NationStates Jolt Archive

What a joke. Standard urine drug tests given by corporations target the most innocent of all drug users - pot smokers. Cocaine, heroin, ecstacy, crystal meth, LSD and many others leave your system too quickly or are just not detected using this method. Pot takes 2 weeks to 30 days to leave your system and often the pot smoker is the one who doesn't get the job while the alcoholic meth user does (provided they can hold down an interview). I personally feel that these tests are a violation of one's right to privacy and are not doing the intended job anyway.

Should corporations continue their drug testing?
Should they abandon drug testing?
Should other drug testing methods be employed such as, hair follicle or blood tests?
Any thoughts?

It really depends on the type of work.

People operating heavy machinery or driving vehicles, etc....is perfectly reasonable.

For Joe Clerk, it is not.

I refuse to work at a place that does testing. They only get 40 hours of my week, what I do with the 128 shouldn't be any of thier goddamn business.

Regular drug testing where I work pretty much forced me to give up the tranquilizers, which made me bitter at first, but I'm kinda glad nowadays... of course, tranqs can stay in your system for a month, while coke and heroin can be gone in a weekend or thereabouts, so in some ways the tests favor workers on more harmful drugs.. hrm.

I refuse to work at a place that does testing. They only get 40 hours of my week, what I do with the 128 shouldn't be any of thier goddamn business.

To get my job, I had to state whether or not i recreationally used any drugs.

I lied ;)

To get my job, I had to state whether or not i recreationally used any drugs.

I lied ;)

I once had to take a test and I just quit smoking for a month and drank a ton of water that day. My job was to sit on the phone all day and cold call people to sell them investments. Don't see why I had to get drug tested for it. In fact - drug should be encouraged for that job - I hated it.

Also those who operate heavy machinery and vehichles should be allowed to do whatever they choose to on their own time.

I once had to take a test and I just quit smoking for a month and drank a ton of water that day. My job was to sit on the phone all day and cold call people to sell them investments. Don't see why I had to get drug tested for it. In fact - drug should be encouraged for that job - I hated it.

I bag groceries at a supermarket. Pot really interferes with that, eh?

Also those who operate heavy machinery and vehichles should be allowed to do whatever they choose to on their own time.

I disagree, because those in such a position endanger others if they have a drug problem. Not so much pot, but there's no way of telling inside of a 2 week frame when they last used it. Using heavy machinery while stoned = bad.

Drugs are a necessary part of my work. Well, my off-work, but I'd be more productive if I had them at work as well.

It really depends on the type of work.

People operating heavy machinery or driving vehicles, etc....is perfectly reasonable.

For Joe Clerk, it is not.
It is true i work with heavy machinery and when it can have Revolutions of 5000 RPM per minute (what the fuck that doesn't make sense) you have to be on your game

My work would never have drug testing because almost everyone would fail, including the owner.

My work would never have drug testing because almost everyone would fail, including the owner.

Yay! Can you ask the manager to keep a spot free for me? I'm planning an exodus from Australia on a leaky boat.

Yay! Can you ask the manager to keep a spot free for me? I'm planning an exodus from Australia on a leaky boat.


Yeah if you make it over here I'll sort you out a job.

I was going to say watch out for the crocs... but you've got Steve Irwin to save the day...

Yeah if you make it over here I'll sort you out a job.

Awesome. I'm happy to be the window display, if nothing else.

I was going to say watch out for the crocs... but you've got Steve Irwin to save the day...

No crocs this far down south anyway :p

Yeah.... umm... marijuana is a fairly harmless substance. While I don't recommend doing it during work, the only real reason I can see them trying to test for it is that they still follow the idea that the drug's use will bring your work performance down or that you're not suitable for the job since OBVIOUSLY only losers smoke pot... ick.. what a fucking stupid ideology.

You're all missing the essential point. The owners of a firm have the right to decide whom they shall employ. If they do not want to employ drug users, that is their right, and drug testing stems from that right.

