MatthewB

Except at each step of that chain of causation, you're only talking about probability: not all drug use leads to drug abuse, which doesn't always lead to personal-life disasters, which doesn't always cause a worlds-colliding situation that impacts on workplace performance. If the evidence was that drug use would inevitably cause problems in the work place, that would at least tend to justify preemption. As it is, when that is only true in a percentage of cases -- and when that percentage is heavily debated and may not even be significant, especailly as compared to alcohol -- preemption is unjustified because a percentage of the people punished are currently and will always be innocent of any wrongdoing within the reasonable scope of the employment relationship. FG, sometimes you're so clear & your logic is so pristine that you completely dissipate the haze caused by Spence's pot smoke.

Stone, their website lists an 800 number. Might you call them & report your findings?

Apparently, Polder is HQ'd in New York.

LMAO! (FWIW, my Maverick probes work great.)

And thanks, soba. I need to get my head around all those good recommendations!

Good feedback, sandra. Thanks. (I'm going to do the mushrooms for sure.)

I'm preparing a dinner to take to friends' home on Saturday evening. I don't want to have to do much (if any) cooking there. I'd rather relax with our friends. So . . . I'm pretty much set on Nigella Lawson's recipes that appeared in last week's NYT. However, concerning the pasta primavera. There's no way I'm going to get local fresh fava beans or haricots verts. Should I substitute ingredients? If so, what? Or should I move to a different dish? (As far as the overall dinner, I'm also going to marinade some olives. Any other ideas for starters? Our friends are providing the wine & dessert.) Assistance will be appreciated!

As I was asked & responded on another thread . . . I am not a chef.

I use a knife sharpening thing. (I'm on a brainfart for the proper word.) Diamond steel? Bingo! Thanks, nerissa!

I use a knife sharpening thing. (I'm on a brainfart for the proper word.)

I seem to lack common-sense. Thanks for knocking some sense into me, klink. I'll have to do butterflied birds soon.

Sounds like a feast, Stone! BTW, have you tried "chicken on a throne/beercan chicken" in your WSM yet? I did & it's some of the best chicken I've ever had. But I've not smoked butterflied chicken. I'm wondering about end-result differences between these two approaches.

Yeah, but people go apeshit with little to no warning without coke. Sometimes religion does that to some people.

Pork loin. Make a length-wise hole through the entire loin. Stuff with chopped sage & finely chopped rosemary leaves mixed w/ kosher salt. Insert whole rosemary springs in each end. Wrap in pancetta. Roast.

Good point but different situation. If an employee is so fucked up on the job that they may endanger themselves or someone else, I would have that employee leave for that day/shift. No explanations. My call. Then I would talk with them later.

difference is, I own both the piss and the cup S Assistant opens office door. "Ummmm, Mr. Majumdar, why are you on the back of that sheep?" "I own this sheep. Anyway, can't you see I'm busy? Now shut up, leave, & close the door behind you."

Hell, no. I'm a home cook, at best. Oops, wrong thread.

Again, I submit that the key is "it's impacting your work." Why not simply say, "Your work is not up to par. I don't know the cause of this. But your work *has* to come up to par. If there's any way in which I can help, let me know"?

Wouldn't they be coming in on the back of the sheep?

Looks like the legal angle on "at will" isn't forthcoming at this time. So . . . I'll jump back in. It seems to me that much of the issue here centers on whether or not the employee is doing their job to a level that the employer is content with their performance. Period. This has nothing to do with drugs. If the employee isn't cutting the mustard (bad pun, I know), the employer wants the ability to rid themselves of said employee without incurring a wad of legal costs, etc. What I'm saying is that in the United States--and especially in "at will employment" states--the employer can rid themselves of employees that the employer deems "unproductive" without drug tests. So why bother with drug tests? Drug use is not the issue. Whether an employee is valuable or not is the issue. Some "clean/straight" employees are not valuable. Some "drug-users" are great employees. I submit that we cannot generalize about employees' value based on whether or not they are "users." Edit: FG jumped in while I was writing this. Perhaps I'm being foolish?

Perhaps FG and/or someone else with legal education & experience can answer this . . . How many states have "at will employment" laws? My thinking is that if "at will employment" is commonplace then why even bother with drug testing? An employer can terminate employees with no specific reason.

Food & Wine (July '03) notes that Cornelius Gallagher (Oceana in NYC) is using the Cocktailmaster "to make his foie gras soup layered on top of chilled mango juice." This device supposedly (I've never seen one) "separates liquids of different densities." Anyone have any experience with this product? If so, comments, etc.?

Well, we had a cat. Seriously, I feel we were lucky, as it never got to be severe abuse, but it ws certainly the lifestyle, some of the habits etc that were expressed by many on this thread... and I think its important to point out how the lifestyle affects the person ( and their families) as a whole, not just the person as a cook. Thanks, Kim. I was attempting (perhaps poorly) to help keep this thread on track by encouraging specific personal references rather than generalizations. Best.

Thank goodness there are no generalizations here. that was just and example matthew, no? and i don't think that it's a very far-fetched one either. Perhaps. Perhaps not. We might need to commisson some sociologists and/or anthropologists. How's the eGullet Research Foundation coming along? Speaking for oneself is quite different than creating examples about others.

Thank goodness there are no generalizations here.