I've heard it all, now.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Chubby
You can't read.

My work says you can't go to work drunk. You go to work drunk you get in trouble.

Sports league says you can't use "x" substance. You use "x" substance you get in trouble.

What's the difference? There is consequences to everything if you want to get philosophical.

I can read just fine. If you read all my posts you'd see where I said that truckers arrested for drunk driving or driving under the influence should go to jail.

I didn't say that people should go to work drunk. I didn't say athlets should use drugs.

Let me make it nice and clear.

I'm saying that we should just go around drug testing everyone under the sun. We are supposed to have certain liberties and rights. I believe that your private life is your private life. I don't feel corporations should be able to drug test. I agree they should be able to fire employees who show up for work drunk. I believe they should be able to fire employees who show up for work high. I guess I still believe in innocent until proven guilty - something that is disappearing from our society.

[SackAttack]

We could also bring up Korey Stringer, but there were a couple other mitigating factors there, as well. I don't think the ephedra directly was responsible for Stringer's death, but it was definitely a major contributor.

And then there's the handful of high school kids who die each year in football practice. They don't always get as much publicity, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that some of them are using things they shouldn't.

[lynchjm24]

Here is a little stat for you.

Since the NFL began steroid testing in 1989.

Out of 47,600 tests only 53 players tested positive.



(I think that might show you that it doesn't work anyway..)

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by SackAttack
And then there's the handful of high school kids who die each year in football practice. They don't always get as much publicity, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that some of them are using things they shouldn't.

Perfect. They should drug test all high school students. Again, it would be beneficial to thousands at a cost to one.

[SackAttack]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
I'm saying that we should just go around drug testing everyone under the sun. We are supposed to have certain liberties and rights. I believe that your private life is your private life. I don't feel corporations should be able to drug test. I agree they should be able to fire employees who show up for work drunk. I believe they should be able to fire employees who show up for work high. I guess I still believe in innocent until proven guilty - something that is disappearing from our society.

Your private life IS your private life...so long as it affects you and only you.

The Supreme Court has ruled on issues tangential to that: your right to swing your fist, for example, ends where the nose of another man begins. It's called unruly and disorderly conduct, and can land you in jail.

The same principle applies here. The use of steroids, or other banned substances, amount to an unfair advantage over somebody who's playing by the rules. What about the right of the person following the rules to engage in fair and open competition for his stated objective?

Or, in other words, why is it okay for Microsoft to get sued for its business practices, but it's an invasion of privacy to institute testing to ensure that baseball players are all on the same page as far as banned substances?

[Chubby]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
I can read just fine. If you read all my posts you'd see where I said that truckers arrested for drunk driving or driving under the influence should go to jail.

I didn't say that people should go to work drunk. I didn't say athlets should use drugs.

Let me make it nice and clear.

I'm saying that we should just go around drug testing everyone under the sun. We are supposed to have certain liberties and rights. I believe that your private life is your private life. I don't feel corporations should be able to drug test. I agree they should be able to fire employees who show up for work drunk. I believe they should be able to fire employees who show up for work high. I guess I still believe in innocent until proven guilty - something that is disappearing from our society.

holy crap you are dense, i want you for my boss so when i come into work hammered I can say "hey what i do on my time is myu own business screw you".

Ok genius, so how do you think they are going to catch people using illegal substances if they don't drug test. It is within the right of an EMPLOYER (not the friggin government) to drug test, especially if it is in the union contract. drug testing random people for no reason has nothing to do with drug testing for a job (any job)

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Chief Rum


Yes, it would be in your company's best interest to find that out, if need be. I don't actually know if there is such a gene, but if there is, that is their right to use that as a reason they shouldn't hire you. It is the same as if you aren't smart enough to do a job, or fast enough to do a job. Just because the tests get more advanced doesn't change the fact that companies have every right to hire the person they feel will do the job best for them, and that the tests they use to determine that is completely up to them.

So you feel that if a genetic test existed that would predict if a person was prone to stealing, you feel that companies should be able to use that test in the hiring process?

Good god, I hope you are in the minority.

[Chubby]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
Perfect. They should drug test all high school students. Again, it would be beneficial to thousands at a cost to one.

holy crap that has nothing to do with it. if a condition of employment is you can't do "x" and that you must submit to random drug tests then you are shit out of luck if you disagree. go get a job flippin burgers then.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Chubby
holy crap you are dense, i want you for my boss so when i come into work hammered I can say "hey what i do on my time is myu own business screw you".

