Want To Beat A Lie Detector Test?

[Fonceai]

This has nothing to do with the scope of power of the government.

This is about the scope of power of an employer.

They reserve the right to not hire drug users or liars. If they use flawed tests to determine that status, that's their business. But the results of polygraph and urinalysis are not included in the list of prejudicial factors.

So while I really do appreciate the link you posted, this isn't about drug prohibition.

It's about employers.

[Milton Bradley]

This is about drug prohibition in that drugs are illegal at the behest of government for reasons beyond those expressed in their anti-drug propaganda. ( Which should set of little alarm bells in your head because your "transparent government" is lying to you, and coercing you. )


The reasons the employers go along with their skewed reality is for the monetary kickbacks, and the" good neighbor" status awarded to their favorite lackeys.


I admitted earlier that I support the employers right to a certain amount of discrimination, but State sanctioned discrimination based on false propaganda crosses all lines of reasonable negotiations.


This is a witch hunt.

[Fonceai]

I think the issue becomes very clear if you look at it from both sides.

As an employer, and as we've said, it's my right to decide who works for me. So accepting extra gov't money is a nice little bonus.

As a gov't policy maker, why would I offer money if not to get businesses to do what I want? That's corruption.

From the employers side, it's okay to accept money, but from the State side, it's wrong to offer money.

[Milton Bradley]

It's wrong from either perspective when it is their intention is to engineer the society they desire.


Obviously, if anybody who participates in the program gets kickback money, that money exerts a pressure on the profitability of the rest of the companies that have to compete in the same market.


This model leaves no room for dissent, because dissent now equal disenfranchisement. Those who disagree, or do not participate have a higher insurance premiums, and higher operating costs.


Corporatism = Fascism.

[Osborn F Enready]

Well said Milton.

I don't think I will add more.

[kubedawg]

Well a criminal background check would be the only feasable check I'd find necessary for a job I would be applying for. I mean, they are paying me to do a job for them.

Who can you trust these days as most companies are requiring these things. Of course, I've never heard of a polygraph test being used to promote a person... But for employment reasons, even if you do have nothing to lose, you obviously want or need the work, and that's just one small price to pay to get the job so you can start making the money or living your dream career even.

How would a company be able to trust a complete stranger who could be a drug addict/dealer, or who commits other crimes, or who lies a lot? That's bad business. I mean, if you give someone a chance without testing someone, either by means of a polygraph test or piss test, then they do something to make the business worse than when they got the job there, then it becomes a problem for the company dealing with the public, as saying that they don't care about who they hire, as long as they're qualified for the job. And by affecting the public, then the business starts to lose trust with it's consumer, and slowly but surely, the business collapses.

I feel, on the other hand, businesses shouldn't require a degree for certain positions, but experience or certificates instead.

But having a polygraph test for a promotion is just plain stupid. The company already hired you to do the position in which you chose, so they obviously distrust you even though ou ARE an employee with the company already.

Now I could see this, as a new policy they were enforcing, but it'd have to be for everyone who worked for the company, even the higher ups, and even if a promotion was not even in the picture for certain employees.

[Fonceai]

Does this have to be such a huge, government-related issue? I really don't think it does.

Quote by: Milton It's wrong from either perspective when it is their intention is to engineer the society they desire.

For a business owner to require polygraph and/or urinalysis isn't engineering a society. It's running a business. They own it, they want specific characteristics among their employees, so they do what they want.

It's not illegal. It's only discriminatory against people who lie and do drugs. I wouldn't want someone like that working for me.

@kubedawg

For promotion, oftentimes it is used because with the promotion comes an increased level of responsibility and a company wants to make sure their trust in you is valid.

[kubedawg]

I see. But then, say you don't agree to the lie detector test, and that you are appaled that they could ever think of you as unfaithful to them as an employee, is it worth the risk to not go through with the polygraph? I can see from a standpoint where by letting that person into a higher part of the company, how it could affect the company greater than say, jsut an entry level employee whom they hardly know. But still, the trust factor comes into play again.

[Fonceai]

I see the point you're making.

But this isn't about personal feelings. It's about business.

If someone wants to take it personally, that's their prerogative, and I honestly can't blame them.

With some jobs and/or companies there is a certain degree of necessity regardless of performance. They can't make an exception for one person and not for another. It's basically just playing fair.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Fonceai For a business owner to require polygraph and/or urinalysis isn't engineering a society. It's running a business. They own it, they want specific characteristics among their employees, so they do what they want. It's not illegal. It's only discriminatory against people who lie and do drugs. I wouldn't want someone like that working for me.

Individual company policy I favor. Marching lockstep with the Police State is another matter entirely.


Once you admitted that you saw the State sanctioning part of this debate, you lost.


I know I have not changed your mind, but I feel comfortable that my side has won.


Just admit it, you have no problems with fascists, or fascism, and you will glady work to implement their policies for a little bit of money. There are always people like yourself available to compromise any philosophy that you don't hold dearly yourself. I mean, somebody had to march all those Jews to the gas chambers, right?

[Fonceai]

@Milton

I really hope that was sarcasm.

