Should pre-employment drug testing be legal?

[undeterred]

Poll question: Should pre-employment drug testing be legal?

Its increasingly common that in order to be employed you have to pass a drug screen. And what does a drug screen do? It tells whether or not someone has used drugs within a given length of time:

Drug Detection Time
Alcohol 6–24 hours
Amphetamines 2–3 days
Barbituates 1 day to 3 weeks
Benzodiazepines 3–7 days
Cocaine 2–5 days
Codeine 3–5 days
Euphorics (MDMA, Ecstasy) 1–3 days
LSD 1-4 days
Marijuana (THC) 7–30 days
Methadone 3–5 days
Methaqualone 14 days
Opiates 1-4 days
Phencyclidine (PCP) 2–4 days
Steroids (anabolic) 14–30 days

Is it reasonable for a potential employer to discriminate on this basis or should it be illegal?

[LynzM]

1. Possibly only in certain cases.

If you operate heavy machinery or drive other people around, I think it might be reasonable.

Other than that, if you can do your job, I don't think it should matter what you do on your own time. If you can't do your job, that should speak for itself.

[JuniperLea]

14. I agree...

Pilots, bus drivers, heavy machinery operators, etc. Otherwise, only if it's suspected you can't do your job because of drug use. Actually, not even then now that I think about it. The person should be fired if they can't do their job, period, for whatever reason.

I just talked myself out of any reason other than the transportation/machinery reason.

[Fumesucker]

19. Yes, the only people with responsible positions

Who should not consume "drugs" are peons who operate machinery or drive for a living.

Everyone else can just get fucked up to the max and no one cares..

Come to think of it, that's as good an explanation for what happened on Wall Street in the last decade or two..

How's that working out for us?

[LynzM]

24. Ok, well, how do you think it should work?

I think it should be more of a concern when other people's safety is at risk. Do you think that's not a valid concern? I'm all about letting people have personal freedom, up to the point where they might injure others. Go ahead and get smashed, but don't get on the road where you might injure or kill other people, right?

I know people who are completely functional stoners, and people who are dysfunctional on 'legal' drugs.

[Fumesucker]

33. Start at the top... Congress, the CEOs

If anyone gets tested *everyone* should get tested..

Not gonna happen.

[XemaSab]

194. If I got to my desk job hungover or still stoned from last night's party

nobody is going to get hurt. Productivity will suffer, but nobody will die.

If I go to my job as a crane operator and I can't see straight, a lot of people could die.

Do you understand the difference?

[Waiting For Everyman]

157. I agree too.

Otherwise, a criminal record background check is enough.

[Warpy]

2. The problem is that the tests don't quantify the drugs

or even distinguish between many drugs in the same family. There are also quite a few false positives.

Companies who rely on this are denying themselves access to a pool of highly qualified employees because of these stupid things.

Drug testing is only advisable when an employee suddenly becomes erratic on the job, increasing absenteeism and making a lot of serious mistakes. Then it can uncover a problem which the company might choose to offer a valued employee treatment for.

When a test for opiates is positive after a couple of poppyseed muffins, the problem is the test, not the employee.

[undeterred]

3. I don't use illegal drugs, but I do take prescription drugs

which could potentially show up. Its never happened, but I am wondering if I would even know? The employer who is considering me will not make anyone an offer who hasn't passed the test. The whole thing creeps me out.

[lukasahero]

31. You should list prescription drugs

I used to manage the drug screening program for a company who tested their truck drivers. Rxs are accounted for in that way.

FTR, you would know as it is illegal for a company to test you before an offer is made and you have the right to fight the finding if you believe it to be false so the company has to call and tell you the results.

[undeterred]

36. thanks, I didn't know that

"it is illegal for a company to test you before an offer is made"

[justabob]

125. i understand what you are saying but I have a question

I was asked to write out what prescriptions I am taking on a job application a few weeks ago. How do I know the company won't discriminate against me because I am on psych meds? And is it reasonable that they would think it unwise to hire me because I am on them? That is the big problem I have.... In my case it is psych meds, what about someone on HIV meds? or any other "scary" illnesses. That is medical info that I thought was supposed to be confidential.... I suppose you have to decide if you want/need the job badly enough to disclose.

[lukasahero]

134. I just addressed that in your post downthread

I'm pretty sure it's illegal to ask that on an application. But yes, I agree, they most certainly can discriminate against you once you've given them the answers. They can't ask you your age either but some will try.

I guess I'm just not as jaded as most folks here. I honestly believe most companies aren't out trying to screw potential employees and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to work for those that are.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

231. They should only test for illegal drugs.

They could also be screening for medical problems like hypertension and high cholesterol. I agree with the other poster I'm not sure that's legal.

David

[Warpy]

87. I do, too

and if narcotics had been missing at my nursing jobs, everyone would have been tested. I couldn't ever have been ruled out as a suspect without a test for the specific drug instead of opiate metabolites. Fortunately, everyone on my shift was honest.

Drug tests are intrusive and useless, good only for checking to find the cause of a problem that already exists.

[nosillies]

12. FYI -- opiate standards were raised in 2000 by the DHHS

They were raised form 300 ng/mL to 2000 ng/mL to prevent average ingestion-related false positives. They fixed the test, as you put it, a while back.

[Democrats_win]

4. Why do DU polls leave out the category: Hell NO! ?

The drug testing is another instance of capitalism forgetting that they exist to serve us. Not the other way around. If they can't give jobs to people and they refuse to pay taxes, then what's the point?

Maybe the bush depression will change their attitude. They are damn lucky to be doing business in America. Instead they tell us that we are lucky to have their fricking jobs. "Take this job and shuv it!"

[Ian David]

5. Only if members of all three branches of government are also tested. n/t

[shari]

6. yes

I voted yes and it would be nice if there was an option for "protect co-workers". Would you like to work side by side with someone who was under the influence of drugs while operating dangerous equipment or working with hazardous materials? Hey, for all of those who think it's ok to use drugs at the work-place, why not just let people drive while under the influence of drugs or alcohol too?

[emilyg]

8. I'm with your YES.

[Book Lover]

9. But how does drug testing protect you from an influenced coworker *at work*? (nm)

[anigbrowl]

17. And indeed, how does 'pre-employment' figure into this?

We're not talking about testing someone after they've been hired and when they're about to take the wheel for the first time.

besides which, numerous jobs require drug testing even though there is no safety component involved. I know someone who had to take a drug test before applying for a job as a film editor at his local arts college (they receive government money, so everyone on the staff has to be drug tested). Yeah, it'll be a true disaster if someone who holds a creative job is toking on his off-hours.

[undeterred]

23. There is no safety component in this job-

just a lot of customer contact. If someone asked me to take a random drug test after I became an employee and while I was on the job, that would be different. But this is screening people who haven't had an offer yet. Its a weird way to select from the population.

[anigbrowl]

30. It's logical, but still an invasion of privacy

A couple of times in the past, I've suggested an interviewer take the test with me, on the basis that I don't want to put myself in the hands of some drug-crazed maniac. They backed won. I haven't even got high for the longest time but I still find it offensive.

[unpossibles]

13. FAIL

sorry, but the point is (look at the time periods) that for all of those drugs except for alcohol, the person next to you is likely NOT even still under the influence of any drug even if they test positive.

Furthermore, for most jobs, does it matter? If someone in the cube next to me chooses to do something stupid over the weekend, it has no effect on me. Hell, alcohol, which is legal, causes more direct (OD) and indirect deaths and problems than all other drugs.

I don't mind taking them, but I still find them invasive and insulting.

[JuniperLea]

18. Bah... no way...

Driver, pilot, heavy equipment, hazardous materials, sure. I don't see a good reason otherwise. If the person can't do their job, for whatever reason, fire them.

[Mugweed]

20. You seem to have missed a point.

Look at the amount of time some of the drugs stay DETECTABLE in your system. That doesn't mean that they're still getting you high or interfering with your ability to do your job, operate machinery, or read a DU post. They're just DETECTABLE.

The idea is this: If Person A smokes some marijuana on Friday night and at no other time, Person A is not under the influence of said marijuanan on Monday morning. Unfortunately, if Person A is tested for drug use that Monday morning, it's likely that Person A is out of a job because they tested positive for marijuana. NOT becuase Person A is "under the influence" or "using drugs at the work-place", but simply because what Person A did at home on Friday night is detectable in the blood stream for up to 30 days. That's what I'm assuming is being pointed out as a ton of bullshit and an invasion of provacy. People are denied employment despite being perfectly sober and capable during work hours.

[undeterred]

25. Exactly.

[lumberjack_jeff]

216. That's not the question. The question is if it should be legal.

Certainly it has limitations in accurately reflecting the applicants behavior, but that really has no bearing on whether it should be legal.

I think pre-employment screening is fine. I would not support random testing of current employees, in fact I would quit a job in which this became a requirement.

[PeaceNikki]

28. Sounds like you support daily drug testing.

You think we should have a piss test every day as we enter the workplace?

Cuz that's how it reads.

[TroglodyteScholar]

182. I can't speak for shari

But I think a company should be allowed to test employees as frequently and randomly as they seem fit. Nobody's twisting your arm to work there--if someone has a problem with a testing policy, they can quit. And no, I'm not some anti-drug zealot. I just think that as long as they are not discriminatory, a company's hiring and firing policy is their own.

You do know, though, that no company will cough up the $$$ for testing any more frequently than necessary.

[undeterred]

32. But the point here is not about using drugs at work

but using them on one's own time.

Nobody wants an employee under the influence of drugs or alcohol at work. But millions of people drink and use drugs on their own time, and I don't see how that affects their safety or productivity during business hours.

A couple of years ago I had a co-worker who I believe was addicted to cocaine. It affected his mood, his ability to get to work on time, and his ability to get along with other people. Being no fool, he had passed the pre-employment drug screen by stopping for a while. Once he was employed there was no testing. Even though some of us around him knew he had a problem, the employer did nothing. So it seems kind of odd that companies have testing before employment for everyone, but they can ignore someone who has symptoms of a serious problem.

