Why Employer Drug Testing Is Just Plain Wrong

[JFN1]

First, let's discuss what is reasonable:

An employer is entitled to prohibit an employee from using drugs ON THE JOB. Seems reasonable.

An employer is entitled to prohibit an employee's personal life affecting from their job performance. This seems reasonable for many jobs, such as airplane pilot, heavy equipment operator, police officer, doctor, or similar jobs where public safety and potential for human and/or property damage exist.

For me, this is where reasonable ends.

As long as an employee's PRIVATE behavior has no effect on their JOB PERFORMANCE, then I fail to see how the employer insinuating themselves into the private lives of their employees, is in any way relevant. Seriously - the guy flipping my burger, or checking me out at the grocery store, can't get off work from his miserable minimum wage job with no health benefits and ease the ache in his knees and lower back with a joint after work, because his employer says he can't? WHY THE FUCK NOT? And how is it in any way the employer's business?

Yes, I hear those of you arguing that drug use is currently illegal, and thus employers are justified in embracing such invasive policies.

Okay, then consider: An employer wants to uphold the anti-fornication, oral sex, or adultery laws still on the books in any one of many different states. According to the 'currently illegal' argument, an invasive, 24-hour monitoring system to ensure employees do not violate these sex laws, would be no different than forced drug testing that ensures employees do not violate drug laws.

Unnecessary mandatory employee drug testing is arbitrary and hypocritical, and in my opinion should not be allowed.

[vadawg]

1. totally disagree, if an employer for insurance reasons, legal reasons

need to make sure that there are no illegal drugs on their premises or their employees dont use them in case of accidents then they are entitled to ask you to submit to a drugs test, you are free to walk away from said job if you dont want to submit to the test afterall.

[jaysunb]

2. Bullshit !

what next ? no booze after work ? Puleeze :evilfrown:

[Orrex]

3. No illegal booze, maybe.

[vadawg]

7. is the booze illegal????????

[dysfunctional press]

9. if the employee is under 21 it is.

[paulsby]

21. not necessarily

in many jurisdictions, including my own, it is perfectly legal for a person under 21 to drink alcohol as long as it is supplied by their parent in their own residence.

if you want to get like, all technical n stuff

[uncle ray]

11. what difference does it make?

according to your logic, as long as the employer can benefit by lower insurance premiums or reduce the risk of legal action, etc. they can test for anything. is your opinion going to change as the legal status of various drugs changes?

[vadawg]

12. the legality of it is part of the reasons that employers dont want drug users on the payroll

now if they become legal then it changes to whether the person is using the drug at work or does it have side effects that effect the job and the safety of other workers.

[Taitertots]

15. Drug tests don't show any of those things

Since they don't measure intoxication, they can't tell if people are using at work or if it effects the safety of other workers.

It is like firing someone Monday for a beer on Friday night. The results don't tell you anything.

[vadawg]

16. dosent matter if its illegal, if you took it a day ago or a week ago

if its illegal and shows up on the prehire then they are not going to hire you unless they have a policy of retesting.. personally i dont want people who are using to be watching my back and im glad we test and fire...

[Occulus]

17. Does that include steroids? n/t

[vadawg]

19. yup unless you have a script for them from the doctor and are cleared to work

[Taitertots]

18. What does it matter to you?

Are you so paranoid that you think people using marijuana are unable to watch your back?

Obviously since you are in favor of this you would be in favor of mandatory alcohol PBT tests at the start of shifts. Since alcohol has a significantly worse intoxication effect why don't you care if people are using alcohol on their free time.

Better search their computers to make sure they don't download music, after all you are already searching their bodies, what is one more invasive inspection.

[vadawg]

20. yup it matters to me, one its illegal and leaves people open to all sorts of shit

two my ass can get dragged into the shitstorm it entails, three like alcohol whos to say they are not using during the day...

[uncle ray]

25. it's legal in my state.

i suggest actual performance or impairment based testing rather than assuming that some sober idiot is more competent than any pot smoker just on principle.

[vadawg]

26. then that takes care of the legality now its just down to individual businesses

you accept pot smokers others dont so you both excercise choice in your employees...

[uncle ray]

32. outside of safety or job performance, it is not a concern to the employer.

neither of which can be determined by a pre-employment drug screening.

i support a businesses right to test for impairment on the job. i do not support a businesses "right" to test for drugs that may be in the system absent any signs of impairment.