Ok genius, so how do you think they are going to catch people using illegal substances if they don't drug test. It is within the right of an EMPLOYER (not the friggin government) to drug test, especially if it is in the union contract. drug testing random people for no reason has nothing to do with drug testing for a job (any job)

I'm dense? The post you quoted says: I AGREE THAT SOMEONE WHO SHOWS UP FOR WORK SHOULD BE FIRED.

[The_herd]

So you feel that if a genetic test existed that would predict if a person was prone to stealing, you feel that companies should be able to use that test in the hiring process?

Good god, I hope you are in the minorit

No he's saying that if you come up positive for drugs on a test the employer should have the right to fire your junkie ass.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Chubby
holy crap that has nothing to do with it. if a condition of employment is you can't do "x" and that you must submit to random drug tests then you are shit out of luck if you disagree. go get a job flippin burgers then.

What is it with you assholes and the flipping burgers. Have you read any of this thread. The high school comment was sarcasm.

Would the school systems be better if the kids who took drugs weren't allowed in? Of course they would. They why don't we test high school kids for drug use. Oh, that's right, because of a little thing called the Constitution.

[Chubby]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
I'm dense? The post you quoted says: I AGREE THAT SOMEONE WHO SHOWS UP FOR WORK SHOULD BE FIRED.

let's see if i can type this in retard language so you can understand...

alcohol is a LEGAL drug that you can't use on the job...

steroids can be a legal and or illegal drug you can't use on some jobs. the only way to know if they are being used is through drug testing... unless that new 'roid makes your breath stink like rum.

[SackAttack]

For the love of all that's good and holy, I wish you fucking morons who drag the Constitution into your arguments would grow a brain.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS. PERIOD.

The Constitution governs merely what the Federal government can do, and what the division of power is to be between the several branches of government, as well as state and federal.

The Constitution does NOT guarantee you any sort of rights when you're dealing with, say, Major League Baseball, whatever corporation you work for, or the local bookstore who won't hire you because you failed a drug test.

Are you really that fucking stupid, lynch?

[Chubby]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
What is it with you assholes and the flipping burgers. Have you read any of this thread. The high school comment was sarcasm.

Would the school systems be better if the kids who took drugs weren't allowed in? Of course they would. They why don't we test high school kids for drug use. Oh, that's right, because of a little thing called the Constitution.

here's a hint... an employer is not the government. and just like it baffles me when people cry 1st amendment on a private message board this also baffles me that you think the constitution allows you to do illegal drugs on any jobsite.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by SackAttack


Or, in other words, why is it okay for Microsoft to get sued for its business practices, but it's an invasion of privacy to institute testing to ensure that baseball players are all on the same page as far as banned substances?

I have no idea if it's ok for Microsoft to get sued for it's business practices. I have no idea how it's related to this either.

If there were a drug that had few side effects that would make you 10% smarter, but it was illegal, how would you like your employer testing you for it - just because you seem smart?

[Chubby]

Originally posted by SackAttack
For the love of all that's good and holy, I wish you fucking morons who drag the Constitution into your arguments would grow a brain.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS. PERIOD.

The Constitution governs merely what the Federal government can do, and what the division of power is to be between the several branches of government, as well as state and federal.

The Constitution does NOT guarantee you any sort of rights when you're dealing with, say, Major League Baseball, whatever corporation you work for, or the local bookstore who won't hire you because you failed a drug test.

Are you really that fucking stupid, lynch?

damnit you beat me to it...

and yes evidentally he is. this isn't even an opinion argument it's a law/fact argument.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by SackAttack
For the love of all that's good and holy, I wish you fucking morons who drag the Constitution into your arguments would grow a brain.

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS. PERIOD.

The Constitution governs merely what the Federal government can do, and what the division of power is to be between the several branches of government, as well as state and federal.

The Constitution does NOT guarantee you any sort of rights when you're dealing with, say, Major League Baseball, whatever corporation you work for, or the local bookstore who won't hire you because you failed a drug test.

Are you really that fucking stupid, lynch?

Are you? You guys are so idiotic you can't read. I mentioned the constitution when talking about the high school kids. Not in one other section.

Jackass.

[Chubby]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
I have no idea if it's ok for Microsoft to get sued for it's business practices. I have no idea how it's related to this either.

If there were a drug that had few side effects that would make you 10% smarter, but it was illegal, how would you like your employer testing you for it - just because you seem smart?

it's called alcohol for me, so i should be able to go to work drunk!

