[geeks] This bogles my mind

[David Cantrell]

On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 12:55:43PM -0500, ward at zilla.nu wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 10:03:38AM +0100, David Cantrell wrote:
> 
> > Then there's the issue that if you smoke a
> > joint on Friday evening after work it ain't going to affect your ability to
> > do your job come Monday morning.
> 
> True, but it's still illegal.  Right or wrong, it's illegal.  Don't like
> that?  Change the laws.

It is not the place of private enterprise to act as prosecutor, judge and
jury.  Do they, perhaps, insist on taking an inventory of everything in
your home so they can check that you don't have any stolen goods?

> > Then there's the danger of false positives
> 
> False positives require retests.  Very simple.

Do the victims *get* those retests?  All the time?

> >                            Sure, forbid smoking on company premises, make
> > sure they make up the time they take for their ciggie breaks, but to deny
> > someone employment solely because they smoke outside of working hours is
> > just as absurd as denying someone employment just because they have a drink
> > with their evening meal.
> 
> In my experience, regular smokers are much less productive.  They simply 
> don't make up the time they take for their 'every 45 min' break.

Then their managers should take appropriate action to ensure that they do.

> Some unions even make that a rule, every 45 min is allowed, for 15 min.

Yes, I do get the impression that US unions are rather likely to behave
in spectacularly stupid ways.

> I'm not anti-smoking or anti-smokers.  I just don't want that toxic crap
> anywhere near me.

OK, so you expect smokers (and everyone else who might potentially be
involved with smokers) to be considerate of your wishes.  I trust that
you are equally considerate to those who do not want *your* toxic crap
anywhere near them.  That means no driving a car, no barbeques, no
herbicides/fungicides/pesticides in your garden, you only use bio-
degradable detergents and household cleaning chemicals etc etc etc.

> Smoking and drinking are very very different.  One has actual medicinal
> value, the other has zero.

That is debatable.

>                            And sure, they can deny employment for that,
> no problem.  It's their choice to hire someone or not, not the prospective 
> employee.  They don't discriminate against race, age, sexual orientation, 
> etc.

and if you believe that, then I have a bridge for sale.

-- 
David Cantrell | david at cantrell.org.uk | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david/

      Good advice is always certain to be ignored,
      but that's no reason not to give it            -- Agatha Christie