[vadawg]

37. we are on opposite sides i support the business owners right to drug test his employees

for illegal drug use as part of the hiring process...

[uncle ray]

42. of course we are. here's a question for you.

do you support a business owners right to check his employees names against any firearms databases, business records, internet postings, check for powder on their hands, etc. in case they've been shooting guns over the weekend or any time in recent history as a pre-employment screening? should he be able to fire you if he discovers you've been target shooting this weekend, or if you even refuse to submit to a test to determine whether or not you may or may not have even been on a target range?

[vadawg]

44. would depend apon the reasoning behind it, maybe if you could contaminate something at work

not sure were you ara going with this, as long as its legal i dont see the problem unless there is some other reason why it could effect the job...

[uncle ray]

50. i guess it depends on what you believe.

some would say that handling a gun on a weekend has nothing to do with job performance. some would say that it puts you in a higher risk category, which could be of interest to an employer. i'm just curious to what extent you support an employers right to restrict the behavior of his employees on their own time.

[vadawg]

51. i support the rights of employers to run credit checks, criminal checks and drug tests

on prospective employees if thats part of the proccess for everybody, and what the company wants to do.

[uncle ray]

60. so you're not answering?

[vadawg]

63. thought i had, but i support employers who have contracts that employees sign

that have conditions in them, for instance i know that sportsmen are banned by contract from playing their game on the street, i have lots of conditions on my contract to do with credit scores, debt payment, etc etc, we are discouraged from participating in certain sports due to injuries etc, some people in the design business are barred from doing any hobby designing due to their contracts, so yes if the employer has a contract that the employee signs as a condition of work then i guess the employer can dictate the employees liesure habits.

[uncle ray]

74. no contracts.

regular old hourly employee doing simple labor.

[vadawg]

78. yup if the condition of the hire is a drugs test, then the employer can insist

if the prospective employee dosent want to submit to the piss test they are are free to walk away....

[Taitertots]

77. Those are not leisure restrictions at all

Those are all restrictions on the employee competing with the company or using intellectual property outside of work. You are comparing absolutely different things. Which of those involve the employer physically sampling the body fluids to test for unrelated activities outside of work?

I worked prototype vehicle testing and I can't discuss anything about the cars I saw or any of their performance stats.

[vadawg]

80. how is a sportsman being banned from playing his sport in the street or in the park

not a leisure activity, ill give you a great example, i got a buddy who loves motorbikes but he is not allowed to go to motorbike meets due to our work not allowing us to interact with certain groups in our leisure time. im sure your company would have some qualms about some of the stuff you could get up to in your free time if you thought about it.

[Taitertots]

96. It is a agreement not to privately compete with your employer

Same as an agreement not to use proprietary knowledge outside of work. Same as not allowing police to openly associate with biker gangs, that would be analogous to working for your competitor. They are totally unrelated to drug testing and represent a valid agreement between two parties.

Which of those involve invasive physical testing unrelated to work performance and unrelated to any valid commercial interest?

I'm sure they would have all variety of qualms about the things I do outside of work least of which would be past marijuana use. Mainly my religious beliefs, my sexual activities, and my political ideology would absolutely top the list. Good thing they are not allowed to discriminate based on those.

[JonLP24]

67. credit checks?

You're worse then I thought. :puke:

[vadawg]

71. why tonnes of jobs run credit checks on prospective employees

especially if your going to be handling money, i think you would be surprised at how many companies and small businesses actually do it.. but i guess if you were hiring someone to do the books at your company you wouldnt care about their financial state.

[JonLP24]

72. I don't care if they do.. do it. I know they do it

I just think they shouldn't.

[intheflow]

131. I've had credit checks run on me for several jobs that

didn't involve handling money. I think it's a bullshit invasion of my privacy. After all, what better way to clean up your bad credit history than with a decently paying job?

[Selatius]

53. Actually, an interesting tangent to your scenario would be "dead peasants insurance"

That is, the employer without telling you takes out a life insurance policy on your head. If you did go to the shooting range and died of an accident, your employer gets a fat paycheck from the life insurance company.

[vadawg]

55. funnily enough i got no problem with the key man insurance policy

as long as the company pays the premium, the insurance company accepts the premium and neither actually has anything to do with your deat, ie you die at the range, then i got no problem with the company collecting money.