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Chubby
damnit you beat me to it...

and yes evidentally he is. this isn't even an opinion argument it's a law/fact argument.

Maybe you two jackasses should reread what I wrote:


Would the school systems be better if the kids who took drugs weren't allowed in? Of course they would. They why don't we test high school kids for drug use. Oh, that's right, because of a little thing called the Constitution.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Chubby
it's called alcohol for me, so i should be able to go to work drunk!

I hope for your sake you don't need any sort of reading comprehension to do your job.

[Chubby]

dola, as an employer i don't give 2 shits if you like it or not. if you don't go work someone else.


you're an only child aren't you? the wolrd doesn't revolve around what "you" or the MLBPA wants...

[SackAttack]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
Are you? You guys are so idiotic you can't read. I mentioned the constitution when talking about the high school kids. Not in one other section.

Jackass.

Even in high school, it wouldn't matter. Jackass.

It isn't the school that administers athletic competition. They merely field the team.

In California, the CIF isn't a government-funded agency, so far as I know. They are simply the governing body for high school athletics in the state of California, and they have rules regarding what participating schools must adhere to.

The Constitution doesn't ever enter into it, because the schools are being dictated to by, GASP, a private institution.

Jackass.

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
So you feel that if a genetic test existed that would predict if a person was prone to stealing, you feel that companies should be able to use that test in the hiring process?

Good god, I hope you are in the minority.

It's just another quality on which to test a person. I would think that companies wouldn't put much weight into it unless they uncovered allegations the employee had actually stolen in the past from other companies or had been arrested for such. It is merely one other fact to be listed among a ton of facts about a person, all of which are used by companies to get a whole picture of someone and determeine whether he or some other guy should get the job. If all other things are equal, then maybe this would be the deciding factor. Of course, if we were testing to that level, we would find a lot of differences between any two people (including a lot of bad stuff, since no one is perfect), and no one such factor would be so critical. If two people were som much the same at that level that a factor like proness to stealing would become the deciding factor, than those two job applicants are clones of one another.

You seem locked into this "all companies must be fair" policy. I hate to break it you, but, as much as you say you know how the world works, you clearly don't. Companies are in the business to make money. They make money by running the best, most efficient business they can. Part of running an efficient business is hiring the best employees they can. And they have every right to use whatever tests they want to determine who is the best employee. You have every right to refuse the test, but the company has every right to not hire you because of it.

It appears you are in the minority, actually, so your hope is unfounded. And I am happy for that, because I respect things like integrity, efficiency, level playing fields, capitalism, and the rights of the many. It is sad to see you don't.

CR

[Chubby]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
I hope for your sake you don't need any sort of reading comprehension to do your job.

nope, i don't. and since it makes me smarter why should they give me a breathalizer or smell my breath (same thing as a drug test IMO). so i should be able to go to work drunk under your logic now since it makes me smarter.

[Schmidty]

Originally posted by Chubby
nope, i don't. and since it makes me smarter why should they give me a breathalizer or smell my breath (same thing as a drug test IMO). so i should be able to go to work drunk under your logic now since it makes me smarter.

I never thought I'd find a more combative person than myself, but here you are!!!

[Cringer]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
Even with these mandatory drug tests you talk about truckers still kill plenty of people on the roads. I lived within a stone's throw of Interstate 95 in southwestern Connecticut, plenty of fatal crashes caused by trucks. Truckers should drive - and if they are arrested drunk or high they should go to jail.

Ok, even though this post was more of a reply to someone elses post, i want to answer this because i believe it is directed towards me. I understand that this is off the subject, but as a truck driver I took offense to this statement and wanted to address it.

1. Accidents can happen for reasons other then drugs, and in most cases do.

2. Truck related fatalities have declined annually for several years, while general auto fatalities have increased. Truck drivers drive over a combined 400 BILLION miles a year! Accidents are unfortunetly going to happen. But fatalities were down to 4,897 in truck involved(doesn't mean caused in all cases) accidents.

3. You said "plenty of fatal crashes caused by trucks." Research by both the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety shows that over 70 percent of all fatal car-truck crashes begin with an error on the part of the car driver.


4. "Truckers should drive - and if they are arrested drunk or high they should go to jail." This is NOT in the best interest of anyone! Catching a trucker who does drugs may save someones life. Even if it doesn't go that far, it may prevent a lesser accident. One which causes a load to be late, or never arrive at all. In that case causing the trucking company, shipper, and receiver financial loss that they want to avoid at all possible cost. This last sentence is most likely why most companies, trucking or not, test.....because of financial interests.

