So this has been a hot topic in my little world lately and is coming to a head right now. The ladyfriend (and by extension, I) stopped smoking for about a year leading up to her graduation/imminent employment. She got hired, tested and passed. I have never had to get tested for a job but that is changing with an upcoming project.
I'm sure you all know how I feel about this. In spite of the fact that I haven't smoked more than 4 or 5 times over the past year or so, and will pass a drug test with ease, I have very serious problems with being tested. I consider it a massive invasion of privacy and completely irrelevant to my ability to succeed at my job.
My feelings on privacy and civil liberty seem to be much stronger than most of the loudmouths around here but I was wondering how everyone feels about this topic in particular.
A positive test wont result in you being arrested. It's within the company's right to fire you though. It has nothing to do with civil liberties or rights. It's the employers right to make sure their employees are not on drugs, which could hinder their productivity.
Purplemonkeydishwasher.
we test here, it's mandatory pre-employment and if you get injured and seek medical treatment
since our company is one that works with machinery that can injure you, and involves doing things that can lead to serious injuries, i don't think it's totally out of order to have them in place
Why is that within their rights? I'm not getting high at work. I'm not coming into work after spiking up. Smoking a little squeef at home isn't going to have any impact on my productivity and it certainly won't have as much impact as the amount of alcohol I consume.
Quote from: rjs246 on January 16, 2008, 09:52:14 AM
I'm not coming into work after spiking up.
they don't know that.
Quotesmoking a little squeef at home isn't going to have any impact on my productivity and it certainly won't have as much impact as the amount of alcohol I consume.
they don't know that either.
i had to take one before i started, and am supposed to have 'random' ones. that hasn't happened, luckily for me. we have 1000s of people in my company that work onsite with machinery, i think it only makes sense to make sure that you don't have druggies operating them. it's a different story than someone who sits at a compuetr all day. but you really can't test some and not others.
RJS--CEO/President of Ilovebacon.com and you put everything you have into your bacon franchise. Some idiot decides to get high (weed, coke, heroine, etc.) that day and goes for a joy ride in the company car and kills himself and someone else. Now you have major legal concerns--insurance or not. Still want to drug test?
Now on the flip side, if your an employee it becomes horseshtein because it doesn't represent the majority, and I can see why you would be pissed. The fact that the test can detect prior use a month or so before testing shows no evidence that it will effect work performance for some. The employer just cant take any chances so it covers it tracks all around.
Not only do I get tested but they take hair samples for accuracy. It's a manufacturing company so they want to make sure no one messes up the machines. Because it's a union company I don't think you get fired if you test positive. You have to enroll yourself in a rehab program of some sort and get counceled depending on the type of drug.
A friend of mine who works for the airlines as ground crew ran a luggage truck thing into an airplane. They tested him on the spot and he tested positive. Even though he wasn't high at the time it was in his system still so he was at fault. They didn't fire him though. he spent some time in a rehab center or something and he's back on the job.
You see, the thing is that I get all of that. I get that there insurance issues and liability issues and productivity concerns if the person is coming into work all farged up. But none of those corporate concerns are important enough to me to justify it. The corporate world is 100% bullshtein. Humanity would be better off without it, but it's a means to an end. I need to pay my bills, and since I am capable of doing this type of work and doing it very well, I do it. But the instant it starts impeding on my values its importance disappears.
Anyway, hooray for corporate america!
go roam the wilderness then, hippie.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect to be able to make a decent living without bowing down to massive corporations and their absurd rules and regulations, but this is our bed, I guess we all have to lay in it.
In other words, I'm going to go wander the wilderness now.
I hated the random drug tests given when I was in the military, I was clean as a whistle, but I had no confidence in the idiots running the program. Its amazing the paranoia I experience now when I smoke a little, on the surface everything is fine, but I have a dream at least once a week that I'm back in the Navy and scared because I have to get tested.
Anyway, I never understood why its okay to drink like a fish and in some instances come into a job a little buzzed, but take a hit and you're farged. Since I'm just a college student I won't have to cross the drug testing road again for another year or so, but if it comes to a job I really want and the pay is good I'll just look at it as something I have to sacrifice.
FYI - Piss tests are really easy to beat if you do a little research.
i like to pretend that my urine is immune to drug tests. i have passed them before when i most definitely should not have. i think sometimes it's just a scam to see of you have any problems with it, then they don't even bother spending money to get it tested if you have no problems with peeing in the cup.
Reese is actually making a little bit of sense. Scary.
You gotta look at the bigger picture with this one Rusty. You may be responsible enough to not smoke up during working hours or to come into work after spending all night toking up, eating twinkies and watching The Wall but that doesn't mean that the potheads who work with you can act just as responsibly. Every business out there is in buisness to make money and they do so by selling a product or service. You play a role in that company turning a profit. And whether you believe it or not, that company has invested time and money into you because they feel that you are going to help not only turn a profit, but increase profits. So they want to protect their investment by ensuring that all of their employees (not just you) are showing up to work sober and ready to maximize profits that you'll probably never see a dime of.
Even though I don't smoke MJ and never have, I'm totally in favor of it being legalized. And if it ever is legal, I'd still be in favor of companies testing for it. Especially any company that utilizes heavy equipment, explosives, etc, etc.
