dacinokc
Member
UA is the tip of this iceberg any more though. Interesting cases floating around these days about the use of hair for drug testing without the knowledge of the tested.
Personally I am torn, as an attorney I find drug testing to really suck as from a privacy point of view. It is very flawed, pot will hang out in the body for six months in fat cells and result is positive test, while cocaine will flush out of the body in as short as six hours. UA or hair ends up being about as accurate as a average police radar in detecting is the person stoned on the job, or was around a bunch of pot smokers at a superbowl party.
On the other hand, as a dad, I don't want some apathtic stoner driving a bus with my kid on it if their values or judgement are impared.
While in the military, I was tested and it never made me anymind, and to this day I could pass a test, but I don't like the intrusiveness of it. And it is what is called a slippery slope issue-
I think it was mentioned, but what is to stop a employer of then doing a DNA test to see if you are at risk of heart disease or diabetes and electing to not hire you becuase you would cost him insurance money, maybe, someday. They could argue that as a truck driver they would not want the liability of you having a heart attack and passing out behind the wheel, those weaslly lawyers would lie about thier own mothers- on wait never mind.
So how much are you willing to let someone determine about you before you get to drive, fly, play high school football, or whatever.
It is as much ploy to enforce morality as any issue directly related to job related liability, don't let anyone kid you.....
Personally I am torn, as an attorney I find drug testing to really suck as from a privacy point of view. It is very flawed, pot will hang out in the body for six months in fat cells and result is positive test, while cocaine will flush out of the body in as short as six hours. UA or hair ends up being about as accurate as a average police radar in detecting is the person stoned on the job, or was around a bunch of pot smokers at a superbowl party.
On the other hand, as a dad, I don't want some apathtic stoner driving a bus with my kid on it if their values or judgement are impared.
While in the military, I was tested and it never made me anymind, and to this day I could pass a test, but I don't like the intrusiveness of it. And it is what is called a slippery slope issue-
I think it was mentioned, but what is to stop a employer of then doing a DNA test to see if you are at risk of heart disease or diabetes and electing to not hire you becuase you would cost him insurance money, maybe, someday. They could argue that as a truck driver they would not want the liability of you having a heart attack and passing out behind the wheel, those weaslly lawyers would lie about thier own mothers- on wait never mind.
So how much are you willing to let someone determine about you before you get to drive, fly, play high school football, or whatever.
It is as much ploy to enforce morality as any issue directly related to job related liability, don't let anyone kid you.....