Shouldn't it be illegal for ....

[titsrock]

People who are in power usually choose bizarre and questionable means of exercising that power. A corporate person with hiring authority or a small business owner probably thinks he/she has the right to know everything about their prospective or current employees probably would want this pre-emptive testing ability.

People leave eyelashes and hair follicles all over the place at work anyway. The Corporate Fascist would only have to grab the janitor's vacuum bag.

See the movie "Gattaca" to get an idea of "the future".

I think Meester is on to something. There are certain jobs, like air pilot and surgeon where I would want to know a lot about the person doing the cutting or flying....fwiw.

 

[Facetious]

At the risk of chasing you away with my forethought, potential hypotheticals , I'll just nutshell it : It's just the practice of one individual having the ability to test another in ANYTHING without the due consent of the individual being tested has to stop, IMNSHO. It doesn't even have to be for drug use, just use your imagination, it's coming as sure as I'm sitting here.

Of course the usual response by those who don't have a problem with the application of these new scientific breakthroughs (and understand, I'm not referencing you Rey) is: "don't use pot or illicit drugs and you won't have anything to worry about" ; but that's not the point !

I recall when traffic intersection cameras went up at the taxpayers expense they said that they were just testing and they'd likely come down, well, today, I'm had pressed to find a traffic light controlled (green yellow red light intersection) without cameras. I guess that it's OK if just one life was saved

We were warned along the way that technology could be a double edged sword if not closely monitored by The People, and here we are, The Camel's nose is in the tent :whack: If we acquiesce to too much authority we deserve what we get later.

 

[Hot Mega]

"don't use pot or illicit drugs and you won't have anything to worry about" ; but that's not the point !

Same concept people argued in defense of Bush's warrantless listening and peeping programs...

I could just be talking to my mother about her latest cookie recipe and not OBL...but it's my private conversation with my mother.

On to the point....you don't need anyone's consent to test things that are discarded or abandoned.

In this context...if you're worrying about someone testing your discarded DNA...I would say, don't urinate, vomit, spit or defecate (anywhere), don't sleep anywhere else other than you're own bed then change and wash your bedding every morning after you get up. Make sure you never eat out and sterilize everything before you throw it away.:2 cents:

 

[Rey C.]

Of course the usual response by those who don't have a problem with the application of these new scientific breakthroughs (and understand, I'm not referencing you Rey) is: "don't use pot or illicit drugs and you won't have anything to worry about" ; but that's not the point !

Oh, I know. I just didn't understand what good an anonymous sample would do. Seems like they'd need to be able to connect the sample to a particular person, so they could identify them if need be.

I'm generally opposed to intrusive actions, whether it's from the private or the public sector. I've had to submit to drug testing prior to joining certain companies. I also had to submit to psychological testing as part of a work related training program several years ago. Within the next few years, if it's not already happening, there will probably be companies offering to supply information on (private/in home) internet surfing habits to potential employers and others.

On behalf of employers, advertisers, the government... and with help from Google, Yahoo, ISP's, credit card companies, banks, etc., we're well on our way to being nothing more than entries in gigantic data bases.

I don't have anything in particular to hide. But as far as I'm concerned, anything that I do on my time is my business - between me and whoever I do it with, ya know? So it's the people who have found a way to happily live "off the grid" that I admire and in a way, envy.

 

[titsrock]

I recall when traffic intersection cameras went up at the taxpayers expense they said that they were just testing and they'd likely come down, well, today, I'm had pressed to find a traffic light controlled (green yellow red light intersection) without cameras. I guess that it's OK if just one life was saved

We were warned along the way that technology could be a double edged sword if not closely monitored by The People, and here we are, The Camel's nose is in the tent :whack: If we acquiesce to too much authority we deserve what we get later.

I remember things slightly differently. I remember these cameras were "sold" as revenue makers for cities who were facing budget crises and who decided they wanted cops to be available to catch crooks and not write tickets....I guess those city coffers are still empty after these 10 years, eh....:dunno:

As far as I know...a human body doesn't operate those cameras, Facetious. When we hear or read about "Big Brother" operating those cameras...and...watching other "things"...then maybe I'll care?

 

[Facetious]

I'm not worried about me as I'm self employed, but who knows, maybe someday this unsolicited drug testing program will go into effect ........oh......... when we get our drivers lic. renewed (state sponsored) and if not that them maybe our auto insurers will demand a specimen. And since the anti smoking activists say that second hand smoke is so bad for us, what are the chances of recording a false positive drug test simply because others in your shared household, for example, smoke reef ?


It's ugly.


Maybe I'll get on the phone with Mr. Soros, after all, he's a proponent of needle programs :rofl:

It also makes me sick to think that a select handful of pharma salesmen get to sit at home on their asses making a mint off of sales commissions for their nifty hair test sales contracts. Dream / Deal buster fat asses prolly on drugs themselves.

 

[Facetious]

People who are in power usually choose bizarre and questionable means of exercising that power.
.

and therein lies the problem

 

[Rey C.]

I remember things slightly differently. I remember these cameras were "sold" as revenue makers for cities who were facing budget crises and who decided they wanted cops to be available to catch crooks and not write tickets....I guess those city coffers are still empty after these 10 years, eh....:dunno:

As far as I know...a human body doesn't operate those cameras, Facetious. When we hear or read about "Big Brother" operating those cameras...and...watching other "things"...then maybe I'll care?

Don't they have "block cameras" in Baltimore? I know the traffic cameras you're talking about - lots of places have those now. I mean the cameras mounted on poles, that allow monitoring of people. I was thinking either D.C. or Baltimore had those???

 

[DetroitRocker36]

It is not legal or illegal to test. As it was pointed out, it is a condition at most places. I've worked a lot of factory jobs or some type of heavy equipment. Before I ramble on like a stoner, this is my point. If I am driving a piece of equipment that clocks in around 10,000lbs empty and has sharp pointy metal forks on it, and I am surrounded by a dozen other people doing the same thing, I would like to know that none of them are high.
I guess you can't really judge without seeing someone getting a leg removed by someone that is under the influence. I have seen it, and its not pretty. The worst part about it is, the person that caused the accident offered a somewhat sincere apology.
Back to the earlier made point, it is conditional. You are welcome to refuse it, but to what end? Sooner or later, you have to pay your bills. Find a job where drug testing isn't needed. Most office personal (and the corporate ilk) must promote drug use. It is the only way to explain how things are done.

 

[Rey C.]

But Detroit, you won't know if someone around you is high until after they run over someone, right? Once people get hired, most places might do random checks, but for the most part, they only do a mandatory check after there's an accident.

 

[DetroitRocker36]

But Detroit, you won't know if someone around you is high until after they run over someone, right? Once people get hired, most places might do random checks, but for the most part, they only do a mandatory check after there's an accident.

This is true. But the point I was making was that if the company drug tests, then one can assume that there will be random testing. I've been picked a few times for random testing. One guy I know got picked once a week for a month.

As far as the OP stated about hair testing, thats been around since at least 1994. I had to go in for a pre-employment test while two nurses had to hold this pretty little blonde girl down and snip her hair. That day it just sucked to be her. She could have refused the test to save her locks, but she needed a job.

I guess the moral of the story is that if you have to work for someone else, you have to play their game.