Dear RObert,

To me the whole proposal as outlined in your
opening post sounds somewhat draconian.
If employers are going to impose those sorts
of things into their companies, people won't
be applying for jobs with those companies.

It sounds similar to the days of when "religion"
was featured on job applications and when
people refused to answer they didn't get the job.
And heaven help those who were the "wrong" religion
to the employer. The same as asking women, "Do you
intend to have a family soon?"
I would have thought that those "good old days?"
were well and truly over!

Foxy,
I really hate to have to say this but you're way off the beaten track on this one. What are you on tonight ?
Belly, I'm pleasantly surprised at your post, I'm with you on that one.
I think it an insult to call a plant after the mentality of someone who smokes it. the plant is not a dope, the user is !

Foxy my impression is that it's probably proposed with the best of good intentions, that with the current management it's unlikely to be implemented in a draconian manner.

My concern is that for what are primarily office workers there would seem to be little if any genuine safety risk provided people are not intoxicated on the job (eg I'd support tests where an employee was suspected of being intoxicated at work).

Yet another whittling away at peoples privacy because in some circumstances it provide benefits.

I can see potential for abuse with a change of management but I'm more bothered by changes which lead to that kind of intrusion into peoples privacy without clear cause being seen as valid and acceptable.

Celivia I don't seem to have crossed paths with you in ages. You've slowed down your posting habit's in recent times as have I.

R0bert

Dear Individual,

I was merely expressing my opinion.
I don't always get it right - but
what the heck?
And what am I on?
Only tablets to control my irregular
heart beat and high pulse rate - which
I'm pleased to say are working great! (so far).
Touch wood!

Anyway, I'll have a re-think about this entire
matter having read some more posts on this
thread - and get back to you.

Foxy hope you are better.
my family is better placed than a week ago.
Here I must make my stand.
I truly respect both you and RObert, but you are both wrong.
No saint and no lie teller I have in my youth smoked more than a few cones, no longer but no element of reformed so you should in me.
I have, gee so many years ago, driven interstate trucks, full of beans, drugs.
Workplace deaths include high income construction workers drunk on drugs or alcohol traveling for hours to or from work.
After working 12 hour shifts.
The rights of the clean workers in the workplace are threatened by no testing.
Bosses are not being silly, not being hard not standing over a worker.
In the workplace A BOSS ha a duty of care, to? his workers.
Would you RObert or foxy run a factory high risk workplace, and not be able to separate users from non users?
Privacy, protection of workers rights are weak gutless excuses for standing against drug testing.
I do not ever want to tell a family dad is dead his mate killed him while out of his head.
With a Passion I despise political correctness, this is such blind to reality.

Pelican:"Does anyone know the actual figures for accidents (particularly by those using machinery) being a direct cause of drug use?"

Not as far as I can work out. The last thing that those who seek to promote intrusive regimes want is evidence. However, for motor vehicle accidents overall, I understand the correlation with drug use is quite poor. As for drinking there's a big difference between having one cone and binging on speed for a week.

The trouble is that the figures are very rubbery, with little effort made to disentangle the causative effects. As long as the blanket prohibition approach is in place there is little incentive to do so.

Suzeonline:"Dope is well known for inducing aggression and feelings of invincibility in some people."

You really don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Suzeonline:"I wonder what the rate of accidents in the mining sector was like before they introduced this mandatory testing?"

Hardly changed. The mining industry and civil construction have been highly safety-conscious for years, yet still accidents occur. I've worked on several mines and the biggest factor I saw was the pressure to produce, leading to workers rushing themselves. I've seen sites where the "gun" operators were routinely speeding with everyone turning a blind eye, while less talented (but drug-free) workers wrtr regularly tested "randomly" to make up the numbers.

Each time I've been to a mine I've had to either be tested beforehand or produce the certificate from the most recent test. It hasn't stopped me taking some weed with me for after work and it hasn't stopped others from doing the same.

Still, don't let facts get in the way of a good witchhunt, dear...