What purpose does it serve to say I support fascism, that I recognize that you made good points, and then say that you "won" something that can't be won?

I only ask because you seem to be turning an employers right to issue tests, and the gov't giving money to those employers, into some kind of fascist conspiracy.

You may think you won something, but you took a very Slippery Slope to get there.

[Milton Bradley]

Sure, there was a little dose of sarcasm in there, but underneath it all, I still think I have you pegged.


You are one of those people who have not yet grasped the fact that all of the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights stem from a single philosophy, and that once that philosphy has been compromised for the sake of bad precedent, the whole thing comes crumbling down around you.


Like free speech, yuo must defend the document in it's entirely, or you might as well join the other side.

[Fonceai]

What the f*ck?

For what it's worth, I think the Constitution was written with a severe lack of definition and clarity.

I don't have to defend the document in its entirety. I can see which parts are better written than others, which parts are weak, and which parts are clearly well-conceived but poorly executed.

Not everyone has to be black or white on every issue.

If that's your only response to this whole thing; that you think you've won an online discussion because you can assign someone a characteristic of facism, by all means put me on your ignore list.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: I only ask because you seem to be turning an employers right to issue tests, and the gov't giving money to those employers, into some kind of fascist conspiracy.

I say:
We are supposed to as a government, create a level playing field for business. It is the nature of the free market.

It is indeed, a fascist TYPE conspiracy, aimed directly at those trying to legalize drugs by depriving them of income, due to a market field that is FAVORING those who oppose drug legalization.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: Os It is indeed, a fascist TYPE conspiracy, aimed directly at those trying to legalize drugs by depriving them of income, due to a market field that is FAVORING those who oppose drug legalization.

Look very carefully at what you said.

Earlier in the thread, you specifically said that favoring drug legalization is not the same as being a drug user.

You say that it favors those who oppose drug legalization and that is a horrible logical fallacy.

It's favoring those who want a drug-free work place.

By your own words, one is not the same as the other.

[kubedawg]

The constitution was written in general, as everyone has a different opinion on every topic at hand. But, it was written from a specific philosophy, but one cannot decypher this, only the persons who wrote it know the exact reasoning for doing so. I do not think the Constitution was written intentionally to degrade the way we live, it was made so to guide us in a specific direction for continued freedom including freedom of speech. When one opposes the constitution, it's not a contradiction, but merely an opinion based on what that person believes to be correct. Call it facism if you will, but I think it's the corporations who are the ones being facist, who are allowing these things to happen. Why? Because they want their company to be successful, and by trusting someone, they take a risk. And if something can go wrong, it will. A statement that seems to be used quite often. I, on he other hand, like to see what people are capable of, and take those risks, without using all resources because I would want to have trust in each employee in my particular business. Develop relationships, and keep the peace. By showing the company you submit to such a thing, makes you a coward, and shows the company is faceless and should not exist.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: kubedawg By showing the company you submit to such a thing, makes you a coward, and shows the company is faceless and should not exist.

I'm curious how regular urinalysis requests bring you to that conclusion.

[Osborn F Enready]

Fonceai said: Look very carefully at what you said. Earlier in the thread, you specifically said that favoring drug legalization is not the same as being a drug user.

I say:
That is true, I did. I also think it should be an obviously true statement.

Fonceai said: You say that it favors those who oppose drug legalization and that is a horrible logical fallacy.

I say:
No, its not. There are many drug legalization advocates, activists who won't live, or bring business to areas that the STATE works directly against their goals using "kickbacks" to companies who comply, and further destabilizes the market aside from the kickbacks since it isolates several forms of business from even having intrest in the area. Right now, Ohio is losing jobs like mad, yet taxes go up, and the market is more isolated. Almost like shooting yourself in the foot.....twice.

People who support the illegalization of hemp forget it was a national crop at one time, and it currently has over 160,000 industrial uses. In Ohio, many of us would like to put some of those 160,000 uses to work in our state, to create jobs and a more open market that benefits everyone.

Fonceai said: It's favoring those who want a drug-free work place.

I say:
The drug tests aren't good enough to ascertain "UI", simply that some level is present. (knowing that the most commonly used drug, marijuana, can be in the system for up to 30 days.) Are you in a workplace 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? So what if a person smokes a joint at home, right after work, and not again until the next day? Is that different than a glass or two of wine, or a few beers, in effects to the "mental state" a person is in when going to work the next day? How about 3 weeks after, should they still be held accountable for that one act of smoking the joint after 3 weeks, while the drinkers pound them down nightly?

The Drug Free Workplace Program is just another corrupt extension of the War on Drugs, and another way to funnel federal and state monies to police forces and failing city systems that are overbloated with social program costs.

[Fonceai]

I think you don't understand the question I'm raising...

What does a business doing drug testing have to do with drug legalization?

Even if drugs were legal, a business could still perform urinalysis because that business chooses to have a drug free workplace.

This is a perfect example of how you are trying to villainize the government for something that, if legal, wouldn't change anything.

[jose]

There are a lot of mind altering drugs that are legal but severely impair your decision making process, and how would you test for example ¨fox news¨impairment