HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "I have to get drug ... » Reply #41

Response to Comrade Grumpy (Original post)

Mon Mar 5, 2012, 01:15 PM

41. the premise really is the elephant in the room


"I have to get drug tested for my job ..."

Up here in Canada, that premise does not apply. Unless there is some direct connection between the job and drug use (e.g. truck driving or air traffic controlling, where drug use is a safety hazard).

Here's an example - the Ontario Human Rights Commission's policy on drug testing:


The Code states that it is public policy in Ontario to recognize the inherent dignity and worth of every person and to provide for equal rights and opportunities without discrimination. The provisions of the Code are aimed at creating a climate of understanding and mutual respect for the dignity and worth of each person so that each person feels a part of the community and feels able to contribute to the community.

The OHRC recognizes that it is a legitimate goal for employers to have a safe workplace. One method sometimes used by employers to achieve that goal is drug and alcohol testing. However, such testing is controversial and, especially in the area of drug testing, of limited effectiveness as an indicator of impairment. It is not used to a significant degree anywhere in the world except in the United States (the ďU.S.Ē).

It is the OHRCís view that such testing is prima facie discriminatory and can only be used in limited circumstances. The primary reason for conducting such testing should be to measure impairment. Even testing that measures impairment can be justified only if it is demonstrably connected to the performance of the job; for example, if an employee occupies a safety-sensitive position, or after significant accidents or "near-misses," or if there is reasonable cause to believe that a person is abusing alcohol or drugs and only then as part of a larger assessment of drug and alcohol abuse. It is the OHRCís view that by focusing on testing that actually measures impairment, especially in jobs that are safety sensitive, an appropriate balance can be struck between human rights and safety requirements, both for employees and for the public.

It seems to be a common phenomenon in the US for people to complain not that their own rights are being violated (or that they are not getting a benefit they deserve, for instance), but to attack people whose rights are being protected (or who are getting a benefit they deserve).

If someone feels that they are being mistreated by their employer by being required to undergo drug testing when there is no justification for it, why is that not the focus of their complaint, and why are they not trying to do something about that?

Of course, if they think their employer's drug testing is completely legitimate, even absent a safety concern for instance, then it sounds like they're in the crowd that thinks that if you don't have anything to hide, you don't need to worry about {wiretaps, internet privacy, airport body scans, suspensions of habeas corpus ...} -- i.e. they just don't really give a shit about other people's rights anyhow.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 51 replies Author Time Post
Comrade Grumpy Mar 2012 OP
Sherman A1 Mar 2012 #1
mainer Mar 2012 #2
Comrade Grumpy Mar 2012 #5
csziggy Mar 2012 #11
newspeak Mar 2012 #36
tsuki Mar 2012 #43
csziggy Mar 2012 #45
Bennyboy Mar 2012 #3
titaniumsalute Mar 2012 #4
mick063 Mar 2012 #6
PearliePoo2 Mar 2012 #21
PavePusher Mar 2012 #31
2ndAmForComputers Mar 2012 #47
Comrade Grumpy Mar 2012 #48
PavePusher Mar 2012 #49
kestrel91316 Mar 2012 #7
Comrade Grumpy Mar 2012 #12
2pooped2pop Mar 2012 #18
B Calm Mar 2012 #29
B Calm Mar 2012 #32
unapatriciated Mar 2012 #34
Comrade Grumpy Mar 2012 #8
The Genealogist Mar 2012 #9
aquart Mar 2012 #10
csziggy Mar 2012 #17
Turbineguy Mar 2012 #13
rustydog Mar 2012 #14
Comrade Grumpy Mar 2012 #20
rustydog Mar 2012 #30
Spanky32 Mar 2012 #15
left is right Mar 2012 #22
ClassWarrior Mar 2012 #16
FarLeftFist Mar 2012 #19
Sparkly Mar 2012 #23
Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2012 #46
B Calm Mar 2012 #24
sce56 Mar 2012 #25
Drahthaardogs Mar 2012 #26
mother earth Mar 2012 #27
B Calm Mar 2012 #28
yellowcanine Mar 2012 #33
mainer Mar 2012 #35
Johonny Mar 2012 #38
cynatnite Mar 2012 #37
Viva Mar 2012 #39
ckimmy57 Mar 2012 #40
LineReply the premise really is the elephant in the room
iverglas Mar 2012 #41
onethatcares Mar 2012 #42
Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2012 #44
KatyMan Mar 2012 #50
Indiana Mar 2012 #51
Please login to view edit histories.