[Mugweed]

46. I used to work for a company with heavy drinkers.

They would come in hung over as all hell each morning, get into the company vehicles, and drive out to sites to operate equipment. That didn't seem to be a problem with the management. But if someone was even remotely suspected of smoking pot, they were subjected to random testing over a period of months. It didn't matter if you were office staff and never came near company vehicles or heavy equipment.

It's an attitude that certain people have that's been constantly enforced by propaganda: Drugs are bad...period. There is no perspective, no debate. Alcohol and tobacco, on the other hand, are just fine. Who cares if you're still drunk from last night? Who cares if you waste 8 hours a week standing outside the office smoking cigarettes? It's that bastard that smokes a joint once every two weeks on a Friday night that we need to get rid of.

[cabluedem]

120. Pilots and truckers are subject to random testings and one each year.

also pilots cannot use medications like prozac or paxil at all.

[Richard Steele]

240. Sheer codswollop. Disingenuous, non-logical buzzwords strung together and posing as debate.

FAIL.

[surrealAmerican]

256. That tends to presuppose that people who test positive ...

... would be only those who are drugged WHILE at work. A rather large majority of those who take "recreational" drugs do so on their own time. Should someone who smokes pot after work on Fridays be ineligible for a job?

[Captain Hilts]

7. It depends on the job. nt

[TahitiNut]

10. Let them do drug testing on Executives, Presidents, Governors, Senators, and Congressmen first.

Make it public and unannounced ... ALL of them ... BEFORE they use this shit on the working class. I get sick and tired of these OPPRESSIVE approaches -- where it's only done to those without power.

[20score]

112. Thank you! Exactly!

[SammyWinstonJack]

191. !!!

:thumbsup:

[gorfle]

11. Yes.

Yes, I think they should be legal.

I also think drugs should be legal.

But drug use gives a good insight into a persons sense of personal responsibility, risk-taking, and risk-assessment. People who use drugs have demonstrated extremely poor personal choice decision making abilities. Because of this I would question their decision making abilities in general. All else being equal, I'd pick the non-drug user over a drug user.

[JuniperLea]

27. "People who use drugs have demonstrated extremely poor personal choice"

Bullshit. You obviously know no scientists or educators who partake of herbs deemed illegal at this point in history. There are many, and taking them out of their jobs would be a horrible disservice to humanity.

[PeaceNikki]

29. I call bullshit on that statement, too.

[gorfle]

40. Here is what I know.

Bullshit. You obviously know no scientists or educators who partake of herbs deemed illegal at this point in history.

I have no doubt that there are many brilliant people in the world who are brilliant in spite of taking drugs that, at best provide no beneficial health benefits to their bodies, and in most cases, do harm.

This does not mean that making the decision to ingest such chemicals is not a poor decision and it is not irrational to question their decision-making abilities because of it.

There are many, and taking them out of their jobs would be a horrible disservice to humanity.

Perhaps so. But well within the rights of an employer, in my opinion. Part of the hiring process is to assess the decision making abilities of the prospective employee. Drug use is a good harbinger of poor decision making ability, in my opinion.

[PeaceNikki]

42. As others have asked... what about drinking?

It's our stupid nation's sanctioned drug of choice and, in my opinion, far more damaging and dangerous than say... pot.

[gollygee]

47. We always thought that was weird where I worked

We did testing and they'd tell us if someone had smoked pot, and the employee would say it was like a week earlier, which we believed but they'd still have to get fired due to the insurance company's policy. And then someone would come in obviously hung over and we never tested for that because it wasn't part of the screening (maybe because alcohol is metabolized more quickly?) The standards aren't very useful for the reality of drug use/alcohol use and how job performance and safety are affected.

[PeaceNikki]

48. You nailed the crux of the matter

"The standards aren't very useful for the reality of drug use/alcohol use and how job performance and safety are affected."

[gorfle]

64. "Job performance and safety"

I would say that for many of the drugs that employers currently screen for if you are determined to be using them your decision-making skills are quite obviously in doubt.

[PeaceNikki]

68. I think your ability to construct a sentence is in doubt.

[Runcible Spoon]

85. Snarf!

:ROFL:

[gorfle]

108. Feel free to correct my grammar. n/t.

[JuniperLea]

95. What about the employee that comes in hungover?

Is getting drunk to that extent a good decision? Is it good for one's health?

[gorfle]

110. It depends.

What about the employee that comes in hungover?

If an employee came in hungover for an alcohol-use screening test, that would be a red flag.

Is getting drunk to that extent a good decision? Is it good for one's health?

No. You're right - it indicates questionable decision making.

[cabluedem]

111. Nope but alcohol is tolerated since so many people drink. And its OTC legal...

[JuniperLea]

146. That's pretty much my whole point, thanks for getting it...

There was a time in our history when alcohol was illegal, and cocaine and marijuana were legal.

It's all about society's drug du jour, and nothing else. If it were decided due to ill-effects, alcohol would be the big loser. There are dozens of medicinal and health reasons to smoke pot.

[JuniperLea]

93. It doesn't indicate better decision making skills...

To get plastered drunk either.

You make good points here.

[gorfle]

57. I agree.

I agree, alcohol is more dangerous than pot. If it were not illegal (and I don't think drugs should be illegal), I don't think employers would bother screening for it.

[lukasahero]

122. Most drug tests check for both alcohol and pot

It never ceased to amaze me how many people tested positive and took the test anyway. Did they think no one would notice?

Seriously, if you can't even get sober for a drug test, there may be a problem that needs to be addressed.

[gollygee]

162. This was several years ago

and it didn't test for alcohol, but maybe the specifics were up to our employer? It only tested for illegal drugs.

[lukasahero]

197. Employer or state...

It's been several years since I was managing programs.

I wasn't questioning you - I was responding to the folks who think that alcohol is never tested - it often is. I know it certainly was for our truck drivers.

That said, agree or disagree, right now, in most states, pot is illegal and booze is not. (Of course, my state just voted to reduce the "illegality" of pot so times are a-changing.)

[Runcible Spoon]

45. you think marijuana has no benefits to the body?

please read up.

[Greyhound]

52. Yes, because that's going to happen.

The conditioning is strong in this one.

[gorfle]

66. I did not say that. n/t.

[Runcible Spoon]

75. "at best provide no beneficial health benefits to their bodies"

your response to above poster RE: herbs. You even cut and pasted their response, so you were responding to a post about herbs, not crack.

[gorfle]

100. You are right.

You are right. I was talking about all drugs in general not pot in particular. I don't have a problem with pot use.

[JuniperLea]

90. Then you need to fire everyone who drinks or smokes cigarettes

Because those two things do a hell of a lot more harm than pot does, so the people who choose to partake of alcohol and nicotine are making terribly horrid decisions.

In your opinion is a fair way to end your post though. I don't think your opinion is fact based at all, not by any stretch.

[gorfle]

114. You are right.

Then you need to fire everyone who drinks or smokes cigarettes Because those two things do a hell of a lot more harm than pot does, so the people who choose to partake of alcohol and nicotine are making terribly horrid decisions.

No argument there. People who drink or smoke regularly are making terribly horrid decisions. And I absolutely question the judgment of anyone in this day and age who smokes. There's just no excuse for getting hooked on tobacco in this day and age. At least our parents could claim ignorance.

Anyone who starts smoking cigarettes in this day and age is just a stone-cold idiot.

[cabluedem]

124. Nicotine is a drug and does affect brain function likr cocaine but milder. nt

[JuniperLea]

139. And nicotine is as addictive as heroin...

I've been told this by more than one herion addict who also smoked, and has quite both more than once.

[gorfle]

144. And since this is well known...

And since this fact is well known what does it say about people who choose to try either one?

[RedCappedBandit]

176. What do you think it says? nt

[gorfle]

210. Since I asked first...

I'll wait for answers from others before responding.

[kcass1954]

230. It says we're human.

[gorfle]

249. Nope, try again.

We are all human. But not everyone makes the choice to try nicotine or heroin. The dangers of these drugs are well known and have been part of the public education system for decades now. No one in this country can legitimately claim ignorance as a reason for why they made the choice to try these highly addictive drugs.

[LanternWaste]

261. If I ever meet an individual...

If I ever meet an individual who has never made a choice that was obviously counter to their own self interest, I imagine that person wouldn't be human.

I imagine the only differences would be in what obviously counter-intuitive choices we've made rather than if we've actually made any to begin with.

[cabluedem]

198. I have heard that too. Quitting smoking is hard, but I did it and so have millions of people. nt

[JuniperLea]

205. I did it too...

This is one of the dudes who told me about it... he's quit both several times...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

235. By all means I want the paramedic or doctor treating my family member to use illegal drugs.

That seems like a really good idea.

David

[Fumesucker]

245. Doctors have the highest addiction rate of all the professions..

By a substantial margin.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

254. Sounds like they need more drug testing.

[LanternWaste]

262. You can of course cite sources, yes?

You can of course cite valid, peer-reviewed sources for that statement, yes?

[Bluenorthwest]

37. Thank God you are not in my line of work

Where I have been asked pointedly to use certain herbs for the sake of the quality of my work. People who judge other people according to random standards show poor character assement abilities, and rely on presumptions and prejudicies based on their own limited life experience.
What do you do for a living? Do you think all jobs are like yours?
Do you drink?
What do you think of people who take risks for fun, like extreme sports? They risk death. For a rush. How does that seem in your tight world?

[gorfle]

54. Your line of work.

Thank God you are not in my line of work Where I have been asked pointedly to use certain herbs for the sake of the quality of my work.

What is your line of work? What kinds of herbs are we talking about here? Basil? I thought we were talking about drugs? Are you being forced by your employer to use dangerous or illegal substances? Sounds like a call to OSHA may be in order. If we are talking about pot here I'd say pot is less dangerous than alcohol and if it wasn't illegal most employers would not bother screening for it.

People who judge other people according to random standards show poor character assement abilities, and rely on presumptions and prejudicies based on their own limited life experience.

The harmful effects of most drugs are well known. Thus people who choose to use them in spite of this knowledge are making poor decisions. This does not constitute "random standards".

What do you do for a living? Do you think all jobs are like yours?

I am in a field that requires full mental faculties being brought to the task. I did not claim that all jobs are like mine. I simply say that employers should have the right to screen employees based on drug use.

Obviously some employers, like yours, would not choose to screen employees by that metric. That's fine by me. I would hazard that most employees, if for no other reason than legal liability, would not want to hire drug-using employees. If it could be shown, for example, that an employer could have or should have known that an employee was using an addictive, mind-altering drug and went on to cause a drug-related injury or other liability-incurring event, it could have serious consequences in the case of a lawsuit.

Do you drink?

Very rarely. Perhaps three or four times a year.

What do you think of people who take risks for fun, like extreme sports? They risk death. For a rush. How does that seem in your tight world?

I think they are ridiculous. Doing something dangerous solely for the rush of it being dangerous is unnecessarily risky behavior.

[Beausoleil]

41. Does that go for alcohol, too?

I question the decision making abilities of alcoholics, but you rarely see an alcoholic denied a job due to drug testing. Would you always pick a non-drinker over a drinker?

When you start judging people in the workplace by what they do on their own time, when their behavior in no way affects their ability to do their jobs, where does it stop? Can I, as an employer, deny employment to those who drive 8 cylinder vehicles because I think driving 8 cylinder vehicles is irresponsible?

[gorfle]

82. Sure.

Does that go for alcohol, too?

I question the decision making abilities of alcoholics, but you rarely see an alcoholic denied a job due to drug testing. Would you always pick a non-drinker over a drinker?

No, because I don't think that drinking, like pot use, is terribly risk for most people.

When you start judging people in the workplace by what they do on their own time, when their behavior in no way affects their ability to do their jobs, where does it stop? Can I, as an employer, deny employment to those who drive 8 cylinder vehicles because I think driving 8 cylinder vehicles is irresponsible?

No, but can I, as an employer, deny employment to someone who uses heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine?

[PeaceNikki]

86. Wait... what?

You think pot is "riskier" than booze?

Are you insane?

[gorfle]

117. No.

You think pot is "riskier" than booze?

I said:

No, because I don't think that drinking, like pot use, is terribly risk for most people.

Neither drinking nor pot use is terribly risky for most people.

[RedCappedBandit]

151. Are you aware that alcohol is one of, if not the most, dangerous drugs in existence? nt

[gorfle]

166. I doubt it.

I doubt it is dangerous for most people who drink socially. It's not even that dangerous overall.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg

[RedCappedBandit]

168. You doubt it? *You*?

And what authority do you have on the matter? You have admitted that you have absolutely no experience is this area. Do some research, gain some knowledge, then come back and offer your *educated* opinion. Until then, you have zero credibility.

PS. If you're going to (try to) link to a chart, you might want to make sure it is from a source *with* some credibility.

[gorfle]

170. Yes, me.

I believe I am no less educated on the matter than you are.

What I have admitted is that I have no personal experience in this area. I'm not an illegal drug user nor do I associate with illegal drug users. This is not to say that I have no knowledge of drugs.

Specifically, neither pot nor alcohol are terribly risky to consume in moderation. Pot is less risky than alcohol.

The link I attempted to provide cites a credible medical journal, The Lancet. Sorry my cut-and-paste did not work. I will try again.

http://tinyurl.com/63qc79

[RedCappedBandit]

173. Nothing is extremely detrimental in moderation

That's kind of the whole point.

Alcohol, however, when abused, is exceedingly dangerous. Among plenty of other things, it literally kills your brain cells every time you get a buzz, it's withdrawals can be fatal, it is toxic, and it causes excessively violent behavior in its users under its influence.
I'm not seeing how your chart is all that applicable, without seeing it in its own context. It looks to me like the creator is assuming a level of dependence and assigning a harm rating based on that :shrug: I can't find a site that will let me access the article without paying, so oh well. (The abstract isn't all that enlightening) If you have access to the article, maybe you could quote some of it here.

Regardless, I don't see how you can claim to be quite educated in this area when you have zero personal experience with anything of relevance. Seeing this shit first hand is rather different than reading about it.

[gorfle]

208. LOL

It looks to me like the creator is assuming a level of dependence and assigning a harm rating based on that

No, the chart ranks drugs by "Dependence" in the y-axis, and "physical harm" in the x-axis. The way to interpret this graph is drugs that are dependence-inducing are high on the vertical, and drugs that cause physical harm are far to the right. Thus the worst drugs, those that are both highly addictive and physically harmful will be towards the upper-right, while drugs that are less addictive and less harmful will be towards the bottom-left.

If you would like to read the entire article you can get a bogus logon from www.bugmenot.com which will provide you a login to read the full article.

Here is an introducton to the section that describes "harm":

"Categories of harm
There are three main factors that together determine the
harm associated with any drug of potential abuse: the
physical harm to the individual user caused by the drug;
the tendency of the drug to induce dependence; and the
eff ect of drug use on families, communities, and
society.5–8"

More detail is in the article at The Lancet.

Regardless, I don't see how you can claim to be quite educated in this area when you have zero personal experience with anything of relevance. Seeing this shit first hand is rather different than reading about it.

LOL. I've never walked on the moon but I have a pretty good understanding of the moon and related technology.

[JuniperLea]

99. You've got to be kidding...

You need to educate yourself on alcohol consumption and pot smoking, because you are posting bullshit so far from the truth it is absolutely astounding.

[gorfle]

119. Please educate me.

You need to educate yourself on alcohol consumption and pot smoking, because you are posting bullshit so far from the truth it is absolutely astounding.

What in my previous post do you find incorrect?

[RedCappedBandit]

150. You have to be a troll. nt

[gorfle]

171. Right.

Right, you won't answer the question, so I'm a troll.

"No, but can I, as an employer, deny employment to someone who uses heroin, cocaine, or methamphetamine?"

So how about it?

[RedCappedBandit]

174. ->

If they use it on the job, sure. If it has no impact on their job performance, no, you should not have that right.
Edit: Pointing out that I did respond to this question already.. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4656153&mesg_id=4657576

[gorfle]

196. So...

If they use it on the job, sure. If it has no impact on their job performance, no, you should not have that right.

So you would hire someone who a drug test shows has used cocaine, methadone, or heroine within a week of their pre-employment drug test. I guess it depends on the job. In my line of work there's no way in hell I'd hire someone who tested positive for those drugs. Especially when you consider that we don't just hire people on a whim. There's always at least 3-4 weeks of interviewing and other "courtship". If you can't stay clean for that long to pass a pre-employment drug test, there's a problem.

Would you want a President of the United States using those kinds of drugs, like our illustrious soon-to-be-ex president is said to be?

[RedCappedBandit]

200. *I* wouldn't hire anybody

because I have no intentions of going into the business world ;)
Anyway, I understand it would be a turn off to see a person turn up positive on a drug test. That is why I think it is an invasion of privacy and should not be permitted in regards to job applications.

And where the hell was it said that Obama is using "those kinds of drugs"???

[gorfle]

209. Ignorance is bliss, eh?

*I* wouldn't hire anybody because I have no intentions of going into the business world ;)
Anyway, I understand it would be a turn off to see a person turn up positive on a drug test. That is why I think it is an invasion of privacy and should not be permitted in regards to job applications.

So, you can see why it "would be a turn off" for a prospective employee to be a drug user, but you would rather prospective employers not have access to that information when making hiring decisions. I guess ignorance is bliss.

Why do you suppose it "would be a turn off"? Why do you suppose companies go to the trouble and expense of drug screening?

And where the hell was it said that Obama is using "those kinds of drugs"???

Please read my posts more carefully. I said ex president, i.e. Bush.

Here is what I said:

"Would you want a President of the United States using those kinds of drugs, like our illustrious soon-to-be-ex president is said to be?"

[RedCappedBandit]

213. I know it would be a turn off

to people like you making unfounded assumptions when they've never even had a conversation with a person in question . I, personally, wouldn't care unless I was able to see some sort of impact on their actual ability to do work.

[gorfle]

So...

So why do you suppose so many companies go to the trouble and expense of screening potential employees based solely on "unfounded assumptions"?

And would you want a President of the United States using or have been using drugs like cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine?

[uncle ray]

264. it would be a turn off

if a potential employer knew you liked to have sex with rubber inflatable animals. so should we have testing for that? it obviously shows poor judgment.

[Runcible Spoon]

43. oh for fuck's sake!

You really need to get a grip regarding drug use. As far as "risk taking", would you also want to screen for skydiving, BASE jumping, motorcross racing, etc.? :crazy: PLEASE do yourself a favor and read something beyond Scruff McGruff's Guide to Pot Smoking and How it Makes You Kill Kittens and Perform Other Unimaginable Horrors.

[gorfle]

74. Regarding pot.

You really need to get a grip regarding drug use. As far as "risk taking", would you also want to screen for skydiving, BASE jumping, motorcross racing, etc.? :crazy: PLEASE do yourself a favor and read something beyond Scruff McGruff's Guide to Pot Smoking and How it Makes You Kill Kittens and Perform Other Unimaginable Horrors.

As I have already said, pot is less dangerous than alcohol, and I think it should be legal. If it was legal, most employers wouldn't bother screening for it. I don't question the judgment of people who use pot.

As for other risky activities, it would depend on the nature of the employment. I understand there are some professions (soldiers, astronauts) where you are not allowed to engage in such risky activities and if you are injured while doing them you can actually be held liable.

As an interviewer of a job applicant, I don't think I would question someone's judgment for engaging in a dangerous activity. If they engaged in a dangerous activity for danger's sake, however, I would, and would hold it in a negative light when considering the applicant.

[superduperfarleft]

71. Damn, I drink coffee WHILE at work.

My sense of personal responsibility must be TERRIBLE.

Of course, don't even get me started on the co-workers who eat chocolate throughout the day. Damn drug addicts...

[gorfle]

84. Not all drug use indicates irresponsible behavior. n/t

[PeaceNikki]

88. Nor can all irresponsible behavior be attributed to drug use.

[gorfle]

101. Didn't say it could. n/t.

[superduperfarleft]

89. Oh, so now SOME drugs are okay.

Which ones? I'd like to see the criteria you use when determining which drugs are okay and which aren't.

From your original post:
"But drug use gives a good insight into a persons sense of personal responsibility, risk-taking, and risk-assessment. People who use drugs have demonstrated extremely poor personal choice decision making abilities. Because of this I would question their decision making abilities in general. All else being equal, I'd pick the non-drug user over a drug user."

Sorry, I'm not seeing a lot of wiggle-room in there. :shrug:

[PeaceNikki]

94. Yes, this country has sanctioned alcohol as its drug of choice.

And nicotine. Oh, and caffeine. Wait, you can also get all hopped up on pharmaceuticals, too.

If you don't agree with it, you are a poor decision maker.

Get with the program.

[gorfle]

107. You are right.

Which ones? I'd like to see the criteria you use when determining which drugs are okay and which aren't.

I find this to be an interesting diagram:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rational_scale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_(mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg

You're right, I was too black-and-white in my original post.

I will have to rethink my opinion on this issue.

Some drugs obviously aren't very dangerous, or at least are less dangerous than alcohol.

But I still question the judgment of people who regularly use substances to "get high" on a regular basis no matter how dangerous the drug is or is not. I am suspicious of such people.

[RedCappedBandit]

130. I am suspicious of people like you

People who exhibit a complete lack of empathy and understanding.

[gorfle]

138. I'm sorry.

People who exhibit a complete lack of empathy and understanding.

I'm honestly sorry I have no empathy or understanding of people who desire to get high on a regular basis. The first thing that comes to my mind is, "Does your life suck so badly you have to escape it using drugs?"

I don't know how to gain such empathy and understanding. I just can't relate.

[RedCappedBandit]

149. It is obvious you've never actually had any experience with

a person who uses drugs. That, or you are unaware of such an experience (more likely.. does it shock you that people might be using drugs and you wouldn't even know it?)

[gorfle]

159. You're right, I have no experience.

It is obvious you've never actually had any experience with a person who uses drugs. That, or you are unaware of such an experience (more likely.. does it shock you that people might be using drugs and you wouldn't even know it?)

I have never in my life even seen an illegal drug. I know my brother-in-law uses pot but he's 30 and lives at home with his mom and dad. One time I was on a camping trip and a bunch of people were off to one side supposedly smoking pot.

This is my entire personal experience with recreational drugs, other than alcohol.

[Rebubula]

83. Please explain..

...your stance on drinking alcohol.

Do you think that someone that drinks alcohol demonstrates extremely poor personal choice making abilities (is that some catch phrase from Dr. Phil - sure sounds like a cheesy shrink statement)? Personally, I have seen more people screw up their life with alcohol than illegal drugs.

As someone that smokes pot every day and ingests acid\Ecstasy when I have time (need two days to recover-getting old) - this 40 year old, professional business owner with a house\wife\dog\cat and no arrests calls bullshit on your statement. Now...talk to my former employee (too much time in jail gets you fired)who got 3 DUIs and one domestic abuse charge all due to alcohol...he never did anything other than drink.

But if begrudging responsible people for doing their intoxicant of choice makes you feel better...well, I am just too stoned to argue

:hide:

[RedCappedBandit]

128. So..

poor personal choices should disqualify people from being employed?

[Thothmes]

201. Always depends on the job and other circumstances

I have worked at a machine shop that routinely tested employees for drugs and alcohol. Why. the shop machined high cost metal castings for NASA.
Anytime a serious machining error was found, the machinest was tested for drugs and alcohol. At least three were termined, one for drugs (type unknown to me) and two others for alcohol. The company took a very dim view of screwing $80,000 titanium castings because of a hard party the night before.
Cannot say that I blamed the management, they had to replace the casts out of their own pocket.

[RedCappedBandit]

158. According to your own logic

You demonstrate "extremely poor personal choice decision making abilities" three or four times per year when you drink. Therefore, I question your decision making abilities in general, hence I do not think you are qualified to work. :eyes: :crazy:

[gorfle]

212. Really?

You demonstrate "extremely poor personal choice decision making abilities" three or four times per year when you drink. Therefore, I question your decision making abilities in general, hence I do not think you are qualified to work. :eyes: :crazy:

Do you really question the decision making abilities of people who have beers three or four times a year? I don't. No employer I'm likely to encounter probably will, either.

Regardless of how relatively risky or dangerous alcohol or pot may be, the fact of the matter is someone who drinks on occasion probably isn't breaking the law, while someone who smokes pot almost certainly is. Whether pot should be illegal or not, it is. Do you really want to hire people engaging in known criminal activity? This, more than anything, is why the argument "But alcohol is way more dangerous than pot!" fails the sniff test. People who use illegal drugs are willing to engage in illegal activities solely for pleasure. Where else might they draw the line on what illegal activities they feel it's OK to indulge themselves in? As an employer, I wouldn't roll those dice on an employee if I didn't have to. And even if their illegal indulgences are limited only to drug use, do you really want a drug user mingling with your work force, possibly introducing others in your employ to its use?

Moreover, when you buy an illegal drug, how do you know what you are getting? How do you know it hasn't been cut with some kind of filler? Or spiked with something else designed to get you hooked? At least when I have a beer a few times a year I can be fairly certain what I'm consuming and have some level of confidence that it is manufactured to certain health standards. Whether a beer is more dangerous than a joint or not, it seems to me rolling the dice on buying pot, unless you grow your own, is pretty risky.

[RedCappedBandit]

215. I guess an entire generation of America is screwed..

Ever seen an underage person drink? Are they condemned to engage in other illegal activities? I don't know, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to associate myself with any one of them. :eyes:

And as for people "spiking" pot to get you hooked ... :rofl: You watch too much TV. 'Course, the cutting of many drugs would not be a problem if they weren't illegal to begin with. Convenient argument, though.

It seems to me your argument boils down to the belief that people who engage in risky behavior shouldn't be hired. Hell of a lot of people would be out of work, eh?

[gorfle]

227. comments.

I guess an entire generation of America is screwed.. Ever seen an underage person drink? Are they condemned to engage in other illegal activities?

No, but underage drinking sure does lead to getting others to participate in it. I sure did in college, and was introduced to it by - you guessed it - other underage drinkers.

And as for people "spiking" pot to get you hooked ... :rofl: You watch too much TV. 'Course, the cutting of many drugs would not be a problem if they weren't illegal to begin with. Convenient argument, though.

So you admit then that the cutting of many drugs is a problem. I surmised as much from my health classes where this issue was brought up. They told us that sometimes drugs were cut with substitutes to stretch the drug portion further. Sometimes the filler was harmless, other times it was harmful, other times it could be purposefully cut with a substance intended to hook the user and create an addicted, dependent user. I don't think they specified which drugs this technique could be applied to. I don't know if it can be done with pot or not, though I don't see why it could not. I would no more buy such an uncontrolled substance than I would buy drugs from some internet pharmacy. Who knows what you would be buying?

I agree with you that if drugs were legal and regulated, this would not be an issue. I think recreational drugs should be legal and regulated - and taxed to provide funds for drug treatment programs.

It seems to me your argument boils down to the belief that people who engage in risky behavior shouldn't be hired. Hell of a lot of people would be out of work, eh?

It depends on the behavior, but your behavior is indicative of your character, and people will judge you by it. Like I have said many times now, many businesses obviously have drawn conclusions about the character of people who use drugs, and this is why they go to the trouble and expense of screening for them. If there was nothing to it they wouldn't go to the trouble and expense.

[Hugabear]

244. Have you ever droven faster than the speed limit?

Have you ever gunned it through a traffic light as it was turning red? I'm sure you'll come back with something like "That's different, those are traffic infractions. Smoking marijuana is against the law". Maybe so, but traffic violations are still technically violations of the law, and can result in people being KILLED. When is the last time that anybody put another person's life in direct danger simply by lighting a joint?

But keep going, I'm getting a kick out of reading your 'holier-than-thou' posts.

[gorfle]

248. Nope.

I don't speed, and I don't run traffic lights.

But keep going. I'm getting a kick out of your justifications and moral relativisms.

[Hugabear]

257. I bet you are

I bet you're getting such a kick looking down from your ivory tower at the rest of us, aren't you. You fucking disgust me with your judgmental attitude. I'm sure that you live such a perfectly clean squeaky life. :sarcasm:

[gorfle]

259. Sorry.

I don't claim to live perfectly, but I do strive for a squeaky clean life. I'm an Eagle Scout. I'm sorry my quality of life disgusts you.

[Hugabear]

267. You don't get it, do you

It's not your quality of life that disgusts me. It's not that you're an Eagle Scout.

It's your attitude towards others. Your attitude that anyone who might kick back and smoke a joint on their own time is somehow morally inferior, that they are making bad personal decisions, etc. Personally, I have never touched drugs in my life either. But that is my choice. I don't give a rat's ass what other people do with their lives, as long as it doesn't directly impact my life. If someone wants to light up at home, on their own time, who cares. I'm certainly not going to judge anybody because their lifestyle doesn't meet a specific criteria.

You come across just like any other evangelical fundamentalist that I've ever met.

[gorfle]

268. Well.

It's not your quality of life that disgusts me. It's not that you're an Eagle Scout.

It's your attitude towards others. Your attitude that anyone who might kick back and smoke a joint on their own time is somehow morally inferior, that they are making bad personal decisions, etc. Personally, I have never touched drugs in my life either. But that is my choice. I don't give a rat's ass what other people do with their lives, as long as it doesn't directly impact my life. If someone wants to light up at home, on their own time, who cares. I'm certainly not going to judge anybody because their lifestyle doesn't meet a specific criteria.

I don't mind if people smoke joints, either. Pot is less harmful than alcohol. I'm not going to make any judgment calls on people who have a drink or a joint now and then. I will probably continue to question the judgment of people who choose to use cigarettes, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, or similar dangerous drugs.

[cemaphonic]

225. Eh, the two most professionaly and financially successful members of my close family

are total potheads. And are very responsible in the rest of their lives as well. And yeah, I've known people who fit the lazy stoner stereotype to a "T." I just don't think you can make that kind of blanket statement.

[Hugabear]

243. Go fuck yourself

Seriously, you're no better than the Religious Reich. Are you sure you're on the right board? How nice it must be for you to sit in your ivory tower, looking down your nose at us inferior idiots who drink, smoke, indulge, etc. Your attitude towards someone who might enjoy a joint every once in awhile sounds like it might have come straight from Reefer Madness.

What's next, do you think companies should require employees to sign a morality clause?

[rocktivity]

15. Only after you've actually been offered and accepted the job

I'm fine with it as long as it's part of being hired, along with filling out the insurance and payroll papers. It shouldn't be part of the application process.

:headbang:
rocknation

[MiniMe]

121. I'll agree with you on that, there are just some jobs where it is necessary

I'd say anything like public safety, an airline pilot, a train engineer, a bus driver. Those people are responsible for other's safety.

[tcfrogs]

16. Absolutely

Candidates who interview for me may come off wonderfully in an interview setting. If they are a regular drug user, you can't tell in an hour long time frame. I don't want people working for me who are habitual users of drugs. In most cases it impacts their job performance, which reflects poorly on my department and my company.

[Fumesucker]

38. Do you ever consume alcoholic beverages?

If so then you are being remarkably hypocritical.

[tcfrogs]

49. People who drink socially are not equivalent to drug users

And I would equate a chronic drinker with a chronic drug user.

[PeaceNikki]

51. Uh... alcohol *IS* a drug. Social drinkers *ARE* "drug users".

[gollygee]

59. The only differences are:

1. Alcohol is legal so people can use some without breaking the law. Having any marijuana in your body proves that you've done something illegal, and that alone can be used as cause to fire someone - you don't have to prove illegal drug use has caused problems but you'd have to prove alcohol use had caused problems. Make marijuana legal and that issue won't be there anymore.

2. Alcohol is metabolized quickly and is harder to test for.

The tests are supposedly used for safety and job performance reasons but there are political issues behind what is tested and what is not.

[Runcible Spoon]

58. derf.

Perhaps a little pot would make your logic a bit more consistent. :crazy:

[Fumesucker]

65. Ah, so you *do* consume alcoholic beverages..

Why do I find that totally unsurprising?

[tcfrogs]

77. Why?

I'm not anti-drug. I've done my share when I was younger. People who use either alcohol or drugs to excess are folks that I wouldn't consider reliable enough to hire. Having a drink on occasion shouldn't disqualify me from rendering an opinion.

[PeaceNikki]

78. And smoking a joint on occasion (on private time) shouldn't disqualify others from having a job.

[RedCappedBandit]

133. Why is your drug more acceptable than others? nt

[JuniperLea]

103. Alcohol is a drug

And it kills your brain cells with every sip, unlike pot smoking. There are far more medicinal purposes for pot than there are for alcohol as well. A chronic drinker and a chronic pot smoker could not possible be farther from the same.

[dysfunctional press]

161. at this point, it's a legal drug- and therein lies the difference.

sorry.

[JuniperLea]

163. There was a time when...

Alcohol was illegal, and pot and cocaine were legal.

That is called stupidity.

[dysfunctional press]

169. "That is called stupidity."

that's why it changed.

alcohol has no business being illegal, as prohibition proved.
and cocaine has no business being legal.

pot is another story- but it's illegality has never been an impediment to getting it when i want it.

[RedCappedBandit]

179. Curious ..

Why do you believe alcohol should be legal while cocaine should be illegal?
And what, if any, consequences should there be for using cocaine (or other illegal substances) and why?

[dysfunctional press]

184. prohibition proved why alcohol should be legal...

and since cocaine is not as ingrained into our societal structure, it's prohibition does not effect as large a percentage of the population. cocaine is a very dangerous and addictive drug, and most people familiar with it's effects on the human psyche are not all that enthusiastic about making it a legal substance.

penalties for it's use should be whatever society deems necessary under the law.

[RedCappedBandit]

185. So basically, alcohol is only legal because of the

amount of people that use it, while cocaine is illegal because of the small amount of users?

[dysfunctional press]

187. that is definitely one big part of it.

also- except for death from overdose, they have much different effects on users.

[Thothmes]

202. Actually, prohibition

outlawed the manufacture, transportation or sale of alcoholic beverages. It did not outlaw the consumption of those beverages.

[RedCappedBandit]

132. Translation:

People who drink socially are not equivalent to drug users


is the same as saying

People who use drugs socially are not equivalent to drug users



Yeah, pretty stupid.

[gorfle]

141. So...

so if alcohol use = drug use does this mean that employers should not discriminate based on any drug use at all?

If alcohol goes does this mean anything goes?

[RedCappedBandit]

145. If your work is not affected, why shouldn't you be able to continue doing it? nt

[gorfle]

164. Let's turn that around...

If your work is not affected, why shouldn't you be able to continue doing it? nt

You should be able to continue doing it.

But let's turn this around. If people's work is affected, should you be able to fire them?

And if it is shown that statistically, people who use certain drugs will have work-related problems, should you be allowed to discriminate employment based on certain drug use?

[RedCappedBandit]

167. If your work is affected, your employer IS able to fire you.

No, you should not be permitted to discriminate. If the employee is up to par, he/she deserves work. If not, give the work to someone else. It's that simple, and drugs have nothing to do with it.
Choosing to use X drug on your own free time is a personal choice that has nothing to do with your place of employment.

[gorfle]

172. So then...

If your work is affected, your employer IS able to fire you. No, you should not be permitted to discriminate. If the employee is up to par, he/she deserves work. If not, give the work to someone else. It's that simple, and drugs have nothing to do with it.
Choosing to use X drug on your own free time is a personal choice that has nothing to do with your place of employment.

So even if it were shown that drug users are going to have their work affected by drug use, you can't discriminate when deciding to hire known drug users?

Why do you think all these employers currently discriminate against drug users? For fun? Because they enjoy the costs of drug screening?

[RedCappedBandit]

175. Has that been shown?

*Can* that be shown?

Are you going to tell me that everybody who chooses to use certain substances will be unable to perform on par with their counterparts who choose not to indulge in such activities?

[gorfle]

193. I have no idea.

Has that been shown?

*Can* that be shown?

Are you going to tell me that everybody who chooses to use certain substances will be unable to perform on par with their counterparts who choose not to indulge in such activities?

I have no idea, though I would imagine that it has been so demonstrated by someone. Why would companies go to the trouble and expense of doing drug screening if there was no perceived benefit?

[undeterred]

224. Because they want to intimidate the employee

and reinforce their power over the employee. The perceived benefit has nothing to do with the quality of the work and everything to do with keeping employees "in their place".

[gorfle]

246. You really think so?

Because they want to intimidate the employee and reinforce their power over the employee. The perceived benefit has nothing to do with the quality of the work and everything to do with keeping employees "in their place".

It's not intimidating at all to people like me who have never used illegal drugs. You really think they would go to such trouble and expense just for intimidation's sake? I don't.

[KansDem]

21. No. Just because I'm looking for work doesn't make me a drug user. (nt)

[gollygee]

22. Some employers have to take out insurance for on-site accidents

and if they can show their employees aren't using drugs, then the rates are much, much lower. I worked for a company that did this - they didn't test for alcohol, only illegal drugs. But I don't think it's done with an intention of discrimination though. Just saving money on insurance. This kind of insurance is ridiculously expensive, so I don't think they have much choice but to not hire someone if hiring that person will raise their rates.

[Uncle Joe]

63. Insurance corporations have come to rule American Society in all ways great and small.

Overruling doctors when it comes to medical treatment, because it's perceived as not being cost effective to the insuring company's bottom line. Basically a legal corporate ruled death penalty in some cases.

The laws that requires the driver of an automobile to purchase liability insurance, so that a person can have a means of reliable transportation. Otherwise if there is no mass transit available, that person needs to ride by horse if their budget is stretched or drive as a criminal to their means of livelihood or anywhere else.

The continuous erosion of personal privacy coupled with presumed guilt until proven innocent by means of drug testing.

The denial of coverage to tens if not hundreds of thousands of homeowners; whose homes were devastated by Katrina because the insurance corporations said the damage was caused by flooding, not a hurricane.


The reason is alway just saving money but inevitably the only entity saving any money are the soulless corporations whose bottom line is the only line.

I believe insurance corporations are just one head of the corporate supremacy Hydra ruling the people and their government.

[gollygee]

115. I agree

I think insurance companies are a racketeering scheme.

[Johonny]

26. It should be stopped simply because

the cost of running these tests don't seem to be made up in the results.

[Freddie Stubbs]

34. Depends on the type of job

If the employee is operating a motor vehicle or any type of machinery which could cause bodily harm, an employer has a reasonable interest in knowing if the potential employee in zonked on drugs.

If it is in the health care industry, they want to try to screen out people who may steal prescription pads or the drugs themselves.

[madville]

35. Our insurance requires it, we have used it to fire people also

Our insurance requires drug testing and we have fired two people already employed here in the last year for failed tests. We had one guy we suspected of stealing gas off a company vehicle's gas card so we drug tested everyone and he tested positive for cocaine. It never made sense that he was constantly complaining about being broke while making 50k a year with no kids, an old paid-for vehicle and living in a $600 a month apartment, now we know why.

Had another guy that was just plain lazy, always late, calling in sick. He tested positive during that same test for pot. We were just about to fire the lazy guy anyway but this gave us a convenient reason he couldn't argue with.

I think they are a good tool, there are plenty of people out there willing to work without the baggage of an alcohol, coke, meth, or chronic pot smoking problem. In the cases above these guys had constant attendance problems on Mondays and Fridays and some days you could really tell they were hungover, it really disrupted productivity.

This was in an IT type workplace.

[undeterred]

39. I support testing after employment.

Once you know somebody's work habits and have a reasonable basis for suspecting a problem I think its ok. But to test when somebody applies for a job - you're not getting any context. Do they simply get high every other Friday night or are they a cocaine addict who can't be counted on for anything? With the pre-employment drug test both kinds of users (and possibly someone on prescription meds) get screened out as if they were the same.

[gollygee]

44. Where I worked, where we did testing

When you went to the pre-employement drug test, you were supposed to bring a doctor's note listing what prescriptions you had. The employer never saw the list.

The insurance company required testing before someone was hired. If it were illegal, obviously the insurance company wouldn't be able to require that, but for that was the reality for this company. Then the insurance company also required random testing, and also testing after any accident, and testing depending on absenteeism (like if someone were regularly absent on Mondays and/or Fridays). The employer could also set up a test if they thought someone's behavior was unusual or warranted it, and it would appear to the employee to simply be a random test. The employee never knew why he/she was tested, except for the pre-employment screen and after an accident.

Again, if it were illegal all that wouldn't happen anyway, but unless it's made illegal, if employers have to have insurance for on-site accidents, there will be testing, and I don't think it's fair to get upset with employers who can't afford to pay higher insurance rates.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

50. Absolutely It Should Be Legal. I Think It's Totally Reasonable That An Employer Would Want A Drug

free workforce.

Not a thing wrong with the practice nor any reasonable or logical reason for it to be considered illegal.

[Runcible Spoon]

53. THANK GOD I PASSED! (my drug test)

Reading your opinions is an increasingly accurate litmus test for stupid.

[gollygee]

61. ROFL

re your subject line.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

62. The Perception Of Stupidity From The Irrational And Closed Minded Is Of No Relevance To Me.

Your opinion carries no validity to me.

[Runcible Spoon]

72. Hahahaha.

Yes I'M the close-minded one for questioning idiotic hiring policies that exist primarily to give companies more control over the PRIVATE LIVES of their and employees and support a very profitable testing industry that has fuck-all to do with any real value in terms of:

A. Deciphering how much someone actually consumes
B. Indicating how recreational drug use has any bearing at all on the vast majority of jobs and workplace environment.

I could give a fuck if you find no validity in my opinion. Your posts are a constant source of amusement.

[SammyWinstonJack]

199. !!!

:evilgrin: :thumbsup:

[undeterred]

56. Define drug free workforce.

Is that a workforce that doesn't use any drugs ever, including on their personal time?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

76. Absolutely.

Even drugs done on friday evening can have some lingering carry over side effects come Monday. Furthermore, those applying for jobs who only occasionally or rarely do drugs are usually well aware ahead of time not to use anything recreationally for a few weeks prior to their job search. Only those that are more persistent users are generally at risk of failing drug tests imposed as part of the hiring process and I find it to be perfectly reasonable that certain employers would want to screen those that they are hiring as one more predictor of finding the most responsible and alert workforce possible (though there are many other factors, obviously).

Problem is that so many here think they have a right to do whatever the hell they want and that they deserve anything and everything without fail or question. It really is quite an immature and irrational philosophy and is really quite laughable most of the time.

[RedCappedBandit]

135. "drugs done on friday evening can have some lingering carry over side effects come Monday"

Such as?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

137. Lack Of Mental Clarity, Problem Solving Skills, And Overall Sharpness.

[RedCappedBandit]

140. Link?

And which drugs are you referring to? Thanks.

[Name removed]

226. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madville]

102. Yes

If using cocaine during one's personal time causes them to steal money from the company, that is a valid concern. If a guy is stoned or hungover and works slowly without much attention to detail, that is also a valid concern even though he may have done whatever substance on his personal time.

[RedCappedBandit]

143. And what if you test positive, but exhibit none of these negative behaviors?

[madville]

155. Zero-tolerance policy at most places

Everyone has the freedom to work where they wish and under what rules they deem acceptable. Some people gamble that they won't test positive, some get by some don't.

Behavior isn't all there is to it either. A bunch of places require a test if you get hurt on the job, fail the test and the company does not have to pay your medical expenses and can terminate you.

Personally I think pot should be legal and treated just like alcohol, but we have to play by the current rules and make decisions or take risks accordingly.

I don't want anybody working for me that is using other stuff like coke, meth, heroin, popping painkillers for fun, recreationly or habitually. That is where drug testing comes in handy, but with most of that stuff all someone has to do is stay clean a week and they pass most of the time. Even if they do pass they will eventually quit, stop coming to work with no further contact, get hurt and fail a drug test later, get popped on a random test, start stealing when their habit becomes bigger, etc.

[superduperfarleft]

73. I'll let my employer know to get rid of the coffee machines, then. n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

79. Yes. Because Caffeine Is Just Like Those Other Things.

:dunce:

[PeaceNikki]

80. And pot is just like crack.

:dunce:

[superduperfarleft]

92. Give him a second to respond.

He's probably furiously flipping through his thesaurus as we speak.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

97. Yes, Cause, Like, I Said That And Stuff.

:dunce:

[superduperfarleft]

81. You said drugs. n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

96. Why Yes, I Did. That Was Taking For Granted A Concept That Someone Would Respond

with the obvious, glaring and common sense understanding as to what was meant by it, rather than some petty and over-reaching absolutely moronic gotcha. :hi:

[superduperfarleft]

105. You mean "the" concept.

And you're missing a comma after "glaring." And try not to cram so many adjectives into one sentence.

Rule-of-thumb for you: spend less time reading the thesaurus, and more time attempting to be coherent when you post. :hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

109. Actually 'A' Is Fine In That Context, And There Shouldn't Be A Comma After Glaring.

:dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce: :dunce:

:hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

131. Wasn't the original Operation: Mindcrime about heroin addiction?

A little odd that you'd be a drug warrior.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

136. So Laughable That You Equate One Feeling That There's No Reason For Employment Drug Tests To Be

illegal with being a 'drug warrior'. So melodramatic and irrational of a stretch!

:rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

147. Lack of Mental Clarity, Problem Solving Skills, Overall Sharpness

Yup, drug warrior.

[superduperfarleft]

153. One symptom of lack of mental clarity:

thinking that Queensryche doesn't suck.

I'd never hire anyone that had such horrible taste in music.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

154. lulz

[eShirl]

250. we are not mind readers. say what you mean, please.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

252. Mind Reading Wasn't Necessary. Only A Modicum Of Common Sense Was.

:hi:

[Sebastian Doyle]

55. If drug use affects your ability to do your job, that's a valid issue.

If you smoke a little dope or have a couple drinks on the weekend, it's not really anybody's fucking business.

And then there are the false positives .... eat a poppy seed muffin for breakfast and look like a junkie, for example.

[undeterred]

60. Take vicodin for a migraine and you look like a junkie too.

[Sebastian Doyle]

69. But at least then you would have a prescription bottle with a doctor's name on it.

No prescriptions for the muffins. :evilfrown:

[gollygee]

70. I was taking Fioricet #3 for my migraines

(which includes a barbituate and codeine) and I brought a doctor's note (or maybe just the prescription bottle - it's been ages so I don't remember) to the testing place and that was enough for them to not count that.

I agree that the tests aren't very useful for their supposed purpose, but they do plan for the issue of prescriptions. Of course, if I had used the headache medicine on the job I would have been just as unsafe, regardless of how legal it was. I guess that's another example of how not very useful these tests are. Everyone at my workplace to the tests, including the CEO, because he didn't think it was fair to expect it only of the people who drove heavy equipment. I worked in the office so I saw how it worked from both sides. I had taken the headache medicine within a day of the test, and I know it was still at least a bit in my system, but I came up as having nothing in me. But I was more likely to be unsafe than someone who had smoked marijuana a week earlier.

[undeterred]

228. I've never tested positive

but I have 2-3 migraines per month and I have vicodin. More often I use the tryptans and don't need to use it that often, but I do use it. It bothers me that I should have to 'fess up that I have a medical problem and that I used prescribed medicine for it. Especially when they aren't even providing health insurance! I would never take it if I were working because I would never drive after taking it. But I can't time my migraine headaches to avoid a pre-employment drug screenings. Ultimately, I feel like I could be discriminated against for my migraines.

[KamaAina]

67. Safety purposes ONLY

airline pilots, bus drivers, nuclear plant workers (imagine Homer Simpson high!!).

Plain old cubicle rats, no way. If a manager can't tell if a worker is high in the office, s/he is a lousy manager. And what people do during their free time is none of the employer's damned business.

[endless october]

91. only in situations where it's relevent.

like members of congress, for instance.

[laststeamtrain]

98. Other: Only for CEOs & 'company people'.

Also test for religious fundamentalism & other forms of authoritarian idiocy.

Oh yeah...& for people who listen to RW radio.

[DainBramaged]

104. It's not discrimination, an employer has a reasonable expectation that YOU

should come to work straight, simple. And if said employer uses pre-employment and random drug screening, how can you object, expect don't apply for the job. If you want to work only where stoners work, you will be hard pressed to find that place.


And if you have anything on the list which can be excused because of medical conditions, jackpot. Otherwise, why is there any other expectation? You can't smoke in the building, and if you are reasonable, you will accept that smoking is bad for YOU and everyone around you. Shouldn't it be expected that you should come to work straight? Especially if you work where NOT being straight (or hungover) could jeopardize your fellow workers?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

113. Even Though As Everyone Here Knows I HATE Being Contrary,

"If you want to work only where stoners work, you will be hard pressed to find that place."

I actually had a job installing office furniture where part of the interview was a question asking if a smoked pot or how I felt about it. I was later informed that if I answered that I was against it, I wouldn't have been hired because everyone on the crew smokes pot and sometimes on the ride home from the job site they stop off and get a few baggies. Swear to god lol.

[DainBramaged]

118. OMG why aren't you still working there?????

There is always an exception to the rule. Look I was a preeminent stoner back in the day, way back in the day when drug-testing was Star wars light years away. But today it's different, and especially if you NEED health insurance like I do, walk the line, remember the good old days, and count your blessings. I can't even drink beer any more, so once you get past the desire pahse, it becomes a moot point.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

127. Cause I Punched The Owners Son Square In The Face LOL

His son was part of the crew, but was one of those "my father is the boss so I don't have to do anything" types. Thing is, office furniture installation is one of the hardest jobs you can have. It was an especially tedious day and him and I were supposed to finish unloading the trailer. He just kept leaning up against the inner wall of the trailer smokin cigs while I broke my back. I finally said something to him and he got all snarky and cocky along with the tone of "I don't have to do shit". Was one of my irritable days and I kinda just lunged at him and popped the punk clean in the face.

Funny part was at the end of the day talking with his father (my boss), he actually kinda defended me and said he knows he had it coming to him and was only a matter of time before one of us finally hauled off and decked him. He apologized that it had to be that way but also said that he hopes I understand that though he wishes he could keep me that obviously I couldn't stay there and continue working with his son (awkward position) and that he'd have to let me go. It was actually kind of amicable but personally I think he should've kicked his do nothing son to the curb. Regardless, I didn't mind much because the job is fucking grueling; with average 14 hour days and then some.

[lumberjack_jeff]

214. Pre-employment, okay. Random, not okay.

There's an element of trust that must exist between employer and employee. Surveillance cameras, spyware, reading email, random drug testing all destroy that trust.

If I ever found that I worked in a place which had no trust in me, that distrust would be merited, because I know that I work for an untrustworthy company.

[gravity]

106. It is a reasonable policy

Drug use is something that can negatively influence work behavior and can cause dangerous situations.

Practically speaking, if you use a drugs and can't muster the will power to pass a pre-employment drug screen, then it might be signal that your use can cause problems in the work place.

[depakid]

148. The same holds true for many medical conditions

Guess we'd better rule out diabetics, people with epilepsy, clinical depression, PMS, etc.

A wide tox screen can detect medications used to treat any of these conditions- as well as many others.

[gravity]

181. Drug use is a choice

Medical conditions aren't

[depakid]

186. anti-depressant or mood stabilizing medication is also a choice

[gravity]

195. But depression isn't

They have a medical need for it, and it is prescribed by a professional.

[killbotfactory]

116. No.

The only drugs on the list with a long detection time is Marijuana and I guess steroids, though I've never heard of a job testing for those outside of professional sports. Every other drug is out of your system within a couple days and anybody except the most addicted user can simply do without for a couple days and pass the drug test, then continue doing them once they are hired.

I guess if you want to screen out pot smokers and the most hardcore of drug addicts it is useful, but not worth invading the privacy of the individual. There are way to test if a person is intoxicated that don't involve the standard drug test, and those should be used if someone is suspected of being under the influence at work. In which case it shouldn't matter if you are taking NyQuil, jittery from too much coffee, or under the influence of cocaine. Drug testing should only be used if an employee was suspected of causing an accident while under the influence, or if they are suspected of theft.

[justabob]

123. I have a big problem with it, generally speaking

I know there are some jobs that it is reasonable to make applicants test for, but generally speaking, it is none of their damned business. I had to write out what medications I was taking on my application a few weeks ago. It really pissed me off. What drugs I may or may not be taking are medical records and as such should be confidential. i know the op is asking about "illicit" drugs, but I am on psych meds and don't want to be discriminated against for that reason.

As for those illicit drugs.... testing does very little since the really bad stuff is out of your system so fast while pot stays with you much much longer.... AND alcoholism is a far greater problem, yet they really can't really test for that in a pre-employment screen.

At what point are we going to have to hand over a dna sample, because you know, we might get sick and not be a good risk as an employee? I know that is a leap, but the way things have been going it isn't a huge leap.

[lukasahero]

126. I'm pretty sure it's illegal for anyone to ask about Rx on an application

Hell, they can't even ask you your age so if you actually had to do that, you probably have a lawsuit at the ready.

As for not testing for alcoholism, most drug tests check for alcohol and if you can't get sober enough to take a scheduled drug test, then you probably are an alcoholic.

[justabob]

142. point taken on alcohol

I guess my main problem is that I have little faith in the integrity of testing. Someone below mentioned third party testing insuring confidentiality, but I have no faith. Every thing has gotten so rotten, and ethics are seemingly a thing of the past... I have a hard time believing that it hasn't spread right down to lowly me and my piss test. (or hair,or whatever)

[gravity]

129. Drug test should be done by a third party

to preserve confidentiality

[Deny and Shred]

165. Funny, I was thinking about the impending DNA screen ...

... so that insurance, medical costs and pension costs could be minimized by being fed into the corporate matrix - similar to how life insurance premiums are calculated.
The cynic in me believes that corporations would find the most desirable employees to be ones who will remain healthy until they reach retirement, but will then die off before their pensions kick in. They'd push non-transferable, employee-only pensions for those with little chance of making it to 70.

After three weeks, one lacks no mental acuity from smoking pot, but still tests positive.

Stopping drug use for a while to pass the test says nothing. If you used drugs for recreation before the test, you will probably do so after the test. A workforce that passed the test is not drug-free.

I've worked with plenty of drug-free people who suck at their job. Bad decisions at work that affect the company negatively are committed for a large variety of reasons. To support a policy that blames it on that joint two weeks ago is arbitrary and weak.

[justabob]

180. it is very disturbing

I have no doubt the idea is out there, it is just a question of time before it comes out in full force.... for our own good of course.

and I agree with everything else you mentioned about testing etc.

[quiller4]

152. Pre-employment drug testing protects employees, too.

In a fair number of occupations it is really dangerous to work with an impaired co-worker. I'm the spouse of a retired union rep. My spouse used to be opposed to pre-employment tests until his bargaining units started demanding pre-employment testing to protect them against accidents caused by impaired, new-hires. This issue first came up in a frozen food warehouse after a near-fatal forklift accident caused by an imppaired forklift operator.

[20score]

156. Freedom sucks!!! I say government control is not enough! I think corporations should be able to tap

phones, jail you, fire you if your credit score drops; they should have no limit on their power!

[dysfunctional press]

160. it depends on the job. if you handle money or operate machinery- definitely.

also- if it's a job that involves public contact.

[Mike 03]

177. I voted "other"

Knowing something about drug testing, it is possible to know if someone used a drug, such as alcohol, four months ago. And testing is going to become more sensitive as we move forward over time.

Some professions, such as airline pilot, car ir airplane assembly, bus driver, I am totally for testing them for recent drug use, but I'm not for the sort of chromosomal drug use tests that are being developed now that can tell if you practically EVER used drugs over a period of months or years.


And think of the repercussions this could have for getting health insurance.

[Romulox]

178. Why not DNA tests? Some people are genetically stupid.

If my stoned IQ is higher than another's sober IQ, shouldn't the dummy be fired on the spot, based on the same logic defenders of drug testing use?

And that goes double for those with slow reaction times...

[Thothmes]

203. What citable sources do you have to support

your contention that DNA testing can identify a persons IQ. Or is this more BS.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

183. It depends on the job.

I wouldn't want a crackhead operating a big piece of machinery on my worksite, but then I couldn't care less if it was in an office environment, provided the crackhead got to work on time and did his shit.

[hootinholler]

188. Gonna make some popcorn and come back to read this later. n/t

[Sex Pistol]

189. It should be up to the employer.

[onethatcares]

190. only if you're running for office and collecting tax payer money as a salary

or flying jets.

[backscatter712]

192. Only for jobs where someone could die.

Truck drivers, airliner pilots, operators of heavy machinery - I can see some drug testing for them.

For computer programmers and burger flippers, no.

[gorfle]

218. But why the double standard?

Only for jobs where someone could die.

Obviously for some jobs the consequences of failure are more dire than for others.

But for all jobs, the consequences of failure mean, ultimately, loss of money.

Since you seem to admit that drug use can lead to mistakes that can cost lives, it stands to reason that drug use can lead to other, less lethal mistakes also.

Why should employers not be able to screen out such mistake-prone people?

[Fumesucker]

247. People die thanks to the decisions of politicians..

In some cases, hundreds of thousands of people.

Should we drug test politicians?

[LeftyMom]

204. They're legally mandated for us because our employees drive for work.

Of course, we've had people pass with flying colors we had to shitcan days later for showing up to work spun out on one thing or another. Everybody knows how to beat the tests. They're pretty useless, they really just weed out the people who are stupid enough to get caught, which is okay because we really don't want to hire them, you know?

[Maru Kitteh]

206. Absolutely. And it's not discrimination. It's discretion and assesment.

If I go in for surgery I would prefer my anesthetist not have a habit of dropping acid or doing coke. Call me a crazy privacy invader if you must. I prefer the professional tuck drivers I share the road with, my healthcare workers, the teachers at the local school,the people who police my neighborhood and countless others that have a direct impact on my community and the safety of everyone not to be fucked up, or to be sporting an illegal drug habit.

There is no other illegal activity that employers are required to tolerate for the pleasure of their employees so why should drug use be different?

For a long time now we have had the luxury of low unemployment and it's been a fantastic market for job-seekers and employees. That's pretty much out the window now. Employers can afford to be more picky. That means if you show up for a job interview and test positive for half a dozen party drugs there will likely be a rich supply of clean applicants with the same qualifications right behind you. For an employer, that's a pretty easy choice.

[gorfle]

219. Wow, thanks Veganistan

Well said!

[undeterred]

232. You just selected a bunch of professions

where it might make a difference. But for every job like that there are 5 which involve sitting in front of a computer all day. If those people get drunk or high on Friday night its not going to affect anyone's life except possibly their own.

I don't think of something a person does on their private time as that which an employer has to "tolerate". We aren't slaves who are owned by our employers.

[Scout]

242. "There is no other illegal activity that employers are required to tolerate"

there is no other illegal activity that you are required to incriminate yourself for if you want a job.

i don't want to work with wife-beaters, rapists, child-molesters and gun-nuts either, but there's no handy piss-test for those, is there?

[jmowreader]

207. Certainly...

IN fact, if I owned a business and someone claiming to be a Republican applied, I'd send their asses straight to LabCorp for a full drug screen.

If they came back negative, I'd hire them just so I could fire them for displaying really bad judgment..."you joined that party when you were SOBER? How could you!"

If they came back positive, I'd hire them just so I could fire them for displaying behavior inconsistent with their political philosophy..."I thought Republicans were the party of law and order. According to your test, you smoke two lids a day; how does owning enough weed to go to prison for being a kingpin mesh with this belief system?"

Libertarians you don't have to drug test. Doing crack is a prerequisite for belonging to that party, because you'd HAVE to be on crack to believe some of that shit.

[lumberjack_jeff]

211. I say yes.

I would think twice about applying for the job though, and if they did random screenings after hiring, I wouldn't work there.

[Maru Kitteh]

217. That's the beauty of it. You're fee to quit, others just as qualified (or more)

and clean, will be ready and waiting to take your job in the climate ahead.

The upcoming depression is about to cure this culture of it's "It's all about me" problem.

[lumberjack_jeff]

253. I don't agree.

A person consents to some intrusion in their personal life when they apply for a job, and an employer can and will use all appropriate diligence to assure that the new hire will be a conscientious worker.

However, an employer who does random drug testing on his workforce doesn't trust them, and in turn doesn't have the employees trust. I may be naive, but I think that an atmosphere of mutual contempt is a competitive disadvantage.

[qwlauren35]

220. There is an interesting assumption of Employee Rights...

I think employers should have the "right" to decide whether to hire a drug user, and any person should have the right to choose whom they work for.

I don't see how that is any different than deciding not to hire someone because you don't like their haircut, or body piercings.

I would add that I would not feel safe knowing that my airline pilot was a recreational drug user. I'm not sure that the airline pilots would feel safe knowing that the air traffic controllers were recreational drug users.

Some drugs just linger too long.

BTW, I am equally comfortable with having a policy of not hiring smokers.

Yes, it's discrimination. But not against anything outside of a person's control. It's a lifestyle choice.

Why does an employer owe anyone a job?

[cemaphonic]

221. In most cases no

Yeah, I wouldn't want to be operated on by a doctor hungover, or high on coke, but one who smoked a joint 3 weeks ago would be OK. I think that people who are deep enough into substance abuse to affect their jobs and basic decision making are fairly visible, and can be dealt with based on their performance, while casual users shouldn't be punished for what they do on their own time.

The main exception I would have would be various "Security Clearance" type jobs. The illegality of many drugs is an excellent hook for a blackmail attempt, and is a liability that the employer just doesn't need. Plus people applying for those jobs are accustomed to the idea that they will enjoy a lot less privacy than your average employee.

[Sanctified]

222. Well if you don't like a company drug testing don't work for them.

There are plenty of companies who don't drug test, there is no rule that says you have to work for a company that tests. We are free people not slaves after all.

[undeterred]

234. I don't know of any companies that don't drug test.

What world are you living in?

[Sanctified]

236. Must be your profession.

In the tech Industry I was only drug tested one time when working for Worldcom but other than that I mostly worked for small outfits where the cost for testing outweighed the benefit. Seriously how much damage can a stoned IT guy do.

[undeterred]

237. My profession is the same as yours.

I'm a computer tech and I do project work. I've been drug tested 5 times already this year. I haven't had an IT assignment in the last 5 years that didn't ask for testing, unless it was a very short assignment, like less than 3 weeks. And I really don't get the reason for it.

[Sanctified]

238. Maybe their business liability insurance does not cover people who are stoned. n/t

[Matariki]

223. I view it as akin to checking a person's teeth before they're bought and sold

It's a disgusting and humanizing invasion of personal sovereignty and privacy.

[JackBeck]

229. No. It's an invasion of privacy. Especially for those that have chronic illnesses.

Sustiva, for instance, which is a commonly used HIV medication, can give a positive urine test for marijuana.

Steroids are also used by many for improving certain quality of life issues, such as lipodystophy and lipoatrophy.

These are disclosure issues that should be left to an individual to share, not some invasive company policy.

[Lucian]

233. It's an invasion of privacy.

[MadHound]

239. Wow, it only took one generation's worth of propaganda

And a sizable number of people are ready to give up their right to privacy and piss in a cup on demand. Damn, that's sad, really, really sad.

Gee, before the advent of piss testing this country survived and thrived, in fact more so than we've done since piss testing started. But thanks to relentless propaganda drives(just say NO, DARE, etc. etc.) and the relentless pressure by corporations, many, if not most people are perfectly fine with giving up their rights.

Yet we bitch and moan about our current Constitutional abuses, the TSA outrages, credit scores for jobs and housing, well guess what, this is how it started, getting a sample of your piss.

We're becoming well trained Germans, that we are. Here in a few years we'll be perfectly happy to have police conduct random house searches, or random person searches, all in the name of safety, or liberty, or whatever. And the sheeple will all go BAAA.

Don't you people get it yet, this isn't a War on Drugs, or a War on Terror, it's a War Against US. A war to take away our liberties, our freedoms, our lives. The elite knew that they couldn't be blatant about this, so they made up these bullshit War on Nouns to fool us, scare us into giving up what our Founding Fathers fought so hard for. Damn, Franklin et. al. are rolling in their graves right now.

[Chisox08]

241. Only if we could have drug tested Shrub

Maybe we could have avoid the biggest disaster in American history.

[iamthebandfanman]

251. eek yes and no

i do think its an invasion and i do think it should probably be limited to if somethings suspected or if something actually happens... but then again, these are private businesses... and who are we to tell them what to do or how to run their company?

i definitely dont think drugs should constitute criminal actions though.

[dugaresa]

255. Yes

and most especially in cases where an employee using drugs may cause harm to others including him/herself.

A very long time ago I worked at a company that had an employee who drank on the job. Warned many times that he wasn't supposed to be drinking at work. The company gave him 2 chances and even suspended him without pay encouraging him to get help.
The guy returns, he gets drunk on a late night shift and while working with industrial equipment he loses his hand. He also puts a slew of other employees at risk while he is "stuck" to a machine that is trying to further "process him".

He survives and then sues the company. Never knew what happened as I had moved to another company while it was still in litigation.

To be honest the one drug that is the biggest problem in the workplace is alcohol by far and it is the one that is most often used to conduct business via business lunches and dinners. I wonder how many folks ended up with substance abuse problems due in part to their job.

[undeterred]

260. That has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand.

Drinking on the job should not be tolerated. But the vast majority of people who drink alcohol have sense enough not to drink during business hours or come to work drunk.

Pre-employment testing gathers information on legal or illegal medication ingested OFF THE JOB, during one's own private time, and possibly for a medical condition. Everyone agrees that drinking or using drugs at work is irresponsible. But should an employer have control over an employee's life 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and during vacations? I don't think that's right.

Long ago I worked in an office where some of the people would have alcoholic drinks during their lunch hour. One guy came back to work drunk, and he was sent home. You didn't need to test him to see that he was drunk, and he went willingly.

Since that time the only people I've seen drink during the business day are high level executives who can do whatever they want because their jobs are protected, and NOBODY is going to ask them to piss in a cup, no matter how drunk or obnoxious they are.

[dugaresa]

263. well the drug test results may indicate whether the employer

will be having those kinds of problems...

There are loads of employers that require drug tests for even active employees to keep from having a problem.


edit - as for medications taken for illnesses - those are noted on the forms when you get tested. In one case I had a blood, urine and hair sample taken as part of the interview process.

[undeterred]

265. The fact that lots of companies do something doesn't

make it right.

Medications taken for illnesses shouldn't be my employer's business to know- as has been discussed elsewhere in this thread, it creates just one more way of discriminating against people. Do they really want to hire someone who is being treated for an expensive illness or mental health problem?

[NNN0LHI]

258. They use them to screen for preexisting medical conditions too

If someone is taking medicine for anything such as blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes or anything you have to disclose that information. People with preexisting medical conditions can be expensive to insure so they don't get many job offers.

No one talks about this angle much.

Don

[Liberal Veteran]

269. Generally speaking though, if a third party is doing the drug test...

....they cannot disclose any health information to the employer regarding current medications that are prescribed by a physician.

If, for example, a person was on Marinol for HIV disease, you would test positive for marijuana, but the if you tell the testing facility you are taking marinol and they disclose it as a positive to the prospective employer, they are violating the law and you can sue their pants off.

[NNN0LHI]

271. I had to write down and hand to the nurse at the plant a list of all meds I was taking for the test

You don't think the company nurse makes a copy of any of that before forwarding it on to the test facility?

I bet they do.

Don

[LanternWaste]

266. I dunno...

I dunno-- no more nor no less than a job application asking (and thus discriminating?) about my "Hobbies/Interests" or some such.

Having grown up with a father who was a heroin/methadone addict, I may be a bit biased. But then again, I've never been made aware of a "casual" heroin user either.

[AmyCamus]

270. Yes, it protects the public.

"Is it reasonable for a potential employer to discriminate on this basis or should it be illegal?"
Push poll.
If you don't want nurses, teachers, and cops to be high on the job it's "discrimination"?
Horse shit.