[J m HofMarN]

Ok, so since this is about drugs it probably aught to be in the debate forums but this isn't something that's debatable. This is an effing travesty and I wanted to put the topic here so that the most people can read about it an be warned.

There is apparently a new method of drug testing that YOU DONT EVEN NEED TO BE AWARE OF THE TESTING. They can pick up an object you've touched (these are sold at home or at work) and swab it and if you've done pot the swab will turn pink. This is no joke. The kits thankfully are highly priced so people are going to literally pay for this horrendous invasion of privacy.

The way to avoid it is to thoroughly wash your hands after smoking, even before you've touched anything that might be tested - for instance game controllers, computer mice, glasses, etc. I saw this on Fox5 news and the funny thing is the bastards weren't talking about how horrible it was, they were talking it up like it isn't a crime against humanity. I see no reason to do that, so like I said, be very careful if you suspect that your parents or employer want to test you and have 300 dollars laying around that the can spend on being paranoid ignorant pricks.

That said, the makers of this product aught to pay dearly.

[looktothesky]

Wow, that's amazing though, you have to admit!

But if people did that to one of my prints on a surface, they wouldn't find anything.

This post has been edited by looktothesky: 24 May 2005 - 09:00 AM

[floppydisk]

You have been warned, Chyld!

[BiggSpiffy]

i dont think i have anything to worry about, since my parents are very stingy with money, and i dont smoke

[Kirby]

With my OCDesq obsession with washing my hands, I souldn't worry a bit.

[Laughlyn]

So this works off the smoke, or the chemicals in your sweat? Doesn't prove anything. Consumption isn't a crime, possession is. So what if someone know's I've had a half ounce of skunk in the flat, they can't arrest me without finding anythin or search the premises without proof that it belonged to me.

Employers can't fine you for having it in your bloodstream, since breathing in the smoke is enough to damage most tests. The only people who'll use this are a bunch of middle class curtain twitchers, who's kids will learn to stay off weed and go straight for the heroin instead.

[Slade]

Lots of employers don't hire you if you fail a drug test too. But this thing is awful, and I'm against mandatory drug tests anyhow (though I don't do anything at the moment). That could be turned into a debate, but I refuse to let it through sheer will power.

*Wills the thread to not descend into debate.*

How am I doing?

[J m HofMarN]

I would like to debate your ability to keep this thread from descending into debate.

[Laughlyn]

Lots of employers don't hire you if you fail a drug test too. But this thing is awful, and I'm against mandatory drug tests anyhow (though I don't do anything at the moment). That could be turned into a debate, but I refuse to let it through sheer will power.

*Wills the thread to not descend into debate.*

How am I doing?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Poorly, I accuse you of conspiring to avoid having to moderate.

My point was that all this proves is that you've been in contact with drugs, or drug users. You could have picked up roach off the street to put it in the bin, taken it away from your children,or been unlucky enough to be standing next to a rastafarian at the bus station. I still doubt this can be used solely as an excuse not to hire someone due to the inaccuracys involved, and the lack of proof of real consumption.

[Chyld]

You have been warned, Chyld!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1.) They've got to get it into the UK first.

2.) I've got to get an employer, partner, parent, etc, who cares enough to test me (although leaving my stash in my trouser pocket when I asked my mum to fix the fly was kinda dumb)

3.) The aforementioned needs the money to buy the test in the first place.

4.) All the stuff Laughlyn said.

5.) Why'd you look straight at me?

[floppydisk]

Because you're the only forum member I know that unashamedly admits his use of drugs.

[Laughlyn]

From what I can remember from people posts:

JM Hoffman:Majiruana
Voodoo dog:LSD

Barend's made a few confessions about dope as well I think, and Janes on some crazy ritalin like stuff, anyone else like to make a confession?

[barend]

i've admitted to alot of things....

and yet despite the proporganda fed paranoia of all the anti-drug activists who visit these boreds my mind is still sharper than theirs...

shows what tahdj sksdjf k<lalasl sd;;ap!!!

anyway...

they swab any objects you've touched before you hade a chance to wash your hands???

...i hope they don't swap my bong.

This post has been edited by barend: 25 May 2005 - 09:33 PM

[Mnesymone]

That's a bloody obvious clue the bong. The bucket bong more so.

Still... as the junkie said - I eat the talking bees because I'm George Washington Christ.

Major invasion of privacy thing this drug-test... stil its not going to be a debate because everyone agrees its bad. It was like the mobile phone in cars debate, which reached consensus almost immediately and then tangented on to SUVs, where consensus was also reached almost immediately. I wasn't aware of Chyld though... does Lord of Cakez refer to baked goods marijuana?

[barend]

i agree with Mnesymone!!! SUV's are a bloody menace!