Quote from: SD_Eagle on January 16, 2008, 10:49:34 AM
FYI - Piss tests are really easy to beat if you do a little research.
They are just as long as you don't have to go through airport security.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whizzinator
Quote from: Sgt PSN on January 16, 2008, 10:51:27 AM
And if it ever is legal, I'd still be in favor of companies testing for it. Especially any company that utilizes heavy equipment, explosives, etc, etc.
You make a good point here. I'm constantly handling explosives at the office.
poor rusty...persecuted!
Quote from: SD_Eagle on January 16, 2008, 10:49:34 AM
Anyway, I never understood why its okay to drink like a fish and in some instances come into a job a little buzzed, but take a hit and you're farged.
I think everyone, even most corporate level execs, realize this, but the whole weed is illegal, beer is legal thing really messes things up. Doesn't make an ounce of sense.
i know for my company, when there is an injury that requires medical attention, you get drug tested and alcohol tested, so both are looked at
Quote from: rjs246 on January 16, 2008, 10:55:47 AM
Quote from: Sgt PSN on January 16, 2008, 10:51:27 AM
And if it ever is legal, I'd still be in favor of companies testing for it. Especially any company that utilizes heavy equipment, explosives, etc, etc.
You make a good point here. I'm constantly handling explosives at the office.
Obviously that's not going to apply to a highly trained desk jockey like yourself but it still doesn't change the fact that when you show up to work everyday, your employer expects you to be sharp, focused and determined to make them richer.
This is not the government. This is a term of your employment with your company. Just as they can choose to fire you for doing drugs, you can choose to work somewhere that doesn't test. You're the one who wants to be paid like a superstar. Sometimes, you have to make personal sacrifices to make bank.
I've never been good at making personal sacrifices. I pretty much have always done exactly what I want to do when I want to do it. It's part of what makes me so goddamned awesome.
Then, fail your drug test or refuse to take it, and force them to change their policy to keep you on board.
Quote from: rjs246 on January 16, 2008, 09:52:14 AM
Why is that within their rights? I'm not getting high at work. I'm not coming into work after spiking up. Smoking a little squeef at home isn't going to have any impact on my productivity and it certainly won't have as much impact as the amount of alcohol I consume.
Because they are paying you. And they are most likely footing the bulk of the bill for your health insurance.
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 16, 2008, 11:03:07 AM
Then, fail your drug test or refuse to take it, and force them to change their policy to keep you on board.
Actually it isn't my company that's asking for the drug test. It's one of our clients whose project I will be heading up. Which honestly, makes me think that I'm just going to do it, since any moral problem I have isn't going to have an impact one way or another and as soon as I pass I can go home and get blitzed if I want. I'm at no risk of losing my job or of any sort of repercussions whatsoever. It's just the moral dilemma that I wanted to discuss here.
we actually made it 2 pages without getting retarded...new record?
Quote from: rjs246 on January 16, 2008, 11:07:35 AM
as soon as I pass I can go home and get blitzed if I want.
winner. i guess this is why i'm too lazy to even care about them.
Quote from: SunMo on January 16, 2008, 11:19:11 AM
we actually made it 2 pages without getting retarded...new record?
Easily. We're slippin'.
Quote from: SunMo on January 16, 2008, 11:19:11 AM
we actually made it 2 pages without getting retarded...new record?
thats because i chose not to enter the fray
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 16, 2008, 11:23:27 AM
Quote from: SunMo on January 16, 2008, 11:19:11 AM
we actually made it 2 pages without getting retarded...new record?
thats because i chose not to enter the fray
(http://static.arsenal-now.com/forum/images/avatars/205194907743b4d5d1c8b3a.gif)
holla
Quote from: phattymatty on January 16, 2008, 10:50:59 AM
i like to pretend that my urine is immune to drug tests. i have passed them before when i most definitely should not have. i think sometimes it's just a scam to see of you have any problems with it, then they don't even bother spending money to get it tested if you have no problems with peeing in the cup.
The more drugs you test for, the more expensive the test is.
Many companies just test for the 'hard' drugs, but of course tehy don't tell you exactly what they are testing for, so that you stay off of everything.
I could just imagine a client of mine asking me to take a "voluntary" drug test to get their business.
Hahaha!
Even though I don't do drugs anymore I would still tell them to pound sand because their request is anything but voluntary. They have no right to ask me to submit to a drug test because my right to privacy doesn't end when I agree to work for them.
I know companies are increasingly requiring even subcontractors to acquiesce to these sorts of demands, but personally, I wouldn't. I just wouldn't, rjs.
Quote from: SunMo on January 16, 2008, 10:57:39 AM
i know for my company, when there is an injury that requires medical attention, you get drug tested and alcohol tested, so both are looked at
This makes sense - ensuring that there weren't mitigating factors in the accident, but they should only be allowed to act if you were under the influence at the time of the injury. Not an invasion of privacy.
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 16, 2008, 10:58:07 AM
This is a term of your employment with your company. Just as they can choose to fire you for doing drugs, you can choose to work somewhere that doesn't test. You're the one who wants to be paid like a superstar. Sometimes, you have to make personal sacrifices to make bank.
