Hell's Kitchen winner failed drug test

[Bodi]

It wasn't for HK. It was for employment at Caesars.
It is a liability issue.


Exactly. Using only has the chance of being a liability.

Agreed. She is an idiot then... what a blown opportunity.

 

[douglas]

Using has the possibility of causing a liability.
Laws against them are not immoral or wrong.

If this "liability" is the law itself, that's circular reasoning. We should attack the law, not the user.

Any other liability is inherent to all people, regardless of drug use, and no such factor should be used to proactively discriminate against them. That's the very definition of prejudice.

 

[Excon]

I have no problem with her not getting the job. I have a problem with the law that mandates the drug test.

As far as I read in the article, it was a policy.
Though I have no problem with Nevada having such a law if it exists.

Disobeying unjust laws is a moral good.

There is no unjust law here.
And even if there is such a law, it is not unjust.

but in a country that illegalizes it, drug use is patriotism.

I find that to be delusional thinking.

but I appreciate them doing it.

Yep! Delusional.

 

[Excon]

If this "liability" is the law itself, that's circular reasoning. We should attack the law, not the user.

Any other liability is inherent to all people, regardless of drug use, and no such factor should be used to proactively discriminate against them. That's the very definition of prejudice.

Holy ****!
There is nothing wrong with such a policy.

If she uses and rushes, undercooking chicken, and a person gets sick eating what she undercooked, the employer is more on the hook for knowing about her drug use.
That means a bigger settlement/reward.
You avoid that by not employing a known drug user.
Or do you really not understand the liability issue?

 

[ARealConservative]

My sole problem with all of this isn't with her understanding of the law or contract, she should have known better. But, it still doesn't make the law itself valid. Drug laws are immoral and, if you ask me, unconstitutional. It's not like that's going to help her or anyone else, but we should be helping our fellow man, not judging them. If these laws are bad, then we should fight the laws, not the people that break them.

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." - MLK, Jr.

this really isn't about drug laws. this is about protecting an investment. If I understand it, the show is a catalyst to sign a promising new chef. I would personally want to know if the person getting 250k out of thin air likes to use highly addictive substances.

 

[joko104]

Why the hell would the drug test a chef's competition?

 

[douglas]

As far as I read in the article, it was a policy.
Though I have no problem with Nevada having such a law if it exists.

It's a federal law. I can't see why you'd accept the government taking away your rights; it's not a good thing.

There is no unjust law here.

It's a victimless crime, in that the legal wording doesn't even include a need for a victim. The "state" or "society" is the victim, according to the law. That's unjust, by the very definition of justice. It's also unconstitutional, as the federal government has no power over businesses, so it shouldn't be able to mandate such a policy. It's also against the 9th Amendment, as the Constitution was never given authority over drugs, which would require a constitutional amendment. For example, alcohol prohibition required an amendment both to start and end, which was the only thing making it constitutional; the war on drugs has seen no such amendment to the constitution, making it unconstitutional.

I find that to be delusional thinking.

Likewise, I find your indifference to authoritarian government, delusional. Maybe you'll think otherwise when they take away one of the rights that you like. Of course, if it's the 1st amendment, you won't be able to tell us.

 

[douglas]

Holy ****!
There is nothing wrong with such a policy.

This "policy" is mandated by federal law. I have a problem with that law, not businesses setting whatever policy they want.

If she uses and rushes, undercooking chicken, and a person gets sick eating what she undercooked, the employer is more on the hook for knowing about her drug use.
That means a bigger settlement/reward.
You avoid that by not employing a known drug user.
Or do you really not understand the liability issue?

Would you still fire them for undercooking, without the drug use? If so, then there's no need to consider drug use a liability. If she's incompetent for any reason, she should be fired. Drug use =/= incompetence. Wal-Mart 'Sympathetic' to Man Fired for Using Medical Pot, but Won't Rehire Him | Fox News I remember this news cast, where a Walmart employee of the year was fired for Marijuana use. Some of a companies best workers are habitual users, it happens. Incompetence causes incompetence, drugs have nothing to do with it.

 

[Excon]

Why the hell would the drug test a chef's competition?

Read the article linked to in the OP.

 

[douglas]

this really isn't about drug laws. this is about protecting an investment. If I understand it, the show is a catalyst to sign a promising new chef. I would personally want to know if the person getting 250k out of thin air likes to use highly addictive substances.

What a person does with their time and money is none of my business. Cigarettes are an addictive substance, more so even than cocaine, but we don't stop smokers from getting jobs.


Note the dependence factor of the two.

 

[ChrisL]

A lot of companies are doing mandatory drug testing now, at least where I'm from they do. Most jobs around here do it.

 

[Excon]

It's a federal law.

Really?
You might want to support what you say. Because as already stated, and provided, it is a policy we are discussing.

So again. From the article.

