Tennessee Youth Soccer Association implements drug testing of Travel Coaches. Posted here, instead of youth soccer forums, since this will undoubtedly be more of a civil liberties discussion. Items of interest: Rationale: “We have a lot of coaches that are coming out of college,” Bolt, 49, said. “We have a lot of coaches from overseas who come from different cultures. Not everyone thinks smoking dope is as all that bad.” [Translation: 'young folks and foreigners can't be trusted'] Target: it's all about the safety of our youths, and yet only the Travel Coaches are targeted. So (a) our Rec kids do not merit protection? or (b) are does this have more to do with protecting the paying travel coach jobs? (and the fact that it's hard enough to get volunteer youth Rec coaches to begin with!) Goal: to protect children ... from pot heads? How about the guys who down a six-pack of PBR out in the hot sun before his kids' game and then gets a little hot-heated and starts a fight? I'd lay odds that there are more issues with alcohol-related violence at youth sports events than drug-related violence. Old Saw: “If it helps parents feel more comfortable, creates more safety and you have nothing to hide, then why not?” In that case, I guess he'll submit his tax returns to us so the association can independently review them for fraud, and he won't mind if we check his iPod and computer for illegally downloaded music/programs, and he won't mind if we read his mail, listen to his phone conversations, etc., etc. What happend to actually making the effort to observe job performance, and act accordingly based upon that performance, rather than making some stupid knee-jerk rule that you think will solve all your problems?
I agree with you, but for people who work in many low-paying retail jobs, this is already a reality. Because you know, I'm not going to trust that sales guy at Best Buy if he was doing bong hits 2 nights ago. This sucks, and it amazes me that a supposedly freedom-loving people like Americans are so OK with this crap. My parents retired 10 years ago, and since then they've kept themselves busy with a variety of volunteer work (although they're getting older and are starting to cut back). One thing my Dad did was driving the Handi-Bus; a small bus service for elderly residents of long-term care facilities so they could make medical appointments. He did if for a couple of years, but when they implemented new policies and told him he needed to pee in a cup in order to be allowed to continue, he basically told them to go screw themselves and quit. Of course, this was unpaid volunteer work and my parents are financially comfortable enough to where he doesn't need to hand over his urine in exchange for the right to make 7 or 8 bucks an hour.
If they really want to make "parents feel safer," they should require that every travel coach allows the Association access to their computer hard drive so they can examine what sort of pornography they are interested in, just to make sure they're not pedophiles. Hey, if you've got nothing to hide, what's the problem?
I only ever coached rec, not travel. When the form asked, "are you presently using drugs?" I put the joint out and replied "no."
A lot of this testing is risk management. Considering the amount of meds that some people (& many seniors) take, it's probably a good idea to screen drivers. The liability for permitting some retiree who washes the Oxys down with double vodkas (I'm not making this up!) to drive the short bus is too great.
I understand, and that makes a certain amount of sense. But this is a small town, my Dad is a life-long small town resident, and so he took it as a personal affront when suddenly the same people he's known for years are asking him to do this. I think it was the imposition of faceless, impersonal bureaucratic procedures onto a small, face-to-face small town service bothered him as much, if not more than, the civil liberties aspect; although this was one of the things which pushed the old guy to register as a member with the ACLU. John Ashcroft was a big part of that, too. Plus, he's retired, and one thing he likes about retirement is that after a lifetime of working for a living, dealing with your boss and your subordinates and the public, you no longer have to stick around to deal with anything.
They think that, you idiot*, because it is true You* are the one who is wrong here, not the "maybe them". Yeah, I have no problem with drug/alcohol tests IF they are only given after job performance is questioned and some other explanation is not given to explain it away. I cannot think of a single reason to do random testing. Especially for pot. Someone will say "what about your bus driver, blah blah blah" or something equally as dumb - let me preemptively answer why not .... there is no test for pot to see if you are high RIGHT NOW. If my bus driver wants to light up a fatty at breakfast on his day off, or when he gets home from work after dealing with the kind of assholes who take public transportation - I have no problem at all with that. More power to him, it probably stops him from driving into a telephone pole to shut those people up and keeps us all safer in the long run Can you imagine if they gave alcohol/breathalizer tests that did not check your current alcohol levels, but instead tested to see if you had taken a drink in the last 30 days, then allowed a cop to give you a DWI for that, or fire you for it - would anyone ever put up with that bullshit? I hope not. But because it's pot, it's perfectly okay? Nonsense. The "if you have nothing to hide, what's your problem with it" argument is the weakest possible argument. My problem with it is that I am from the United States of America, buddy * by "you" I mean the person quoted saying that nonsense in the original post, not the poster who I am replying to
I swear I saw something a few months ago that would actually result in something like this for alcohol use, but I can't remember where. And it obviously freaked me out so much that I repressed the memory until I read your post. I don't have time right this minute but I'll hunt for it.
Paging a DRE, not Doctor Dre Police & Courts in many states disagree with you! http://www.decp.org/experts/12steps.htm http://drugrecognitionexpert.blogspot.com/2009/09/first-dre-instructor-school.html In VA: http://www.decp.org/documents/index.cfm?fa=document&DOCUMENT_TYPE_ID=1&subtype_id=va
Re: Paging a DRE, not Doctor Dre and yet they are 100% wrong, there is no actual objective test in existence. Drug testing is a scam to make a few people rich and control (mostly poor) people.
What the police think is irrelevant. They are merely, in proper perspective, cats paws of civilian ploicy. Half of the police pretestations (drug tests, polygraphs, 'you need to get out in front of this or we cant help you') are deliberate misinformation and intimidation. I have no idea why police are either consulted or acknowledged on the issue of what it is they are directed to enforce or the behaviors they are allowed to exhibit in public.
Paging a DRE, not Doctor Dre How about a blood test that reveals a high THC level, confirmed by the person observed smoking a joint, admitting to the police, "I'm stoned, dude", and begging for Twinkies? Perhaps they have both the training & the experience to provide feedback & insight to those who advocate for & design the policies. How would this information be gathered otherwise? Or, don't you care about what happens to a law after it is enacted? I agree that you have no idea.