20th June 2006, 06:37 PM
I don't honestly think that the evidence suggests 'the overall care of our nation's heritage' is in the hands of self-confessed drug abusers! I think one person made a generalisation on a specialist internet discussion forum based on their own experience. They have not supported it with facts. I doubt very much that 50% of the archaeological profession smoke pot. I have never seen anyone smoke a spliff on site.
Cannabis is just one of many drugs open to abuse, alcoholism is also a serious problem for archaeologists in my experience. Indeed would have thought that the figures for alcohol abuse by archaeologists are actually higher than those for cannabis. I would guess that abuse of both cannabis and alcohol amongst archaeologists is slightly above the national average. I would add that this is hardly surprising, given the various conditions under which we work which are often described on this forum.
I could conclude from a visit to a random transport cafe that 'the overall care of our nation's distribution network' is in danger because the high saturated fat diet and heavy smoking of 'most' lorry drivers must mean that they are all due for an imminent heart attack. Clearly this is nonsense, but I think this discussion has veered off onto that sort of level. You can also say that abuse of cocaine amongst supermodels (and radio presenters) is well above the national average. This seems to cause no end of tabloid hysteria but actually again is no great surprise.
Anyway to return to answer the original question, I personally have qualms about drug testing in general on civil liberties grounds. However I accept the need for drug testing on Health and Safety grounds under specific circumstances. This includes police tests (alcohol and drugs) for road safety reasons, as well as on-site checks on contractors.
In terms of the debate on here it has to be said that Steve-B you have been winding Troll up, and Troll you have risen to the bait.
Cannabis is just one of many drugs open to abuse, alcoholism is also a serious problem for archaeologists in my experience. Indeed would have thought that the figures for alcohol abuse by archaeologists are actually higher than those for cannabis. I would guess that abuse of both cannabis and alcohol amongst archaeologists is slightly above the national average. I would add that this is hardly surprising, given the various conditions under which we work which are often described on this forum.
I could conclude from a visit to a random transport cafe that 'the overall care of our nation's distribution network' is in danger because the high saturated fat diet and heavy smoking of 'most' lorry drivers must mean that they are all due for an imminent heart attack. Clearly this is nonsense, but I think this discussion has veered off onto that sort of level. You can also say that abuse of cocaine amongst supermodels (and radio presenters) is well above the national average. This seems to cause no end of tabloid hysteria but actually again is no great surprise.
Anyway to return to answer the original question, I personally have qualms about drug testing in general on civil liberties grounds. However I accept the need for drug testing on Health and Safety grounds under specific circumstances. This includes police tests (alcohol and drugs) for road safety reasons, as well as on-site checks on contractors.
In terms of the debate on here it has to be said that Steve-B you have been winding Troll up, and Troll you have risen to the bait.