What would you think?

[Osborn F Enready]

What would you think, if your homestate of the Union we call the United States did this?

State officials grant legality to a program that removes the rights of privacy to all workers, whose companies choose to use the program, against the will of the workers, and if the workers protested, their only option is to quit regardless of time in job, experience, or prior record.
(this in itself is unconstitutional, as far as removing the rights of privacy)

This state implemented program also, by using Federal funding, allowed participants of the program an unfair advantage to those not using the program by lowering REQUIRED PAYMENTS to workers compensation, and healthcare from CO-OPERATING insurance companies, which would allow them to outprice, outbid, or out perform other companies through the assistance and compliance and participation in the State program. This also locks outnon-cooperating insurance companies, as alternatives to employees based on price, coverage or any other standard other than program compliance.

This program also, removes your rights as a citizen of the United States, to be innocent until proven guilty, and forfeits your rights to trial should the case come up concerning employment ability, before or after accused.

This program, also, using false facts, propaganda, and scare tactics tries to coerce employees by having the program explained by their own "salesman", after being "invited" by the employer. When giving the presentation, and being asked to provide areas where those facts could be REFERENCED, or PROVEN, they have no provision, or answer to allow you to do so.

















What I have explained above, is the "Ohio Drug Free Workplace Program".





I would also like to know if knowing the name of the program, changed your opinion of the description, and why.

Look forward to your thoughts and comments.

[bishop]

i hate the war on drugs.. besides being a complete failure, causing far more harm than good, it should be deemed unconstitutional imo.

only problem - the people who agree with the war on drugs, don't have any problem with these big brother policies. in fact, they'd even fight to keep them intact, or strengthen their application.

in my experience, there is no reasoning with such people. at the end of the day, they support it, "just because, drugs are bad!".

[Scribbler1]

The description and the name of the policy make perfect sense to me, from a moron's point of view of course. You give the sheep a made up problem and tell them they're being protected and they'll all go "woo hoo" and support it to the hilt.

Never mind that the drug crimes are DIRECTLY caused by the prohibition of said substances or many (if not most) recreational drug users simply get stoned at home as opposed to people who go OUT to bard and weave their cars home with one eye open after about 4-5 hours drinking. Never mind the fact that the pushers of hard drugs have an economic justification for addicting teenagers and would be out of business the minute drugs were legalized. Never mind the...

Okay, you get the picture.

I think I'm starting to slip and going soft on the drug war. I'm going to pop in my copy of "Reefer Madness" to remind myself how terrible drugs are and thank god for our good and moral government watchdogs who tirelessly keep us safe from this scourge.

Nite.

[Young]

Hey, If you smoke Cig's, Drink, or smoke some weed Erry now and then...but it doesn't effect your job performance, I'll Hire you if your honest about it. Coke, Crack, Herion, Meth, acid, or X...you need to draw a line of those, but instead of degrading someone for an addicition we should try to lift them up out of their problems.


Young

[Young]

correction "You need to draw a line (ON) those...my bad


Young

[Young]

Did my correction change your opinion of my first post?



Young

[Milton Bradley]

Originally posted by Young, Did my correction change your opinion of my first post? Young

No, lucky for you, we know what you are about.


Hire me for what?


*Hint*


Note topic, and my location listed in my signature.

[Comrade]

Just selling a little something at the high school corner...

[bishop]

you never see people selling alcohol on the high school corner.. know why? cuz it's regulated.

[Osborn F Enready]

Bishop, LOL, FINALLY WE AGREE 100%!

Truly though, good point. Most people just can't understand that.

Look at how Marijuana was made illegal, who backed it, and who got rich off of keeping hemp illegal.

Look who made TONS of money from the prohibition era, and who they were connected to with marijuana and drug laws.

This is the poorest cover up of government shennanigans I have ever seen, yet people in the PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM, ALL PUBLIC DRUG AWARENESS PROGRAMS, REFORM CLINICS and every other PUBLIC funded entity teached propaganda, and false facts in their doctrine.

Look at how many revisions were made to foreign policy, to aid the war on drugs, and how we eliminated Pablo Escobar because of our policies and intergovernmental dealings. Vietnam, Afghanistan so so many have been part of this charade.

The war on drugs, is a war on civil rights, and self responsiblity.

[bishop]

heh, so some regulation isn't so bad after all, eh?

this kind of regulation is anti-worker, and anti-smart.

the drug war is one of america's many terminal follies. they are dragging us to the grave.

[Compugasm]

Here is the policy on how the investigations are to be conducted. The incentive they're given is 35% off some insurance costs. So, you know they'll accept it.

If were charged, I would say nothing without being represented in some way, even if innocent. In reading the procedures of how the investigation goes, you're already presumed guilty and subject to a polygraph and such. Even if I was found innocent, I think I'd leave the company anyway. I'd be real uncomfortable working environment.

[Osborn F Enready]

Bishop, I never said I AGREED with regulation in the sense you do, just that that is why we see a black market. Our government does not have the ability to regulate an appetite, or craving. This was proven in prohibition to create disrespect for the law, in general, and a public willingness to break the law.
The Federal government has NO auspice in interfering in States rights, the same as the the Federal government has no auspice in interfering in INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. RIGHTS are exactly that... UNALIENABLE, and not to be considered a "priviledge" from the government, or the Constitution. The Constitution merely enumerated certain rights so to SET THE STAGE in limiting governments authority over "we the people". We are governments master, we created it, we recognized it, we funded it, and we have become irresponsible parents and let it stray from its intentions or designs. Our rights are not completely listed in the Constitution, as per the 9th Amendment clarifies.

The fact is, they have no authority to do it, let alone charge you for it, yet again inflict imprisonment, death or cruel and unusual punishment such as ankle locator bracelets, and position monitoring devices in adherance to it.

We have been duped, we never voted or were consulted for the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of the laws that were passed in OUR NAME.

Allow me to remind everyone of a very important, critical fact you may not know. This will be admitted to you by any lawyer worth his paper if questioned directly.

Elected legislative bodies enact law in the form of statutes and ordinances. Law is created by administrative agencies as they implement statutory law. Law may also be drawn from the customs and traditions of a society by courts. Law is also found in constitutions. Constitutional law is the fundamental or highest law. Statutes enacted by legislatures, common law established through judicial decisions, and rules created by executive agencies are all measured against the national Constitution. Provisions contained in the Constitution are the supreme law of the land. Law of any other kind is always subordinate to the Constitution. Any law that conflicts with provisions of the Constitution is invalid.

No matter what, this is the key fact. FDR's New Deal, Unconstitutional. There is no such thing as a "Strong Executive Branch" principle in our system. This is Fraud, as well as the Federal Reserve System. Blatant fraud that NOW, after all of this time and perversion, the system has left a uncoverable paper, electronic, and personal trail that cannot be refuted. They have launched a legislative war against the citizens of our country, pertaining to every right, every privlidge, and every facet of our ideals and Constitutionally LIMITED Republic. Without the Constitutional Limitation, we have no recognizable system, LEGALLY, CONSTITUTIONALLY, IRREFUTABLY.

``When it is not in our power to follow what is true, we ought to follow what is most probable.''
-René Descartes

``The liberty of the individual is a necessary postulate of human progress.''
-Ernest Renan

``Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And... moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.''
-Barry Goldwater, Acceptance Speech at the Republican Convention; 1964

``The terrible thing about the quest for truth is that you find it.''
-Remy de Gourmont

``... whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.''-Patrick Henry

``Liberty has never come from Government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of Liberty is a history of resistance. The history of Liberty is a history of limitations of Governmental power, not the increase of it.''
-Woodrow Wilson