Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Had a spirited discussion with my parents tonight about this proposed bill. I am initially against it, as NH law neither mandates or prohibits employers from doing drug testing, and employers can make the choice. I have no problem with an employer wanting to do a drug test as a condition of employment.
I agree with mandatory vaccination for healthcare workers, and testing for Hepatitis and similar diseases, but mandatory drug testing is pushing the boundaries.
Perhaps require hospitals to disclose to prospective patients whether they test for HepC and IV drugs, let the free market address the "problem".
Had a spirited discussion with my parents tonight about this proposed bill. I am initially against it, as NH law neither mandates or prohibits employers from doing drug testing, and employers can make the choice. I have no problem with an employer wanting to do a drug test as a condition of employment.
Also think there maybe needs to be some tighter controls on access to the painkillers by employees, like having 2 people present at all times.
Do you think this is something the NH .gov should be involved with, or is this a knee-jerk reaction to a terrible criminal act by a low-life scumbag?
Oh, grow up.
Had an ex that routinely prosecuted ED nurses for raiding the crash carts.... or gave the narcotics to their 'boyfriend' physicians... Most 'two people present' scenarios are for administering things like plasma... (or 'wasting' narcotics that are left over).
If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have no worries. (This is coming from a hard-core libertarian).
Oh, grow up.
Had an ex that routinely prosecuted ED nurses for raiding the crash carts.... or gave the narcotics to their 'boyfriend' physicians... Most 'two people present' scenarios are for administering things like plasma... (or 'wasting' narcotics that are left over).
If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have no worries. (This is coming from a hard-core libertarian).
So glad you're back on the forum, SuperSparkle (said with sarcasm).
Never said that drug testing was a bad idea. I just think it should be up to the employer (and ultimately the consumer).
Anyone that thinks that better procedural controls on narcotics is a bad thing needs to "grow up".
So glad you're back on the forum, SuperSparkle (said with sarcasm).
Never said that drug testing was a bad idea. I just think it should be up to the employer (and ultimately the consumer).
Anyone that thinks that better procedural controls on narcotics is a bad thing needs to "grow up".
Ummm... perhaps you misinterpreted me.... I am all for much tighter controls on most narcotics, benzodiazepines, and a whole laundry list of rather nasty chemicals, most of them easily synthesized. Try going to India, Thailand or China etc. and you will see the negative impact of them upon society.
As an aside, I never left the forum. Just travelling a lot, and got bored with the Chronic Disinformation.
Most employers in the US require drug testing, and for the higher-risk fields, it is done at random intervals. Unfortunately they don't test for all the right drugs (Here's a hint: what 3 occupations are disproportionally represented in rehabs? Doctors, lawyers and airline pilots. Don't ask me how I know, though musicians are right up there too).
Do you think this is something the NH .gov should be involved with, or is this a knee-jerk reaction to a terrible criminal act by a low-life scumbag?
I think any private business should have the right to make any condition of employment. I think the .gov needs to spend more time worrying about staying small and running efficiently than trying to tell it's serfs what they can and can't do.
Did I miss the sarcasm? If you are a hard-core libertarian you wouldn't be okay with the man taking your blood.
Not true,. If someone potentially does something that can endanger other peoples' lives, that is crossing the line. I believe that you can do almost anything you want, as long as you don't jeopardize/endanger others. Would you take the risk of going under the knife with a surgeon having a BAL of 0.5? How about an airline pilot, or someone driving a car? Your rights end when they infringe on mine. No sarcasm here.
Narcotics and benzos are not kept on crash carts. You will only find ACLS drugs there (epi, atropine, etc.). Most hospitals have computerized drug dispensors where the nurse must sign in. The two person double check is facility specific - mostly for wasting scheduled drugs. Having a second person follow a pain pill from the drug cart to the patient's mouth is not very realistic and will be just one more thing further driving up the cost of healthcare.
I am not for random drug screens. It is disturbing to me how society has just rolled over and accepted the practice of depositing a sample of our body fluid for potential employers. Thirty years ago if someone had told me I would have to pee in a cup to get a job I would have laughed my head off. Most drugs are out of the user's system within 24 hours - thank God we are catching all of those rough and tumble pot smokers and keeping them out of the work force!
Not true,. If someone potentially does something that can endanger other peoples' lives, that is crossing the line. I believe that you can do almost anything you want, as long as you don't jeopardize/endanger others. Would you take the risk of going under the knife with a surgeon having a BAL of 0.5? How about an airline pilot, or someone driving a car? Your rights end when they infringe on mine. No sarcasm here.
And I am positive there is a policy for showing up to work under the influence. I don't know of any stories of surgeons showing up to work high to do open heart or brain surgery.
We have enough doctors that are going to retire when Obama care goes in to full swing as it is. I don't want to tell the Dr that just worked 80 hours last week that he can't smoke a joint on during his two days off.
You can choose your own doctor for now. Nobody is making you see someone that smokes a joint at home.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
