I dunno, every employer I ever went to growing up looking for work has required a drug test, but I'm in Texas. It's not really a problem though, there are tons of detox methods you can go and buy, either in stores locally or online, that are guaranteed to work (and they do). Besides, most places you only need to be clean for the initial pre-employment test, after that the only time they will test you is if there is any accident on the job. I was managing a retail store and smoked nearly every day, didn't affect my job at all and nobody ever suspected anything. It wasn't my business, I just managed it, but the only people I would be afraid of hiring would be meth/crack/coke/heroin users, definitely not marijuana users.
Drug testing in America
- Thread starter Rhys Llewellyn
- Start date
KeithReyn
Members Only Member
If an employee is lethargic, constantly forgetting things, looks tired or whatever... Then they are simply shit at the job, so the employer already has warranted grounds to fire them regardless of whether they have been high in the past or they're straight edge and simply hate their job and couldn't care less.
It could be a cruel irony that the really enthusiastic guy who's never late and does his job well likes to smoke a little pot every now and then and gets fired very unjustly.
That's how I see it.
You shouldn't need a test to know if someone's right for the job. They're either good at it or they're not. (I have to admit though for initial screening of potential candidates, perhaps it's fairly effective, but still very wrong in my opinion). It's simply discrimination and by no means fool-proof.
* Of course hard drugs like crack and heroin... Well we all know that most crime is fuelled by these kinds of people in the first place. A criminal background check should sort that out though. It seems very wrong to chuck pot heads in with this crowd.
* BTW, I'm not a stoner (although did spend my entire teen years high). I'm not pro pot heads but I'm not against them. Each to their own.
It could be a cruel irony that the really enthusiastic guy who's never late and does his job well likes to smoke a little pot every now and then and gets fired very unjustly.
That's how I see it.
You shouldn't need a test to know if someone's right for the job. They're either good at it or they're not. (I have to admit though for initial screening of potential candidates, perhaps it's fairly effective, but still very wrong in my opinion). It's simply discrimination and by no means fool-proof.
* Of course hard drugs like crack and heroin... Well we all know that most crime is fuelled by these kinds of people in the first place. A criminal background check should sort that out though. It seems very wrong to chuck pot heads in with this crowd.
* BTW, I'm not a stoner (although did spend my entire teen years high). I'm not pro pot heads but I'm not against them. Each to their own.
egan.
daylightdies.com
Sure. I think it's probably that way here too. In fairness, those are the jobs where people do get stoned at work. I think one thing people are overlooking here is that --regardless of whether of anyone's opinion of weed or any other drug-- is that it's illegal. So employers are testing you for illegal activity.
What I'll say though, is there is far less testing in the middle top of the ladder than there is at the bottom.
But this to me suggests if you like to smoke a little weed you are also now a thief and a dishonest person, which of course is an outrageous assumption.
Also the kind of jobs like working in a fast food restaurant... I think you should be high to cope with that! lol. Professional jobs where public safety is at stake is a whole other matter but the shitty low paid unprofessional jobs like that really don't need geniuses behind the scenes as it were.
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
Statistically, people who fail those drug tests make shittier workers - less productive, less punctual, more likely to steal, get worse 'customer satisfaction' ratings, etc.
Also, you can most definitely fail a drug test based on alcohol - there was a guy in the warehouse of the office I worked at during high school who failed a voluntary (I shit you not) drug test because he showed up at 8am still slightly drunk from the night before.
And for the love of god, in the first two posts - it's the employER who requires a drug test to be taken, not the employEE. EmployEEs don't hire people.
This is pretty much what happens - nobody I know who works at fast-food/clothing retail joints have had to take drug tests, and I didn't have to take one when I had a brief stint at a movie theater. On the flip side, I had to take one before working at the civil engineering firm I mentioned above.
Also, you can most definitely fail a drug test based on alcohol - there was a guy in the warehouse of the office I worked at during high school who failed a voluntary (I shit you not) drug test because he showed up at 8am still slightly drunk from the night before.
And for the love of god, in the first two posts - it's the employER who requires a drug test to be taken, not the employEE. EmployEEs don't hire people.
This is pretty much what happens - nobody I know who works at fast-food/clothing retail joints have had to take drug tests, and I didn't have to take one when I had a brief stint at a movie theater. On the flip side, I had to take one before working at the civil engineering firm I mentioned above.
ratsapprentice
God can gtfo
I was tempted to point that out as well /\ 
I'd agree that people who fail the tests are all of the things you said
Lets face it if they know they might have to take the test, and still smoke, then they either don't care about the job or are just dumb
But you don't need to drug test people to know that they are less productive/punctual, or any of the things you said.
I'd agree that people who fail the tests are all of the things you said
Lets face it if they know they might have to take the test, and still smoke, then they either don't care about the job or are just dumb
But you don't need to drug test people to know that they are less productive/punctual, or any of the things you said.
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
^^Exactly! Put it this way - I've NEVER heard of anyone having to take a hair-follicle test, and if you're dumb enough to fail a piss-test (which you should be expecting to take if you're looking for a job), you don't deserve to be hired.
What we really need to be doing in this country is frequent drug-tests for welfare recipients.
What we really need to be doing in this country is frequent drug-tests for welfare recipients.
Statistically, people who fail those drug tests make shittier workers - less productive, less punctual, more likely to steal, get worse 'customer satisfaction' ratings, etc.
And for the love of god, in the first two posts - it's the employER who requires a drug test to be taken, not the employEE. EmployEEs don't hire people.
Touche, I know the difference, I just typo'ed.