[Selatius]

66. I find it creepy. It's one among a whole laundry list of reasons I favor powerful labor unions.

Employer power should be chained and shackled the same way markets should have regulations to prevent abuse and excess.

[vadawg]

75. funnily enough i kinda think of it as myself going to the bookies and placing a bet on a sportstar

having a career ending injury within i certain time period, if im willing to put the money down and the bookie is willing to take the money and the bet and as long as i dont actually do the deed or am involved, i dont see the problem with it, now ethically i can see why some people may have issues with it but as long as its legal and the two parties involved agree to the contract i dont see why it matters...

[Selatius]

81. It's an ethical issue. You just stated the answer.

Workers are more than just money-making propositions dead or alive. If the US still had a powerful labor movement like decades ago, this practice would be challenged without a doubt.

[vadawg]

83. well i guess it depends if your the one putting the bet on or the one dieing i suppose

well i gotta go, end of my shift, time to go home have a beer and make some dinner, you all have a great day...

[JonLP24]

85. "have a beer"

You had the nerve to say even if legal you'll think people who use cannabis are "idiots". :eyes:

[vadawg]

89. i think i said if its illegal and you use then your an idiot if you dont expect ramifications

and if stuff is legal and you abuse it by choice then your an idiot, if you are addicted to it then your a victim.... well i gotta go... relief is on the way...

[JonLP24]

94. You should have made that clear

You said "even if legal ill still avoid the stoners and think they are idiots" and they way all your posts have been typed every one you used as an example for someone who uses cannabis is a "stoner" in every post so I assume you meant everyone who uses or would use it moderately.

[wolfgangmo]

125. I gotta tell ya

I used to work in a maximum security prison. We handled the worst of the worst.

So I know what you mean when you say you want to trust that someone has your back. But the worst staff for work with were the alcoholics - they may not have drank on shift (although I am pretty sure that some of them headed out to their car on break for a little irish courage) but they had a hair trigger temper and tended to make problems for the staff by being big assholes all the time. They actually caused fights and riots and because they made bad judgements it would force other staff to have to put their lives on the line to pull their stupid asses out of the fire time and again. We all knew who the alcoholics were and none of us wanted to work with them.

The staff who I knew lit up a fatty every now and again were real easy to work with. They tended to be easy tempered and could defuse situation just by talking most of the time and could whoop ass when they needed to.

And yes, the alcoholics used the computers inappropriately and the stoners didn't . IMHO the stoners were pros and the alkies were not.

Just my 2 cents.

[reggie the dog]

105. you are an idiot by your own logic

you said and I quote "if you want to use and abuse drugs no matter if legal or illegal then you are an idiot," well you are going home to use alcohol, so you, by your own logic from this page, are and idiot.

[reggie the dog]

107. You support drug testing by insinuating that it effects job performance

when someone uses cannabis at home after work. Yet you use alcohol and you are the one surfing the net while you are at work. That is priceless.

[Bluenorthwest]

112. Dying. It is spelled Dying.

This is the cop level education and mind at work. Typing semi literate rants on the clock.

[vadawg]

133. no this is someoe at the end of a 13 hour night shift, trying hard to stay awake

but if you feel that pointing out spelling mistakes makes you superior, then good luck to you.

[wolfgangmo]

123. Ah but ... if companies took out dead peasant insurance then ...

... they might start screening out anyone who scuba dived or mountain climbed or any of the other hobbies where one cannot qualify for life insurance. After all they wouldn't want to hire someone they couldn't qualify as a dead peasant.

[michreject]

106. Employers view drug users as law breakers

If a potential employee will break one law, they will break many more. Best not to invite trouble.

[JonLP24]

108. "If a potential employee will break one law, they will break many more."

Not true. I know several people whose only record is a small possession of cannabis. Really the drug test invites trouble because people who use a salt-like water soluble drug like cocaine is out of their system in 3 days while the people who do happen to use cannabis have it sit in their system for 1-4 weeks because unlike cocaine it has low water soluble.

[michreject]

114. It doesn't matter if it's true or not

As long as the person who does the hiring thinks it's true, then it is.

[reggie the dog]

120. That is crap. The only laws I violate are related to

buying, having and using cannabis.

[michreject]

134. Nuff said

from your own mouth.

[Bluenorthwest]

111. Are you not a professional arrester of pot smokers?

I mean, you are in law enforcement and thus have a financial incentive to hold the position you hold.