Actually, Cannot think of a name got it, from the other side of the coin, as it were.

You're all missing the essential point. The owners of a firm have the right to decide whom they shall employ. If they do not want to employ drug users, that is their right, and drug testing stems from that right.

Ha;

So...if a company doesn't want to employ black people, or homosexuals, they have that right too? ;)

Well if we go by the theory that pot makes worker A more lazy/incompetant well than we don't need a drug test, since a simple interview makes that clear.

I think the reason I've never seen it in the U.K before is. It takes time to get all the urine samples (therefore money) and you might result in having to lay off perfectly good workers (therefore lose even more money). Hold on why does America do it :confused: ..

As far as heavy lifting or dangerous work goes, I'm sure theres just as much risk of being drunk at work ect.. and if you've had the right training and your competant you'll prob still work better than some of the other workers ;)

Still saying well done you've got the job now lets get some of your urine just seems odd and disgusting to me hmm.

Ha;

So...if a company doesn't want to employ black people, or homosexuals, they have that right too? ;)

How about a fat black female homosexual who smokes...Think of the discrimination!

So...if a company doesn't want to employ black people, or homosexuals, they have that right too?

There are two sorts of discrimination in the employment context, relevant, and irrelevant. Relevant discrimination means discriminating on grounds which are relevant to the position offered. This sort of discrimination is not only good, it is essential for efficient business.

Irrelevant discrimination is the opposite.

In the private sector, irrelevant discrimination should not be banned by law, or punished for three reasons:


It is pointless, if an employer doesn't want to employ members of a particular group, they will simply fail their interviews, the process is sufficiently vague to allow it
Employers who practice irrelevant discrimination merely create opportunities for other employers. Stupidity punishes itself.
No one should be forced to do business with people with whom they do not want to do business, and forcing people to do business with those they do not want to is nothing more then theft.



My question to you is this: What was the point of your post? Do you have a point?

You're all missing the essential point. The owners of a firm have the right to decide whom they shall employ. If they do not want to employ drug users, that is their right, and drug testing stems from that right.

Amen.

All this drug testing will only be done on the workers.
If the Boss is using Crack, then he'll never be tested.

What a joke. Standard urine drug tests given by corporations target the most innocent of all drug users - pot smokers.Pot smoking interferes with productivity. Also, since in general, pot possession is illegal, it means that the smoker is engaging in criminal activity. Can you think of any valid reasons why a company should be forced to accept less-than-fully-productive criminals in their workforce? Well,the courts can't find a reason why business should be forced down that path.

Having been subject to drug testing since relatively early in my military career (it was instituted while I was still a junior squid), and having watched (and participated in, on occasions) the process-development and legal wrangles to be sure it worked reliably (Yeah, I've had to watch people 'fill the bottle.' Ick.), I can say with some confidence that they way drug testing is done now is as reliable and effective as any human-designed process can be.

Sure, it sometimes screws up, but nothing human designed is perfect. That's why any well-designed system has an appeals process built-in.

Ha;

So...if a company doesn't want to employ black people, or homosexuals, they have that right too? ;)

Yeah... those poor oppressed drug users. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Sucker Punch]Pot smoking interferes with productivity. Also, since in general, pot possession is illegal, it means that the smoker is engaging in criminal activity. Can you think of any valid reasons why a company should be forced to accept less-than-fully-productive criminals in their workforce? Well,the courts can't find a reason why business should be forced down that path.

[QUOTE]

I smoked MUCHO weed in college. Every paper and every test I studied for - I was high. I graduated Summa Cum Laude (the honors get no higher). I am not bragging - just trying to prove a point. Was I not productive? I think not - I feel that I was able to stay up longer and work better as a result. Criminals? Possession is a misdemeanor and that my friend is NOT a criminal.