Sources extremely familiar with the situation tell us ... Caesars Palace required Witt to submit to a drug test in order to take the job as head chef at the Gordon Ramsay Pub & Grill, the position she earned after winning Season 11 of "Hell's Kitchen" earlier this year.

FYI -- Caesars has a notoriously strict drug policy ... and requires all employees to submit to drug testing.​

I can't see why you'd accept the government taking away your rights; it's not a good thing.

Wtf?
There is no "right" being taken away here.


I see you can't stick to the topic, or even separate an employment policy being discussed from the law. :doh

It's a victimless crime, in that the legal wording doesn't even include a need for a victim. The "state" or "society" is the victim, according to the law. That's unjust, by the very definition of justice.

No it isn't victimless or unjust.

It's also unconstitutional,

Really?
iLOL
Show me the SCOTUS decision saying it is unconstitutional.

Likewise, I find your indifference to authoritarian government, delusional. Maybe you'll think otherwise when they take away one of the rights that you like. Of course, if it's the 1st amendment, you won't be able to tell us.

Oy vey! Stick to the topic.

This "policy" is mandated by federal law. I have a problem with that law, not businesses setting whatever policy they want.

Then provide proof of that.
I am betting you can't.
It is evidence that liability is considered when it comes to known drug users, as it should be. That is all.

Would you still fire them for undercooking, without the drug use?

Do you really not understand the liability issue?


A Chef who constantly undercooked their meats would also be a liability issue.
Do you really not understand that?
Or is your support for drug use so blinding, that you can't see reality?

 

[Excon]

What a person does with their time and money is none of my business. Cigarettes are an addictive substance, more so even than cocaine, but we don't stop smokers from getting jobs.

View attachment 67154411

 

[douglas]

This is about an employment policy.
Not drug laws.

It all goes back to the circular logic of saying that there's a liability in hiring a drug user, when that liability is the law and how it could be used in lawsuits. If that law didn't exist, the liability wouldn't exist, and then the policy wouldn't exist.

It's all about the law.

 

[Excon]

It all goes back to the circular logic of saying that there's a liability in hiring a drug user, when that liability is the law and how it could be used in lawsuits. If that law didn't exist, the liability wouldn't exist, and then the policy wouldn't exist.

It's all about the law.

That is your circular logic, especially as that isn't being said.
And you can be guaranteed that if drug laws were overturned, liability would still remain an issue, and those employment policies would remain in effect.
And that is because it is a liability issue, not a Law issue.

So back on topic. There is nothing wrong with the employment policy.
It is wise to have. It is just and isn't a violation of anyone's rights.

 

[douglas]

There is no "right" being taken away here.

The 9th Amendment says you have the right to do anything that hasn't been made illegal via the rest of the constitution or other amendments and the laws based off of them. Drug laws are not supported by any portion of the constitution, or amendments; you have the right to do drugs, according to the constitution. Any law that takes that right away is unconstitutional.

No it isn't victimless or unjust.

Who is the victim then?

The user? Because that's impossible, you can't be your own victim. You have a natural right over your own actions and body, you can't victimize yourself; it's an oxymoron.

The state? Because the state, society, and the government are all inanimate concepts; they have no rights, thus their rights can't be infringed, and they can't be made into victims.

You? What someone else does, doesn't hurt you one little bit. If they were putting you at risk, such as driving while intoxicated, you have a claim. But, their existence and right to use, doesn't in itself harm you at all.

Their boss via this "liability"? When the liability is directly or indirectly caused by the law itself, then you're using circular logic. If this law didn't exist, you couldn't claim that a drug user was causing you any liability, if they were an otherwise competent employee. You mentioned a liability of lawsuits being greater because the boss hired a drug user; no such liability exists when drug use isn't illegal. It'd make no more sense than saying the boss was liable for hiring a drunk, which would never fly in court.

Show me the SCOTUS decision saying it is unconstitutional.

Don't ask don't tell, DOMA, Obamacare...yup the SCOTUS is a great measure of constitutionality. The SCOTUS ruled the drug war constitutional by saying that federal agents are protecting interstate trade, in other words, the federal government. This goes against the 9th Amendment, as the government has no rights and cannot be victimized. Again, a victimless crime.

Oy vey! Stick to the topic.

This is the topic. You're just not digging deep enough. As I've said before, this person wouldn't have had a problem if this law didn't exist, so the law and it's justifiability is instantly part of the discussion.

It is evidence that liability is considered when it comes to known drug users, as it should be. That is all.

LOL, since when did I need to prove your claims. You're claiming that they're a liability, without proof. There's a burden of proof, not disproof; I don't have to disprove a claim that wasn't proved in itself.

Do you really not understand the liability issue?

Do you not understand the rights issue?

A Chef who constantly undercooked their meats would also be a liability issue.
Do you really not understand that?
Or is your support for drug use so blinding, that you can't see reality?

Such a chef would be fired, independent of drug use. How can you blame drugs for something people can do without drugs? Blame people for their actions, not the actions they might take.

