Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

TheKentuckian

(26,314 posts)
20. I'm pretty fiercely against either invasion but the urine being substituted, diluted, or artificial
Tue Jul 24, 2012, 11:47 AM
Jul 2012

is effectively less intrusive because it isn't my urine. Plus, the non-universal aspect with the ability to refuse is a big seller. If I refuse the drug test, I go on about my job search but if I refuse my home inspection we're talking jail, confiscation of my property, fines, and/or maybe end up beaten or even at risk of life.

I'll grant some similarities but will scoff at you for trying to even pretend they are anything like the same. I also suspect you understand both are pretty well fucked up and should discourage the whole line of reasoning.

Of course there is no significant movement against work place drug test, there are no significant movements to secure higher wages, job security, increase family leave, or for more vacation time.

We are in an anti-labor, "lucky to have a job...any job" era and more than half the country believes in job creator myths, the invisible hand, and that labor is subject to the absolute master of capital. Many, maybe most see a job as indentured servitude on a at will basis.

You also have a multi-decade war on drugs as a backdrop that distorts everything it touches. To some minds peeing in little cups for no plausible reason is like patriotic (as I imagine you might feel saluting with flag waving while your house is searched for contraband weapons, doing your part to make America safe) duty.

There is also the sticky part about the ramifications. An employer isn't going to be locking you up for non-compliance or failing. Government policy is a driver of the drug tests (policy I'm all about changing rather than trying to use it as an apples to tuna casserole precedent) but it isn't mandated (yes, you can find jobs that do not test) and any problem is between you and that employer. You can go home, you can go out of state, you are not going to be incarcerated, there is no fine, in fact you might get another job that pays more the same day.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

At least you're honest about the hypocrisy. - nt badtoworse Jul 2012 #1
I look at that this way. I can only carry so many rounds of 3 oz. bottles snappyturtle Jul 2012 #2
yeah, but it's an absurd restriction... it does notng to actually stop determined terrorists. OneTenthofOnePercent Jul 2012 #32
That's just hypocrisy, nothing more. And I understand it. Bluenorthwest Jul 2012 #3
Do you or did you have to piss in a jar to get or keep a job? Fumesucker Jul 2012 #4
That is something you want to encourage and perpetuate? TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #6
There doesn't seem to be any social movement against workplace drug testing.. Fumesucker Jul 2012 #7
And that's a damn shame. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #11
+1 Go Vols Jul 2012 #31
I'm pretty fiercely against either invasion but the urine being substituted, diluted, or artificial TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #20
So what? HuckleB Jul 2012 #15
From the OP.. Fumesucker Jul 2012 #17
Context. HuckleB Jul 2012 #28
My reply was to the OP, not you.. Fumesucker Jul 2012 #29
I'm all for airport security frazzled Jul 2012 #5
That's because you travel and don't own (or want to own) guns. Edweird Jul 2012 #8
What's different is the level of actual public safety concern. HuckleB Jul 2012 #14
>Implying DHS/TSA is anything more than police state theatrics. Edweird Jul 2012 #18
So you can't answer. HuckleB Jul 2012 #27
The TSA has no reason. Gun control does - there are reasonable limits. HopeHoops Jul 2012 #9
I concur. Surprised? Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #12
I still think restrictions on clip sizes would go a long way. Nobody needs 100 rounds. HopeHoops Jul 2012 #16
I don't honestly think it would make much difference. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #21
IMO, the higher the limit the more support you will get. aikoaiko Jul 2012 #37
It is a similar them not me attitude that "small government" types have TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #10
There is nothing inherently at odds here. HuckleB Jul 2012 #13
No, he is at fundamental odds. He'd authorize house to house searches of the general population TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #22
Thanks for posting a whole lot of nothing. HuckleB Jul 2012 #24
Please elaborate. I'm not aware of any logical fallacies presented in the post. TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #30
Seems there was a underwear bomber and a shoe bomber. Remmah2 Jul 2012 #19
Who cares? HuckleB Jul 2012 #25
Cognitive Dissonance Lasher Jul 2012 #23
There's no dissonance. HuckleB Jul 2012 #26
Well, you can either choose to live with the hypocricy, or not. OneTenthofOnePercent Jul 2012 #33
Me and the TSA Jeff In Milwaukee Jul 2012 #34
You drive a car. You want the other people on the road to know what they are doing. IdaBriggs Jul 2012 #35
Generally it's easier to agree to strip others of their rights 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #36
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I am opposed to DHS (TSA,...»Reply #20