol.

Yeah, way to buy in the 'War on Drugs' propaganda, Dael.

''Occasional cocaine use does not typically lead to severe or even minor physical or social problems''

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/WHOleaked.pdf

Kovnik Obama wrote:Yeah, way to buy in the 'War on Drugs' propaganda, Dael.

''Occasional cocaine use does not typically lead to severe or even minor physical or social problems''

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/WHOleaked.pdf

What propaganda have I bought into? My opinions are based on experience and crack is addictive and can destroy lives. It is a very different beast from cocaine. People don't use crack occasionally, you would be far more likely to see someone maintaining a normal life on heroin than crack.

The problem with drug testing is that it really is aimed primarily at pot users. Heroin and cocaine/crack users usually give the game away at some point, because of the vastly stronger effects (and side-effects) of those drugs.

Pot, on the other hand, is arguably LESS dangerous - to the user and those around - than alchohol. After all, we've all heard about the angry drunk; the angry stoner... is too stoned to actually do anything about it.

And yet, no one is demanding random breatalyzer tests as a condition of employment... even though someone who is hung over from a massive drunk is one HECK of a lot less productive than someone who had a little pot on their smoke break.

I lived in a crack house going at 5 mph over the speed limit and frankly that was the most dangerous thing I have ever witnessed...

Relapse wrote:You mean the American Criminal Liberties Union?
Because most of the time they get murderers, rapists, etc. off on technicalities.

The ACLU is always portrayed as bad guys because of intense and willful ignorance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kovnik Obama wrote:Yeah, way to buy in the 'War on Drugs' propaganda, Dael.

''Occasional cocaine use does not typically lead to severe or even minor physical or social problems''

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/WHOleaked.pdf

Yes, that is true of many drugs. The issues are with addiction rates. It's a lot harder to use something on occasion when it has relatively high addiction rates. Crack is considerably worse, but coke was made illegal specifically because it had become a problem, not because of some sort of strong armed government beuracracy. The history of abuse and dependence all over the economic spectrum is long and it's effects are well recorded.

The same could be said of alcohol and tobacco.

Both of which are far worse on the health of the user than marijuana is (especially method of taking in marijuana which doesn't involve breathing in smoke).

Melissia wrote:The same could be said of alcohol and tobacco.

Both of which are far worse on the health of the user than marijuana is (especially method of taking in marijuana which doesn't involve breathing in smoke).

Yep. I'm for banning them all, but I recognize the sheer impossibility of that concept. The current half effort to ban harmful drugs is at least better than no effort in my mind.

Hating on the ACLU is usually a case of people thinking "Your rights should end where my discomfort begins".

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:The same could be said of alcohol and tobacco.

Both of which are far worse on the health of the user than marijuana is (especially method of taking in marijuana which doesn't involve breathing in smoke).

Yep. I'm for banning them all, but I recognize the sheer impossibility of that concept. The current half effort to ban harmful drugs is at least better than no effort in my mind.

Truth. I've seen first hand the end of the line with hard core drug users and alcoholics in the months I lived in the crack house. True to cliche, as I talked with them, I found about 99% started out on pot or alcohol and just worked their way up from there. A lot had to do with the crowd they ran with, but a fair half started out in upper middle class enviornments and just developed the taste for harder drugs the more they used.
All the murders that go on in Mexico over drugs and the killings that are spilling over into the U.S. from the cartels give me a special contempt for drugs.
Another reason I'm all for drug screening at work.

Relapse wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:The same could be said of alcohol and tobacco.

Both of which are far worse on the health of the user than marijuana is (especially method of taking in marijuana which doesn't involve breathing in smoke).

Yep. I'm for banning them all, but I recognize the sheer impossibility of that concept. The current half effort to ban harmful drugs is at least better than no effort in my mind.

Truth. I've seen first hand the end of the line with hard core drug users and alcoholics in the months I lived in the crack house. True to cliche, as I talked with them, I found about 99% started out on pot or alcohol and just worked their way up from there. A lot had to do with the crowd they ran with, but a fair half started out in upper middle class enviornments and just developed the taste for harder drugs the more they used.
All the murders that go on in Mexico over drugs and the killings that are spilling over into the U.S. from the cartels give me a special contempt for drugs.
Another reason I'm all for drug screening at work.