I support any force against authoritarianism. I don't support drug use in itself; I would be completely indifferent to this case if the drug laws didn't exist.

I don't like drugs, I don't use drugs; my body is a temple.

 

[Excon]

The 9th Amendment says you have the right to do anything that hasn't been made illegal via the rest of the constitution or other amendments and the laws based off of them. Drug laws are not supported by any portion of the constitution, or amendments; you have the right to do drugs, according to the constitution. Any law that takes that right away is unconstitutional.


Who is the victim then?

The user? Because that's impossible, you can't be your own victim. You have a natural right over your own actions and body, you can't victimize yourself; it's an oxymoron.

The state? Because the state, society, and the government are all inanimate concepts; they have no rights, thus their rights can't be infringed, and they can't be made into victims.

You? What someone else does, doesn't hurt you one little bit. If they were putting you at risk, such as driving while intoxicated, you have a claim. But, their existence and right to use, doesn't in itself harm you at all.

Their boss via this "liability"? When the liability is directly or indirectly caused by the law itself, then you're using circular logic. If this law didn't exist, you couldn't claim that a drug user was causing you any liability, if they were an otherwise competent employee. You mentioned a liability of lawsuits being greater because the boss hired a drug user; no such liability exists when drug use isn't illegal. It'd make no more sense than saying the boss was liable for hiring a drunk, which would never fly in court.


Don't ask don't tell, DOMA, Obamacare...yup the SCOTUS is a great measure of constitutionality. The SCOTUS ruled the drug war constitutional by saying that federal agents are protecting interstate trade, in other words, the federal government. This goes against the 9th Amendment, as the government has no rights and cannot be victimized. Again, a victimless crime.



This is the topic. You're just not digging deep enough. As I've said before, this person wouldn't have had a problem if this law didn't exist, so the law and it's justifiability is instantly part of the discussion.



LOL, since when did I need to prove your claims. You're claiming that they're a liability, without proof. There's a burden of proof, not disproof; I don't have to disprove a claim that wasn't proved in itself.



Do you not understand the rights issue?



Such a chef would be fired, independent of drug use. How can you blame drugs for something people can do without drugs? Blame people for their actions, not the actions they might take.

I support any force against authoritarianism. I don't support drug use in itself; I would be completely indifferent to this case if the drug laws didn't exist.

I don't like drugs, I don't use drugs; my body is a temple.

Dude!
The topic centers around an employment policy. Not drug law.
There is no violation of a right here. None.
A drug user has no right to be a liability to his employer.

Get over it.

 

[douglas]

Dude!
The topic centers around an employment policy. Not drug law.
There is no violation of a right here. None.
A drug user has no right to be a liability to his employer.

Get over it.

I support their right to have that policy. I'm saying that they wouldn't have one if there wasn't a drug law.

Just as I'd support a policy against smoking or drinking, even outside of the workplace. But, the difference is that that almost never happens. Hell, my last employer would pay our first round at happy hour every Friday. (But I don't drink, so it was a moot point for me.)

I apologize to all if I was truly off topic. I think the law is part of this discussion, but I'll drop it for now.

 

[Excon]

I support their right to have that policy. I'm saying that they wouldn't have one if there wasn't a drug law.

As already stated.

you can be guaranteed that if drug laws were overturned, liability would still remain an issue, and those employment policies would remain in effect.​

That policy is independent of law.
Just as drinking on the job creates a liability.

I think the law is part of this discussion, but I'll drop it for now.

Good. Enough said then.

 

[ARealConservative]

What a person does with their time and money is none of my business.

false.

but we don't stop smokers from getting jobs.

false

0-2 on the fact meter.

 

[Ikari]

A lot of companies are doing mandatory drug testing now, at least where I'm from they do. Most jobs around here do it.

It depends still. Many high tech places they don't. Any significant research lab they do, and more. I'm finding it more and more offensive the amount of databasing and information collection which goes on prior, during, and after the fact. People are loosing all semblance of privacy. I'd rather we just move to a performance based assessment system. Quite honestly, I view it as no one's business if someone uses drugs and still performs adequately.

 

[Ikari]

So back on topic. There is nothing wrong with the employment policy.
It is wise to have. It is just and isn't a violation of anyone's rights.

So can they discriminate based on alcohol or tobacco? Test for those and if you come up positive, you're out?

 

[ChrisL]

It depends still. Many high tech places they don't. Any significant research lab they do, and more. I'm finding it more and more offensive the amount of databasing and information collection which goes on prior, during, and after the fact. People are loosing all semblance of privacy. I'd rather we just move to a performance based assessment system. Quite honestly, I view it as no one's business if someone uses drugs and still performs adequately.

The thing is if a person smokes marijuana, that drug shows up in their system for 30 days or more. However, they can do heroin, cocaine or even get drunk it can peed and sweat out of your system in like 24-48 hours. So people who smoke marijuana are really the ones who pay when it comes to drug testing.