eye for one do eye really want to use that meme everyone uses that damn meme eye for one welcome what brain something oh yeah baby why don't eye oh my god what is that alt eff four alt eff four ---- huh what the ---- was that beep there it is again neural interface help contents beep a beep indicates that the automatic profanity filter is currently enabled well we can't have that ---- file setting deselect automatic profanity filter apply fuck fuck fuck fuck okay much better now none of that goddam beeping okay so eye for one welcome our new our new our new eye wonder what the wife is making for dinner tonight tacos maybe or yakitori yakitori would be awesome but so would tacos maybe tako tacos eye wonder if wasbai and guacamole would go well together they are both green foods that are the same color should taste awesome together oh if only that were true well wasabi flavored kit cats are awesome so eye suppose if chocolate and wasabi can go together guacamole and wasabi probably could work something overlords something overlords oh why didn't eye see that earlier the integral on the left side of the integral represents the length of the curve between the origin and ex comma eff of ex while the right side is the distance between the origin and ex comma eff of ex so yeah the left side will always be greater that makes sense cool okay so overlords overlords eye for one welcome our new hands free slashdot user overlords yeah that sounds good stupid meme eye should post that anonymously though okay tab back over to slashdot so eye can
The sad part of this was, when I originally looked at it, I didn't even realize it was 2012 and a full 14 years after 1998... 10 years +/- 20% doesn't sound as bad 10 years +/- 40%;)
Not to mention the bizarre feeling that 1998 wasn't all that long ago, surely a decade can't have passed yet can it? Dude, that was just like yesterday when I.. meh.
Last January, after having gotten myself into a decent financial place (not to mention having a few extra years of maturity and self-discipline), I finally got started on my university level education, part-time, and in a manner that wont put me in serious debt. I'm a mathematics major, and I take 1 to 2 classes at a time, on-line. My particular school requires several electives that are related to the major (so for mathematics, basically, applied math courses). I choose Intro to Statistics and Into to Macroeconomics.
Though I am knee-deep in calculus, neither of those classes required calculus. They were simple algebra based introductions to the subjects.
I am now of the impression that those two classes should be made mandatory High School courses. Applying those two classes to daily life, primarily in regards to my consumption of "news" has shattered my fucking world. I don't want to say I was some idiot who just believed everything that got put out beforehand (I wasn't). But I now have a good concise framework to deal with crap like this. I suppose this entire post is a bit off-topic, but fuck I am sick of reading studies with such bad methodology get media attention. It almost ineveitably follows that I have to hear about it from someone else, and usually in the form of criticism (sometimes of myself, sometimes of someone else). "Hey, didn't you know that x causes y, scientists said so".
My favorite was an article in Huffington Post awhile back (forgive me for not searching for it and linking to it, it was a long long time ago). The author of the article had quoted a study (or rather, quoted the results of a study as published in an article from another news outlet....) and used that as a means to justify a pro-vegetarian stance (note: I have nothing against HuffPo that I don't have against FoxNews, and I have nothing against vegetarians, I do hate bad science, and the misuse of both good and bad science). Her argument was that eating meat every day (I can't remember if an amount was specified). increases your chances of dying by 30-40% in the next 10 years or something silly like that. Finding that absurd, I decided to go to the original article she was quoting from, as well as the original study. The original study did not include anyone under 50. I believe participants ranged from 50-70. Data on their diet was gathered (if I'm remembering correctly) by phone, once a month or so. The study itself was not as bad as it sounds, but it wasn't that great either, but the real icing was seeing the abuse of it's conclusions.
Hell, just drilling into people the basic concepts without the math would probably be a good start.
Though, I stubbornly refuse to adopt typical on-line speak into actual verbal conversation. I cringed the first time I heard someone say "LOL". It didn't seem real, it sounded ominous. Now I hear it fairly frequently, and I'm torn between whether or not I should be an angry pedant or justify it as the evolution of language.
The first three and a half paragraphs sounds like the basis for a decent romantic comedy.
The last half a paragraph just sounds like a bunch of "Get off my lawn" whining.
Sadly, though I am calling you out for it, I'm in a similar situation and tend to feel the same way (in regards to young people, not the bit about dating... I've already given myself over to slaver... I mean marriage).
