Drug testing for Society auditors

mloc

What do you think, should society auditors who have to deal with significant amounts of college funds (with, to be honest, no transparency) be tested for drugs?

Red Alert

don't see why not - at least out of curioscity anyway

valor

do sabbats get tested?

ferdi

oh my god...lol :rolleyes:

make the system more transparent rather than invading the privicy of private induviduals maybe?

18AD

Drug tests for those who want them.
No drug tests for those who don't.

Red Alert

The sabatts... why not?

Dontico

sounds like a dumb idea.
why not random drug tests for all students?

humbert

The lack of transparency is a problem but drugs have sod all to do with it.

As if somehow the greatest likelihood of misappropriation of funds comes from auditors supporting their drug habit.

Stepherunie

See you could do it - but how could you prove that they used society money to pay for it, I'm presuming that that's what you're implying with the question considering you mention the large amount of money involved.... Wouldn't work.

elmyra

Isn't this why there's a finance committee who see the accounts? An agm at the end of the year when they have to account for everything? As if drug testing would prove shady dealing...if it's happening it's probably not just among people who are off their biscuit. There's no correlation between being a dodgy auditor and a crack head. If you think there's a lack of transparency then look for transparency in the areas where it's needed maybe with more stringent checks on where money is spent.

Yes, I'd be one of the people who voted no.

mloc

a lot of valid points made, I was just curious more than anything else.

I certainly think SU money should be accounted for down to the last cent, and available for every member (e.g. every student) to view.

Scraggs

mloc wrote:

I certainly think SU money should be accounted for down to the last cent, and available for every member (e.g. every student) to view.

QFT

pretty*monster

Gross invasion on privacy.

And society money is accounted for down to the last cent. Treasures can be spotted this time of year doing the pre-AGM accounts, hauling folders of recipts around with them, totting up how much WhateverSoc spent of sellotape this year. The Society officer can ask to view your accounts at anytime afaik, and they have to be submitted before you recieve your grant.

And anyway, drug testing would cost precious student money.

mloc

pretty*monster wrote:

The Society officer can ask to view your accounts at anytime afaik, and they have to be submitted before you recieve your grant.

Hehe the society's officer, ah now... let's be realistic here, you might as well have Robert Mugabe looking at them.

Sangre

And why don't we randomly search their houses in case they keep some of their ill-gotten booty there?

Its so simple!

pretty*monster

mloc wrote:

Hehe the society's officer, ah now... let's be realistic here, you might as well have Robert Mugabe looking at them.

Em... no, Butler won't be getting my vote for man of the year, but lets not go over board in our condemnation of him. An awful lot of the criticism Butler recieves is for being a hard-ass after all. Fact is that if your accounts don't check out when the finance committee meets there's gonna be trouble.

Also every society has a serious treasurer who is the a signatory on their bank account.

Ok, if you're still suspicious about the accounts of any society you can toddle on down to their AGM and sit though the horrifying boredom that is the treasurers presentation of the accounts.

If you don't think that all this is good enough, by all means suggest ways to improve accountability.
But drug testing, really?

Red Alert

Butler is a self-serving psycophant who is interesting in staying 'in' with the usual suspect societies. He is one of the various cancers on the UCD org chart, and a long-term position as opposed to a year appointment is a problem with the position itself. He will not do anything to upset big socs.

Drug Testing is certainly not out of the question. There's a certain paradox though: the right to lawfully do whatever you want in your spare time vs the ability to do your job being impacted by drug use. This has come up a lot with blogging in the US. Now the problem here is that drug use is illegal, at least the possesion of them prior to and during usage is. How would we treat a sabbat who robbed a bank?

AngelofFire

This thread brings George Orwell's 1984 to mind.

As a society Auditor i say no, im not a drug user but its not the college's business to investigate what substances are in the bodies of their students. Whether are not society auditoris are taking drugs is a matter between them and the law of this land, it is not the business nor the right of the University to screen students for drugs.

Red Alert

So for example should the college employ a known paedophile considering that all students will be over the age of 17 and it won't be their problem? Both are illegal.

Sangre

Its not illegal to 'be' a paedophile.

dajaffa

Red Alert wrote:

So for example should the college employ a known paedophile considering that all students will be over the age of 17 and it won't be their problem? Both are illegal.

The nature of the crimes are so far removed from each other I don't know where to begin, I think everyone knows the seriousness of paedophilia and comapring that to an individual (aka not someone dealing etc) who takes drugs is akin to comparing stealing a bar from a vending machine to manslaughter (I'm assuming you mean a convicted paedophile).

Auditors are unpaid volunteers essentially. They are elected individuals and there are specific mechanisms to remove them, that an auditor takes drugs does not necessarily make them unfit for office. If drugs affect their job then yes remove them, but given the ethical questions surrounding testing employees, I can't see how it could be justified to testing volunteers.

Sangre

What about auditors who occassionally visit their relatives in Amsterdam and partake in some fun, wholesome legal activities?

fatal

who the **** is UCD to drug test anyone when they dont even have the slightest bit of suspicion that he/she is taking drugs?
As long as he/she is doing what he/she is supposed to be doing who cares what they do in their free time?

