Suck on this dittoheads
Cyrakis
(CNN) -- Rush Limbaugh announced on his radio program Friday that he
is addicted to pain medication and that he is checking himself into a
treatment center immediately.
"You know I have always tried to be honest with you and open about my
life," the conservative commentator said in a statement on his
nationally syndicated radio show.
"I need to tell you today that part of what you have heard and read is
correct. I am addicted to prescription pain medication."
Law enforcement sources said last week that Limbaugh's name had come
up during an investigation into a black market drug ring in Palm Beach
County, Florida. The sources said that authorities were looking into
the illegal sale of the prescription drugs OxyContin and hydrocodone.
Limbaugh, who has a residence in Palm Beach County, was named by
sources as a possible buyer. He was not the focus of the
investigation, according to the sources.
The radio talk show host said he first became addicted to painkillers
"some years ago," following spinal surgery. However, he added, "the
surgery was unsuccessful and I continued to have severe pain in my
lower back and also in my neck due to herniated discs. I am still
experiencing that pain."
He had tried to break his dependence in the past and has checked
himself into medical facilities twice before, he said.
Limbaugh said that he is "not making any excuses" and that he is "no
role model."
"I refuse to let anyone think I am doing something great here, when
there are people you never hear about, who face long odds and never
resort to such escapes. They are the role models," he said.
Earlier this month, Limbaugh resigned from his position as football
commentator on ESPN after making remarks that critics considered
racist.
Limbaugh said he left the show "Sunday NFL Countdown" to protect the
network from the uproar caused by his statement that Philadelphia
Eagles quarterback Donovan McNabb was overrated because the media
wanted to see a black quarterback succeed.
He did not apologize for the comments and does not consider them to be
racist remarks, merely an observation of the media's reaction to
McNabb's success.
The revelation about Limbaugh's possible addiction to OxyContin
appeared the same week he resigned from ESPN. In the statement read by
Limbaugh Friday, he did not name the pain medication he said he's
addicted to.
Limbaugh is one of the most recognized talk show hosts in the nation
and also one of the most controversial. In 2001, he signed a nine-year
contract with Premiere Radio Networks, which syndicates his show to
nearly 600 stations, for a total salary package reported to exceed
$200 million.
It is estimated that nearly 20 million people listen to Limbaugh's
show daily.
Limbaugh signed a nine-year contract with Premiere Radio Networks,
which syndicates his show to nearly 600 stations, for a total salary
package reported to exceed $200 million.
Also in 2001, Limbaugh learned he had a hearing problem. He was
diagnosed in May and told his listeners in October that he was almost
entirely deaf as a result of an autoimmune inner-ear disease. He said
he had lost 100 percent hearing in his left ear and 80 percent in his
right ear.
He successfully had a cochlear implant placed in his left ear to
restore his hearing. He announced in January 2002 that he could hear
his own radio show "for the first time in nearly four months via a
medical marvel."
Until then, he relied solely on a TelePrompTer and his staff's
assistance to understand his callers.
----------------------------------------------------
For all you unrepentant dittoheads who question the significance of
this development:
IT'S THE HYPOCRISY, STUPID!!!!!
For all you fascist unrepentant drug warrior dickheads, explain how a
pill popping junky freak manages to run the nations most succesful
radio talk show.
Captain Compassion
Because people like to listen to him. Gee that was easy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"You must realize that at it's inception and in continual practice
marriage is simply a license to fuck. Without this and the resulting
children the institution of marriage would not be necessary nor would
it exist." -- Captain Compassion
"In this world, which is so plainly the antechamber of another, there
are no happy men. The true division of humanity is between those who
live in light and those who live in darkness. Our aim must be to
diminish the number of the latter and increase the number of the
former. That is why we demand education and knowledge." -- Victor Hugo
"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other
is wrong, but the middle is always evil." -- Ayn Rand
Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate -- William of Occam
Joseph R. Darancette
res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net
abracadabra
"Captain Compassion" <res0...@NOSPAMverizon.net> wrote in message
news:3f875989...@news.verizon.net...
> >For all you fascist unrepentant drug warrior dickheads, explain how a
> >pill popping junky freak manages to run the nations most succesful
> >radio talk show.
>
> Because people like to listen to him. Gee that was easy.
I think the point is that he was on drugs all the time for the last 6 years
and he did his job just fine. Obviously the conservative meme that nobody
can function while on drugs is not factual.