[reggie the dog]

49. having an arbirtary reason not to hire someone

such as what drugs they use in their off time, the color of their skin or their sexual orientation is discrimination. People must be judged on work performance, not how they spend their lesieur time.

[Taitertots]

30. How does someone smoking at home get you into a shit storm?

How does someone smoking at home get them into a shit storm?

If you are concerned people are using during the day why would you advocate a system that can't possibly tell that? You are giving people a PBT Friday night to make sure they are not drinking at work next week Wednesday.

Drugs simply being illegal is hardly a reason to allow employers dramatic leeway to physically invade the bodies of it's workers. Are you going to allow them to inspect your computer to make sure you don't download music? Are you going to let them keep a tattler box in your car to make sure you don't speed on the weekends? Why would you let them inspect your body to make sure you are not doing things outside of work?

[Selatius]

70. One of my former employers, a huge Fortune 100, specifically didn't test unless with a reason.

They only tested individuals who appeared to have their work impacted by drug use. Everybody else didn't have to submit a test. If the company did begin drug testing, guaranteed at least 20% or even 25% of the workforce would be gutted. The company operations would be thrown into chaos, and each day brings in several tens of million in revenue each day at this company.

[reggie the dog]

48. what sort of shit does illegality leave us open to?

Most Americans live in decrim states where the illegality of cannabis leads to a fine of less than 250 dollars. No shitstorms are involved. No worse than speeding tickets.

[reggie the dog]

47. what is wrong with me smoking grass when I am not at work?

How would that make you worse off? If your co worker had an alcohol hangover that would be worse because cannabis does not give hangovers. If I smoke tonight I will still be 100% functional at work tomorrow.

[wolfgangmo]

121. what's your job?

Who is watching your back? Why does it need watching?

[uncle ray]

22. employers want good workers.

most already adhere to the policy of "does it affect the employee's work?" most places that test only test for appearances sake and to CYA. they'll test you at hiring so they can score the low insurance rate or a gov't contract, then ignore your habits until they need a reason to throw you under the bus. your field is quite unique in it's zero tolerance towards drug use. most employers don't give a damn what you do in your free time if you come in on time and make them lots of money. employers across the nation ignore pot smokers and hard drug users because they do their jobs well. i've personally seen many drunks sent home from work just because of their odor, never a pot smoker, hell, never even a tweaker.

[vadawg]

24. yup thats the policy od some, others enforce it, i guess its all down to the employer

[rhett o rick]

139. And cheap workers. They can keep you in line with the threat of your failure of a drug test.

They dont have to prove you failed. Can ruin your life. Employers like good workers but also like compliant workers.

[uncle ray]

23. dupe

.

[jgraz]

14. Maybe next they can follow you around to make sure you're not having unsafe sex

After all, they don't want their insurance costs to go up.

:eyes:

[rhett o rick]

135. Better yet, test you. nt

[unpossibles]

29. you're against drugs for insurance reasons?

First off, I am pretty sure the OP mentioned that any job which involves public safety is not what they are discussing. Pilots, firemen, cops, etc.

The point is, most drug tests do not measure your intoxication levels, or even your ability to do your job well. Period. And to say "well it's illegal" is kind of ignorant since (a) alcohol was illegal not that long ago and (b) the reasons drugs like marijuana are illegal are largely based on hyperbole, racism, and class issues.

[vadawg]

lol what does the past status of alcohol have to do with what is illegal now

alcohol is legal, illegal drugs by definition are not whatever the reason, so a company is going to treat them differently same as individuals will as well.

[unpossibles]

35. my point is simple

that alcohol was once illegal yet now seen as safe and innocuous despite it being responsible for more deaths than illegal drugs.

[vadawg]

38. and my point is simple, alcohol is legal, illegal drugs are not

[Taitertots]

40. The tired circular logic of the prohibitionist

They should stop them because they are illegal. Why are they illegal? You don't know, but it is still the reason you want to stop them.

You want to stop a harmless plant from being ingested outside of work. The reason why, it is illegal.

Why is Marijuana bad? Because it is illegal
Why is it illegal? Because it is bad

[vadawg]

41. easy answer its illegal because the legislatures made it illegal

how easy was that question to answer. You want to bitch about the legality of it go bitch to your representative.

[Taitertots]

43. So we fall back on the intellectually void response

You have no sound reason and lack the ability to think for yourself I guess.

