Belly, this has nothing to do with "PC Political correctness". It's about the intrusion of the nanny state into peoples lives when it's not necessary. You defend this on the basis of the needs of heavy industry seemingly ignoring that I'm refering to an office environment with no known current drug or alcohol problems.

Step away from construction sites, heavy haulage operators etc for a bit and ask yourself if you really want across the board mandatory drug and alcohol testing of the population. If it's valid in my work place then why not for the whole population?

Applying mandatory tests like this without a compelling safety need is nanny state thinking, opposition to it is not PC, it's a defense of basic rights.

R0bert

R0bert, Belly and assorted others...

I agree completely with Thinker2's post - that we confuse legal with illegal drugs, simply on the basis of prohibitive laws.

The effect on people's behaviour on a couple of stiff drinks is completely different to the effect of a few bongs. I know which people I'd rather be hanging with and its not those who are imbibing the legal drugs.

That said, amphetamines + alcohol; really, really bad.

However, I am veering from R0bert's topic which is about mandatory/random testing for drugs in the workplace.

That a person's career could be ruined for the joint smoked 3 weeks ago is utterly absurd. While we continue to discriminate against the majority for the irresponsible behaviour of a few, we will remain in danger of totalitarianism of either end of the political spectrum. Like so much, we cannot legislate against stupidity. The best we can do is apply discretion in accordance with the individual's behaviour - no employer would want to lose otherwise exemplary workers because of a big weekend.

Anyone who has worked in a busy restaurant will appreciate the following article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/dining/19pot.html?src=me&ref=general

The article also highlights the contribution to creativity that often accompanies a light MJ high.

Fully agreed, RObert and Severin.

Yes Belly I think that we probably all would agree with you that drug tests would be commonsense for these high-risk jobs with heavy machinery, driving and working on heights (although I've heard that mj can help you fly so there's neither a need for safety harnesses nor cars).

Anyway, do you propose that the whole staff of say, Coles or Woolworths should undergo drug testing and ALL the shoppers who pop in to buy a litre of milk as well?

Everybody these days gets OH&S training and this should be enough to make work places as safe as possible.

Oh la la! Article tres bien, Severin... I always suspected Remy- that cute, fat Chef rat in Ratatouille!

Where I grew up, we had a 4x award-winning bakery on the corner of our street. Everybody knew that the baker lived on space cakes and poppy-seeds but I've never heard a complaint about safety there!

First you will not be sacked for a bong three weeks ago.
Testing talks about degrees of impairment, no impairment in that case, yes drugs in the system but not enough.
At say a ship yard, earth moving depot, government workplace offices.
Blue collar workers are tested, they demand and I do on their behalf, office staff are tested.
A contributor talks of cocaine use in his workplace, is that ok?
WHY would any boss want to test? can it just be because the law demand he/she has a drug free workplace?
I think you will find it does.
And if you look you will find cases that saw injured workers take bosses to court because D or A in the workplace lead to injury's.

It's about balance I think Belly, and what sort of society, would most of us like to live in . R0berts original post was about civil liberties more than anything else.

A local police officer once decided it was ok, to randomly test peoples car's for roadworthy rego, and whatever, as people were putting petrol in their cars at the local fuel outlet. I think letters of complaint saw him demoted.

Random powers in themselves assume that something wrong or illegal is occuring at a level sufficiently high to warrant testing everyone or anyone for no particular or apparent reason.

The core principal of "random power" is based upon "suspicion without evidence".

Acquiescing too such powers requires an abrogation of the individual's own civil rights and so the real question is "do we really want authority to possess this much power? ", and/or, live in a society that operates on the the core principal of suspicion without evidence, for the greater good?.

Severin, Cevilia, R0bert and others, can I tell you of my life as a musician/ entertainer in the restaurant circuit when there was one!.(at some other time) Chefs I knew were some of the wildest and most wonderful people I've ever met . But I too, now reminisce.

It's not as simplistic as just testing everyone I don't think Belly, nor is it warranted or represent progress.