I'm done ranting, and now bow out of this arguement. I need to go call my crack dealer.

[Chubby]

Originally posted by Schmidty
I never thought I'd find a more combative person than myself, but here you are!!!

sometimes arguing just for the sake or arguing is fun tho i really can't see how someone can argue that pro athletes shouldn't be drug tested ever because of provacy issues...

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
It's just another quality on which to test a person. I would think that companies wouldn't put much weight into it unless they uncovered allegations the employee had actually stolen in the past from other companies or had been arrested for such. It is merely one other fact to be listed among a ton of facts about a person, all of which are used by companies to get a whole picture of someone and determeine whether he or some other guy should get the job. If all other things are equal, then maybe this would be the deciding factor. Of course, if we were testing to that level, we would find a lot of differences between any two people (including a lot of bad stuff, since no one is perfect), and no one such factor would be so critical. If two people were som much the same at that level that a factor like proness to stealing would become the deciding factor, than those two job applicants are clones of one another.

You seem locked into this "all companies must be fair" policy. I hate to break it you, but, as much as you say you know how the world works, you clearly don't. Companies are in the business to make money. They make money by running the best, most efficient business they can. Part of running an efficient business is hiring the best employees they can. And they have every right to use whatever tests they want to determine who is the best employee. You have every right to refuse the test, but the company has every right to not hire you because of it.

It appears you are in the minority, actually, so your hope is unfounded. And I am happy for that, because I respect things like integrity, efficiency, level playing fields, capitalism, and the rights of the many. It is sad to see you don't.

CR

I respect things like integrity, efficient, level playing fields, capitalism and the rights of the many. I also believe in the rights of the individual. To say that I don't is just play stupid.

Hell genetic testing could be used in all sorts of ways. What if a company decided not to hire you because you are predisposed to an illness that will cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars down the road in medical claims.

It wouldn't have anything to do with your talent, what you might bring to the company or any other factor. You have this gene - it gives you a 60% chance of developing this cancer. This company doesn't want to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical claims because of you. So, no job for you. (Sorry)

[SackAttack]

I'd tend to think that in such events, you'd wind up with legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of genetics. We already have such clauses on the basis of gender, race, weight, age, and sexual preference, so it's really not such a stretch to think that genetics might join the club.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by SackAttack
I'd tend to think that in such events, you'd wind up with legislation prohibiting discrimination on the basis of genetics. We already have such clauses on the basis of gender, weight, age, and sexual preference, so it's really not such a stretch to think that genetics might join the club.

Sure you've got legislation. Try proving that someone discriminated against you for one of those reasons. Good luck.

[Chief Rum]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
I respect things like integrity, efficient, level playing fields, capitalism and the rights of the many. I also believe in the rights of the individual. To say that I don't is just play stupid.

Hell genetic testing could be used in all sorts of ways. What if a company decided not to hire you because you are predisposed to an illness that will cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars down the road in medical claims.

It wouldn't have anything to do with your talent, what you might bring to the company or any other factor. You have this gene - it gives you a 60% chance of developing this cancer. This company doesn't want to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical claims because of you. So, no job for you. (Sorry)

I'm just speaking from what I am seeing here. If you have any respect for those things, I sure as hell haven't seen it. I can only judge from what I have read here, and you spend very little time caring about any of that.

The rights of the individual should go up until those rights infringe on the rightrs of the others. You see what is ridiculous here is that you are ignoring the "rights of the individual" many, many times over for the "rights of the individual" of just one. You either can't or won't willingly admit to the stunning logical fallacy that is embodied in that stance.

As for that example, if that's what it comes down to, so be it. There are other jobs. Survival of the fittest.

CR

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Chief Rum
I'm just speaking from what I am seeing here. If you have any respect for those things, I sure as hell haven't seen it. I can only judge from what I have read here, and you spend very little time caring about any of that.

The rights of the individual should go up until those rights infringe on the rightrs of the others. You see what is ridiculous here is that you are ignoring the "rights of the individual" many, many times over for the "rights of the individual" of just one. You either can't or won't willingly admit to the stunning logical fallacy that is embodied in that stance.

As for that example, if that's what it comes down to, so be it. There are other jobs. Survival of the fittest.

CR

Because I don't think that people should be given drug tests across the board I don't have respect for the rights of thousands?

Thank god the people that built this country didn't feel the way you do about things.

It's not a stunning logical fallicy, it's just pretty much the basis for the United States.