This is bullshtein. If this were true, women could get fired for getting pregnant if they even got hired in the first place. If this were true, they could make you work with whatever nasty chemicals they want and not tell you. The government does have the responsibility to protect the rights of workers.
This is a tough question - it is very easy to understand the point of view of the company, but why is it so acceptable to give up your right to privacy? Here are my semi-random thoughts on the issue:
- I don't think an employer has any right to know what I do when I'm not working, as long as I'm getting my job done.
- I do think criminal background checks are valid, because once you break the law you lose some of your rights as a citizen
- The only reason I consider drug testing to be "on the table" is because the drugs being tested for are illegal
- Where does the invasion into your personal life stop? Can your employer search your home? Hire a PI to monitor your activities?
I think my feeling is that they absolutely should not be allowed to preemptively test for legal drugs / alcohol. If it is legal and it doesn't affect your work, it is none of their business. As for illegal drugs, I'm trying to figure out why employers get to take up the mantle of law enforcement.[/list]
Its funny that this thread comes up now. My buddy and I just got an apartment together because he received a new job offer with a significant upgrade in pay at Armstrong. Well he took his piss test last week and it came back negative for any drugs, but it was diluted. Now my buddy hasn't even looked at drugs in the past two years, but that didn't matter. Corporate policy at Armstrong states that no matter what the results are of the drug test, diluted urine is an automatic withdraw of the job offer. So, despite the fact that my buddy doesn't do drugs he got burned because there was too much water or some shtein in his urine.
Anyway, my buddy called the testing place and went ballistic. Their response was don't drink a bunch of coffee before a piss test because it can sometimes so up as a diuretic. That's some bullshtein.
Hire a farging lawyer and sue their balls off.
Yeah that's why they take hair samples now where I work. Piss tests are too unreliable.
Quote from: Cerevant on January 16, 2008, 01:30:42 PM
This is bullshtein. If this were true, women could get fired for getting pregnant if they even got hired in the first place. If this were true, they could make you work with whatever nasty chemicals they want and not tell you. The government does have the responsibility to protect the rights of workers.
I think my feeling is that they absolutely should not be allowed to preemptively test for legal drugs / alcohol. If it is legal and it doesn't affect your work, it is none of their business. As for illegal drugs, I'm trying to figure out why employers get to take up the mantle of law enforcement.
As usual, your conclusion is that more government intervention is what's needed. Typical.
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 16, 2008, 01:45:43 PM
Quote from: Cerevant on January 16, 2008, 01:30:42 PM
This is bullshtein. If this were true, women could get fired for getting pregnant if they even got hired in the first place. If this were true, they could make you work with whatever nasty chemicals they want and not tell you. The government does have the responsibility to protect the rights of workers.
I think my feeling is that they absolutely should not be allowed to preemptively test for legal drugs / alcohol. If it is legal and it doesn't affect your work, it is none of their business. As for illegal drugs, I'm trying to figure out why employers get to take up the mantle of law enforcement.
As usual, your conclusion is that more government intervention is what's needed. Typical.
As usual, your conclusion is that corporations should have the right to do whatever they want as long as they keep making you money.
It just blows my mind that they offered him a job, we based our ability to pay rent on that offer, and then they yank the offer the table even though they conceded that they didn't think he had done any drugs. They hid behind "corporate policy."
Quote from: Cerevant on January 16, 2008, 01:48:01 PM
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 16, 2008, 01:45:43 PM
As usual, your conclusion is that more government intervention is what's needed. Typical.
As usual, your conclusion is that corporations should have the right to do whatever they want as long as they keep making you money.
If the government is going to be tasked with real problems with corporate regulations versus the free market, making a big deal about the companies not allowing their employees to do something against the law is downright unimportant. Furthermore, your solution includes more government in unnecessary places: better enforcing of recreational illegal drugs and more policing of corporations to ensure they don't do it themselves.
Yeah, that's an effecient use of tax dollars. Good call.
What tax dollars does it take to make a law saying, "keep your nose the farg out of people's personal lives"? If corporations weren't allowed to drug test, they wouldn't. If they did, those affected could sue. Self enforcing.
From the corporate view: why should I, a business owner, have to pick up the slack for law enforcement? If these people are breaking the law, why aren't they being prosecuted?
This idea that companies are picking up the slack for law enforcement is interesting. To take it a step further, it could be considered to go against one of the founding principles of the country, innocent until proven guilty. Randomly (or not so randomly) screening for drugs assumes that people are guilty of something and that the corporation has some sort of right to act as a deterrent above and beyond the law.
I'm not sure I'm sold on it, but it's an interesting argument.
the government is involved somewhat...the other way
if you can prove that a worker was involved with alcohol or drugs at the time of an injury, workman's comp will deny a claim. that's why all injuries that require medical attention require an immediate drug and alcohol test.
Quote from: Cerevant on January 16, 2008, 04:01:36 PM
What tax dollars does it take to make a law saying, "keep your nose the farg out of people's personal lives"? If corporations weren't allowed to drug test, they wouldn't. If they did, those affected could sue. Self enforcing.
