+
OPINION
4
FREE-FOR-ALL »
WE HEAR FROM YOU
KANSAN.COM | MONDAY, SEPT. 28, 2015
Text your #FFA submissions to 785-289-UDK1 (8351)
I have two discussion questions for each reading. I have 3 readings. #fml #IsFMLstillathing?
Really regretting drinking this large tea before bed...
Spent my Friday night doing laundry and checking my credit score. How turnt did you get?
Stop oak mites 2k15
I don't know why everyone hates on parking. I've never gotten a ticket nor have I ever had a problem with parking.
Who changed the channel to Fox News? I'm gonna punch them.
Instead of playing the video games I just watch all the cutscenes on YouTube.
Tattoos aren't looked down upon in the professional workplace because they're considered offensive, but because they indicate that you're impulsive and defiant
Hey Liz Romme, you make everyone's day better.)
To the girl who said she liked my shirt on J-bouievard. Sorry! I didn't ignore you. My brain didn't register until you were gone. You were cute
Walking from Sunnyside to Jayhawk Blvd. Feel the burn!
This girl has the fakest laugh I've ever heard in my entire life.
NBA 2k16 lowkey sucks...
I'm overworked and smell like gravy
I've been artificially awake this semester
According to Klout
I'm an expert in Kevin
Hart #wut
How Can Mirrors Be Real If Our Eyes Aren't Real
READ MORE FFAS AT KANSAN.COM
Pro/con: Should workplaces mandate drug tests for their employees or not?
JESSICA GOMEZ
@jessicataylurr
PRO
Before starting a new job, there are several different concerns that are bound to eventually cross someone's mind. Coworkers, office space, and a new boss are all things one would be worried about. But recently, another issue people are running into is whether or not they will be drug tested.
There have been spikes in positive drug tests within the country in recent years. A study of 7.6 million urine drug tests had a 3.7 percent positive rate in 2013, according to an article on Business News Daily. In 2012, it was 3.5 percent. That's a five percent increase, and the first increase in failed drug tests in a decade.
Although mariuana has become legal in more states throughout the country, it is still important for businesses to drug test their employees. A lot of people are
against this, but it's not to discriminate or criminalize potential employees. Testing for illicit drugs needs to be done in businesses because it helps create a safe, healthy and productive working environment for all employees.
It's important to feel safe and be in a healthy environment on the job. Despite popular belief, marijuana does have negative effects that could potentially hurt an individual's work. Whether it's short-term or long-term, drug use could impair memory, judgement, motor coordination and critical thinking according to research.
Some may say that drug testing costs the country a lot of money, but so do drug users within the company. Drug abuse can cost employers about $81 billion each year according to the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence (NCADD). Many businesses that have employees who test positive are able to give that person help, in
whatever form they may need.
The NCADD started a program called the Employee Assistance Program, where companies will help their employee and family by finding services and resources within the community that give them treatment. Companies who have successful EAP's show improvement in moral, productivity and health.
Drug testing isn't for criminalizing drug users, it's only to create a work-friendly environment. Businesses want workers who will be productive each shift and benefit the company. These tests benefit the economy and people, its purpose is not to single people out.
Jessica Gomez is a senior from Baldwin City studying journalism and global studies.
ROSS LUBRATOVIC
@RossTheBoss93
CON
For many students, college goes hand in hand with having a job, and many will run into trouble with their employer's drug-use policies. Employer mandated drug testing is a necessary part of running a business, but current drug-use policies within the work place need to be reevaluated.
A recent study showed that just under six percent of the full-time college students surveyed had smoked marijuana daily or at least 20 times in the last month, with 21 percent admitting they had smoked at least once in the same time period. Marijuana use is becoming more socially acceptable, and even being legalized for recreational use in many states.
Therefore other laws and policies regarding marijuana use and other drugs need to be updated to follow this trend.
Zero-tolerance policies in regards to marijuana use are outdated and impractical, mainly because trace amounts of marijuana can be detected in urine up to two or even three weeks after use in some cases. Smoking outside of work should not lead to an employee getting fired, but because marijuana tends to linger in the body, it can also be difficult to determine whether an employee is inebriated at the time of the incident.
If an employee is found to be under the influence while on the job, the employer should have the right to act how they see fit, but there is no point in punishing employees simply because of what they do in their free time. Along with marijuana use, employers should adopt this attitude towards recreational drug use in general.
Most Americans tend to think that drug use should be treated as a criminal matter, when instead it should be treated as a health issue.
