OT: Steelers WR Martavis Bryant facing a year-long suspension

[Seacoast Fan]

I agree that employers should absolutely be able to choose employees based on how they behave and perform AT WORK. Testing to see what people do when not at work does not fall under that category. It's truly scary that an adult could possibly believe that financial organizations should be able to screen what employees do when they're off the clock.

If you look at my later responses, I wasn't saying people should or shouldn't do drugs. What I was saying is that people shouldn't give up fundamental sovereignty over their minds or bodies to any organization. Thinking such a thing is ironic betrays a fundamental lack of understanding of the topic. You're usually sharper than this. Try taking a step back and re-evaluating.

So you would have the right to take away a person's sovereignty to decide whether not to agree with an employer not to use recreational drugs? Or would you have the very government you seem to fear on this issue, pass a law saying that people don't have the sovereignty to make that choice? With all due respect, I think you are the one who needs to think about what the issue really is.

 

[Galeb]

So you would have the right to take away a person's sovereignty to decide whether not to agree with an employer not to use recreational drugs? Or would you have the very government you seem to fear on this issue, pass a law saying that people don't have the sovereignty to make that choice? With all due respect, I think you are the one who needs to think about what the issue really is.

Agreeing to give up sovereignty is giving up sovereignty, PERIOD. Most of the mindless consumers our culture produces would give up almost anything for enough money. That doesn't mean companies should be able to exploit our body/mind sovereignty. You are free to give up such sovereignty, but companies should not be legally able to seize it.

 

[XLIX]

Agreeing to give up sovereignty is giving up sovereignty, PERIOD. Most of the mindless consumers our culture produces would give up almost anything for enough money. That doesn't mean companies should be able to exploit our body/mind sovereignty. You are free to give up such sovereignty, but companies should not be legally able to seize it.

Name one single company with the authority to seize someone's sovereignty.

(Please note that attaching conditions of employment to a job is not "seizing" because the individual is taking the job freely and willingly)

 

[Galeb]

Name one single company with the authority to seize someone's sovereignty.

(Please note that attaching conditions of employment to a job is not "seizing" because the individual is taking the job freely and willingly)

Seize was a bad choice of words. Drug testing has become industry standard in IT, which affects millions of people. No organization should be legally allowed ANY authority over the mind/body sovereignty of people when they are not on the clock. It's OK if you don't see a problem with this, but there are fools that don't consider freedom of speech important either. Your inability to understand the importance of one's sovereignty over their own minds/body is poor justification for laws to trample all such sovereignty for others. Laws enabling organizations authority over people's rights when not at work should be anathema to any thinking person.

 

[IllegalContact]

Seize was a bad choice of words. Drug testing has become industry standard in IT, which affects millions of people. No organization should be legally allowed ANY authority over the mind/body sovereignty of people when they are not on the clock. It's OK if you don't see a problem with this, but there are fools that don't consider freedom of speech important either. Your inability to understand the importance of one's sovereignty over their own minds/body is poor justification for laws to trample all such sovereignty for others. Laws enabling organizations authority over people's rights when not at work should be anathema to any thinking person.

if your sovereignty is more important, you can choose to work somewhere they don't test you.....you don't have to work there

 

[Galeb]

if your sovereignty is more important, you can choose to work somewhere they don't test you.....you don't have to work there

Yes, one can choose not to work in IT because fools are willing to hand over sovereignty over what they put into their body when not on the clock. It's unreal that people don't see the obvious problem in this... Everyone is so brainwashed that they don't understand how important the most basic human rights are... I'm done done trying to open the eyes of sheep on this matter.

 

[XLIX]

Yes, one can choose not to work in IT because fools are willing to hand over sovereignty over what they put into their body when not on the clock. It's unreal that people don't see the obvious problem in this... Everyone is so brainwashed that they don't understand how important the most basic human rights are... I'm done done trying to open the eyes of sheep on this matter.

So doing illegal drugs off of work hours is a "most basic human right"...?

You've got some pretty warped perspectives there, buddy.

 

[Galeb]

So doing illegal drugs off of work hours is a "most basic human right"...?

You've got some pretty warped perspectives there, buddy.

Sovereignty over what we put into our own bodies is absolutely a basic human right.

 

[Gronkowski123]

steelers will draft another all pro WR in the middle rounds.

i dont know how they do it..

 

[XLIX]

Sovereignty over what we put into our own bodies is absolutely a basic human right.

Not only is that idiotic, but it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of law and what basic human rights are. There are plenty of laws regulating things you are not allowed to ingest/inject/snort/smoke/etc. There's no basic human right to smoke crack.

By the way, I thought you said you were "done done" here. Can't hold to your own promise?