With all the lobbying, and time it takes to get a law enacted, I would say that it takes a lot of tax dollars to make a law. Don't you remember this guy
(http://www.school-house-rock.com/images/bill-pic.jpg)
Quote from: Cerevant on January 16, 2008, 04:01:36 PM
From the corporate view: why should I, a business owner, have to pick up the slack for law enforcement? If these people are breaking the law, why aren't they being prosecuted?
As a business owner, it's not about picking up the slack, its about protecting your own investment.
No company wants a bunch of addicts that could use company time, and money on getting high because their addiction is so strong.
Quote from: Cerevant on January 16, 2008, 04:01:36 PM
What tax dollars does it take to make a law saying, "keep your nose the farg out of people's personal lives"? If corporations weren't allowed to drug test, they wouldn't. If they did, those affected could sue. Self enforcing.
From the corporate view: why should I, a business owner, have to pick up the slack for law enforcement? If these people are breaking the law, why aren't they being prosecuted?
Well, if you put a new law on the books, that takes a lot of government time (and money) on its own. Then, if you actually expect to enforce the law, you need a new agency or expansion of another. By the way, people suing adds to the government coffers and scope as well.
Corporations aren't "tasked" with picking up slack. They choose to check to see if their employees are breaking the law in ways they find possibly harmful to their company's bottom line or reputation. Hell, the government runs more background checks and gives more drug tests than anyone.
But again, Wing, you're talking about hiring and then firing addicts based on something not related to work. Many would argue that I have a small problem with alcohol, but I just had my annual review and it reads like a goddamned blowjob. If you replace beer with weed what changes? Nothing. It's arbitrary and it crosses a boundary between their right to make money and my right to live a life that doesn't include corporate sponsored enforcement of irrelevant and inconsequential laws.
if a company is employing "a bunch of addicts" they are gonna find out without drug testing...sometimes common sense and trust and the responsibility of other employees has to take over instead of every citizen in the country getting drug tested...not to mention even with drug testing people can still be on the job doing drugs...
the bottom line is you shouldnt have or want to make sweeping across the board assumptions in the form of things like drug tests just because one or two people at some point might do drugs at work
and what about alcohol?...should we do a breathalyzer at the front door of the building everyday before work and after lunch?
i say mental health testing for all as well...no one wants a bunch of loonies being crazy on company time cause they cant help their problem
Bud Selig suggested that players in the future could be suspended based on evidence that they took HGH that did not require a reliable drug test.
Nope - no physical evidence is required - just innuendo and circumstantial "evidence" (meaning someone ratted the player out and they took his or her word for it).
If that's where we're headed in this country where the fourth amendment is nothing more than a speed bump, I want no parts of this place anymore. AT ALL.
Quote from: rjs246 on January 16, 2008, 04:17:49 PM
But again, Wing, you're talking about hiring and then firing addicts based on something not related to work. Many would argue that I have a small problem with alcohol, but I just had my annual review and it reads like a goddamned blowjob. If you replace beer with weed what changes? Nothing. It's arbitrary and it crosses a boundary between their right to make money and my right to live a life that doesn't include corporate sponsored enforcement of irrelevant and inconsequential laws.
It is related to work. And it is not irrelevant, or inconsequential...it's there are laws against that. Statistically, drug users are more inclined to commit other crimes.
Drug problems lead to health problems, which cost the company money, whether it's higher health insurance premiums, or just losing productivity. When they can hire someone to do the same job, but is clean from drugs, then what choice would they make?
If you have ever been hung over at work and just didnt work at the same pace as you normally have, then it is related to work as well.
Its about a company minimizing its risk, while protecting its investment.
But why is that somehow acceptable? Why does it give them any right whatsoever to peer into my private life? Especially when I am an exemplary employee?
I don't believe that the almighty dollar and protecting an investment supersedes people's right to privacy. And what you're saying is that it does.
Where does the line get drawn?
theres certain jobs that require drug testing (airline pilots would be one)
the rest of the companies need to establish better hiring practices...better background checks...on the job education regarding matter such as drugs and practice due diligance in monitoring their employees at work...after that you take your chances and make sure your insurance is up to date
you dont need to be taking bodily fluids from people and running who knows what kinds of tests
even as a drug user, i don't see how drug testing is an invasion of privacy. no one is forcing any of us to work in our current jobs.
secondly, drug tests only weed out the lazy hardcore drug users who you would not want working for you anyway, and not the intelligent occasional user who takes the time to either figure out how to pass, or who has the self control to lay off for a few days/weeks.
Some of the smartest and most successful people I know are occasional drug users. Actually, all of the smartest and most successful people I know are occasional drug users. Why should they fear for their livelihood over the whims of corporate america?
Clearly there's no way any of you will convince me that this isn't a problem.
Quote from: rjs246 on January 16, 2008, 04:37:47 PM
But why is that somehow acceptable? Why does it give them any right whatsoever to peer into my private life? Especially when I am an exemplary employee?
I don't believe that the almighty dollar and protecting an investment supersedes people's right to privacy. And what you're saying is that it does.
Where does the line get drawn?
A corporate drug test does not supersede your right to privacy. It only supersedes the company's right to hire you. I don't believe the results of that test can be used for anything other than working for them.
The employer is not telling you what to do in your private life, it is however making "drug-free" a job requirement.
