🚀 go-pugleaf

        [From KFL@mx.lcs.mit.edu Sun Nov 16 15:49:48 1986]

          Sad but true.  Of course employers ought not fire someone
        simply because they use drugs, unless the drug use causes them
        to do poor work.  And if they are doing poor work, it is
        hardly relevant whether it is due to drug use or not.
          (Which is not to say that employers should be forbidden by
        law from requiring drug tests - in case anyone misinterpets my
        saying "employers ought not" as meaning "there ought to be a
        law".)

I forgot to mention employer costs for sickness and disability.
Suppose an employee does an adequate job, but uses cocaine, alcohol,
or tobacco to an extent that causes him to miss work time due to
drug-related illness, or to use his employer-provided health benefits
to an extent that the premiums increase?  I merely point this out to
observe that employers in the 1980's have legitimate concerns about
their employees' fitness, which of course means that employers have an
interest in ensuring that their employees do not abuse substances such
as cocaine, alcohol, or tobacco.  Of course, one can argue that
substantial sick leave is one component of job performance, and that
the solution to the health plan problem is to refuse to cover
employees that fail to abide by a health code rather than refuse to
hire such employees.  Of course, the unions and the liberals will
scream blue murder ... and the courts would probably hold such
exclusions unlawful...but these are details that need not concern us
here.

Well, we are so close to full agreement that this is my last message
on the subject, unless you think that there is some point in
continuing...

                                        All the best, Rick.
-------