|
Similarities
in the war on Jews and the war on drug users are obvious. An important
difference in strategy can be seen, however, in efforts to produce
Jew-free and drug user-free economies. The Nazi effort included
businesses owned or operated by Jews. In contrast, drug warriors
rarely urge boycott of products or services provided by drug-using
business people. Drug warriors continually warn of threats posed
to society by drug-using workers, but we hear nothing about threats
posed by drug-using business managers or owners. We hear no calls
to boycott a car dealership or grocery store run by someone identified
as a drug user or who employs drug users.
This silence
is revealing. Nazis who made war on Jews and Americans who make
war on drug users seek to transfer jobs and personal property
to citizens who are more "pure" than others. Unlike
Nazis, however, American drug warriors do not seek to alter management
or ownership of the nation’s business structure. Individual employers
may become casualties of friendly fire, but the drug war bombards
workers rather than employers. Such a dichotomy in effort suggests
that the drug war is intended as a tool to give employers more
power over employees; lives. "It is no longer enough to simply
be a productive employee, but one has to be productive in a certain
manner, while living a particular and accepted life style."
Because illicit
drug use is incorrectly assumed to reflect rebellious attitudes
that make an employee hard to discipline, through urine tests
"many managers feel they can infer answers to questions about
workers’ personalities and beliefs that cannot be asked openly
in interviews." Moreover, if an employee can be ordered to
give up an illicit drug in the name of productivity (regardless
of whether off-duty drug use affects job performance), the same
excuse allows an employer to forbid workers to use a licit drug
such as alcohol. Employers can now fire workers if their body
fluids indicate that tobacco has been smoked at home
|
