2nd March 2010, 01:37 PM
DRUDGE SAID
"hmm, i think i'm getting the hang of this judicious editing lark.
you sound just like a small child who's been chastised by Teacher for chewing gum in class. or rather, a stroppy teenager..."awww, it's so unfaair!".
accept that, at times, the job you've chosen will require you to do things you don't see the point of.""
**** *** *** **** ***** ** ****** **** !!!
I FAIL TO SEE EITHER THE PURPOSE OR THE PIONT IN YOUR POST...ACTUALLY, I ASKED FOR SOME RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC FACTS... BUT YOU SEEM CONTENT TO MAKE A PERSONAL ATTACK...HOW ADULT...WELL DONE
to anyone else who is more interested in an informed and fact bassed approach - which that i think more becoming of a academic discipline - it is worth noting that the UK has no specific policies on this issue. Instead they have been imported wholesale from the US (along with some of the testing companies). The context in which these mechanisms developed in the US is of interest, that is if one is interested in the facts of social control (for good or ill).
I concede that many of us may have insufficient empathy to spot 'normal'/'abnormal' emotional states, never mind specific physcological states potentially asociated with intoxication...however, with reasonabley close and posative working relationships, empathy does become easier.
Perhapes...in many situations this may be impractical...some level of testing/monitoring may be justified, particuarly in some specific situations (eg operating high risk machinery). But are we to be guided by facts or misconceptions?
Answer this: why allow certain levels of blood alcohol ?- perhapes because culturally we 'know' that there is grey area surrounding the loss of responsibility associated with increasing levels.
We might pass the individual with levels just below the minima, but how do we detect the raging head ache or tiredness that actually cause the accident?
Some industries have zero tolerance on alcohol i beleive.
But the simple fact remains that for the majority of archaeolgical work risk are not huge - probaly less than an average drive on a busy motorway, where non of the machine operators have been specifically (or even recently) tested in regard of intoxicant consumption. (Perhapes we should upgrade the risks of driving, but that is a different issue...)
Cannabis is a specific issue in its self - the tests do NOT pick active compounds, but metabolised byproducts that persist for some time after any measurable 'effect'
Furthermore, Cannabis intoxication is, i sumbimt, likley no more 'dangerous' than some alcohol equivalent, and probaly less so - generally we trust most people, most of the time, to controll and regulate thier alcohol intake responsibley.
Personally i believe, and think the evidence supports me, that cannabis should be socialy tolerated in the same fashion as alcohol - legalise, decriminalise, downgrade, whatever.
There is a big diffrence between regular cannabis consumption and frequent use of plethora of much stronger and biochemically significant substances.
Childish though it may seem to some to question attitudes to intoxication that may fail to acknowledge what anthropology has to tell us about this very human activity, i do not condone intoxication at work. Equally, it is irresponsible to indulge in a fashion that might impact work in the near future. This is a unproblematic stance to take.
The issue is whether these tests are nessescary or sufficent. They are not nessescary for many archaeologists in many situations. They are also insufficent to adequatley predict potential risk - some actual test of competence might be minimally sufficent.
I know a LOT of archaeologists are fond of at least occasional heavy drinking, and PLENTY are not adverse to cannabis. This is also true in the construction industry - and in fact there have been occasions where discrection has been applied in the case of posative tests for cannabis traces.
Archaeologis thave every right to take an informed approach to OHS and intoixication - i do not think that drug testing, as stands, is the solution.
"hmm, i think i'm getting the hang of this judicious editing lark.
you sound just like a small child who's been chastised by Teacher for chewing gum in class. or rather, a stroppy teenager..."awww, it's so unfaair!".
accept that, at times, the job you've chosen will require you to do things you don't see the point of.""
**** *** *** **** ***** ** ****** **** !!!
I FAIL TO SEE EITHER THE PURPOSE OR THE PIONT IN YOUR POST...ACTUALLY, I ASKED FOR SOME RESPONSE TO SPECIFIC FACTS... BUT YOU SEEM CONTENT TO MAKE A PERSONAL ATTACK...HOW ADULT...WELL DONE
to anyone else who is more interested in an informed and fact bassed approach - which that i think more becoming of a academic discipline - it is worth noting that the UK has no specific policies on this issue. Instead they have been imported wholesale from the US (along with some of the testing companies). The context in which these mechanisms developed in the US is of interest, that is if one is interested in the facts of social control (for good or ill).
I concede that many of us may have insufficient empathy to spot 'normal'/'abnormal' emotional states, never mind specific physcological states potentially asociated with intoxication...however, with reasonabley close and posative working relationships, empathy does become easier.
Perhapes...in many situations this may be impractical...some level of testing/monitoring may be justified, particuarly in some specific situations (eg operating high risk machinery). But are we to be guided by facts or misconceptions?
Answer this: why allow certain levels of blood alcohol ?- perhapes because culturally we 'know' that there is grey area surrounding the loss of responsibility associated with increasing levels.
We might pass the individual with levels just below the minima, but how do we detect the raging head ache or tiredness that actually cause the accident?
Some industries have zero tolerance on alcohol i beleive.
But the simple fact remains that for the majority of archaeolgical work risk are not huge - probaly less than an average drive on a busy motorway, where non of the machine operators have been specifically (or even recently) tested in regard of intoxicant consumption. (Perhapes we should upgrade the risks of driving, but that is a different issue...)
Cannabis is a specific issue in its self - the tests do NOT pick active compounds, but metabolised byproducts that persist for some time after any measurable 'effect'
Furthermore, Cannabis intoxication is, i sumbimt, likley no more 'dangerous' than some alcohol equivalent, and probaly less so - generally we trust most people, most of the time, to controll and regulate thier alcohol intake responsibley.
Personally i believe, and think the evidence supports me, that cannabis should be socialy tolerated in the same fashion as alcohol - legalise, decriminalise, downgrade, whatever.
There is a big diffrence between regular cannabis consumption and frequent use of plethora of much stronger and biochemically significant substances.
Childish though it may seem to some to question attitudes to intoxication that may fail to acknowledge what anthropology has to tell us about this very human activity, i do not condone intoxication at work. Equally, it is irresponsible to indulge in a fashion that might impact work in the near future. This is a unproblematic stance to take.
The issue is whether these tests are nessescary or sufficent. They are not nessescary for many archaeologists in many situations. They are also insufficent to adequatley predict potential risk - some actual test of competence might be minimally sufficent.
I know a LOT of archaeologists are fond of at least occasional heavy drinking, and PLENTY are not adverse to cannabis. This is also true in the construction industry - and in fact there have been occasions where discrection has been applied in the case of posative tests for cannabis traces.
Archaeologis thave every right to take an informed approach to OHS and intoixication - i do not think that drug testing, as stands, is the solution.