Quote from: rjs246 on January 16, 2008, 04:46:26 PM
Some of the smartest and most successful people I know are occasional drug users. Actually, all of the smartest and most successful people I know are occasional drug users. Why should they fear for their livelihood over the whims of corporate america?
Clearly there's no way any of you will convince me that this isn't a problem.
And why should an employer fear for their livelihood over the whims of their employees?
Fat people are risky to hire because of decreased productivity and increased health care costs.
Same goes for smokers.
None of them should be employed either. In fact, kill them all.
I've never seen an enormously fat person working in a position of prominence....probably because of productivity issues. And fat issues.
Quote from: phattymatty on January 16, 2008, 04:44:02 PM
even as a drug user, i don't see how drug testing is an invasion of privacy. no one is forcing any of us to work in our current jobs.
this is america...every one should have the right to work they want to without having to give up bodily fluids...some things dont need to be taken to totalitarian lengths...like i said above 99% of the time the things i mentioned weed out the drug users
otherwise why dont they test for any and all conditions that could cause someone not to work to 100% of their capacity each and everyday...whats the test for laziness?...you know what it is its called a referral and a "last job you worked at" and a "why did you leave your last job"...you hire the best people you can and after that you take your chances...theres a much bigger chance you hire an on the job thief than an on the job druggie
if on the rare occasion someone is found out to be doing drugs at work then fire them...the workplace has been functioning just fine forever without drug tests...there no need for it now...
You see, Wing, I don't believe for a second that occasional drug use will bring about the fall of a company. Alcohol is perfectly legal and you don't see companies collapsing under the waterfall of alcoholism. shtein, the entire financial industry basically runs on coke.
It's easy to scream that 'drug users' are a liability but as long as alcohol is legal and people who drink alcohol are allowed to be employed by the same companies who require drug tests the argument holds absolutely no water.
Quote from: rjs246 on January 16, 2008, 04:58:55 PM
You see, Wing, I don't believe for a second that occasional drug use will bring about the fall of a company. Alcohol is perfectly legal and you don't see companies collapsing under the waterfall of alcoholism. shtein, the entire financial industry basically runs on coke.
Most likely not. But the coke addicted CFO, who is embezzling...or the retirement plan manage who is impairing himself have a pretty good chance of bringing a company down. Or at least they have a better chance of doing so than if they were not using drugs.
Quote from: rjs246 on January 16, 2008, 04:58:55 PM
It's easy to scream that 'drug users' are a liability but as long as alcohol is legal and people who drink alcohol are allowed to be employed by the same companies who require drug tests the argument holds absolutely no water.
Alcohol is legal. Drugs are not.
if you combined the work years of everyone on this board i bet you could count on two hands the amount of people any of us have seen high on the job
on the job drug use or lack of production due to drug use is so far down the list of concerns at the workplace its not even funny...yet lets test EVERYONE
i don't think everyone should be tested, just those who operate machinery or equipment that can injure themselves or others...i don't think that's out of line
it's not exactly the same, but somewhat similar, but to have a commercial driver's license (CDL), you don't get the legal level for a DUI, you are held to stricter standard, even when not driving a commercial vehicle. if you get pulled over and your BAL is above the level for a person with a CDL, you are in big time trouble
i think the only people who should get tested are minorities.
oh, and shepherds.
Quote from: Wingspan on January 16, 2008, 04:56:05 PM
I've never seen an enormously fat person working in a position of prominence....probably because of productivity issues. And fat issues.
William Howard Taft says... "arghhhhhhhh!"
You have to test everyone to have a fair and equal environment in the workplace. If you dont have that--more lawsuits. Yay.
Quote from: reese125 on January 16, 2008, 05:16:12 PM
You have to test everyone to have a fair and equal environment in the workplace. If you dont have that--more lawsuits. Yay.
Or test no one, which is the way it should be.
testes
1...2...3?
Quote from: Wingspan on January 16, 2008, 04:56:05 PM
I've never seen an enormously fat person working in a position of prominence....probably because of productivity issues. And fat issues.
Andy Reid says hello.
Quote from: rjs246 on January 16, 2008, 05:48:32 PM
Quote from: reese125 on January 16, 2008, 05:16:12 PM
You have to test everyone to have a fair and equal environment in the workplace. If you dont have that--more lawsuits. Yay.
Or test no one, which is the way it should be.
yeah, some guy running a 500 foot tower crane high on meth is great safety measure
Common sense is always welcome. Test every tower crane operator. Not every secretary or cube jockey.
that's what i said before...
Quote from: Wingspan on January 16, 2008, 05:04:03 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on January 16, 2008, 04:58:55 PM
It's easy to scream that 'drug users' are a liability but as long as alcohol is legal and people who drink alcohol are allowed to be employed by the same companies who require drug tests the argument holds absolutely no water.
Alcohol is legal. Drugs are not.
And it will stay that way as long as companies like Anheuser Bush are making millions. But it's still bullshtein. Alcohol is the most dangerous drug in America, imo, what with all the drunk driving deaths every year. How many jobs would be lost if breathalyzers were used after lunch break? I don't buy the bullshtein that just because "alcohol is legal", someone who drinks should be immune to the same type of treatment as someone who uses drugs occasionally or regularly. Only reason there is a diff is because most big corparate execs drink like fish. I know, I've built and done a lot of work on banks. It was my companies specialty a while back, and man let me tell you, the same people testing for drugs are getting smashed at least three or four nights a week.
