Fill The Cup Yourself Senator

So baseball has gotten tough. They went and got themselves a new steroid policy that will suspend player for 50 games on first positive test, 100 games for a second, and a lifetime, Shoeless Joe and Pete Rose type ban for a third positive steroid test. I know I've written about this before, but I have just a couple of things to say about this.

So why the sudden all the tough drug policy from MLB? Especially one that includes testing for amphetamines, which have been said to be used by well over half of the players in baseball since about the 1950s. Did they finally decide to be a better example to children and get cheating out of baseball? Well no, not exactly. You see, Congress threatened to pass a law that would force all major sports to do random drug testing for steroids and a bunch of other performance-enhancing drugs. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Jim Bunning (R-KY, 224-184, 3.26 ERA over 17 seasons. Elected to Hall Of Fame 1996) had crafted a bill they were about to introduce to the Senate. So baseball got off their asses and did something. Now you may be thinking, "Who cares? A bunch of millionaire athletes have to pee in a cup a few times a season, this doesn't affect me in any way". But beware people, they have caused a precedent here that is very dangerous and very much in line with the way of thinking among these conservative-activist, corporate-shill judges that sit on the Supreme Court (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts) or will sit on the Court (Alito). Now, this time the person who's arm Congress twisted was the brainless and ball-less Bud Selig, so it looks like they won't pass a law to force Major League Baseball and the other sports to do this since Bud groveled like a little girl and did what they told him to do. Let me remind everyone that these sports leagues are private businesses just like GM or Microsoft or every other corporation out there. So what this law was doing was telling an entire private industry that they have to drug test their employees. And remember we are talking about people who throw/hit/catch/kick a ball or puck for a living, not people who fly planes, drive busses or control our nuclear arsenal.

If they had passed the law, there's a good chance that one of the leagues or players' unions would have challenged the law and it would have ended up in front of the Supreme Court. Then what would have happened? Well, we don't for sure. The Supreme Court in the past has allowed businesses the right to drug test their employees, a decision I personally find ludicrous, and has led to things like that asshole owner of Weyco I saw on 60 Minutes a couple of weeks ago who drug tests his employees for nicotine and fires them for testing positive for smoking cigarettes on their own time and away from the office. But this would be a whole different ballgame (nyuk nyuk). This would not be the government telling companies they can drug test, it would be them telling companies they have to drug test. A sane person would think that this is ridiculous and there's no way the law would be upheld. I'd like to think so, but with certain members of this Court this is a completely Constitutional idea. Remember that people like Scalia, Thomas and Alito don't believe there is such a thing as a right to privacy. It is their main argument when saying that Roe v Wade was "improperly decided". In the recent ruling that overturned Texas' (and every other state's) sodomy law, Scalia and Thomas were both in the minority (thank god) in claiming that the law was Constitutional. (This is the case of the two men who were arrested in their own bedroom while having sex. And as it is impossible to make love as a gay man without committing sodomy, they were violating Texas law.) Scalia went so far as to say, in his dissenting opinion, that not only does the government have the right, but they also have a legitimate interest in outlawing anal and oral sex between two consenting adults. Especially homosexual ones. And new Chief Justice Roberts said in his confirmation hearing that he believes there is a right to privacy in the Constitution, but that could be an outright lie just to appease the Democrats on the committee. We won't know the truth about that until his first case involving privacy issues comes up. Once they decide it's OK to do this, other privacy issues are in danger as well.

Even on a practical level, does anyone really want them to be able to do this? If Congress can force drug testing on one business, they won't have to stop there. And do you really want them to make it so your boss just can come up to you at the office and give you a cup to go piss in? I mean, you show up on time, you do your work, you get outstanding reviews from your boss, never call in sick, never made an ass of yourself at the office Christmas party but you still need to be drug tested? You weren't using that pride and dignity anyway, so they'll just take that right off your hands!

And imagine the effect on other industries if they have to fire employees for failed drug tests. There won't be enough philosophy professors left to fill all college positions. Try this little test: Go in to your local indie video store (no drug testing) and start up a conversation with the clerks about who the better director is, Jim Jarmusch or Lars von Trier, or ask them if they have the latest Hal Hartley movie. Then go do the same at Blockbuster (drug testing), and see if they even recognize what language you're speaking. Ask yourself then if video stores would be better off without potheads working there. I think not. And Jesus, what the hell are we going to do with no bike messengers?

You can bet there'll be one job protected from this type of screening: Congressman