Yeah... those poor oppressed drug users. :rolleyes:

Let them intrude on one area of your life and who know what's next. No one's claiming oppression. It is a violation of our right to privacy and governments tend to use every bit of leverage they can to turn that one violation into more. Don't you see it?

Let them intrude on one area of your life and who know what's next. No one's claiming oppression. It is a violation of our right to privacy and governments tend to use every bit of leverage they can to turn that one violation into more. Don't you see it?

People do have a right to privacy and the government should not be allowed to snoop in your life but doesn't a company have a right to know if you are using drugs? It could affect your performance at work becaue people with addictions usually cannot control when they use. Besides many positions are sensitve, or could be dangerous or involve being around kids and I would not want to chance a junkie in such jobs, the same with those with criminal records with is also why on application forms you are asked if you are addicted or ever convicted of a felony for these reasons.

I smoked MUCHO weed in college. Every paper and every test I studied for - I was high. I graduated Summa Cum Laude (the honors get no higher). I am not bragging - just trying to prove a point. Was I not productive? I think not - I feel that I was able to stay up longer and work better as a result. Criminals? Possession is a misdemeanor and that my friend is NOT a criminal.Very laudible. How much better would you've done if you'd not been busily clogging up your neural pathways with various illegal pharmacokinetic compounds? Sure, Summa Cum Laude is impressive... I bet you could have been even more impressive.

Meanwhile, misdemeanrs are also crimes, even if they're small ones - Why should I, or anyone, for that matter have to employ someone who has engaged in an extended pattern of law-breaking?

Last: You, for all your impressive credentials, are an anecdote. I'm sure that you, being (you assert) a highly-educated individual, should be aware that anecdote != data. The data is soundly against you.

Very laudible. How much better would you've done if you'd not been busily clogging up your neural pathways with various illegal pharmacokinetic compounds? Sure, Summa Cum Laude is impressive... I bet you could have been even more impressive.

Meanwhile, misdemeanrs are also crimes, even if they're small ones - Why should I, or anyone, for that matter have to employ someone who has engaged in an extended pattern of law-breaking?

Last: You, for all your impressive credentials, are an anecdote. I'm sure that you, being (you assert) a highly-educated individual, should be aware that anecdote != data. The data is soundly against you.

Fair enough. I used and N of 1 example to prove a point - I'll give you that.
Sodomy is still iiegal in some municipalities - as an employer can I deny a person a job and investigate anal activities?

I refuse to work at a place that does testing. They only get 40 hours of my week, what I do with the 128 shouldn't be any of thier goddamn business.

35. Lunch hours don't count.

35. Lunch hours don't count.

Hours? You only lose pay for half an hour for every 8 in the US. Maybe you should have a talk with the boss eh?;)

All this drug testing will only be done on the workers.
If the Boss is using Crack, then he'll never be tested.
One place I would say that is not true is the military. Working in the drug UA program, they took random samples from everyone eventually, including the base commander. That's firsthand information.

It really depends on the type of work.

People operating heavy machinery or driving vehicles, etc....is perfectly reasonable.

For Joe Clerk, it is not.

There's still a problem there. If you're testing for inactive metabolites in the blood or urine of someone who smoked a joint on Friday night and is coming in to use the forklift on Monday morning then the test is meaningless and is just an excuse to replace the employee with a less experienced and lower paid replacement. And if employee got completly drunk on perfectly legal alcohol and came to work hungover, but sober, he'd be a far bigger risk than the joint smoker even if he had smoked his share of a joint with 2 friends that morning before work.

I'd have no problem with required drug testing in the cases of public saftey workers, law enforcement officials, heavy machinery operators, or custodians of children if their behavior indicated likely drug or alcohol use. But it should be tests for being under the influence, not tests for having previously used chemicals that the employer (or even the law) frowns upon. Testing for inactive metabolites is a crock.