Space is no different than things like high energy particle physics, the money sunk into them is essentially a long term investment. Business, I would imagine, tends to shy away from really long term investments, probably because people involved would like to be alive when they pay off. Yet in each field, there are many short term pay offs, though these are unpredictable again making them bad investments from a business perspective. That's the thing with science, since we're exploring the unknown, we just don't know what to expect. Some businesses will put money into science with the expectation that they will directly benefit from it, though that is usually a bit more focused, though unexpected things still pop up.
Government is in a good position to push for space, government is not built on short term profits. Unfortunately, government (at least the US government) is built on short term leaders/legislators, so it can be tough to get anywhere with longterm projects unless you've convinced your population that it's necessary, so that they continue to elect representatives who wont muck up those long term plans.
I'd be willing to bet that a push for manned space exploration/permanent mars/lunar bases, etc would have numerous short term benefits from the R&D. I, just like everyone else, just don't know what those are. But that R&D is just as valuable, if not more valuable than just getting more resources. Resources are great and all, we certainly need them. Space is full of them, and one day we will probably need to go get them. I'd rather we work on that problem now before we are in dire circumstances.
Sorry, the above could be fleshed out a bit more, but it's almost my bed time, and I have to work tomorrow =(
I personally have no issue with dying. I know it will happen one day, regardless of what science may come up with. I have my preferred ways I'd like to go, as well as a few ways I don't even want to think about.
That said, I think it would be awesome to be able to live greater than 100, 200 or even 300 years (assuming I'm still fully cognizant and able bodied).
I'm currently in my 30's. The amount of technological change and advancement of scientific knowledge within that short time is absolutely mindblowing to me. I don't want to live longer because I'm afraid of dying, I want to live longer to see what tomorrow will bring.
I understand that I will die one day, nothing lives forever. I understand that I will probably need to die one day as I will probably be more of a burden than anything else at some point. But that doesn't mean I have to want to die, and if science can give me a few extra years where I'm not a burden, then hell, why not?
I had the following conversation with her: "Hi!" "Mom, do you know what time it is here?" "no?" "it's 3am, and I have to get up for work in 3 hours." "oh sorry, when is a good time to call?" "around 7am-9am your time on weekdays" "ok sorry! talk to you soon"
Next day...
"Hi!" "Mom, do you know what time it is here?" "no?" "it's 3am, and I have to get up for work in 3 hours."
You know there is a difference between artwork and technical graphics right?
You can push more polygons at a higher resolution, you can have the best technical engine in the world, but if it's boring and uninspired, then well, it doesn't matter how much AA you've got.
The current testing methodology works the way it does because drugs are illegal, if drugs were legal the tests would need to be geared towards that. I'm not saying someone would need to be tested every time they perform a task either, random tests as a deterrent (or non-random if suspected) would suffice, or possibly even tests only if use at work is suspected. Since drugs are currently illegal, those requiring the test don't need to worry about whether or not someone is currently high, only that someone has used, which is good enough for them. (I'm sure I could spend all day coming up with reasons why many private companies would test, some which I would agree with, and some not
Also, I have the unfortunate experience of knowing too many people who felt it was ok to come to work stoned out of their mind (I work in an industry where impairment can, and has caused people to be injured, even killed) and put not only their own life, but the lives of others around them at risk. While I feel people have the right to privacy and to ingest whatever substances they wish to, that right ends the moment you put someone else at risk, Alcohol use is usually a little easier to detect (doesn't require any sort of equipment to smell it on someones breath), and an individual can be made to submit to a quick test that will give an immediate answer. Testing for other substances is not as simple and depending on the resources available, may take days to weeks to get results, being able to get those
I don't remember if I mentioned it in this thread or another, but though I would prefer if tests were strictly based on if you are currently impaired or not, given current testing methods, that would be unfair to someone who uses responsibly and is just sick. At the same time, If I was an employer, I would not tolerate someone who decided to come to work and drive the company van while voluntarily impaired. If I notice the impairment, and they just happen to be sick, that's one thing. No one chooses to get sick, I might ask that they just go to the doctor first or call in next time instead of coming directly to work. If I suspect the person of being voluntarily impaired, I need to be able to test for it, because I could fire them for their irresponsibilty and without any evidence to support that claim they could easily sue, claiming they were just sick that day (IANAL, so I am making an educated guess on this) and that I wrongfully terminated them. As it is, current testing (at least within my organization) requires extensive checks and verifications to ensure that a sample has not been tampered with and belongs to the person that was tested. Any discrepencies can actually provide grounds for a legal challenge of the result. The validity of these results is taken very seriously, and is open to challenge.