I couldn't disagree with Wingnut more. Corporate imagined risk/cost concerns do not trump an employee's right to privacy. If a company cannot hire and manage employees well enough to tell when one has a drug problem that is affecting work, then the company has some big problems and I don't want to work for them. Risk is part of being in business....that's why the employee makes 10 bucks an hour and for each hour worked the company makes 90 bucks.
I couldn't agree with vigy more.
rjs, if you believe the requirement is as farged up as you seem to, and you have the nuts to do it, refuse to take the test. Tell them you consider it an invasion of privacy and you were raised to stand up for your beliefs. If that means they let you go, then so be it. Make the refusal quietly though..if you do it so other people hear, then you leave the company no wiggle room to make an exception for you.
Requiring testing for jobs that don't require you to carry a gun, fly a plane, etc. is farged up for a lot of reasons, and especially for low paying jobs like Home Depot.
The company has the job, the applicant has the labor. Obviously, the company has the advantage, and so they use it. If you want this job, you have to show us what's in your closet, is the message. The company can always find someone who will take the test. The more people accept testing as unavoidable, the more testing will occur. Only people refusing will slow the march.
Of course, if you refuse to take the test, then you are assumed to be a drug user or addict. Not many people will consider that it's a matter of principle. I use drugs (mostly pot, but I did have some wonderful mushrooms recently), and freely admit it. So of course all of you think that's why I refuse to take tests. And you'd be mistaken, though you probably can't conceive of how someone who does use drugs could have principles. I could pass the test...it's a simple matter of cheating or abstaining for a certain period of time. Neither are all that difficult (especially the latter option given my budget lately). But if I abstain for their test, then I'm cowing to their idiotic reasoning and power, giving up some of my own by doing it. I'm my mother's son and my grandfather's grandson...I'm not going to cave on my beliefs. If I cheat to pass, then I'm breaking another principle which I value. The only way to be happy with my decision is to stick to my guns and Just Say No. I won't piss for employment and I won't cheat for employment. There are other ways to make a living than buying into that scheme.
my man
So here's the thing, Dio. I won't get fired. I just won't get to work on this project. I risk nothing and accomplish nothing by saying no especially since I know I'll pass. It's funny because that absence of repercussion actually makes me think I'll probably just take the piss, whereas if my job were on the line I'd be far more likely to put my foot down.
*EDIT* Oh hell that's probably bullshtein. I honestly have no idea what I'm going to do here.
Either way, you're doomed. Drink to forget.
WAY ahead of you.
The fact that you're even considering bowing to those fargers angers me a little. I'd probably do the same, though, if I were faced with the same decision, especially if I had nothing to worry about.
It's a tough decision. Everybody gotta eat.
I opted out of that system and now I make a lot less money as a result. I won't take the test, but I can't really fault people who do..most of them are trapped. While it's true you can always look for work elsewhere, it's also true that we need food now, and not later. And the next guy is probably gonna try to make you piss too.
And even those who aren't trapped, well shtein you gotta make decisions in life. It's awful hard to judge someone on a point like this.
i took the test like a little bitch to get in the govt
Some jobs have to have testing, like some of the ones mentioned here (machine operators, etc.)
I tend to agree with the general thought that unless safety is an issue, drug testing isn't necessary and shouldn't be done just on a whim.
Of course, I just got re-fingerprinted for another background check, even though I've been in the job for 13 years. All employees hired before 2004 had to be re-fingerprinted to put us in the system.
Quote from: Diomedes on January 16, 2008, 06:38:24 PM
I couldn't disagree with Wingnut more.
Of course not. IIRC...you lost a job offer for this very reason not long before you sold your soul to the wife.
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 16, 2008, 07:43:34 PM
i took the test like a little bitch to get in the govt
you sat to pee, didn't you
Quote from: Wingspan on January 16, 2008, 08:00:46 PM
Quote from: Diomedes on January 16, 2008, 06:38:24 PM
I couldn't disagree with Wingnut more.
Of course not. IIRC...you lost a job offer for this very reason not long before you sold your soul to the wife.
You don't remember correctly. I abstained in anticipation of the test, decided not to take the job--they needed a lot of travel, which I wasn't going to do on account of having sold my soul to my wife, who is incidentally better than your mom, continued to abstain in case I wanted any other job, decided against working in SAP ever again and to go non corporate insted, etc.
Your brain is too small to believe any of this of course. To you, a drug user is a lying criminal addict. Good for you.
You're only a criminal if you don't share.
every single one of you would take the piss in this position and it makes me laugh that some of you pretend you would take this moral stand with your job on the line.
It's not as easy as some think to cheat a piss test. The companies that do the testing have caught up to the companies making the drinks that clean you out. Diluted pee, pee that is the wrong color, has the wrong kinds of liquids in it, they look for all that. Only safe way is to stay clean for 4 weeks.
Quote from: Diomedes on January 16, 2008, 07:40:13 PM
It's a tough decision. Everybody gotta eat.