The circular logic of the prohibitionist
Why is it bad? Because the government banned it
Why did the government ban it? Because it is bad

[vadawg]

45. lol you dont get it do you, what i think has nothing to do with it, or what you think for that

matter, until the politicians legalise it then companies will continue to use it as a disqualifier, personally i dont care if its legal or not, even if legal ill still avoid the stoners and think they are idiots, same as you will probuably still use whether its legal or not...

[JonLP24]

56. "think they are idiots"

I don't know what to say except that bothered me. You must think a person I know who has a CAB because he his truck has hit by an IED is an idiot. You must think a person I know who had to carry out a dead passenger of a truck that was struck by an EFP is an idiot. I can go on but these people do like to use cannabis and there is normal people out there doing extraordinary things in the world like to do something they enjoy. Many of them are as smart as me or you or perhaps smarter and I know college educated ones. Some may be idiots but so are some sober people and they are the ones that came up with these ridiculous drug laws.

[uncle ray]

57. if you stick to avoiding stoners, we'll all get along just fine.

you didn't exactly come here as a pacifist though.

[Taitertots]

58. You can think whatever unsupported, biased, intellectually void things you want

It is still abhorent that employers are forcing employees to submit body fluids for arbitrary testing that show results unrelated to workplace activity. Would you object to being PBT tested on your day off?

Would you submit to having your personal computer searched to make sure you don't download songs?
Would you submit to having your home searched to make sure you are not breaking X, Y, or Z law?
If not why would you let your body be searched?

Considering how many people die or are injured due to alcohol use compared to how almost no one is injured of killed by marijuana use, I'd say it is the drinkers who are the idiots.

[reggie the dog]

62. you realize that you are as close minded and backward as a

RACIST don't you? So I am an idiot because I smoke grass. That cancels out my Master's degree. But someone who uses a more dangerous drug like tobacco or alcohol is smarter than me even if they did not graduate high school simply because they do not smoke grass? Take your sentence and replace stoner with nig""r. "I avoid nig""rs and think they are idiots. Pure prejudice. Plenty of highly intelligent people who have MA's PHD's and the like smoke grass. Hell there is evidence that many of our founding fathers used cannabis.

[JonLP24]

64. +1

[vadawg]

68. yeah right because using illegal drugs is the same as being a victim of racism

you want to use an illegal substance and dont expect any ramifications then yes your an idiot, yes your an idiot if you think that people are going to automatically think you are the coolest guy in the world education aside, I dont care how many degrees a person has if you want to use and abuse drugs no matter if legal or illegal then you are an idiot, if you dont have a choice then you are a victim, but if you make that decision then you are an idiot...

[uncle ray]

76. what about those who use responsibly and in moderation?

they exist.

[vadawg]

86. and if they use it illegaly then they must be aware that there are ramifications

whether you like it or not, until you have the laws changed there will always be ramifications for illegal behaviour..

[reggie the dog]

88. ah ha! why do you care what we do in our country?

I may live in France now but I am American. You write behaviour with a U. You are likely not even American and you are supporting the AMERICAN DRUG TESTING SYSTEM! How messed up is that.

[vadawg]

92. you need to check profiles i think to see where people live

ah ha

[reggie the dog]

102. unless the profile is BS

why the U in behaviour then?

[Taitertots]

100. No, he is an American police officer

He is supporting it because without the "war on Drugs" he would be out of a job.

He just needs to dehumanize these people or he would have to face how unjust and corrupt he is for harassing peaceful marijuana users.

[reggie the dog]

101. then why behaviour with a U ?

[Taitertots]

128. Because the spell check didn't stop him?

Behaviour, no it actually does.

[Bluenorthwest]

113. He also spells 'dying' dieing and does it all over the board

[JonLP24]

91. You're redefining what an "idiot" cannabis user is

You said even if legal you'll still think they are idiots. When confronted with it you added 'if they use it illegally' as well as other qualifiers such as 'not expecting ramifications', etc. Enjoy your beer. :eyes:

[reggie the dog]

93. right, I noticed that too. It is hard to aim for moving goalposts.

[Taitertots]

98. Well he is a drinker maybe the goal posts are swaying from the DTs n/t

[reggie the dog]

79. I am an idiot because I chose to use the least dangerous of 3

drugs which are widely available just because the more dangerous drugs are legal? I think it is intelligent to use a drug which is less dangerous for me and other than the legal ones. I do not let the government force me to use a dangerous drug if I wish to alter my state of mind. Why does wanting to use drugs make one an idiot? In your logic using caffeine, alcohol, and tobacco also makes people idiots. Why is this? When did I say that people would think I was the coolest guy in the world? My coworkers know me as someone serious about teaching our students and who is willing to work together with other teachers on group projects etc. and that I am willing to continue doing professional development activities. I have never met anyone who did not have a choice as to what drugs they did so I do not understand the victim part.

