>
> Cameras at work will not be used to increase your safety - if you work in a
> similar situation to me, or to almost anyone I know, it's the *workers* who
> notice unsafe things, and then report them to management, where they are
> dutifully ignored.  I've been in places where there are exceptions to this
> rule, but not many.
>
> As for:
>
> >As for examining body fluids, what's the
> >problem?  Anybody who is using illegal drugs has a serious problem that
> should
> >be addressed; as for the punishment for being found with ilegal substnace in
> >your bodily fluids, it should probably be addressed from a medical
> >perpspective, but identification is important.
>
> This is kind of alarming.  Let's say, *hypothetically*, I smoke marijuana
> at home, after work hours.  Traces of dope will remain in my blood for
> about three weeks, or so I've heard.  So, if I've smoked dope at any stage
> in the past three weeks before my blood test, I'll lose my job.  Is dope a
> "serious problem"?  If you accept that cigarettes are, then dope is, but
> surely it isn't?  What right does a government have to regulate what I can
> and can not put into my body?
>
> >I am fed up with violence caused by drug addicts,
>
> Such as alcoholics, I presume?  I've not known a drug more likely to make
> one violent - granted that's because a lot more people drink than, say,
> inject heroin.  However, drugs like MDMA (ecstacy) and marijuana (amongst
> many others) tend not to promote violent reactions.  At least, so I've been
> told :-)
>