Brother Nate
> Captain Compassion wrote
> > Because people like to listen to him. Gee that was easy.
> I think the point is that he was on drugs all the time for the last 6 years
> and he did his job just fine.
Is that why he was just fired by ESPN? Is it why his TV
show flopped?
> Obviously the conservative meme that nobody can function while on drugs
> is not factual.
There are probably jobs where it makes more difference than
others. If your job is sitting on your butt and shooting
your mouth off then maybe you can scrape by that way, but
most working people have greater demands placed on them
than that.
--
Brother Nate Electron Juggler
nathan...@yahoo.com http://php.indiana.edu/~nengle
"Some Assembly Required"
Manny Davis
news:3F876F01...@yahoo.com:
> abracadabra wrote:
>> Captain Compassion wrote
>> > Because people like to listen to him. Gee that was easy.
>
>> I think the point is that he was on drugs all the time for the last 6
>> years and he did his job just fine.
>
> Is that why he was just fired by ESPN? Is it why his TV
> show flopped?
>
>> Obviously the conservative meme that nobody can function while on
>> drugs
> > is not factual.
>
> There are probably jobs where it makes more difference than
> others. If your job is sitting on your butt and shooting
> your mouth off then maybe you can scrape by that way, but
> most working people have greater demands placed on them
> than that.
Ever hear of William Halsted?
abracadabra
"Brother Nate" <nathan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3F876F01...@yahoo.com...
> abracadabra wrote:
> > Captain Compassion wrote
> > > Because people like to listen to him. Gee that was easy.
>
> > I think the point is that he was on drugs all the time for the last 6
years
> > and he did his job just fine.
>
> Is that why he was just fired by ESPN? Is it why his TV
> show flopped?
He's not a "TV" guy. Radio and TV are different mediums.
> > Obviously the conservative meme that nobody can function while on drugs
> > is not factual.
>
> There are probably jobs where it makes more difference than
> others. If your job is sitting on your butt and shooting
> your mouth off then maybe you can scrape by that way, but
> most working people have greater demands placed on them
> than that.
Well, yeah. I don't want a brain surgeon to be high. On the other hand, I
don't care if the people working at walmart are stoned. As long as the job
gets done, ya know?
Al Lewis
>
>"Brother Nate" <nathan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3F876F01...@yahoo.com...
>> abracadabra wrote:
>> > Captain Compassion wrote
>> > > Because people like to listen to him. Gee that was easy.
>>
>> > I think the point is that he was on drugs all the time for the last 6
>years
>> > and he did his job just fine.
>>
>> Is that why he was just fired by ESPN? Is it why his TV
>> show flopped?
>
>He's not a "TV" guy. Radio and TV are different mediums.
>
>> > Obviously the conservative meme that nobody can function while on drugs
>> > is not factual.
>>
>> There are probably jobs where it makes more difference than
>> others. If your job is sitting on your butt and shooting
>> your mouth off then maybe you can scrape by that way, but
>> most working people have greater demands placed on them
>> than that.
>
>Well, yeah. I don't want a brain surgeon to be high. On the other hand, I
>don't care if the people working at walmart are stoned. As long as the job
>gets done, ya know?
The folks at WalMart probably do get tested, while your doctor probably
doesn't.
I don't care if the doctor gets high either, as long as he does it on
his own time. But Rush probably wasn't getting high - he was probably
just maintaining an addiction.
Brother Nate
> Brother Nate wrote
> > most working people have greater demands placed on them
> > than that.
> Well, yeah. I don't want a brain surgeon to be high. On the other hand, I
> don't care if the people working at walmart are stoned. As long as the job
> gets done, ya know?
Do you accept the fact that the owners and managers of Walmart
are the ones who are entitled to make that call?
They might have different views about stoned employees than
you do, and it IS their store.
Manny Davis
> abracadabra wrote:
>> Brother Nate wrote
>> > most working people have greater demands placed on them
>> > than that.
>
>> Well, yeah. I don't want a brain surgeon to be high. On the other
>> hand, I don't care if the people working at walmart are stoned. As
>> long as the job gets done, ya know?
>
> Do you accept the fact that the owners and managers of Walmart
> are the ones who are entitled to make that call?
>
> They might have different views about stoned employees than
> you do, and it IS their store.
