21st June 2006, 01:35 PM
I think that the original point related to a requirement that staff on a particular site would be subject to compulsory drug testing if required.
This is most likely to have been a requirement of everyone on site, not just the archaeologists, so we are not being picked out as suspect.
It does seem a reasonable requirement where people are working in a dangerous environment, such as a major construction site. One person under the influence could endanger many others as well as themselves. I think it is now quite common. However, I think it is less frequently actually applied - the idea is that just knowing you could be tested is an incentive to behave.
I have worked in archaeology for 22 years, and never been aware of someone using drugs on site. However, I have (years ago) been aware of people who used drugs off site and were likely to be affected on site the next day. But, I don't believe this is any more common in archaeology than in society at large, taking into account the age profile of site staff.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
This is most likely to have been a requirement of everyone on site, not just the archaeologists, so we are not being picked out as suspect.
It does seem a reasonable requirement where people are working in a dangerous environment, such as a major construction site. One person under the influence could endanger many others as well as themselves. I think it is now quite common. However, I think it is less frequently actually applied - the idea is that just knowing you could be tested is an incentive to behave.
I have worked in archaeology for 22 years, and never been aware of someone using drugs on site. However, I have (years ago) been aware of people who used drugs off site and were likely to be affected on site the next day. But, I don't believe this is any more common in archaeology than in society at large, taking into account the age profile of site staff.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished