Common sense is SOOOO overrated!

By Joseph Walther

Whenever I hear the term, “common” sense, I become nervous. It is one of the most overused terms in the history of the human race. Still, people who use it are very sincere about it. While it’s a relatively harmless term much of the time, we still should use some degree of caution before we call something “common sense.”

First, “common” sense, if the term applies at all, can only exist when we’re all on the same page. So defining terms is critical prior to calling something “common” sense. Second, we should never forget that the term is time-relevant.

If we violate the former condition, we may end up arguing for hours over unrelated matters and end up looking foolish. If we violate the latter condition, we show a serious lack of historical perceptive.

Writers do a lot of watching and listening. I know that I do, anyway. I never leave my residence without two things: my digital voice recorder and my 2-megapixil camera/cell-phone.

I rarely have to drive more than two miles before potential column fodder begins to smash into the windshield of my two-seater sports car! Shopping malls and courtrooms, on the other hand, provide a literally inexhaustible supply of story-line ammunition.

Last Tuesday, after concluding a meeting in one of the Superior Court conference rooms, I walked down the five flights of stairs to the cafeteria for a cup of coffee. As I sat at a table drinking it, I could not help but overhear a heated discussion among five people seated at the table to my right.

From what I was hearing, it became obvious that two of the men at that table had tested positive to a drug test administered by their employer—the State of Delaware. State agencies can do this for cause and fire those testing positive.

Apparently, they were awaiting a preliminary hearing to determine if a wrongful termination lawsuit would go forward. This confused me because, where the State of Delaware is concerned, such matters do not go to court.

These matters go to arbitration. The arbiter’s ruling is final! What surprised me was that, apparently, a Delaware attorney agreed to take such a case. Poor guy! He’ll likely be experiencing severe rectal bleeding when the judge is though with him.

Anyway, the crux of their argument was that drug testing constituted a privacy invasion and that it never constitutes proof of diminished job performance. In their minds, “common” sense dictated an impending victory against the state.

The other three, a man and two women voiced differing opinions. Lyle defended employers’ rights to test for illegal drug use. He based his position on the legal principle of Joint and Several Liability.

He argued that employers have an obligation to provide drug-free work environments in the interests of employee safety, as well as that of the general public while engaged in business with various state entities.

Then, the old “common” sense thingy reared its often irrelevant head, AGAIN. Pat, one of the women, said, “Drug testing proves nothing in terms of job performance.”

The other woman, Nora, rolling her eyes and oozing condescension all the table, chimed in with, “It’s simple common sense that random drug tests do NOT test for diminished mental capacity or diminished physical dexterity.”

“Walther,” I said to myself, “stay out of this!” I did and I’m proud of myself. Just the same, I’m going to let you folks in on something here.

These two men were not fired for diminished job performance. The State fired them for testing positive to using illegal drugs. Illegal drug use is a CRIME, whether it causes diminished job performance or not.

The sole purpose of drug testing, random or specifically directed for cause, is to detect illegal drug use. As long as it’s done properly, it accomplishes its goal and enjoys the support of the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals.

On Saturday afternoon, another hot button topic reared its ugly head: government-sponsored needle exchange programs for intravenous drug addicts. A poster broached the subject in a discussion forum at www.talkdelaware.com.

I enjoy Talk Delaware because the moderators keep the discussions civil and devoid of personal attacks. This topic was no different.

The views were varied. Some posters agreed with needle exchange programs but felt that public money should not fund them. Others disagreed with the programs on moral principles.

We can debate whether or not needle exchange programs work. However, everyone involved must first understand the purpose of the programs.

People can’t use a “common” sense argument to declare programmatic failure without first understanding a program’s success criteria.

Those who argue that such programs should be discontinued because “common” sense dictates that they do nothing to instill a sense of responsibility in addicts; enable even more illegal drug activity; and are ineffective at getting people off of drugs, can never win the point based on “common” sense.

Needle exchange programs have a single and directly stated goal: prevent the spread of disease. These programs have never claimed any impact on addiction reversal or accepting personal responsibility. So we can’t use such arguments in efficacy evaluations.

On the other hand, the CDC (Center for Disease Control) and the World Health Organization enthusiastically endorse such programs and they have ample data to show that they have been effective in their stated purpose: preventing the spread of disease.

I also disagree with the argument against using tax dollars to fund the program. One of the primary responsibilities of a central government is to stem the spread of disease, regardless of source.

Needle exchange programs have proved themselves as relatively inexpensive and highly effective at doing this. I think that such programs exemplify tax dollars wisely spent.

The argument that such programs fail to instill a sense of personal responsibility in addicts is also nonsense. Drug addicts do not have any such sense; otherwise they wouldn’t be drug addicts.

I certainly agree that a society can neither condone nor overlook addiction-oriented crimes. At some point, some addicts prove that they’re not likely to succeed at rehabilitative efforts and we need to draw the line at some point. But this has nothing to do with needle exchange efforts.

People, drug addicts or otherwise, are going to survive using whichever means they perceive that they need. Addicts run the gamut from teenagers to well-dressed articulate professionals to obvious rotten toothed, dirty, smelly washouts who inhabit skid row.

They all have some things in common, though. They’re going to get their fix with or without clean needles. They’re as likely as the rest of us to engage in sexual activity if an opportunity presents itself.

Since many are married, living in monogamous relationships, needle sharing plays a dominate role in spreading disease to innocent third parties, especially the unborn. Needle exchange programs reduce this and they do so very effectively.

I stated above that common sense is time relevant. At various points during human evolutionary history, everyone “knew” that the Earth was flat. It was “common” sense. The human race “knew” that our planet was the center of the universe. It was “common” sense.

The best minds of our species “knew” that the planets were attached to crystal spheres. It was, after all, the only “common” sense explanation for planetary movement, both daily and over longer periods of time.

These people were not “off the wall kooks. They were well-respected, highly educated people. They based their “common” sense on the existing state of scientific discovery.

The point is that the list of what people “knew” has always seemed endless. This tradition continues today, still under the guise of “common” sense.

We’d do well to remember that it does not require an inordinate amount of intellectual capacity to “know.” However, it takes a great amount of effort to “understand.”

Likewise, the greater our understanding becomes, the MORE we come to realize that we no longer “know” what “common” sense always assured us that we “knew.” So, take “common” sense with a grain of salt.

Let me leave you with this thought. I’ve been wearing eye glasses since I was twelve-years-old. I’m sixty-five years old now and my eyesight has gradually diminished to being one step removed from requiring a dog and a cane.

Is this age related? Or is it, as well-established Catholic “common” sense has always dictated, irrefutable evidence of masturbatory abuse? If it’s the latter, there are far worse ways to go blind, “common” sense notwithstanding.

Next week… see you then.

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.