I opted out of that system and now I make a lot less money as a result. I won't take the test, but I can't really fault people who do..most of them are trapped. While it's true you can always look for work elsewhere, it's also true that we need food now, and not later. And the next guy is probably gonna try to make you piss too.
And even those who aren't trapped, well shtein you gotta make decisions in life. It's awful hard to judge someone on a point like this.
lock the thread - Dio wins.
Stop with the bullshtein about government agencies...this is a matter of discrimination, and there are plenty of anti-discrimination laws on the books with no government agency to back them up.
I think it is the consensus here that testing for illegal drugs is OK and testing for alcohol is not because the drugs are illegal. I am also fine about testing in the case of a workplace injury if there is probable cause - just like getting a breathalyzer / blood test when there is an accident / traffic stop.
What bothers me about workplace testing is the "guilty unless proven innocent" mentality that surrounds it. If it is a matter of companies protecting themselves from "criminals", why don't we just let the police do random drug tests for all citizens? Why not submit to random home searches? Why don't we let the police monitor our bank accounts and credit cards for suspicious activity? Why do they need warrants to tap your phone, or to read your mail? If you aren't breaking the law, you have nothing to hide, right?
Quote from: phattymatty on January 16, 2008, 10:27:05 PM
every single one of you would take the piss in this position and it makes me laugh that some of you pretend you would take this moral stand with your job on the line.
pretty sure no one with the exception of possibly dio has said they woudlnt take a test...just that there shouldnt be a test
Rome said he wouldn't take it, but he's a realtor and most likely works for himself. Not really the same perspective as the rest of us.
You could work for yourself too, if you weren't such a corporate schill.
I just love being lorded over. It gets me all wet.
i just pissed in a coffee mug and put in on my boss's desk, just in case
Quote from: SunMo on January 17, 2008, 08:38:50 AM
i just pissed in a coffee mug and put in on my boss's desk, just in case
Isn't your boss also your dad?
i dropped a turd on the receptionist's desk this morning, so i'm sure they could test that somehow if they want to.
You'll test positive for chili.
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 17, 2008, 08:47:55 AM
Quote from: SunMo on January 17, 2008, 08:38:50 AM
i just pissed in a coffee mug and put in on my boss's desk, just in case
Isn't your boss also your dad?
indeed
Quote from: rjs246 on January 17, 2008, 08:25:04 AM
Rome said he wouldn't take it, but he's a realtor and most likely works for himself. Not really the same perspective as the rest of us.
I also said if I was in your position I'd probably take the test. I can't see any way where a client of mine would require a piss test to get their business, but if their money meant the difference between my business being a success or a failure, then yeah, I'd probably bend over for the soap.
Scruples are fine but like Dio said you gotta eat.
mmm...scruples.
Scrapple?
(http://www.stoltzfusmeats.com/pics/17.jpg)
Not to go off topic here, but speaking of drugs, has anyone heard about this stuff called salvia? I just found out about it a few weeks ago. It's a legal herb that you can buy in smoke shops, and apparently it really makes you hallucinate and lose your shtein for a few minutes.
There's hardly any drug I haven't tried several times, but if you look up salvia on youtube, these kids are getting absolutely wrecked. I have no desire to try it. I guess maybe I'm just old now.
i saw a special on cnn the other monring about it...had never heard of it before now...some white kid must have died from it
Quote from: ice grillin you on January 16, 2008, 05:05:09 PM
if you combined the work years of everyone on this board i bet you could count on two hands the amount of people any of us have seen high on the job
on the job drug use or lack of production due to drug use is so far down the list of concerns at the workplace its not even funny...yet lets test EVERYONE
There was about 70-75% everyday pot users at one job I held, and that job included working on ladders and roofs all day.
I used to drink during work at my first job,a warehouse job, and ride around on hand jacks, wrecking into stuff.
Quote from: phattymatty on January 17, 2008, 11:15:58 AM
Not to go off topic here, but speaking of drugs, has anyone heard about this stuff called salvia? I just found out about it a few weeks ago. It's a legal herb that you can buy in smoke shops, and apparently it really makes you hallucinate and lose your shtein for a few minutes.
There's hardly any drug I haven't tried several times, but if you look up salvia on youtube, these kids are getting absolutely wrecked. I have no desire to try it. I guess maybe I'm just old now.
I just wikipedia'ed it and it looks sort of awesome. I'm in.
Quote from: phattymatty on January 17, 2008, 11:15:58 AM
Not to go off topic here, but speaking of drugs, has anyone heard about this stuff called salvia?
Wikipedia is your friend: Salvia divinorum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvia_divinorum)
QuotePsychedelic experiences are necessarily somewhat subjective and variations in reported effects are to be expected. Aside from individual reported experiences there has been a limited amount of published work summarising the effects. D.M. Turner's book "Salvinorin—The Psychedelic Essence of Salvia Divinorum" quotes Daniel Siebert's summarisation, mentioning that the effects may include:
* Uncontrollable laughter.
* Past memories, such as revisiting places from childhood memory.
* Sensations of motion, or being pulled or twisted by forces.
* Visions of membranes, films and various two-dimensional surfaces.
* Merging with or becoming objects (for example a Ferris wheel).
* Overlapping realities, such as the perception of being in several locations at once.