I just can't agree that the purpose for testing is solely on a moral ground or in support of the war on drugs. I'm sure there are those who use, or would use such purposes, but that has nothing to do with the very real need to be able to do so.
I've had x64 win 7 bluescreen on me a few times (3 times the day I bought the laptop, and only twice since then... ~6 months of heavy use). I blame it more on Dell then I do MS. I've never liked dell, but I needed a new laptop immediately and had a limited choice at the store.
I'm not looking for an extreme case. I drink, I know enough not to drink at or before going to work, or getting behind the wheel of a car. I'm fine with someone who wants to enjoy the occasional joint (or other substance) at the proper time and place. I am personally of the opinion that most, if not all drugs should be legalized. Why, because as you said people do it ANYWAY. Which is the same reason we need to be able to test. Granted, it would be better if the tests could determine the time that you ingested, it's certainly unfair to bust someone who is responsible about their use, but the need for testing is still necessary. Or would you prefer we have no way to determine if someone is high as a kite* before they start operating a crane next to your apartment building? (*note that I mean any substance whether it's alcohol, weed, or spray paint).
If you come to work impaired, and it is because you have the flu, and I'm your boss, I'm going to smack you on the head for risking infecting everyone else and not just going straight to the doctor. You had no control over catching the flu, you made a bad decision by coming to the office, but I was able to intervene. The important part of this scenario is that you had no control over it.
If you come to work impaired, and it's because you drank a bottle of scotch, smoked a joint, did a line of coke, etc before coming in to work, and I'm your boss, I'm going to fire you. Why? Because you're obviously irresponsible. You had control over whether or not your judgement would be impaired, and you CHOSE to impair your judgement.
Now if I use just a test of impairment as my metric, I have no way of legally determining whether it's something you had control over or didn't have control over you. If I fire you because you have the flu, you could probably sue me fairly effectively. If I fire you because you were high as a kite, I need evidence otherwise you could just claim a variety of reasons and probably sue me fairly effectively once again.
So yes, I care about why you're impaired, because if you're going to voluntarily impair yourself before or at work once, you're probably going to do it again, and I don't want you working there. Even if you are not directly endangering anyone's life, If I'm paying you for your work and you're incapable of doing that, or even doing it well, then why should I be paying you? If I'm nice and decide to give you a break, I may decide to just dock your pay for a day and send you home, but now everyone else has to pick up the slack for you not being there. Again, that's one thing if you're sick, another if you did it to yourself.
If drug testing was based more on a moral crusade/prohibitionary style approach, I would expect to see government mandated drug testing for everyone. In my experience, I only see private organizations and select government organizations doing it, sometimes as a deterrent (random testing) and sometimes as an investigative tool after the fact.
My own profession relies on random testing as a deterrent, primarily because due to the nature of the job, someone coming to work high, or cognitively impaired after a night of ingesting various substances may get themselves or someone else killed. The penalities for drug use are a bit stiffer than alcohol use, but thats mostly due to federal law. Showing up to work drunk, or even hungover enough to seriously impaired is not likely to go over well (though occasionally this gets swept under the rug, which the drug testing results generally can't be). It would be nice if the tests could tell WHEN you ingested and if you're currently impaired, but unfortunately they can't discriminate in that way (at least not yet). If I decided I'd rather be able to smoke a little weed now and then, I'd just switch professions.
As far as the investigative approach goes, I've been personally tested in that regards due to circumstances surrounding issues I was having in high school. Basically the schools logic was that students who started having lots of problems at school were likely to be using some type of drug. They typically went into a special program where they were tested regularly and able to get away from the main student population for some classes. Other students who used but could cope and retain their standing didn't even get noticed. A company I worked for also tested on a similar premise (granted that company would fire you instead of helping you), basically they didn't test unless they had reason to suspect drug use at work. You could smoke a joint every night after work and they wouldn't care, but if you showed up to work impaired or crazy, you'd be tested.
I've also worked plenty of jobs that don't test. Nor have I ever just been randomly stopped and tested, or had to submit to a test before walking into certain buildings, down certain streets, etc. I'm sure there are some out there who feel it is wrong on a moral level to use drugs, however I don't think that is the majority, and I don't even think they are the majority of politicians either. Some states have started making their laws a little more sane over the past 10 years or so, at least decriminilizing certain substances/amounts.