I'm afraid your support here for property rights is glaringly
inconsistent with your support of drug laws. If you believed that
Walmart should decide what goes on in their stores (non-rights violating
behavior, of course), you would also argue that Walmart, or any other
store, could allow people to smoke MJ on the job if they choosed to
do so. But you would never argue that. Hence, you do not believe "that
the owners and managers of Walmart are the ones who are entitled to make
that call". You believe that the state, and only the state, is entitled
to make the call.
Eric Johnson
<nathan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Is that why he was just fired by ESPN? Is it why his TV
> show flopped?
Amazingly out of context.
He resigned from ESPN, and his TV show had reached a micro-economic point
from which it could not extract himself. But the TV show ended 8 years ago,
before the alleged drug problems.
EJ
Eric Johnson
> There are probably jobs where it makes more difference than
> others. If your job is sitting on your butt and shooting
> your mouth off then maybe you can scrape by that way, but
> most working people have greater demands placed on them
> than that.
Have you ever done a talkshow, Nate? I have and it ain't easy.
In any case, don't you sit around and play with words for a living as well?
EJ
Roger
news:gEJhb.23982$mQ2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
After the Civil War, tens of thousands of Americans were addicted to
opiates.
LawsonE
"Roger" <rog...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:SeQhb.388$qd2.86...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Heroin was invented as a treatment for morphine addiction. Didn't work.
Jasbird
<nathan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>abracadabra wrote:
>> Captain Compassion wrote
>> > Because people like to listen to him. Gee that was easy.
>
>> I think the point is that he was on drugs all the time for the last 6 years
>> and he did his job just fine.
>
>Is that why he was just fired by ESPN? Is it why his TV
>show flopped?
Didn't all that happen because of the illegality of the drugs - which
is a social aspect of drugs - not an intrinsic property?
Jasbird
<nathan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>abracadabra wrote:
>> Brother Nate wrote
>> > most working people have greater demands placed on them
>> > than that.
>
>> Well, yeah. I don't want a brain surgeon to be high. On the other hand, I
>> don't care if the people working at walmart are stoned. As long as the job
>> gets done, ya know?
>
>Do you accept the fact that the owners and managers of Walmart
>are the ones who are entitled to make that call?
No. They have no right to tell people what to do in their private
lives - the employer's rights should only be exercised while an
employee is at work. The ban on illegal drug use operates 7 days a
week, 24 hours a day. This ban is enforced by the government - not by
the employer.
Can I have your next weak, dishonest, argument to shoot down now?
abracadabra
> abracadabra wrote:
> > Brother Nate wrote
> > > most working people have greater demands placed on them
> > > than that.
>
> > Well, yeah. I don't want a brain surgeon to be high. On the other hand,
I
> > don't care if the people working at walmart are stoned. As long as the
job
> > gets done, ya know?
>
> Do you accept the fact that the owners and managers of Walmart
> are the ones who are entitled to make that call?
Actually, no. Because the current policies at most of these big companies
isn't
"DONT BE HIGH ON THE JOB"
but instead is
"DON"T EVEN GET HIGH AT HOME"
I consider mandatory drug testing of employees to be unconstitutional, even
if the SCOTUS disagrees.
> They might have different views about stoned employees than
> you do, and it IS their store.
Well, considering the WalMart in Durham NC, they might be better if
everybody was stoned, including the customers. That Walmart is a zoo
Brother Nate
> Brother Nate wrote
> > Do you accept the fact that the owners and managers of Walmart
> > are the ones who are entitled to make that call?
> >
> > They might have different views about stoned employees than
> > you do, and it IS their store.
> I'm afraid your support here for property rights is glaringly
> inconsistent with your support of drug laws.
I can see how you might think so, but I also suspect that the
folks at Walmart would agree with the government's position,
and in any case my position is no more inconsistent than the
claim that the individual employee should be the only one who
gets to decide what drugs they're stoned on.
> If you believed that
> Walmart should decide what goes on in their stores (non-rights violating
> behavior, of course), you would also argue that Walmart, or any other
> store, could allow people to smoke MJ on the job if they choosed to
> do so. But you would never argue that. Hence, you do not believe "that
> the owners and managers of Walmart are the ones who are entitled to make
> that call". You believe that the state, and only the state, is entitled
> to make the call.
I believe that only the state is entitled to make laws to
that effect, but I believe (for instance) that employers are
entitled to make rules above and beyond those made by the
government. If they decide that they don't want drinkers
or tobacco smokers either then that's their call.