As far as not having any ramifications the only ramifications I ever had from cannabis was getting arrested. I was found innocent but I had to pay a lawyer. Cannabis has not had a negative effect on my health. My doctor has told me more than once that I have the lungs of a non smoker, that my heart is fine etc. I mountain bike ride in actual mountains 3 or 4 days a week. I work full time. I have no problem raising my daughter with my wife. You remind me of a dare office we had in high school who explained to us that the role of government was to make cannabis have more negative effects than alcohol or tobacco my giving people legal and employment problems linked to prohibition because cannabis was just plain immoral. You are advocating the same thing, making something benign in nature have a more negative effect on people due to human prejudice.

[vadawg]

82. there you go, you just said what the ramification is, you were arrested

you know its illegal, you got caught, you were arrested, you had to pay money for a lawyer, now you are an idiot if you think it was ever going to go down any other way. you can spend all day pontificating how great dope is and how great you are doing even though you are using it, but if you dont expect to be arrested and have to pay fines and mayby go to court if you are caught doing it illegaly then yes you are an idiot. Now i personally dont care if you want to do it, my point is that people who do illegal shit and then complain when it bites them in the ass are idiots...

[reggie the dog]

87. NO I am not an idiot

The police had an ILLEGAL checkpoint. I needed a lawyer to represent me to ensure that the DA did not trick me. I was found innocent due to unreasonable search and seizure. Also the ramifacation is man made. What natural negative ramifications do I have from cannabis use? Most Americans live in states where you risk a ticket of not more than 250 dollars for having your own cannaibs. Why sould bosses fire people for such petty offenses? We complain because it is the stupid laws which bite us in the ass, not the actual drugs themselves and that the laws are put in place to supposedly protect us from illegal drugs because the drugs are supposed to bite us in the ass worse than the legal ones. In the end it is the law which gets us, not the grass we smoke because grass is actually less dangerous than the legal drugs.

[reggie the dog]

95. being arbitrarily hassled for using cannaibs is akin to

being the victim of racism. In case you missed that whole point. I would love to argue more, but in about 2 hours. I am going to smoke some hash now and go for a mountain bike ride in the foothills of the Alps.

[unpossibles]

116. "if you make that decision then you are an idiot"

"if you dont have a choice then you are a victim, but if you make that decision then you are an idiot..."

So what you're saying is, it's actually closer to religious persecution. And even more to the point, much of the initial prohibition drive for pot was based on racial issues and class/economic disparity is still a major reason behind drug law enforcement.

[unpossibles]

115. Carl Sagan was an idiot?

There are many, many people who are/were quite successful despite enjoying pot. I don't advocate anyone working impaired; the problem is that it can stay in your system for a week to a month after you're no longer intoxicated.

[reggie the dog]

54. cannabis is less dangerous for users and society than alcohol

or tobacco. So responsible like me who use cannabis but not alcohol or tobacco are punished in the USA and it is harder for us to find and keep jobs because of drug testing.

[vadawg]

61. nope there are jobs where tobacco is banned as well, a lot of the fire services

ban tobacco in all its forms for its firefighters. I guess if you want drug laws changed then you need to get the legislatures to change the laws...

[reggie the dog]

65. perhaps in the USA but other countries function fine

and let their firefighters smoke tobacco so long as they pass their physical aptitude tests.

[reggie the dog]

69. ok they ban dangerous drugs,

cannabis is about as dangerous as coffee or caffeine. What jobs punish people for using caffeine or other safe drugs like they do for cannabis?

[Taitertots]

73. Coffee is way worse

Coffee causes physical addiction and physical dependence. Marijuana is neither physically addictive or does it create physical dependence.

Large doses of caffeine are far worse for your body than large doses of marijuana. You could very easily kill yourself taking too much caffeine, where an overdose on marijuana is virtually impossible.

[reggie the dog]

84. point taken and noted, but we must admit

that in common doses cannabis changes our consciousness more than caffeine does.