You are all for drug screening because people die in Mexico because there is such a high demand/risk in the underground drug market caused by our laws against said drugs?

You know this will only make things worse? Apparently Prohibition taught us nothing.

Dreadwinter wrote:

Relapse wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:The same could be said of alcohol and tobacco.

Both of which are far worse on the health of the user than marijuana is (especially method of taking in marijuana which doesn't involve breathing in smoke).

Yep. I'm for banning them all, but I recognize the sheer impossibility of that concept. The current half effort to ban harmful drugs is at least better than no effort in my mind.

Truth. I've seen first hand the end of the line with hard core drug users and alcoholics in the months I lived in the crack house. True to cliche, as I talked with them, I found about 99% started out on pot or alcohol and just worked their way up from there. A lot had to do with the crowd they ran with, but a fair half started out in upper middle class enviornments and just developed the taste for harder drugs the more they used.
All the murders that go on in Mexico over drugs and the killings that are spilling over into the U.S. from the cartels give me a special contempt for drugs.
Another reason I'm all for drug screening at work.

You are all for drug screening because people die in Mexico because there is such a high demand/risk in the underground drug market caused by our laws against said drugs?

You know this will only make things worse? Apparently Prohibition taught us nothing.

Implying drug screening will make cartel violence in mexico more rampant is nonsensical. The existence of the black market already exists, upward pressure on prices due to supply/demand thanks to more heavily enforced drug laws only increase the profitability margins up to a certain point. After that it's all losses due to decreased sales volume and increased loss of market share to more affordable alternatives. Either way, it won't effect cartell drug violence which has already peaked in the slightest.

No, making drugs more scarce causes the drug cartels to fight more to be the one who supplies.

One can argue that we should do it any way. But denying the consequences isn't good for anyone.

No, making drugs more scarce causes the drug cartels to fight more to be the one who supplies.

Random job drug screening has nothing to do with shutting off supply routes. Please read the posts you're going to argue with. Decreased demand via increased enforcement will cause the cartels to switch product or method due to decreased profitability, it won't cause them to suddenly become more violent in their effort to be the only viable supplier. If the routes aren't worth using than they aren't worth fighting for. The cartels have a half century of experience in switching markets as new ones become more viable.

As it is they fight so hard for control of the routes because they are ludicrously profitable to control. That is specifically down to Americas inept drug policies and Latin Americas structural inability to truly challenge the cartels freedom of movement.

One can argue that we should do it any way. But denying the consequences isn't good for anyone.

Nor is pretending to know about them.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Dreadwinter wrote:

Relapse wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:The same could be said of alcohol and tobacco.

Both of which are far worse on the health of the user than marijuana is (especially method of taking in marijuana which doesn't involve breathing in smoke).

Yep. I'm for banning them all, but I recognize the sheer impossibility of that concept. The current half effort to ban harmful drugs is at least better than no effort in my mind.

Truth. I've seen first hand the end of the line with hard core drug users and alcoholics in the months I lived in the crack house. True to cliche, as I talked with them, I found about 99% started out on pot or alcohol and just worked their way up from there. A lot had to do with the crowd they ran with, but a fair half started out in upper middle class enviornments and just developed the taste for harder drugs the more they used.
All the murders that go on in Mexico over drugs and the killings that are spilling over into the U.S. from the cartels give me a special contempt for drugs.
Another reason I'm all for drug screening at work.

You are all for drug screening because people die in Mexico because there is such a high demand/risk in the underground drug market caused by our laws against said drugs?

You know this will only make things worse? Apparently Prohibition taught us nothing.

Implying drug screening will make cartel violence in mexico more rampant is nonsensical. The existence of the black market already exists, upward pressure on prices due to supply/demand thanks to more heavily enforced drug laws only increase the profitability margins up to a certain point. After that it's all losses due to decreased sales volume and increased loss of market share to more affordable alternatives. Either way, it won't effect cartell drug violence which has already peaked in the slightest.