Brother Nate
> Brother Nate wrote:
> > Do you accept the fact that the owners and managers of Walmart
> > are the ones who are entitled to make that call?
> No. They have no right to tell people what to do in their private
> lives
Nor do they have a responsibility to employ ones who they
deem a danger to themselves or others.
> - the employer's rights should only be exercised while an
> employee is at work. The ban on illegal drug use operates 7 days a
> week, 24 hours a day. This ban is enforced by the government - not by
> the employer.
Try swilling a case of beer before you go in to work and
see who actually enforces the ban. The reaction will probably
vary depending on what you do, but there are plenty of professions
where, for instance, the pilot doesn't have to crash the plane
before their employer has a right to demand a certain level
of alertness and sobriety. And if not for the profit of the
employer then at least for the safety of their passengers. A
company that places responsibility in the hands of an unfit
person is taking a grave legal risk, and arguably an immoral
one at that.
If an aircraft's ground crew sees that a plane has loose screws
then they have the moral responsibility to ground it - and if
those loose screws are in the pilot's head, they need to get a
new pilot.
> Can I have your next weak, dishonest, argument to shoot down now?
Everyone has their own opinion about the strength of the
arguments that are presented. You are free to claim anything
you want, but ultimately the decision about which is stronger
belongs to readers.
Arclight
<nathan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Jasbird wrote:
>> Brother Nate wrote:
>> > Do you accept the fact that the owners and managers of Walmart
>> > are the ones who are entitled to make that call?
>
>> No. They have no right to tell people what to do in their private
>> lives
>
>Nor do they have a responsibility to employ ones who they
>deem a danger to themselves or others.
What's that got to do with someone having a spliff at the weekend?
>> - the employer's rights should only be exercised while an
>> employee is at work. The ban on illegal drug use operates 7 days a
>> week, 24 hours a day. This ban is enforced by the government - not by
>> the employer.
>
>Try swilling a case of beer before you go in to work and
>see who actually enforces the ban. The reaction will probably
>vary depending on what you do, but there are plenty of professions
>where, for instance, the pilot doesn't have to crash the plane
>before their employer has a right to demand a certain level
>of alertness and sobriety.
what's that got to do with drug testing? tests for cannabis
consumption have nothing at all to do with alertness or sobriety, drug
testing for cannabis only shows that the person may have used it in
the past couple of months.
> And if not for the profit of the
>employer then at least for the safety of their passengers. A
>company that places responsibility in the hands of an unfit
>person is taking a grave legal risk, and arguably an immoral
>one at that.
>
>If an aircraft's ground crew sees that a plane has loose screws
>then they have the moral responsibility to ground it - and if
>those loose screws are in the pilot's head, they need to get a
>new pilot.
then do impairment testing, not drug screening.
>> Can I have your next weak, dishonest, argument to shoot down now?
>
>Everyone has their own opinion about the strength of the
>arguments that are presented. You are free to claim anything
>you want, but ultimately the decision about which is stronger
>belongs to readers.
--
TTFN
Arclight
Al Lewis
>
>"Brother Nate" <nathan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3F8788FE...@yahoo.com...
>> abracadabra wrote:
>> > Brother Nate wrote
>> > > most working people have greater demands placed on them
>> > > than that.
>>
>> > Well, yeah. I don't want a brain surgeon to be high. On the other hand,
>I
>> > don't care if the people working at walmart are stoned. As long as the
>job
>> > gets done, ya know?
>>
>> Do you accept the fact that the owners and managers of Walmart
>> are the ones who are entitled to make that call?
>
>Actually, no. Because the current policies at most of these big companies
>isn't
>"DONT BE HIGH ON THE JOB"
>but instead is
>"DON"T EVEN GET HIGH AT HOME"
Reminds me of the old bumper stickers that said "Just say Yes to Drug
Free Holidays"
Steady Eddy
> "Brother Nate" <nathan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3F876F01...@yahoo.com...
> > abracadabra wrote:
> > > Captain Compassion wrote
> > > > Because people like to listen to him. Gee that was easy.
>
> > > I think the point is that he was on drugs all the time for the last 6
> years
> > > and he did his job just fine.
> >
> > Is that why he was just fired by ESPN? Is it why his TV
> > show flopped?
>
> He's not a "TV" guy. Radio and TV are different mediums.
>
> > > Obviously the conservative meme that nobody can function while on drugs
> > > is not factual.