So you can think of no circumstances where the use of mind-altering substances can have negative consequences? Relaxing with the help of a substance is one thing, relaxing behind the wheel of a car, the controls of an airplane, or before picking up a scalpel is another thing entirely. Even when you tell people it's a bad idea to do stupid things, they may still do them. This is why we have breathalyzers even though the consumption of alcohol is legal.
As far as I'm concerned everyone should have the right to spend their recreation time however they please so long as they don't endanger or infringe on the rights of others.
Most drug testing (at least that I am aware of) has nothing to do with national drug policies, but rather circumstances where the use of drugs would be considered irresponsible. Unfortunately (for those that choose to use illicit substances) some substances are detectable for several days after use, so even if you're responsible about your use you could still end up popping.
As I've stated before, even if drugs were legal, you would still have reason to test for them because irresponsible use can endanger others.
Yes, but if you RTFA you'll see they use your fingerprints as a means of ID'ing the sample. So yes, you could test the sweat from anywhere, but by testing the fingerprint (really fingertip is probably a better word) they can link the results to a unique identifier. In the world of drug testing this is very important as one, people like to try to cheat the tests, two, people could use the test to frame others, and any discrepencies in the process could get the result overturned on legal grounds. (IANAL, however I do administer drug tests on occasion).
Devices to test for drugs aren't necessarily directly for the war on drugs. Alcohol is legal, and yet we have devices to test for that. Even if currently illicit drugs were legalized, there would be need to be able to test for them in a reasonable manner as there are plenty of circumstances where their use would be considered irresponsible.
Slashdot Mirror
eye for one do eye really want to use that meme everyone uses that damn meme eye for one welcome what brain something oh yeah baby why don't eye oh my god what is that alt eff four alt eff four ---- huh what the ---- was that beep there it is again neural interface help contents beep a beep indicates that the automatic profanity filter is currently enabled well we can't have that ---- file setting deselect automatic profanity filter apply fuck fuck fuck fuck okay much better now none of that goddam beeping okay so eye for one welcome our new our new our new eye wonder what the wife is making for dinner tonight tacos maybe or yakitori yakitori would be awesome but so would tacos maybe tako tacos eye wonder if wasbai and guacamole would go well together they are both green foods that are the same color should taste awesome together oh if only that were true well wasabi flavored kit cats are awesome so eye suppose if chocolate and wasabi can go together guacamole and wasabi probably could work something overlords something overlords oh why didn't eye see that earlier the integral on the left side of the integral represents the length of the curve between the origin and ex comma eff of ex while the right side is the distance between the origin and ex comma eff of ex so yeah the left side will always be greater that makes sense cool okay so overlords overlords eye for one welcome our new hands free slashdot user overlords yeah that sounds good stupid meme eye should post that anonymously though okay tab back over to slashdot so eye can
The sad part of this was, when I originally looked at it, I didn't even realize it was 2012 and a full 14 years after 1998... 10 years +/- 20% doesn't sound as bad 10 years +/- 40% ;)
Not to mention the bizarre feeling that 1998 wasn't all that long ago, surely a decade can't have passed yet can it? Dude, that was just like yesterday when I.. meh.
I want a candidate (party doesn't matter) whose only campaign promise, and in fact entire campaign platform is this:
"I will not put up with any BS from those assholes in congress." (Hopefully, the candidate is also sincere about this)
My next major project, is determining what I want out of my congressional campaigns/representatives.
The one with error bars?
A few years ago I was introduced to the movie "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra"
My favorite quote from that movie is "I'm a scientist, I don't believe in anything"
The delivery and context made it seem funny. The more I've thought about it over the years, the more to heart I've taken that quote.
Last January, after having gotten myself into a decent financial place (not to mention having a few extra years of maturity and self-discipline), I finally got started on my university level education, part-time, and in a manner that wont put me in serious debt. I'm a mathematics major, and I take 1 to 2 classes at a time, on-line. My particular school requires several electives that are related to the major (so for mathematics, basically, applied math courses). I choose Intro to Statistics and Into to Macroeconomics.
Though I am knee-deep in calculus, neither of those classes required calculus. They were simple algebra based introductions to the subjects.
