Aclu

Quote:

---

I would argue that nothing they do makes one scratch their head,

---

I have one :)

I work on some consulting jobs, like a lot of us. One happened to be a 911 system I managed. Now for those systems I like to know that my people are coming to work and not popping a couple of hallucinogenic Narcotics. I can see the headlines now... local manager arrested after 911 failed to respond to Ms. Smiths baby because his IT staff was stoned out of their minds and fell asleep while the server went down and no one could call and get help. So call it "piece of mind" that I know at some degree that risk is limited through drug testing. Sure if you want to get some recreation out on your own time and in your own worlds, fine - but you make a promise to me when hired that you will be drug free. So I scratch my head when the ACLU wants employers to stop drug testing.

Quote:

---

According to the ACLU's report, the drug testing industry's promotion of "junk science," based on unsubstantiated claims and phantom research, has fueled the growth of employee drug testing since the mid-1980's. But respected scientific institutions such as the National Academy of Sciences have looked at the record and found little support for most of the drug testing industry's claims.

"We have always believed drug testing of unimpaired workers stands the presumption of innocence on its head and violates the most fundamental privacy rights," said ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser. "Now we know that sacrificing these rights serves no legitimate business purpose either."

---

There are about 20 other related reports on the subject... are they biased on that issue” Hell yes" I am not bashing the ACLU; they do a lot of good. But I scratch my head sometimes... drug testing has no legitimate business purpose? How many examples of "impaired workers" causing great tragedies did they need to come to that assumption? I can think of oil tankers, train wrecks, bus wrecks, liability cases etc. off the top of my head. That is agenda based thinking in my opinion. But to answer the question, does the ACLU suck. Nope.

RoadClosed: I think you are missing the point on the drug testing issue, its very inacurate, but drug testing companies calim otherwise and hold up those claims with faulty survays, this leads to a lot of false positives nad lost jobs for no reason.

Yes I have read those arguments on false positives, also arguments that say false positives are rare. Don't forget about false postives in a negative way as well, meaning people who are beating the system. I made my comments bases on generalities that all drug testing should be eliminated and the ACLU seeks to do that because employees are considered quilty until proven inocent. Wich of course is a direct violation of our constitution. I argue that in 2003 drug testing methods are pretty damn accurate from what I can find. Maybe back in the 80s and late 90s I could see the arguments - but at that time it really wasn't in wide use. I also am aware of common over the counter medicines producing a false positive. It's getting increasingly harder to find employment for any amount of decent money that doesn't involve drug testing.

I could call myself a hipcrite on the issue, I have always been against drug tesing, it makes you feel uncomfortable and violated. It causes extreme stress, esspecially if some substance was recently smoked and that seems to be a direct invasion of privacy. I hate being on the "pee" end and I see that point,. But when placed in a position of absolute responsibility for the wellfare and operation of a unit, it suddenly became viable. I could go for a notion that it be limited to certain areas, such as public safety. Much like the polygraph is used now. I even could bet that if we didn't live in such a libel tendancy culture, they wouldn't be used at all. Libel meaning we sue over everything. Having an employee that is under any kind of influence in a negative way opens the doors for lawyer sharks and their gleam for riches.

It would be hard to eliminate drug testing especially since the goverment has adobted it and other methods, I would think that a law forcing multiple tests would be more in tune with my thinking on the issue. But this should also be a private business issue. If you own a business you should be able to screen employees anyway you want that is not in violation of discrimination laws.? I know I have turned them down in the past just out of spite and gone somewhere else.

The fact of the matter is that they are using the current crappy state of the United States justice system to push their own agenda, which is not right whether or not the cause is just. The ends don't justify the means.

in the 1st place wt this aclu means

American Civil Liberties Union

They promote the individual right to privacy and attempt to stem abuse by government (tends, IMHO, to be very altruistic)

MM they are only altruistic if you want freedom, privacy and protection of indavidual rights, this is why the neocon's hate them, they interfeer with the cretion of a facist state.

Yeah, they and their army of lawyers are just out to make the world a better place :rolleyes: . Don't kid yourself, they have a (not-so-)hidden agenda and are pushing it with their ridiculous lawsuits. I, for one, support the right for someone to mention the deity's name in a government building, I like saying the Pledge of Allegence in school every morning, I support the right of an unborn child to have a chance at life, and people who support my opinion shouldn't have to go to court because others don't.

So , ACLU, :kissass:

Quote:

---

tends, IMHO, to be very altruistic

---

Altruistic is probably the last word I would use to describe the ACLU. If they were altruistic then they wouldn't of single handedly taken away religion from public schools. Plus, they are notorious for defending scumbags and far left radicals.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by TheRepublican
Yeah, they and their army of lawyers are just out to make the world a better place :rolleyes: . Don't kid yourself, they have a (not-so-)hidden agenda and are pushing it with their ridiculous lawsuits. I, for one, support the right for someone to mention the deity's name in a government building, I like saying the Pledge of Allegence in school every morning, I support the right of an unborn child to have a chance at life, and people who support my opinion shouldn't have to go to court because others don't.

So , ACLU, :kissass:

---

I fully support being able t say ones dyaties name in court, I do not support that court (a representitive of the goverment) pushing a deity chosen by the goverment on me, neither dose the aclu thats what they fight. I support being allowed to say the origional pledge of allegance, I do not support adding religious refrences to the pledge in an attempt to better controll the populace ("under god" was added in the 50's as an attempt to controll the populace, and its a clear violation of church and state.) I also support the right of an unborn child to have a chance at life, but I relise that people who don't share my opinion shouldn't have thir rights ignored.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by paulie walnuts


Altruistic is probably the last word I would use to describe the ACLU. If they were altruistic then they wouldn't of single handedly taken away religion from public schools. Plus, they are notorious for defending scumbags and far left radicals.

---

the yalso defend scumbag far right radicals, see they fell that every one has a right ot voice their opinion...wow freedom of speach waht an unamerican concept...So paulie you want the federal goveremnt decideing what religion your children fallow, because thats what placeing religion in public schools means.