Hours? You only lose pay for half an hour for every 8 in the US. Maybe you should have a talk with the boss eh?;)

Usually it's either that you get wages get paid for the hours you work, not the hours you don't. If you take a half hour for lunch every day and work a 40 hour wekk then you're probably at "work" from 8:30 to 5:00 rather than 9 to 5, or you get a salary, which means that you get paid by the year, not by the hour, so if you work 60 hours or 30 hours your paycheck will be the same at the end of the week.

It used to be that if you were a waged employee then you had to get time and a half for every hour after the 40th, but not since the Republicans "clarified" who was entitled to overtime pay.

Pretty much all the Pizza Places are owned by Druggies and none of them are Italians............

Pretty much all the Pizza Places are owned by Druggies and none of them are Italians............

Heh. I've been doing research into opening one. Is it something in the drugs that cause it?

Anyway, I once failed a drug test on everything it tested for except heroin. Unsurprisingly my employment was terminated soon after. I busted my ass in that job, never was late, did a bunch of stuff that I didn't have to and never once used anything when on the clock. And I was fired because of what I did on my time. And there were lazy fools and alcoholics who worked there, and continue to do so. Scum.

The manager was impressed with my hardcore failure though. He got me a new job with a buddy of his. Nice guy.

35. Lunch hours don't count.
I'm willing to concede to not smoking pot on my lunch break, that seems reasonable enough.

Cocaine and Heroin are for the executives, anyway.

My question to you is this: What was the point of your post? Do you have a point?

I did, though I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Yeah... those poor oppressed drug users. :rolleyes:

My body, my choice to use.

There's still a problem there. If you're testing for inactive metabolites in the blood or urine of someone who smoked a joint on Friday night and is coming in to use the forklift on Monday morning then the test is meaningless and is just an excuse to replace the employee with a less experienced and lower paid replacement. And if employee got completly drunk on perfectly legal alcohol and came to work hungover, but sober, he'd be a far bigger risk than the joint smoker even if he had smoked his share of a joint with 2 friends that morning before work.

I'd have no problem with required drug testing in the cases of public saftey workers, law enforcement officials, heavy machinery operators, or custodians of children if their behavior indicated likely drug or alcohol use. But it should be tests for being under the influence, not tests for having previously used chemicals that the employer (or even the law) frowns upon. Testing for inactive metabolites is a crock.

You're correct, of course, but to my knowledge, there is no other test available to detect if cannabis was used in a 24 hour period.

You're correct, of course, but to my knowledge, there is no other test available to detect if cannabis was used in a 24 hour period.

Leave a shiny object in the corner. Who ever goes over to it and starts talking for twenty minutes about how shiny it is toasted.

I can't believe the drug-testers haven't figured this out yet.

Leave a shiny object in the corner. Who ever goes over to it and starts talking for twenty minutes about how shiny it is toasted.

I can't believe the drug-testers haven't figured this out yet.

Hahaha...

...but I do shit like that when sober :D

Hahaha...

...but I do shit like that when sober :D
Peanut butter cups. Even a cronic eater can only consume so many, but a stoned person, infinite. Extra points if each cup is eaten before the previous is chewed or if each cup is an experiment on a new way of eating them.

Usually it's either that you get wages get paid for the hours you work, not the hours you don't. If you take a half hour for lunch every day and work a 40 hour wekk then you're probably at "work" from 8:30 to 5:00 rather than 9 to 5, or you get a salary, which means that you get paid by the year, not by the hour, so if you work 60 hours or 30 hours your paycheck will be the same at the end of the week.

It used to be that if you were a waged employee then you had to get time and a half for every hour after the 40th, but not since the Republicans "clarified" who was entitled to overtime pay.

I'm obviously talking about getting paid by hourly wages. If you are at work from 8:30 to 5:00 instead of 9-5 that is an extra half hour and therefore more work not less. That has nothing to do with earning salary over hourly wages. A contract decides if you get paid by salary or hourly wages.

I hope you were really wasted when you wrote this post. If not you need to open your eyes when you type so you notice the garbage that appears on the screen.