[Chubby]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
It wouldn't have anything to do with your talent, what you might bring to the company or any other factor. You have this gene - it gives you a 60% chance of developing this cancer. This company doesn't want to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical claims because of you. So, no job for you. (Sorry)

what if i had a billion dollars? what if monkeys flew out your ass? what if aliens replaced out president? (oh wait that happened...)

FACT: an employer can dictate terms of employment as long as they obey the laws.
FACT: drug testing is permissible as a term of employment by law.


why is this difficult to comprehend. it doesn't matter if you agree or not. it doesn't matter if in the year 4062 something may happen. it doesn't chnage those facts. get over it.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Chubby
what if i had a billion dollars? what if monkeys flew out your ass? what if aliens replaced out president? (oh wait that happened...)

FACT: an employer can dictate terms of employment as long as they obey the laws.
FACT: drug testing is permissible as a term of employment by law.


why is this difficult to comprehend. it doesn't matter if you agree or not. it doesn't matter if in the year 4062 something may happen. it doesn't chnage those facts. get over it.

You really are a horse's ass. I understand how the world works dipshit.

I'm just wondering where a brilliant mind like you thinks the line should be drawn. At what point do we stop taking away the rights of the individual.

[sabotai]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
It's not a stunning logical fallicy, it's just pretty much the basis for the United States.

Just a little bit longer and lynch will be calling every one else anti-American like the union guy.

[Chief Rum]

No actually it is a pretty obvious logical fallacy. That's not an opinion, but a fact. Go look it up.

I am still waiting for the links to all the reports of beneficial effects of steroids, BTW.

CR

[SackAttack]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
It's not a stunning logical fallicy, it's just pretty much the basis for the United States.

No, it pretty much is a stunning logical fallacy. Many of the 'rights' you take for granted weren't originally rights for many people.

This is not a democracy. It's a republic. That's lesson number one for your ignorant ass.

Lesson number two is that in society, the rights of the individual are quite often subsumed for the greater good of the body politic. It's called civilization, and the alternative is anarchy. I can promise you would not be better off in an anarchistic society.

Everybody has rights. However, those rights are not total and complete, or else there would be infringement on the rights of everybody simultaneously no matter which way you turn. There have to be limits, and society has determined that the policing of illicit drug use is one such limit.

Deal with it.

[Chubby]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
You really are a horse's ass. I understand how the world works dipshit.

I'm just wondering where a brilliant mind like you thinks the line should be drawn. At what point do we stop taking away the rights of the individual.

obviously you don't. i love how you try to say you know how the world works yet argue that it isn't right or make sense.

IT... IS... NOT... YOUR... RIGHT... TO... DO... WHAT... EVER... THE... FUCK... YOU... WANT... WHEN... IT... CONCERNS... YOUR... JOB...

is that slow enough for you to understand? you don't have the same rights as you do at work you 'tard. why is this concept so hard to grasp?

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Chubby
obviously you don't. i love how you try to say you know how the world works yet argue that it isn't right or make sense.

IT... IS... NOT... YOUR... RIGHT... TO... DO... WHAT... EVER... THE... FUCK... YOU... WANT... WHEN... IT... CONCERNS... YOUR... JOB...

is that slow enough for you to understand? you don't have the same rights as you do at work you 'tard. why is this concept so hard to grasp?

I understand that asshole. I'm saying they shouldn't have the right to drug test me without a reason other then the fact that sometimes people take drugs. Dumbass.

[sabotai]

It's called civilization, and the alternative is anarchy. I can promise you would not be better off in an anarchistic society.

Biting my tongue....not going to say anything...

[Chubby]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
I understand that asshole. I'm saying they shouldn't have the right to drug test me without a reason other then the fact that sometimes people take drugs. Dumbass.

holy crap,

a) they don't need a fucking reason. they can do whatever the fuck they want as long as it falls withint the boundries of the law which we have already established, it does.

b) i'm glad there's no other reason why players might take steroids "other than the fact that sometimes people take drugs"... oh wait...

so let me guess, this whole argument is about the fact that you don't want to get caught with weed in your system when you get drug tested at work right?

[SackAttack]

Originally posted by sabotai
Biting my tongue....not going to say anything...

He doesn't have the intelligence, sab. He wouldn't know what to do with himself.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by SackAttack
No, it pretty much is a stunning logical fallacy. Many of the 'rights' you take for granted weren't originally rights for many people.

This is not a democracy. It's a republic. That's lesson number one for your ignorant ass.