I am now of the impression that those two classes should be made mandatory High School courses. Applying those two classes to daily life, primarily in regards to my consumption of "news" has shattered my fucking world. I don't want to say I was some idiot who just believed everything that got put out beforehand (I wasn't). But I now have a good concise framework to deal with crap like this. I suppose this entire post is a bit off-topic, but fuck I am sick of reading studies with such bad methodology get media attention. It almost ineveitably follows that I have to hear about it from someone else, and usually in the form of criticism (sometimes of myself, sometimes of someone else). "Hey, didn't you know that x causes y, scientists said so".
My favorite was an article in Huffington Post awhile back (forgive me for not searching for it and linking to it, it was a long long time ago). The author of the article had quoted a study (or rather, quoted the results of a study as published in an article from another news outlet....) and used that as a means to justify a pro-vegetarian stance (note: I have nothing against HuffPo that I don't have against FoxNews, and I have nothing against vegetarians, I do hate bad science, and the misuse of both good and bad science). Her argument was that eating meat every day (I can't remember if an amount was specified). increases your chances of dying by 30-40% in the next 10 years or something silly like that. Finding that absurd, I decided to go to the original article she was quoting from, as well as the original study. The original study did not include anyone under 50. I believe participants ranged from 50-70. Data on their diet was gathered (if I'm remembering correctly) by phone, once a month or so. The study itself was not as bad as it sounds, but it wasn't that great either, but the real icing was seeing the abuse of it's conclusions.
Hell, just drilling into people the basic concepts without the math would probably be a good start.
ok, enough ranting for now. =/
Sir, I have been doing that for years.
Though, I stubbornly refuse to adopt typical on-line speak into actual verbal conversation. I cringed the first time I heard someone say "LOL". It didn't seem real, it sounded ominous. Now I hear it fairly frequently, and I'm torn between whether or not I should be an angry pedant or justify it as the evolution of language.
The first three and a half paragraphs sounds like the basis for a decent romantic comedy.
The last half a paragraph just sounds like a bunch of "Get off my lawn" whining.
Sadly, though I am calling you out for it, I'm in a similar situation and tend to feel the same way (in regards to young people, not the bit about dating... I've already given myself over to slaver... I mean marriage).
Space is no different than things like high energy particle physics, the money sunk into them is essentially a long term investment. Business, I would imagine, tends to shy away from really long term investments, probably because people involved would like to be alive when they pay off. Yet in each field, there are many short term pay offs, though these are unpredictable again making them bad investments from a business perspective. That's the thing with science, since we're exploring the unknown, we just don't know what to expect. Some businesses will put money into science with the expectation that they will directly benefit from it, though that is usually a bit more focused, though unexpected things still pop up.
Government is in a good position to push for space, government is not built on short term profits. Unfortunately, government (at least the US government) is built on short term leaders/legislators, so it can be tough to get anywhere with longterm projects unless you've convinced your population that it's necessary, so that they continue to elect representatives who wont muck up those long term plans.
I'd be willing to bet that a push for manned space exploration/permanent mars/lunar bases, etc would have numerous short term benefits from the R&D. I, just like everyone else, just don't know what those are. But that R&D is just as valuable, if not more valuable than just getting more resources. Resources are great and all, we certainly need them. Space is full of them, and one day we will probably need to go get them. I'd rather we work on that problem now before we are in dire circumstances.
Sorry, the above could be fleshed out a bit more, but it's almost my bed time, and I have to work tomorrow =(
According the paper (linked in several other comments, and is much more fascinating than the article), the clumps were not the result of flocculation.
I am looking forward to seeing future experiments with other type of single celled organisms.
I need to delete my facebook account. It's bad that I now want to click "like" on various comments here =(
I do the exact same thing (minus the ibuprofen... usually). Then I typically save the "SUPER AWESOME" for when I actually need it.
I personally have no issue with dying. I know it will happen one day, regardless of what science may come up with. I have my preferred ways I'd like to go, as well as a few ways I don't even want to think about.
That said, I think it would be awesome to be able to live greater than 100, 200 or even 300 years (assuming I'm still fully cognizant and able bodied).
I'm currently in my 30's. The amount of technological change and advancement of scientific knowledge within that short time is absolutely mindblowing to me. I don't want to live longer because I'm afraid of dying, I want to live longer to see what tomorrow will bring.
I understand that I will die one day, nothing lives forever. I understand that I will probably need to die one day as I will probably be more of a burden than anything else at some point. But that doesn't mean I have to want to die, and if science can give me a few extra years where I'm not a burden, then hell, why not?
