Quote:
Originally Posted by MathGeek
So you've skillfully avoided answering most of my questions, but you are making a case that government power should be exerted to force employers to prove their drug testing requirements and policies are reasonable and needed.
So your vision is for a government bureaucrat or court decide what drug policies and testing practices are reasonable. The employer has the burden of proof that drug use occurred at work or is impacting performance. Drug users get to be a protected class. Private insurers and employers are not at liberty to decide on their employment and insuring policies, but are subject to government control, because drug users are a protected class.
This is not true libertarian government. This is pothead utopia. The government will end up forcing private employers and insurance companies to employ and insure drug users. Insurance companies will have to prove to some government bureaucrat or court that certain behaviors and drug use increases risks rather than relying on their own risk assessment practices and policies.
|
No sorry MG... he hasn't skillfully evaded your questions at all..
he answered them fairly and squarely.
There are tests in place to determine if a person is under the influence.
Ask triple F.... i'm sure it goes along the line of ... field sobriety test fail... then a med test to determine if you are under the influence.
pretty simple really... you choose to party at the job site... get caught... lose your job.... pretty much the same as with alcohol.
This isn't rocket science.