> >
> > There are probably jobs where it makes more difference than
> > others. If your job is sitting on your butt and shooting
> > your mouth off then maybe you can scrape by that way, but
> > most working people have greater demands placed on them
> > than that.
>
> Well, yeah. I don't want a brain surgeon to be high. On the other hand, I
> don't care if the people working at walmart are stoned. As long as the job
> gets done, ya know?
You have never worked a day in your life anyway.
proffsl
> Jasbird wrote:
> > Brother Nate wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you accept the fact that the owners and managers of Walmart are the
> > > ones who are entitled to make that call?
> >
> > No. They have no right to tell people what to do in their private lives
>
> Nor do they have a responsibility to employ ones who they deem a danger to
> themselves or others.
They do have the responsibility to honor the Rights of their
employees, including their Right to privacy. This information that
the employee even uses drugs is clearly obtained through privacy
invading tests. Secondly, discovering someone uses drugs through
privacy invading tests DOES NOT prove they pose a danger to others.
> > the employer's rights should only be exercised while an employee is at
> > work. The ban on illegal drug use operates 7 days a week, 24 hours a
> > day. This ban is enforced by the government - not by the employer.
>
> Try swilling a case of beer before you go in to work and see who actually
> enforces the ban.
Being drunk, intoxicated, at work IS "while an employee is at work".
> The reaction will probably vary depending on what you do, but there are
> plenty of professions where, for instance, the pilot doesn't have to crash
> the plane before their employer has a right to demand a certain level
> of alertness and sobriety.
But, Drug Tests DO NOT test for either alertness or sobriety.
proffsl
> Manny Davis wrote:
> > Brother Nate wrote
> > >
> > > Do you accept the fact that the owners and managers of Walmart are the
> > > ones who are entitled to make that call?
> > >
> > > They might have different views about stoned employees than you do,
> > > and it IS their store.
> >
> > I'm afraid your support here for property rights is glaringly inconsistent
> > with your support of drug laws.
>
> I can see how you might think so, but I also suspect that the folks at
> Walmart would agree with the government's position, and in any case my
> position is no more inconsistent than the claim that the individual employee
> should be the only one who gets to decide what drugs they're stoned on.
You do not defend your position by claiming Walmart agrees with you.
You defend your position by reason.
> > If you believed that
> > Walmart should decide what goes on in their stores (non-rights violating
> > behavior, of course), you would also argue that Walmart, or any other
> > store, could allow people to smoke MJ on the job if they choosed to
> > do so. But you would never argue that. Hence, you do not believe "that
> > the owners and managers of Walmart are the ones who are entitled to make
> > that call". You believe that the state, and only the state, is entitled
> > to make the call.
>
> I believe that only the state is entitled to make laws to that effect,
> but I believe (for instance) that employers are entitled to make rules
> above and beyond those made by the government.
ONLY in respect to Rules concerning employee behavior ON work Property
ON work Time, and NEVER in Violation of their Employees Rights.
> If they decide that they don't want drinkers or tobacco smokers either then
> that's their call.
You ever hear of inadmissable evidence? These employers are using
inadmissable evidence, obtained through illegal means.
Nada, John
> For all you fascist unrepentant drug warrior dickheads, explain how a
> pill popping junky freak manages to run the nations most succesful
> radio talk show.
The same way a murdering senator from Mass. keeps being re-elected?
The same way a rapist gets to the White House?
Andy Katz
<nathan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Do you accept the fact that the owners and managers of Walmart
>are the ones who are entitled to make that call?
Depends on the particular call, Nate.
Intoxicated employees on the clock?
That's not really their call, given liability issues in most locales.
Employees intoxicated while *off* the clock, however?
That's another issue. Wallmart for certain does not pay enough to
regulate its employees off-hours behavior. Matter of fact even it it
did pay more, demanding certain off-hours behavior seems unduly
intrusive.
And if the sudden concern is really about said employees' long-term
well-being, than it's too little too late. Honest concern over
well-being would demonstrated by paying a livable wage, offering
authentic health-benefits and other necessary perks such as child-care
and a pension, avoiding compulsory overtime, etc..
Not pissing in a cup.
The real issue, of course, is power. Who's got it and who hasn't.
Your neurosurgeon doesn't have to pee in a cup because there's no one
out there powerful enough, at least not yet, to make him do so. While
the Walmart associate's low position on the totem makes him extremely
vulnerable to any and all malign corporate intrusiveness.