Lousy Smarch weather!
I live in Japan.
My mother lives in New York.
I had the following conversation with her:
"Hi!"
"Mom, do you know what time it is here?"
"no?"
"it's 3am, and I have to get up for work in 3 hours."
"oh sorry, when is a good time to call?"
"around 7am-9am your time on weekdays"
"ok sorry! talk to you soon"
Next day...
"Hi!"
"Mom, do you know what time it is here?"
"no?"
"it's 3am, and I have to get up for work in 3 hours."
She no longer has my phone number.
You know there is a difference between artwork and technical graphics right?
You can push more polygons at a higher resolution, you can have the best technical engine in the world, but if it's boring and uninspired, then well, it doesn't matter how much AA you've got.
The current testing methodology works the way it does because drugs are illegal, if drugs were legal the tests would need to be geared towards that. I'm not saying someone would need to be tested every time they perform a task either, random tests as a deterrent (or non-random if suspected) would suffice, or possibly even tests only if use at work is suspected. Since drugs are currently illegal, those requiring the test don't need to worry about whether or not someone is currently high, only that someone has used, which is good enough for them. (I'm sure I could spend all day coming up with reasons why many private companies would test, some which I would agree with, and some not
Also, I have the unfortunate experience of knowing too many people who felt it was ok to come to work stoned out of their mind (I work in an industry where impairment can, and has caused people to be injured, even killed) and put not only their own life, but the lives of others around them at risk. While I feel people have the right to privacy and to ingest whatever substances they wish to, that right ends the moment you put someone else at risk, Alcohol use is usually a little easier to detect (doesn't require any sort of equipment to smell it on someones breath), and an individual can be made to submit to a quick test that will give an immediate answer. Testing for other substances is not as simple and depending on the resources available, may take days to weeks to get results, being able to get those
I don't remember if I mentioned it in this thread or another, but though I would prefer if tests were strictly based on if you are currently impaired or not, given current testing methods, that would be unfair to someone who uses responsibly and is just sick. At the same time, If I was an employer, I would not tolerate someone who decided to come to work and drive the company van while voluntarily impaired. If I notice the impairment, and they just happen to be sick, that's one thing. No one chooses to get sick, I might ask that they just go to the doctor first or call in next time instead of coming directly to work. If I suspect the person of being voluntarily impaired, I need to be able to test for it, because I could fire them for their irresponsibilty and without any evidence to support that claim they could easily sue, claiming they were just sick that day (IANAL, so I am making an educated guess on this) and that I wrongfully terminated them. As it is, current testing (at least within my organization) requires extensive checks and verifications to ensure that a sample has not been tampered with and belongs to the person that was tested. Any discrepencies can actually provide grounds for a legal challenge of the result. The validity of these results is taken very seriously, and is open to challenge.
I just can't agree that the purpose for testing is solely on a moral ground or in support of the war on drugs. I'm sure there are those who use, or would use such purposes, but that has nothing to do with the very real need to be able to do so.
I've had x64 win 7 bluescreen on me a few times (3 times the day I bought the laptop, and only twice since then... ~6 months of heavy use). I blame it more on Dell then I do MS. I've never liked dell, but I needed a new laptop immediately and had a limited choice at the store.
I'm not looking for an extreme case. I drink, I know enough not to drink at or before going to work, or getting behind the wheel of a car. I'm fine with someone who wants to enjoy the occasional joint (or other substance) at the proper time and place. I am personally of the opinion that most, if not all drugs should be legalized. Why, because as you said people do it ANYWAY. Which is the same reason we need to be able to test. Granted, it would be better if the tests could determine the time that you ingested, it's certainly unfair to bust someone who is responsible about their use, but the need for testing is still necessary. Or would you prefer we have no way to determine if someone is high as a kite* before they start operating a crane next to your apartment building? (*note that I mean any substance whether it's alcohol, weed, or spray paint).
If you come to work impaired, and it is because you have the flu, and I'm your boss, I'm going to smack you on the head for risking infecting everyone else and not just going straight to the doctor. You had no control over catching the flu, you made a bad decision by coming to the office, but I was able to intervene. The important part of this scenario is that you had no control over it.