Dontico

its actually not illegal to take drugs. itsd illegal to be in possesion of drugs. there is a difference.

snickerpuss

Eh no?
Why would it matter? I can't really see any major reason.

Sangre

Red Alert wrote:

So for example should the college employ a known paedophile considering that all students will be over the age of 17 and it won't be their problem? Both are illegal.

You do realise such ridiculous comparison only serve to highlight how weak your arguement is.

I think paedophilia is the new and improved Godwin's law.

Red Alert

I made the point for illustrative purposes. It's neither illegal to be a drug user or paedophile, however gaining possession of the drugs with intent to take them is illegal.

Sangre

Actually, your 'illustrative point' was ridiculouslydeceptive and highlighted nothing.. The comparisons you were making were so far removed as to be laughable. Since when is random drug testings equivalent to employing convicted paedos? An actual, valid comparison would be comparing random blood tests to randomly searching people's houses to find kiddie porn.

Dave!

I really really don't see what drug testing would achieve..... If they're spending SU money, they're spending SU money -- it doesn't make a difference what they're spending it on, does it? (once it's not being spent for SU purposes of course)

Is it okay for someone to buy themselves some new shoes with your money, just not a bit of weed? What's the problem, that they're spending your money or that they're doing something illegal?

As someone mentioned, it needs to be transparent, that's about it.

Het-Field

AngelofFire wrote:

This thread brings George Orwell's 1984 to mind.

As a society Auditor i say no, im not a drug user but its not the college's business to investigate what substances are in the bodies of their students. Whether are not society auditoris are taking drugs is a matter between them and the law of this land, it is not the business nor the right of the University to screen students for drugs.

Although we may run societies which are poles apart. Labour Youth V Young PD'S, I would totally agree with you. It has been discovered that even poppy seeds can cause one to fail a drug test. I doubt drugs are more or less likely to cause one to imbezzle funds

AngelofFire

Red Alert wrote:

So for example should the college employ a known paedophile considering that all students will be over the age of 17 and it won't be their problem? Both are illegal.

No if the Law of the Land is being enforced then the paedophile will be behind bars and therefore not looking for a job in UCD.

Sangre

paedos are imprisoned forever?

mloc

Sangre wrote:

paedos are imprisoned forever?

Only on the inside.

DemonOfTheFall

Sangre wrote:

I think paedophilia is the new and improved Godwin's law.

QFT. It's hilarious how many people say paedophilia when they mean child molesting as well.

Pythia

Wow, where did this idea come from? There's no way I'd even think of using my society's funds for my own personal uses, let alone for drugs.

Dontico

Red Alert wrote:

I made the point for illustrative purposes. It's neither illegal to be a drug user or paedophile, however gaining possession of the drugs with intent to take them is illegal.

intent to take isnt illegal. intent to sell is.

mloc

Dontico wrote:

intent to take isnt illegal. intent to sell is.

you can't take them without being in possession of them... hence illegal. I suppose you could theoretically have taken them without your knowledge, but in general having taken drugs would be a good indicator of having been in possession of them.

Het-Field

mloc wrote:

Only on the inside.

Mabye its time to flog em

Blush_01

Someone has too much time on his hands and should be studying more and worrying less about whether or not auditors are drug users. I know auditors from many different societies (and was one myself in the past) and whatever actions they perform personally - with regard to anything - does not necessarily impact on their job as an auditor. You can be the auditor of a society and be off your face all day every day and never touch a cent of society funds in order to finance your actions. Likewise you can be an auditor and never touch drugs but treat society funds as an extension of your own cash.

I have known one auditor ever, in my 4 years here to be the latter and he got hauled over the coals for it. There's definitely more than one of the former, and I have yet to see them ever have a problem.

Do we not have enough pressure on auditors who give up their own time freely without accusing them of embezzling funds with no grounds other than their own personal choice when it comes to intoxicating and narcotic substances? That's a gross invasion of that person's privacy and it is really none of anybody's business.

Question: what if the auditor of a society was on high levels of medication to treat an illness etc. Would they fail? Why should their personal circumstances (given that they have never impacted on their performance as an auditor) be made public unless they want them to?

Question #2: Why is this being suggested of society auditors and not of Sabbats, OP? Auditors are not hired by the SU. Sabbats are. Why should their drug habits or lack thereof be inconsequential when they also deal with SU money (and a lot more of it than an individual society) despite the fact that they're being paid to do the job in the first place and are therefore employees of the students?

I find your curiosity misplaced and frankly disturbing in its acuteness.

mloc

Blush_01 wrote:

Question: what if the auditor of a society was on high levels of medication to treat an illness etc. Would they fail? Why should their personal circumstances (given that they have never impacted on their performance as an auditor) be made public unless they want them to?

Question #2: Why is this being suggested of society auditors and not of Sabbats, OP? Auditors are not hired by the SU. Sabbats are. Why should their drug habits or lack thereof be inconsequential when they also deal with SU money (and a lot more of it than an individual society) despite the fact that they're being paid to do the job in the first place and are therefore employees of the students?