[Taitertots]

97. I can't deny that

However large doses of caffeine can have very profound consciousness changing effects. It is possible to become very intoxicated from caffeine.

And in common dosages caffeine is substantially more addictive.

[reggie the dog]

103. that is why I usually avoide caffeine

I do eat chocolate. I refuse tea and coffee prefering hot apple juice or herbal tea.

[reggie the dog]

109. and my point is simple. Cannabis is less bad for my health than alcohol or tobacco

and I will be damned if a poor law will make me use more dangerous drugs just to keep from being a criminal. Another simple point is that I am not a slave and I will simply not let my bosses tell me what to do on my down time. That is one of the reasons I live in a free country and not in the USA.

[reggie the dog]

52. there is no reason to test for use in the past month

for these jobs either. they need drug tests which tell us if they are under the influence at work.

[rhett o rick]

138. Bull shit. If you are impared then you should be sent home. But random testing is unacceptable.

Your employer can terminate you for supposedly failing and you have no recourse. Can ruin your life.

[Orrex]

4. Regarding the employer's enforcement of anti-sodomy laws

They might argue that the use of illegal drugs involves the consumption of an illegal substance, whereas the violation of anti-sodomy laws would entail the performance of an illegal act.

Don't know if that would make a big difference, ultimately, but it might be enough for them to argue that your analogy is invalid.

:shrug:

[rhett o rick]

136. Where I worked it was the employer that committed the "illegal" act you are referring to. nt

[Orrex]

140. Well, tell him to pee in a cup.

One former employer of mine conspicuously chose not test employees for drugs, despite an otherwise draconian and old-fashioned ethic regarding the employees' behavior. It was a very dynastic company, with members of the founding family holding most of the top (and top-paying) posts.

We concluded--not without reason--that the lack of drug testing was because one of these beneficiaries of nepotism was a raving addict.

[rhett o rick]

141. But the employer controls the testing and hence the results. He can choose who to prosecute or not.

[Greyhound]

5. Worse, it is an erosion of public expectation of their rights.

[PHIMG]

6. The only reason it exists is because it makes lots of money for some people

There are whole industries that would not exist if everyone on drugs was fired.

Wall Street, Hollywood.

It's beyond stupid this testing unless you own a testing company and you can give kickbacks to the heads of HR to institute the policy. Then it makes a lot of sense.

[Blue_Tires]

119. don't forget pro sports!

[LuvNewcastle]

8. I agree.

I've worked at places where they drug tested every year during the slow season so they could get rid of people without having to pay unemployment. They would just take random samples of employees and keep testing until they got the right number of people. People would lose their livelihoods because they enjoyed a little pot now and then in their own homes. It's just fucking wrong.

[TexasObserver]

10. Recommend

[Flaneur]

13. Test for impairment, not metabolites.

If employers are really concerned with employee performance, test for impairment. Impairment could be caused by any number of things: tiredness, stressed domestic life, being drunk. Can the employee perform a simple test that measures impairment related to the tasks he needs to perform? That should be the question, not what he ingested the night or the week before on his own time.

Drug testing of employees by private employers is legal, but that doesn't make it right.

Notice that state, local, and federal government employees are not subject to mandatory random drug testing (except for some specified professions)because the Constitution protects them from unreasonable, unwarranted search and seizure by their employer. Tough luck for those of you in the private sector, though.

Me, I don't work for anybody that makes me piss in a jar.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

27. have you ever had to work or travel with a hardcore coke head?

I'm pretty cool with drug testing, I was expecting Midnight Express every time I got on a plane with that guy. He was good at his job but a drug addict none the less,

[LeftyMom]

28. In our industry drug testing is federally mandated.

Also, if any of our company vehicles get in an accident, the driver has to piss test within a short period and insurance won't pay out if the test comes back hot.

If it weren't for that, I really wouldn't care what employees did on their off hours, provided it didn't effect their work. But we need our insurance policy more than we need any one employee. We can't legally operate without it.

[Taitertots]

31. Basically your insurance carrier is scamming you to find reasons not to pay out

Since a marijana test can't possibly tell if you have recently been stoned or not it is just a way they can avoid paying out valid claims.

If they tried that with anything else it would never fly. Why don't they try to deny claims because a person drank a beer within the last month?

[LeftyMom]

34. I know. But they all do it and we don't have a choice.

:shrug:

[uncle ray]

36. and there's what's most frustrating about the whole thing.

the least harmful/impairing drug stays in your system the longest, while the most harmful drugs are rapidly purged. a pothead has to be clean for a month or more to be clean while a real junkie can get by on scripts and go undetected for a day or two when need be.