Lesson number two is that in society, the rights of the individual are quite often subsumed for the greater good of the body politic. It's called civilization, and the alternative is anarchy. I can promise you would not be better off in an anarchistic society.

Everybody has rights. However, those rights are not total and complete, or else there would be infringement on the rights of everybody simultaneously no matter which way you turn. There have to be limits, and society has determined that the policing of illicit drug use is one such limit.

Deal with it.

Here's some lessons for your ignorant ass.

Society hasn't determined that the policing of illicit drug use at work is a limit. The corporations forced the government to allow it.

The rights of the individual shouldn't be taken away until they've infringed on others.

Americans have the right to bear arms. Because of this fact, there are firearms in the hands of people that might use them to infringe on the rights of others. For example, shooting someone in the face. However, until you've shot someone in the face, or done something else infringing on another person's rights, you've got the right to bear arms.

You guys seem like you'd be happier with even more government control then there is now. Why not allow the police to search you without just cause. Throw due process out the window. Guilty until proven innocent.

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Chubby
holy crap,

a) they don't need a fucking reason. they can do whatever the fuck they want as long as it falls withint the boundries of the law which we have already established, it does.

b) i'm glad there's no other reason why players might take steroids "other than the fact that sometimes people take drugs"... oh wait...

so let me guess, this whole argument is about the fact that you don't want to get caught with weed in your system when you get drug tested at work right?

I know they don't need a reason asshole. I'm saying that they SHOULD NEED A REASON. God you are so fucking stupid it's painful.

I've never done 'weed' in my life. I'm not subject to random drug tests anyway. The most illegal thing I do these days is speed (in a car, not a pill). Just because someone feels their rights are important doesn't mean they are doing anything illegal.

[Chubby]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
Here's some lessons for your ignorant ass.

Society hasn't determined that the policing of illicit drug use at work is a limit. The corporations forced the government to allow it.

The rights of the individual shouldn't be taken away until they've infringed on others.

Americans have the right to bear arms. Because of this fact, there are firearms in the hands of people that might use them to infringe on the rights of others. For example, shooting someone in the face. However, until you've shot someone in the face, or done something else infringing on another person's rights, you've got the right to bear arms.

You guys seem like you'd be happier with even more government control then there is now. Why not allow the police to search you without just cause. Throw due process out the window. Guilty until proven innocent.

do you call your house a "compound"?

i'm for LESS government but your 'tarded ass won't see that this has nothing to do with the government it has to do with a BUSINESS.

- Man shoots lynchjim24 in the face. "Hey look at the blood and missing face, duhhhhhhhh I think he got shot in the face!"

- Man takess steroids to enhance performance for baseball. "Duhhh well since I can't tell by looking directly at you, I guess there's no way we can ever tell for sure if you took anything against the rules or not".

PRIVATE BUISNESS!!! I must have missed when all buisness built their own courts and jails...

[SackAttack]

Originally posted by Chubby
i'm for LESS government but your 'tarded ass won't see that this has nothing to do with the government it has to do with a BUSINESS.

what he said.

[Chubby]

Originally posted by lynchjm24
Here's some lessons for your ignorant ass.

Society hasn't determined that the policing of illicit drug use at work is a limit. The corporations forced the government to allow it.

The rights of the individual shouldn't be taken away until they've infringed on others.

Americans have the right to bear arms. Because of this fact, there are firearms in the hands of people that might use them to infringe on the rights of others. For example, shooting someone in the face. However, until you've shot someone in the face, or done something else infringing on another person's rights, you've got the right to bear arms.

You guys seem like you'd be happier with even more government control then there is now. Why not allow the police to search you without just cause. Throw due process out the window. Guilty until proven innocent.

So your whole argument boils down to just cause? How about the fact that 5-7% of idiot baseball players FAILED drug tests when they KNEW they were coming? Now if your brain can handle it... that means that there are MORE players out there who are using it's just that they have 2 more braincells than you and seem to be able to flush their system before they know they are getting drugtested (and even "random" tests aren't random even at NCAA level as I have witnessed 1st hand)

[lynchjm24]

Originally posted by Chubby
i'm for LESS government but your 'tarded ass won't see that this has nothing to do with the government it has to do with a BUSINESS.

My 'tarded ass, can tell that there is little if any difference between government and business. Would you like me to draw you a flowchart?

Who the fuck do you think runs the government?

[SackAttack]

The Illuminati, duh.

[sabotai]

Originally posted by SackAttack
He doesn't have the intelligence, sab. He wouldn't know what to do with himself.

Sack...I was responding to something you said.