 

[Galeb]

Not only is that idiotic, but it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of law and what basic human rights are. There are plenty of laws regulating things you are not allowed to ingest/inject/snort/smoke/etc. There's no basic human right to smoke crack.

By the way, I thought you said you were "done done" here. Can't hold to your own promise?

I said I was done trying to open the eyes of sheep. You are something less than a sheep.

If someone wants to kill themselves by putting poison into their own body, who the **** are you, or anyone else, to say that they can't? Sovereignty over what we say, think, feel and put into our own bodies are basic human rights. Your inability to understand this does not change the fact.

 

[DaBruinz]

LMAO! We're talking about sovereignty over one's own mind and body.... Perhaps you should have included murder, torture and arson to support your argument. Funniest post of 2016.

edit:
My argument is purely about body/mind sovereignty. Obviously background checks etc. are legitimate for businesses to check. I'm not sure how far they should go with social media, credit checks etc... My argument is about behavior that has zero effect on the workplace.

Credit Checks are done on people who will be have access to a company's money. The idea is that if a person doesn't have their own finances in order, how can they be expected to be responsible with the company's finances.

The fact that you think that doing drugs has "zero effect on the workplace" shows that you are the one "not fit to discuss the matter on a meaningful level". The things that I mentioned have "zero effect on the workplace" and are done when people are "off the clock".

Instead of being all self-righteous, maybe you should take a step back and realize that Private companies have the right to set the rules for their employees. And, if you want to be employed by said company, you agree to their rules. Otherwise, you have the choice not to work there. There is nothing that forces you to work for a company whose mandates you disagree with. If the employee is in a high profile position, then what they do outside of work does affect their workplace.

We could through out multiple different scenarios of jobs where your "off the clock" antics can and do affect your workplace.

 

[DaBruinz]

Yes, one can choose not to work in IT because fools are willing to hand over sovereignty over what they put into their body when not on the clock. It's unreal that people don't see the obvious problem in this... Everyone is so brainwashed that they don't understand how important the most basic human rights are... I'm done done trying to open the eyes of sheep on this matter.

So, only YOU have your eyes open and everyone who disagrees with you are sheep? That they are so brainwashed that we don't understand "basic human rights"?

WOW.. you're ego is bigger than Obama's or Donald Trump's.

 

[DaBruinz]

Sovereignty over what we put into our own bodies is absolutely a basic human right.

Not if it causes you to hallucinate and kill someone... Or do those person's right's not matter as long as you can do your drugs??

 

[XLIX]

I said I was done trying to open the eyes of sheep. You are something less than a sheep.

LOL!!! No need to get so butthurt and pissy at me just because you don't have the fortitude to hold to your own commitment that you are "done done" with this thread.

If someone wants to kill themselves by putting poison into their own body, who the **** are you, or anyone else, to say that they can't? Sovereignty over what we say, think, feel and put into our own bodies are basic human rights. Your inability to understand this does not change the fact.

Let's see.... US Constitution.... Magna Carta.... UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights... nope, can't find the inalienable right to smoke crack listed in any of those documents...

LOL!!!!

 

[Galeb]

Not if it causes you to hallucinate and kill someone... Or do those person's right's not matter as long as you can do your drugs??

I never said people should be allowed to hurt anybody. Laws that prohibit violence or harming others are just Your need to insert such things into your argument betray the weakness of it.

 

[DaBruinz]

I never said people should be allowed to hurt anybody. Laws that prohibit violence or harming others are just Your need to insert such things into your argument betray the weakness of it.

Clearly you didn't actually read what I posted. You are the one who is betraying the weakness to your argument because you say one thing, but when someone points out an issue like I did, you stumble and try to spin the situation.

The fact of the matter is that your "right to put things into your body" is limited. You've already given away part of that sovereignty you are ranting on about because of the laws of this country.

Better than 50% of the drugs in this country cause some sort of cognitive impairment. If you hurt someone while on those drugs, you are still responsible for your actions. You can't sit there and say "I have sovereignty over my body. I can put anything into it I want and not be held accountable". It doesn't work like that. You are 100% accountable for what you put in your body and whatever actions result.

Further, if your taking drugs at home causes you to make a mistake at work, why shouldn't you be held accountable? Whether it be an accounting mistake or a mistake that causes someone to get hurt on the production line or causes a days worth of production to have to be scrapped? You still have to be held accountable. Do you really think that companies should wait until you make that mistake, possibly injuring or killing someone or wasting millions of dollars of product that gets tainted before they do something?

 

[IllegalContact]

Sovereignty over what we put into our own bodies is absolutely a basic human right.

sovereignty to make the decision on what to do or not do in order to keep the job you want

sovereignty of a company to not employ a crackhead