I find your curiosity misplaced and frankly disturbing in its acuteness.

Answer 1: Drug testing has been around a while now and for most illicit substances false positives generally do not show up when an individual has taken non-illicit medication.

Answer 2: I am suggesting auditors out of curiosity, sure why not sabbats too.

I wouldn't be so easily disturbed, those in positions of responsibility must be accountable and total transparency must be adhered to. If they have nothing untoward to hide, there should be no problems.

I'm not suggesting the results of these drug tests should make it past the societies officer, either. A real societies officer that is. Not the joke of system we have in place at the moment.

pretty*monster

mloc wrote:

I wouldn't be so easily disturbed, those in positions of responsibility must be accountable and total transparency must be adhered to. If they have nothing untoward to hide, there should be no problems.

Why do you think that a positive result of a drug test would give any grounds to suggest an auditor had misused society fund? As I have detailed already, society funds are already looked over quite thoroughly externally (not to mention the fact that any auditor intent on embezzlement would almost certainly need at least one another senior committee member in on the scam).

Lets be honest, a good number of students have used drugs, it doesn't necessarily make them thieves. And not taking drugs doesn't necessarily mean you're squeaky clean either.
You'd pretty much be solving the wrong problem, not to mention raising a whole host of serious ethical problems.

Sangre

mloc wrote:

I wouldn't be so easily disturbed, those in positions of responsibility must be accountable and total transparency must be adhered to. If they have nothing untoward to hide, there should be no problems.

What a ridiculous justification for the grossest of privacy violations. Not only is it grossly intrusive it is a form of assault if done without permission.

If the world's legal systems took your attitude we'd have random strip searches, drug tests and house searches. Why need a warrant if you've nothing to hide?

You've also completely failed to point out how a positive drugs tests has ANY correlation to misuse of societies funds. A drug user is now automatically a thief? You're living in a dream world if you don't think the vast majority of student have done or are doing drugs. It rarely impedes their professional or educational duties.

cast_iron

Dontico wrote:

intent to take isnt illegal. intent to sell is.

First off, nobody missed the first time you said it, but clearly you are looking for a response, so I will oblige by telling you how wrong you are (again).

In certain circumstances, it is illegal to have consumed drugs. Take driving whilst having illegal drugs in your bloodstream. The offence is having the drugs in your system (not having possessed them 3 hours earlier). Also, as someone said, there is a fundamental implied logic that one possessed them to consume them.

As to the OP, has to be one of the most ridiculous ideas I've seen in a while. Please point out the correlation between taking drugs and misappropriating college funds. If you can't, then stop posting more tripe.
So, the Bursar, Head of Sport/Societies and everyone else that decides how money is divided out around college should be tested also?

You've further demonstrated how ridiculous the question is with the stupidity of the poll answer choices. The question implies that some illegal drugs are okay to take, but other illegal drugs aren't!
Yes, the law is an ass, but I think you've demonstrated that you aren't much better.

Sangre

How could you prove intent to take anyway?

'your honour, i believe the defendant felt like getting stoned'

mloc

Sangre wrote:

How could you prove intent to take anyway?

'your honour, i believe the defendant felt like getting stoned'

lol, quite true.

I wasn't blaming anyone for anything, I was just curious of people's opinions.

melekalikimaka

your all druggies in my book ucd riffraff, all doped up on your smack and whatnot

The_Minister

LOL. I go away for the weekend, I come back and
1. You've turned this place into an Orwellian nightmare
2. B&L are now trying to run all the societies
3. all the candidates for the executives have changed again.

passive

The_Minister LOL. I go away for the weekend, I come back and
1. You've turned this place into an Orwellian nightmare
2. B&L are now trying to run all the societies
3. all the candidates for the executives have changed again.

they've been missing your controversial figure. whip them back into shape! I'll stay in the background and make occasional witty quips...

Blush_01

While passing around the cheap vodka and dancing under the stars? You leave one hippy commune and come home to find the internet is headed the same way.

Dontico

mloc wrote:

you can't take them without being in possession of them... hence illegal. I suppose you could theoretically have taken them without your knowledge, but in general having taken drugs would be a good indicator of having been in possession of them.

that may make sence but it still isnt the law. if you catch someone with a big bag of E, you then have evidenc ethat they did indeed have possesion. my understanding of the law that it only takes a little bit of E to considered intent to sell.
if someone sees you taking E. the evidence is destroyed cause its in your stomach.

also like to point out in the case of weed. you can have a certain amount of weed and not be arrested for it, cause a very small amount wouldnt be considered intent to sell.

also if taking drugs was illegal, it would make rehabs very hard to run.

Dontico

cast_iron wrote:

In certain circumstances, it is illegal to have consumed drugs. Take driving whilst having illegal drugs in your bloodstream. The offence is having the drugs in your system (not having possessed them 3 hours earlier). Also, as someone said, there is a fundamental implied logic that one possessed them to consume them.

its also illegeal to drink and drive. but i wont be arrested for owning a create of beer in my house.