[SoCalDem]

33. If an employer does more than pay you a wage to do a task, he/she "owns" you.

If there's health insurance/life insurance/workers' comp paid on your behalf (even if YOU pay a share), that boss will intrude into your "private space".

If Boss is "offering" and you are "taking", boss holds all the cards.

Without collective bargaining, the workplace is not set up for YOU..


If boss is procuring health care insurance for you, it's well within boss' rights to know about your overall health, and any "habits" you have that may create a "problem", or drive up group rates.

It sucks, but that's the way it works now.

[uncle ray]

39. yes, that's how it is.

i guess we'll just have to change it then.

[reggie the dog]

46. drug testing is an invasion of privacy here in France unless

you are suspected to be under the influence at work and even then if you do not operate machinery it is difficult for your boss to drug test you. The fact that I smoke cannabis while I am not at work should not matter to any boss. Hell I do not smoke tobacco or drink alcohol. I miss on average one or two days of work each year due to my own illness and another day or two when my daughter is sick and either my wife or I have to watch her because day care will not accept sick kids.

[Wizard777]

59. Move to Nevada and get on their Medical Marijuana Program.

Nevada's Medical Marijuana Laws were enacted as amendments to their Constitution. One of the provisions is that employers must create an area for employees to use their Medical Marijuana in while at work.

[Hubert Flottz]

90. Congress works for us and they make life and death decisions

Are they stoned or stupid?

[Freddie Stubbs]

99. Not many burger flippers or supermarket cashiers are subject to drug testing

[reggie the dog]

104. actually yes, those are the jobs most likely to drug test

jobs which are low level. Ask your teenage kids if they had to pass drug tests to work in stores. Most stores at the mall drug test. Burger places, most fast food drug tests, gas stations drug test, most loading dock and factory work involves a drug test.

[Freddie Stubbs]

124. I worked plenty of jobs like that during college and never had to take a drug test

[reggie the dog]

127. what state and how many years ago?

I had those kind of jobs in Illinios in the mid to late 90's.

[Freddie Stubbs]

129. Pennsylvania during the mid 90's

[reggie the dog]

130. what a difference a state makes

[Fla_Democrat]

110. Great, so don't test your employees

I'm sure you can find qualified people to work for you who don't mind not being tested. If you don't have a test policy, I'm sure you will have a much greater pool of workers for your company...way to think outside the box. :thumbsup:

BTW, are you hiring now, or.... :shrug:

[Arkansas Granny]

117. My employer instituted a drug policy purely as a business decision, not because he wanted to.

1. Some of the other businesses we work for have a policy that states that unless we have a drug policy of our own, our employees must abide by the terms of their drug policy while doing work on their premises. Some of these policies are very strict.

2. If one of our employees is involved in an accident on the job or in a company vehicle and tests positive for drugs, the company could be liable for a lawsuit.

3. By having a drug policy in place and meeting the requirements of a drug-free workplace, he saves 5% on annual Workers Comp insurance. This is a considerable sum of money for a small business.

This was not something that he wanted to do as he personally feels that what you do on your own time is your own business as long as it does not affect your job performance or put anyone else at risk. However, he felt that by having a drug policy in force he could better protect the business and the employment of about 20 people.

[Robb]

126. ...But all employers who institute drug testing are EVIL!!11!

DU sure is a confusing place sometimes. ;)

[eppur_se_muova]

118. They're only protecting their "property".

Once they've worn out you out and fired you, you can do what you want with your body. If you can afford it.

[Echo In Light]

122. Agreed. It's just another Big Biz deci$ion that serves Police State more than it actually 'protects'

[Sirveri]

132. I don't see this as a big issue. If you can't get clean for one test, that's bad.

I mean seriously, most places just test as part of the hiring process. That's really where your arguement falls apart, most people aren't being drug tested on a regular basis. I was, while I was in the Navy, and it's crazy annoying. But when playing with nuclear reactors and rifles they tend to be a bit paranoid.

[rhett o rick]

137. Why it is wrong. The employer can end your employment any time he wants do to your failure of a drug

test. I have seen it. You get near your tenure and bingo, you are informed you failed your drug test. You have no recourse. Your employer tells you if you leave nicely, they wont tell future employers why you left their employment.