Implying that it will make cartel violence less rampant is just as nonsensical.

Has the black market started to lose profits? From what I understand, every drug law and measure taken to reduce drug use has done very little to put a dent in to the market. Our "War on Drugs" is not going so well.

Implying that it will make cartel violence less rampant is just as nonsensical.

Which is why I didn't do it. You're all very good at arguing against straw men.

Has the black market started to lose profits? From what I understand, every drug law and measure taken to reduce drug use has done very little to put a dent in to the market. Our "War on Drugs" is not going so well.

Oh, you have a magic mirror that lets you glimpse at a world without the war on drugs? Cool. That must be helpful, I mean, if you didn't have that you'd be just making blank argumentative fallacies by implying inverse correlation on a hypothetical.

But we all know that'd be ridiculous.

ShumaGorath wrote:Nor is pretending to know about them.

Are you going to seriously start suggesting that forcing drug sellers in to a black market position does NOT increase the sway of those who already do things illegally anyway?

Because I can always point out that history proves otherwise. Unlike you, I HAVE done research on the topic.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Implying that it will make cartel violence less rampant is just as nonsensical.

Which is why I didn't do it. You're all very good at arguing against straw men.

Has the black market started to lose profits? From what I understand, every drug law and measure taken to reduce drug use has done very little to put a dent in to the market. Our "War on Drugs" is not going so well.

Oh, you have a magic mirror that lets you glimpse at a world without the war on drugs? Cool. That must be helpful, I mean, if you didn't have that you'd be just making blank argumentative fallacies by implying inverse correlation on a hypothetical.

But we all know that'd be ridiculous.

I never made the implication you accused me of. Figured I would roll with the accusation though, see where you were taking this argument. Apparently straight to crazy town.

I am making those fallacies by saying that our war on drugs is not going so well? How is it living in fairytale land where you can make wild accusations towards people and not be called out on it?

Are you going to seriously start suggesting that forcing drug sellers in to a black market position does NOT increase the sway of those who already do things illegally anyway?

Drug sellers already exist in a black market. How do you force someone to be in something they are already in? Where did I say any of that? Please. Quote it. Seriously, stop reconstructing my posts to make them easy to argue against. You do it constantly. It's aggravating.

Because I can always point out that history proves otherwise. Unlike you, I HAVE done research on the topic.

But you apparently haven't bothered reading any of my posts. I'm glad for all the "research" you've done. If it's anything like the "research" you've done in other topics it's probably a brisk skim of the google preview of the related topics wikipedia page. Bringing out basic platitudes like "things in black markets cost more" and "violent drug gangs will use violence to maintain themselves" isn't an argument and it's not informative.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadwinter wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Implying that it will make cartel violence less rampant is just as nonsensical.

Which is why I didn't do it. You're all very good at arguing against straw men.

Has the black market started to lose profits? From what I understand, every drug law and measure taken to reduce drug use has done very little to put a dent in to the market. Our "War on Drugs" is not going so well.

Oh, you have a magic mirror that lets you glimpse at a world without the war on drugs? Cool. That must be helpful, I mean, if you didn't have that you'd be just making blank argumentative fallacies by implying inverse correlation on a hypothetical.

But we all know that'd be ridiculous.

I never made the implication you accused me of. Figured I would roll with the accusation though, see where you were taking this argument. Apparently straight to crazy town.

I am making those fallacies by saying that our war on drugs is not going so well? How is it living in fairytale land where you can make wild accusations towards people and not be called out on it?

You are all for drug screening because people die in Mexico because there is such a high demand/risk in the underground drug market caused by our laws against said drugs?

You know this will only make things worse? Apparently Prohibition taught us nothing.

^
^
^

You see that post? It's where you straight up said the thing I was arguing against. I bolded and italicized it for you. You fundamentally (and probably intentionally) misread what he posted so that you would have an easy target for bumper stick pro legalization rhetoric. I argued against the language you used. You then took us over the waterfall in a barrel.

We seem to have gone way off topic, and the original question has been answered.