OFF: drugs

[M Holmes]

Doug Pearson writes:

> That being said, it's probably a very very good idea for anyone with a
> record of mental instability to avoid LSD and other psychedelics.

Also people with any family history of mental troubles like
schizophrenia. There's evidence that it's genetically linked and there's
evidence that psychedelics can promote full blown episodes in people who
are merely susceptible, even if they've never shown symptoms.

> >I'd also consider the morality of submitting to drug testing. While it
> >may be convenient for any one person, it encourages this kind of
> >intrusive authoritarianism every time anyone acquiesces.
>
> I've thought about this quite a bit.  Just the *concept* of having to piss
> in a jar as a job requirement sounds really messed up to me.  Fortunately,
> I've never had to face that, but if it were the case, I'd be very tempted
> to withdraw my job application on principle.

Just to be clear: I'm not against *impairment* testing on principle.
Indeed I believe there are jobs such as surgeon or airline pilot where
it ought to be mandatory.  However it should be impairment rather than
drug testing.  The idea is to identify people who aren't fit to work on
any given day rather than to merely conduct a pogrom against users of
some drugs.  Impairment testing such as hand-eye coordination and
reaction time testing would also detect those people with a hangover, or
who were merely too tired after a late night looking after kids or
arguing with a spouse, and also those unfit through duly prescribed
medical drugs, of whom there are a lot more than users of illicit drugs.
Just to be very clear: I feel exactly the same about fitness testing for
drivers.

> Of course, I'm sure that most
> of my past and present employers have realized that if they implemented
> mandatory testing and had to fire everyone who came out positive, they'd be
> losing most of their competent employees ...

A major reason why the pogrom hasn't taken off in Britain, despite the
wishes of various of the control freak tendency.

> >Not that it'd matter if things get as weird as some yank authorities
> >would like.
>
> Yes, that's my Senator, Dianne Feinstein (damn! I should at least know how
> to spell her name!)

That's correct.

> who wants to make it illegal to DISCUSS controlled
> substances on the Internet.

Perhaps someone could send her a copy of your Constitution and underline
the First Amendment?

>         -Doug

FoFP