Si modo
Diamond Member
Yes, I agree that it is a different situation, but I was curious.Ah. Thanks for clarifying.Sorry, I didn't mean to imply YOU said that...
The entire presumption of citizens being guilty until proven innocent or they don't get their government gruel is just an instinctively repulsive idea to me...
Do you think drug testing for employees is a good thing, in general, or not?
As an employer I do not engage in testing and as an employee I am not subject to it. (Yes I am both) IMO someone's ability to do a job should be judged on their ability to do the job, and I personally don't need that type of screening, but I can see how others may find it useful and I am not against it per se. That said, the government is not screening people here as an employer, so it is a very different situation...
However, for a corporation or organization to receive government grants, they must agree to promote a drug free workplace. Now, that IS getting closer to this topic. In order to get government grant monies, the organizations must be drug free. Well, they agree to promote a drug free workplace. They are taken on their word, for the most part, but if it is found that they don't, they lose the money.
So, this example isn't all that different, except that it is an individual receiving government money, rather than an organization.