POT ARGUMENT DOESN'T CUT IT IN REAL WORLD

Editor:

Re: Addictive marijuana just isn't any ordinary herb, Feedback, the
Observer, Oct. 18.

I'm afraid the usually insightful Cyril Tobin is off the mark in his
latest letter.

It is not, Mr. Tobin, a question of impairment or non-impairment,
fitness or unfitness for a particular task, high-grade marijuana,
low-grade marijuana or alcohol.

Any drug introduced into the human body promotes impairment to one
degree or another.

The question, Mr. Tobin, is: does a prospective employer have the
right to test job applicants for the possibility of debilitating
factors prior to the awarding of employment." On this, Mr. Topham, I
and anyone else possessing clarity of thought are in accord. No.

Once the employer has irrefutable evidence an employee is in fact
working under the influence of a foreign substance, that employer has
the right and the duty, after a reasonable attempt at remediation, to
dismiss the employee. Not before.

This suggests a question only to germane when considering the general
health of society and its constituent members.

If business is prepared to take the ultimate step in regard to a
chronically impaired employee, why is the school system so negligent
in regard to a "pothead" who interferes with a "clean" student's learning?

Why are the "impaired" students not removed from the learning
environment until they are made healthy?

Why are front-line, capable administrators like yourself not trying
to vigorously impress upon the minds of misguided ministry
functionaries, lawyers, judges and psychologists that the present
response to a situation is utterly untenable?

The real world of work and the real world of school are indeed
separated, Mr. Tobin, by what appears to be an unbridgeable chasm.

Brian Charles White

Quesnel