If you come to work impaired, and it's because you drank a bottle of scotch, smoked a joint, did a line of coke, etc before coming in to work, and I'm your boss, I'm going to fire you. Why? Because you're obviously irresponsible. You had control over whether or not your judgement would be impaired, and you CHOSE to impair your judgement.
Now if I use just a test of impairment as my metric, I have no way of legally determining whether it's something you had control over or didn't have control over you. If I fire you because you have the flu, you could probably sue me fairly effectively. If I fire you because you were high as a kite, I need evidence otherwise you could just claim a variety of reasons and probably sue me fairly effectively once again.
So yes, I care about why you're impaired, because if you're going to voluntarily impair yourself before or at work once, you're probably going to do it again, and I don't want you working there. Even if you are not directly endangering anyone's life, If I'm paying you for your work and you're incapable of doing that, or even doing it well, then why should I be paying you? If I'm nice and decide to give you a break, I may decide to just dock your pay for a day and send you home, but now everyone else has to pick up the slack for you not being there. Again, that's one thing if you're sick, another if you did it to yourself.
If drug testing was based more on a moral crusade/prohibitionary style approach, I would expect to see government mandated drug testing for everyone. In my experience, I only see private organizations and select government organizations doing it, sometimes as a deterrent (random testing) and sometimes as an investigative tool after the fact.
My own profession relies on random testing as a deterrent, primarily because due to the nature of the job, someone coming to work high, or cognitively impaired after a night of ingesting various substances may get themselves or someone else killed. The penalities for drug use are a bit stiffer than alcohol use, but thats mostly due to federal law. Showing up to work drunk, or even hungover enough to seriously impaired is not likely to go over well (though occasionally this gets swept under the rug, which the drug testing results generally can't be). It would be nice if the tests could tell WHEN you ingested and if you're currently impaired, but unfortunately they can't discriminate in that way (at least not yet). If I decided I'd rather be able to smoke a little weed now and then, I'd just switch professions.
As far as the investigative approach goes, I've been personally tested in that regards due to circumstances surrounding issues I was having in high school. Basically the schools logic was that students who started having lots of problems at school were likely to be using some type of drug. They typically went into a special program where they were tested regularly and able to get away from the main student population for some classes. Other students who used but could cope and retain their standing didn't even get noticed. A company I worked for also tested on a similar premise (granted that company would fire you instead of helping you), basically they didn't test unless they had reason to suspect drug use at work. You could smoke a joint every night after work and they wouldn't care, but if you showed up to work impaired or crazy, you'd be tested.
I've also worked plenty of jobs that don't test. Nor have I ever just been randomly stopped and tested, or had to submit to a test before walking into certain buildings, down certain streets, etc. I'm sure there are some out there who feel it is wrong on a moral level to use drugs, however I don't think that is the majority, and I don't even think they are the majority of politicians either. Some states have started making their laws a little more sane over the past 10 years or so, at least decriminilizing certain substances/amounts.
So you can think of no circumstances where the use of mind-altering substances can have negative consequences? Relaxing with the help of a substance is one thing, relaxing behind the wheel of a car, the controls of an airplane, or before picking up a scalpel is another thing entirely. Even when you tell people it's a bad idea to do stupid things, they may still do them. This is why we have breathalyzers even though the consumption of alcohol is legal.
As far as I'm concerned everyone should have the right to spend their recreation time however they please so long as they don't endanger or infringe on the rights of others.
Most drug testing (at least that I am aware of) has nothing to do with national drug policies, but rather circumstances where the use of drugs would be considered irresponsible. Unfortunately (for those that choose to use illicit substances) some substances are detectable for several days after use, so even if you're responsible about your use you could still end up popping.
As I've stated before, even if drugs were legal, you would still have reason to test for them because irresponsible use can endanger others.
Yes, but if you RTFA you'll see they use your fingerprints as a means of ID'ing the sample. So yes, you could test the sweat from anywhere, but by testing the fingerprint (really fingertip is probably a better word) they can link the results to a unique identifier. In the world of drug testing this is very important as one, people like to try to cheat the tests, two, people could use the test to frame others, and any discrepencies in the process could get the result overturned on legal grounds. (IANAL, however I do administer drug tests on occasion).
Devices to test for drugs aren't necessarily directly for the war on drugs. Alcohol is legal, and yet we have devices to test for that. Even if currently illicit drugs were legalized, there would be need to be able to test for them in a reasonable manner as there are plenty of circumstances where their use would be considered irresponsible.