>They might have different views about stoned employees than
>you do, and it IS their store.
I live in Brooklyn, Nate. And I've got to tell that I rarely encounter
any service-level employee who appears to be stoned. And more's the
pity, because that means their overall blase idiocy cannot be
attributed to some chemical that one might hope will eventually wear
off:-(
Andy Katz
____________________________________
I sentence you to kiss my ass!
The Simpsons
a...@interport.net
Andre...@aol.com
Bastard Nation
http://www.bastards.org
Eric Johnson
B4Shb.14939$Eo2....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net, "abracadabra"
<ab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> "Brother Nate" <nathan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3F8788FE...@yahoo.com...
>> abracadabra wrote:
>>> Brother Nate wrote
>>>> most working people have greater demands placed on them
>>>> than that.
>>
>>> Well, yeah. I don't want a brain surgeon to be high. On the other hand,
> I
>>> don't care if the people working at walmart are stoned. As long as the
> job
>>> gets done, ya know?
>>
>> Do you accept the fact that the owners and managers of Walmart
>> are the ones who are entitled to make that call?
>
> Actually, no. Because the current policies at most of these big companies
> isn't
> "DONT BE HIGH ON THE JOB"
> but instead is
> "DON"T EVEN GET HIGH AT HOME"
> I consider mandatory drug testing of employees to be unconstitutional, even
> if the SCOTUS disagrees.
>
It really can't be, and the scotus has said it is only proper in certain
government jobs or safety related transportation jobs.
Private drug testing employees at private businesses has no relation to the
Constitution.
You probably could challenge the ruling that if you want a government
contract you have to have a drug testing program in place, but private
testing private is not relevant to the Constitution.
>> They might have different views about stoned employees than
>> you do, and it IS their store.
>
> Well, considering the WalMart in Durham NC, they might be better if
> everybody was stoned, including the customers. That Walmart is a zoo
>
>
EJ
Eric Johnson
<nathan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I agree with this. Except the reverse is increasingly impossible.
EJ
abracadabra
"Eric Johnson" <er...@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:BBAEF06C.30476%er...@xs4all.nl...
The government nor private employers have no business worrying about the
conduct of their employees in their homes.
> You probably could challenge the ruling that if you want a government
> contract you have to have a drug testing program in place, but private
> testing private is not relevant to the Constitution.
It certainly the fuck is. The government obviously has power over employers.
That's why employers cannot hire and fire on the basis of race.
Eric Johnson
mybib.35026$mQ2....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net, "abracadabra"
<ab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I agree, but matter between employer and employee do not involve the
constitution. You have -no- right to work at a person's business.
>
>> You probably could challenge the ruling that if you want a government
>> contract you have to have a drug testing program in place, but private
>> testing private is not relevant to the Constitution.
>
> It certainly the fuck is. The government obviously has power over employers.
> That's why employers cannot hire and fire on the basis of race.
No, they have this power via the1964 civil rights act. One can discriminate
as much as desired against an unprotected group.
So far, drug users are not a protected group.
I don't like it, but that is the truth.
abracadabra
What an employee does in his off hours is not his employers business. Unless
you like a totalitarian state.
> >> You probably could challenge the ruling that if you want a government
> >> contract you have to have a drug testing program in place, but private
> >> testing private is not relevant to the Constitution.
> >
> > It certainly the fuck is. The government obviously has power over
employers.
> > That's why employers cannot hire and fire on the basis of race.
>
> No, they have this power via the1964 civil rights act. One can
discriminate
> as much as desired against an unprotected group.
But that act was constitutional. Hence the government can regulate what
business tries to do to it's employees. And the government ought to be on
the side of the employees, not their bosses.
> So far, drug users are not a protected group.
It's not about protecting drug users. It's about protecting all Americans.
Nobody owns my off hour time.
John E. Jaku-Hing
> Cyrakis wrote:
>
> > For all you fascist unrepentant drug warrior dickheads, explain how a
> > pill popping junky freak manages to run the nations most succesful
> > radio talk show.
Don't worry...thank God your back is OK, and that he's cursed with a
bad one. All the money in the world isn't going to save him from
knowing his back will never get better.
>
> The same way a murdering senator from Mass. keeps being re-elected?
> The same way a rapist gets to the White House?
George W. Bush was a rapist? I'm not surprised.
John Nada is a commie pedophile with 845+ troll postings.