A handful of countries around the world have implemented more liberal laws regarding drug offenses, with Portugal even taking the bold step to decriminalize possession of all drugs.
These changes have proved to be more beneficial than originally thought, resulting in lower crime rates and even lowering the rate of drug addiction in some areas.
Changes of this nature in America are a long way off, but the attitude toward drug use in general is evolving and work place drug policies need to evolve with it. Drug testing in the work place should still be mandatory in certain situations, but there needs to be more leeway given to employees to avoid unjust punishment or firings.
Ross Lubratovic is a senior from Overland Park studying creative writing.
The United States healthcare system needs to change before another 5,000 percent drug price hike happens again
ABBY PETRULIS
@apetrulis
by this point, we've all heard about the overnight price hike of Daraprim by Turing Pharmaceuticals chief executive Martin Shkrel. While most of us can agree that increasing the cost of an old drug to more than 55 times of what it was the day before is more than a little insane, many people are wondering how this could even happen. In fact, it's become a political issue — what do we need to change about the cost of healthcare in America?
Isn't it an old drug?
Why aren't there
personal variations?
genetic versions. Drug companies have about 20 years on a patent for a new drug that is submitted for approval by the Food and Drug Administration under a new drug application. However, the patents are typically filed as the drugs are entered into clinical trials, which can take the better part of a decade.
As soon as that patent is
companies can do? The short answer is no. Along with being one of two countries in the developed world to allow direct-to-consumer advertising, the U.S. is also one of the only countries that allows pharmaceutical companies to set their prices by comparing them to other pharmaceutical companies, rather than going through a federal negotiation program.
Isn't there a limit on what pharmaceutical
@KANSANNEWS
/THEKANSAN
However, the pharmaceutical industry is growing and changing all the time to the point that these companies can almost end up with a monopoly on a certain drug, especially if it's older and still considered one of the most effective treatment options.
expired, other companies can submit their generic versions for speedy approval by the FDA. That process is designed to get generics on the market as fast as possible.
Daraprim isn't the first drug to have this happen, and unless something changes, it certainly won't be the last.
I don't think controlling prices entirely will fix the problem — in fact, I think it will slow our progress as one of the most innovative countries in drug development. I do, however, think instituting programs to allow Medicare to negotiate would be a good
This is one of Bernie Sanders's specific platforms. Hillary Clinton has also spoken out on the issue; she wants to cap American out-of-pocket pharmacy spending at $250 monthly. While these are some specific examples, I don't mean to endorse any specific party, as healthcare is an issue that we all should take great interest in.
idea. It would not only save some money in the federal budget that could fund other programs, but would give a system of partial control.
UNIVERSITY
DAILYKANSAN
As college students, it's easy to forget that we will age. One day we will be Medicare patients. Healthcare is an issue that has become political, but it is necessary that action be taken to improve the quality and reduce the cost of drugs and healthcare in the U.S.
That is a large part of why drugs like Daraprim, or even chemotherapy, are much more expensive in the U.S.
In the U.S., that kind of federal negotiation program doesn't exist. In fact, Medicare, which is for senior citizens, is required to accept prices set by these companies. No negotiator, is allowed between the government-run insurance program with more than 49 million people and pharmaceutical companies.
If we were to introduce a federal negotiation system for Medicare, it could potentially save millions of dollars. The free market system we have in the U.S. is great in most cases — in fact, one could argue it's the entire basis of the American business model.
What can we do? Healthcare in America is a big problem, especially when we spend the highest amount of money per person per year on prescription drugs (somewhere around $1,000). It's important to take a stand for what you believe in and make this a political issue, regardless of party. That's how we can change and allow some more control over pharmaceutical companies.
But there are extremes, like raising the cost of a drug more than 5,000 percent in one night. I understand the necessity of recouping costs,
Abby is a senior in her second year of pharmacy school.
especially to further drug development, but fast cash at the price of making people suffer without a drug they could afford yesterday is unacceptable.
What can we do?
HOW TO SUBMIT A LETTER TO THE EDITOR
LETTER GUIDELINES: Send letters to editor@kansan.com.
Write LETTER TO THE EDITOR in the email subject line.
Length 300 words
The submission should include the author's name, year, major and hometown. Find our full letter to the editor policy online at kansan.com/letters
CONTACT US
Katie Kutso
Editor-in-chief
kkutsko@kansan.com
Emily Stewart
Emily Stewart Advertising director estewart@kansan.com
THE KANSAN EDITORIAL BOARD
Members of the Kansan Editorial Board are Katie Kutsko, Emma LeGault, Emily Stewart and Anissa Fritz.
+