Hacker News Reader

Comment by TelmoMenezes | Hacker News Reader

The land of the free: now with mandatory drugs testing at work.

If you're getting a drug test it's most likely because there are safety and insurance implications. Don't pretend like most of us are being randomly tested at work.

"Safety and insurance implications" are an infinite excuse for employers to abuse you unless you have a legal system to protect you from asymmetrical power relationships.

Uh huh. I'll remember that the next time a ton of bricks falls on my head when passing a construction site.

Do you have any reason to believe this is an actual, honest to God, widespread problem?

> Uh huh. I'll remember that the next time a ton of bricks falls on my head when passing a construction site.

Was it a common occurrence in the US, that construction workers would cause accidents because of smoking cannabis? And btw, do you know of any study showing a negative correlation between drug testing and accidents? Or is this more "lie detector"-style "science" -- an excuse to stick your nose in other people's private affairs?

> Do you have any reason to believe this is an actual, honest to God, widespread problem?

Yes, my professional experience. American workers seem to find intrusive practices such as drug testing perfectly normal, exactly in the way that you are expressing. In Europe, such tests are much more regulated, as well as many other forms of abuse of power by the employer, and yet I never had any problems with bricks falling over my head.

Many of those jobs requiring testing for safety reasons (but not all).

Are you suggesting the US isn't the land of the free because people aren't free to come to work intoxicated and potentially endanger their colleagues?

No, I am saying that the US isn't the land of the free because, in practice, you seem to live under immense scrutiny and oppression when compared to other western countries. No privacy over even your own body, no job security, no health care without a job, no holidays.

That isn't the freedom that people refer to with respect to the US, and I would argue that this sense of freedom is far less self-evident and is reliant on more social conventions.

In short, it's freedom from a government, which isn't too surprising considering the places in which "free" is used and the history behind the formation of the country.

It should be fairly clear, then, when you consider that the freedom refers to lower government intervention in the actions of people, and sometimes a hostility towards this intervention.

This concept isn't really unique to the US, though other developed countries tend to have a less extreme approach in most practical areas. Switzerland, for instance, is usually an exception compared to its neighbors when it comes to privatization, healthcare, parental leave, etc. and a similar justification of reduced government intervention and more freedom of choice is often used here.

It would be more sensible if the drug tests only checked if you were intoxicated at work. As it is, they check if you ever get intoxicated.

But obviously not testing for coffee, because that drug (although it can be deadly and habit forming) makes people work harder.

Perfectly reasonable. And don't forget, "only losers do drugs"...

Yes, and a bunch of harder drugs that destroy lives and are much more dangerous than cannabis, but perfectly fine because some big corp is making billions selling it.

No security implications there. Of course, by security, it is meant "security against lawsuits". Actual human beings don't really matter in this equation.

Crony capitalism bothers me as much as anybody, but it's the Americans with Disabilities act is what protects workers from retaliation for using prescription controlled drugs. And I don't picture that as a law that is rooted in corruption.

Deadly? Coffee? "Can be" leaves you plenty of room, but c'mon.

Here's the Mayo Clinic page on caffeine.

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com