From: geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: alt.peeves
Subject: Re: Drug testing and welfare
Followup-To: alt.peeves
Date: 27 Jul 1992 22:00:21 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Menlo Park, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: purplehaze.corp.sun.com



In article <PLD.92Jul27151250@cthulhu.hq.ileaf.com> pld@ileaf.com writes:

>I will never work for another company that thinks lifestyle testing is
>an appropriate business activity.  If you find my on-the-job
>performance to be acceptable, what possible business is it of yours
>what I do off-the-job?


Agreed.  But the pro drug-testing types then come back and say that drugs
have a lingering effect after the buzz wears off, ergo their intrusiveness
is justified.

I've gotten into numerous arguments about this with a good friend of mine 
who's an Army master sergeant.  He says that if the balloon goes up, he
doesn't want any of his people to be even slightly impaired, because they'd
all depend on each other for safety.  Understandable, up to a point; the 
problem is that being on one's mental toes on short notice isn't a black-
and-white matter of having recently used drugs or not.  There are a lot of 
other terms in the equation, including but by no means limited to how well
rested a person is, what kind of schedule they've been keeping lately, 
stress (either job related or for personal reasons), etc.  And the Army 
generally doesn't make bed checks or subject its people to weekly 
psychological testing, so why should they single out a person's choice of
recreational chemicals for scrutiny when there's no evidence of a problem?

I'm not saying it's okay for anyone to be under the influence while at 
work, whether they're military or civilian.  The way I look at it, anyonme
who's being paid to perform a task is ethically obligated to perform it
to the best of his ability, whether it's collecting trash or wrenching on
F-15s.  And being addicted to heroin or cocaine -- or alcohol -- is 
undoubtedly a serious matter.  But the drug testing enthusiasts gloss over
the fact that use is not necessarily abuse.  They feel that anyone who uses
any of the substances on society's shit list, however casually or 
responsibly, by definition has a problem and is a menace to Life As We Know 
It.

My friend got real quiet when I reminded him about the way the military
condones alcohol consumption by providing discount booze at service clubs 
and package stores, and asked him how sharp he typically feels the day 
after a night of hard partying at the Tied House when he's out here.

One aspect of this drug testing mania that really pisses me off is that
it's a bandwagon thing.  Back in the late Seventies and early Eighties,
there were a few accidents aboard aircraft carriers that were apparently
the result of people being stoned on the job.  Now I'm a former military
aviator, so I like to think my perspective is worth something; the way I 
see it, the problem was not that these people used pot, but the fact that 
they used it at a highly inappropriate time and place.  The Navy had a 
problem with drug abuse in one of its communities and the testing 
technology was becoming available, so it instituted wholesale drug testing
across the board.  Then the other branches followed suit, eventually even
including my own.  Nobody in a position of responsibility had the balls 
to say, "Okay, folks, let evaluate this.  Is there really a problem that 
requires us to take this kind of action?"  I submit that there was no such
problem.



Geoff


-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.Corp.Sun.COM  + + + + + + + +     Menlo Park, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-


Newsgroups: alt.peeves