Isn't this just generalising though? Statistically, in Brixton in London I'm far more likely to be robbed by a black man. You can see where I'm going with this...
Someone earlier mentioned what about alcoholics? This is very true, and possibly even more valid since it's easy to obtain and hide.
An earlier posted also said that it basically can only detect weed usage, so not even any hard drugs.
I was tempted to point that out as well /
I'd agree that people who fail the tests are all of the things you said
Lets face it if they know they might have to take the test, and still smoke, then they either don't care about the job or are just dumb
But you don't need to drug test people to know that they are less productive/punctual, or any of the things you said.
But this isn't Nazi Germany.
Whatever happened to freedom!
You should be judged by your ability to do the job at hand, and nothing else as far as I'm concerned. And we're agreeing with each other anyways.
lol.
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
It is a generalization - most employers are free to do that if they want. They aren't subject to the 14th Amendment or anything like that.
I edited my posts to cover alcoholics, and piss-tests will catch meth and coke for about a week after they're used.
ratsapprentice
God can gtfo
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
But this isn't Nazi Germany.
Whatever happened to freedom!
You should be judged by your ability to do the job at hand, and nothing else as far as I'm concerned. And we're agreeing with each other anyways.
Seriously? Godwin's Law. You lose already.
Whatever happened to freedom to do illegal things? Are you really asking that question? The argument is not whether or not the drugs should be illegal, but whether or not employers should be allowed to test for illegal things.
That last bit is where you're wrong... you're judged by your ability to do the job at hand, but also how easily replaceable you are. If failing a drug test will obviously affect your ability to do a job, and you can easily be replaced, then you shouldn't be hired.
As an employee, though - if your employer hired someone who failed a drug-test, would you be as comfortable with your working environment? I would be livid if the places I've worked that conducted drug-tests started hiring people who failed - I don't want to listen to potheads all day, because all they talk about is weed.
MKS
Member
- May 24, 2005
- 836
- 0
- 16
Here's some facts from my employer:
We started hair follicle testing in Jan 2009.
-We test for pre-employment
-Post Accident
-Reasonable Suspicion
-Poor Attendance
Facts:
-Casual Absenteeism dropped 10%
-Recordable Injuries Dropped 25%
-Workers Compensation Costs dropped $375K in 1 year.
-Turn-Over Dropped from 38% to 2
-At first 30% of new applicants failed hair testing. Now everyone passes. Probably because they know our test is unbeatable and druggies don't bother applying anymore.
Facts are facts. The company is in business to make money and hair follicle testing is fairly inexpensive. $40 which includes shipping and $40 for a MRO (Medical Review Officer) to review positive results.
We're going to random hair testing soon and may start random Breathalyzer testing too.
I've got a lot of friends that love their weed but they don't work where I do.
We started hair follicle testing in Jan 2009.
-We test for pre-employment
-Post Accident
-Reasonable Suspicion
-Poor Attendance
Facts:
-Casual Absenteeism dropped 10%
-Recordable Injuries Dropped 25%
-Workers Compensation Costs dropped $375K in 1 year.
-Turn-Over Dropped from 38% to 2
-At first 30% of new applicants failed hair testing. Now everyone passes. Probably because they know our test is unbeatable and druggies don't bother applying anymore.
Facts are facts. The company is in business to make money and hair follicle testing is fairly inexpensive. $40 which includes shipping and $40 for a MRO (Medical Review Officer) to review positive results.
We're going to random hair testing soon and may start random Breathalyzer testing too.
I've got a lot of friends that love their weed but they don't work where I do.
ahjteam
Anssi Tenhunen
MKS
Member
- May 24, 2005
- 836
- 0
- 16
JeffTD
Senhor Testiculo
ahjteam
Anssi Tenhunen
P-E
Munchkin
Seriously? Godwin's Law. You lose already.
Whatever happened to freedom to do illegal things? Are you really asking that question? The argument is not whether or not the drugs should be illegal, but whether or not employers should be allowed to test for illegal things.
That last bit is where you're wrong... you're judged by your ability to do the job at hand, but also how easily replaceable you are. If failing a drug test will obviously affect your ability to do a job, and you can easily be replaced, then you shouldn't be hired.
As an employee, though - if your employer hired someone who failed a drug-test, would you be as comfortable with your working environment? I would be livid if the places I've worked that conducted drug-tests started hiring people who failed - I don't want to listen to potheads all day, because all they talk about is weed.
There's illegal and there's ILLEGAL though. It's not purely black and white.
Smoking weed may be illegal but compared to a rapist or a fraudster, I'm sure you'd agree there's a huge difference.
I certainly wouldn't hire a rapist or a fraudster because there is something inherently BAD about that person. They are clearly untrustworthy.
That is why I agree with criminal background checks.
Okay so your country states it's legal for you to know if this person has smoked pot... Is it also fair that they employ someone to follow you when you're out and about or when you're drunk in a club or going through your garbage bin, judging every move you make? I think you'd agree that is an invasion of privacy and what people do in their free time is not a matter for work unless you're out committing heinous crimes.
As far as would I be comfortable working with someone that failed a drugs test... again it comes down to the fact that I don't believe it should ever have been initiated in the first place. You're either good or bad at your job.
There are plenty of useless morons out there that can barely spell or do anything remotely simple to begin with regardless of if they smoked a joint on the weekend.
* And yes, people are judged by how easily replaceable they are. This doesn't change the fact that the dedicated stoner loves his job and is on time every day. You are as disposable as the person you are, not what you do on your weekends.