QuoteSalvia is not 'fun' in the way that alcohol or cannabis can be. If you try to party with salvia you probably will not have a good experience. Salvia is a consciousness-changing herb that can be used in a vision quest, or in a healing ritual. In the right setting, salvia makes it possible to see visions. It is an herb with a long tradition of sacred use. It is useful for deep meditation. It is best taken in a quiet, nearly dark room; either alone, or with one or two good friends present.
Quote from: phattymatty on January 17, 2008, 11:15:58 AM
Not to go off topic here, but speaking of drugs, has anyone heard about this stuff called salvia? I just found out about it a few weeks ago. It's a legal herb that you can buy in smoke shops, and apparently it really makes you hallucinate and lose your shtein for a few minutes.
There's hardly any drug I haven't tried several times, but if you look up salvia on youtube, these kids are getting absolutely wrecked. I have no desire to try it. I guess maybe I'm just old now.
Its crap. I tried some about 3-4 years ago and it did nothing.
How about this for some shtein. The new kick is poppy seeds. Take a nice handful, brew it up as a tea and supposedly you get a crazy high with hallucinations. Why somebody didnt pull this while I was in college is beyond me. Apparently now, supermarkets are running bear of the seed from their shelves.
Heard it on Howard this morning as well
well if howard said it....
... then Opie and Anthony will be saying it next week?
I think it might have been here where someone posted the story about how kids are taking a shtein in a bottle and setting it outside in the sun and basically fermenting it for a couple days and then unscrewing the lid, taking a big whiff and getting high for like 12 seconds. Kind of like whipits only dirtier.
'Dirtier than whipits' is scraping the absolute bottom of the barrel.
Quote from: Cerevant on January 17, 2008, 11:38:02 AM
Quote from: phattymatty on January 17, 2008, 11:15:58 AM
Not to go off topic here, but speaking of drugs, has anyone heard about this stuff called salvia?
Wikipedia is your friend: Salvia divinorum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvia_divinorum)
i have heard of it, as depicted by all of the words after that first sentence. but thank you for the computer lesson.
Quote from: reese125 on January 17, 2008, 12:35:53 PM
How about this for some shtein. The new kick is poppy seeds. Take a nice handful, brew it up as a tea and supposedly you get a crazy high with hallucinations. Why somebody didnt pull this while I was in college is beyond me. Apparently now, supermarkets are running bear of the seed from their shelves.
Heard it on Howard this morning as well
we did this in high school in about 95 or 96. tried it once and was so messed up i never did it again.
Quote from: rjs246 on January 17, 2008, 11:35:24 AM
I just wikipedia'ed it and it looks sort of awesome. I'm in.
youtube it. funny stuff.
Quote from: phattymatty on January 17, 2008, 01:04:42 PM
Quote from: reese125 on January 17, 2008, 12:35:53 PM
How about this for some shtein. The new kick is poppy seeds. Take a nice handful, brew it up as a tea and supposedly you get a crazy high with hallucinations. Why somebody didnt pull this while I was in college is beyond me. Apparently now, supermarkets are running bear of the seed from their shelves.
Heard it on Howard this morning as well
we did this in high school in about 95 or 96. tried it once and was so messed up i never did it again.
Are you serious? How did I never know about this? I might try it tonight. You know, for my piss test.
you ever try and smoke dried banana peels?
You should try smoking a bullet.
this wasn't store bought poppy seeds.
my best friend at the time spent 75% of his time looking for new ways to get farged up. these were wild poppy seeds, from a plant. the same plant that opium comes from.
I miss whippets.
Quote from: phattymatty on January 17, 2008, 01:10:23 PM
this wasn't store bought poppy seeds.
my best friend at the time spent 75% of his time looking for new ways to get farged up. these were wild poppy seeds, from a plant. the same plant that opium comes from.
Opium comes from poppy seeds? Weird.
But seriously, just tossing a fist full of seeds into boiling water gets you high? Because that rules.
Quote from: Sgt PSN on January 17, 2008, 12:55:00 PM
I think it might have been here where someone posted the story about how kids are taking a shtein in a bottle and setting it outside in the sun and basically fermenting it for a couple days and then unscrewing the lid, taking a big whiff and getting high for like 12 seconds. Kind of like whipits only dirtier.
ha. i remember reading about that. i've done some stupid dirty things in my life but i'm pretty sure i never got that low.
Quote from: Sgt PSN on January 17, 2008, 01:10:06 PM
You should try smoking a bullet.
lol
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on January 17, 2008, 01:18:05 PM
I miss whippets.
i cant hear the word whippet without thinking of the vet
Quote from: rjs246 on January 17, 2008, 01:19:50 PM
Quote from: phattymatty on January 17, 2008, 01:10:23 PM
this wasn't store bought poppy seeds.
my best friend at the time spent 75% of his time looking for new ways to get farged up. these were wild poppy seeds, from a plant. the same plant that opium comes from.
Opium comes from poppy seeds? Weird.
But seriously, just tossing a fist full of seeds into boiling water gets you high? Because that rules.
you are so on that Friday night
I've heard that eating poppy seed bagels can actually turn your drug test positive for opium.
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 17, 2008, 01:23:16 PM
I've heard that eating poppy seed bagels can actually turn your drug test positive for opium.
Freddie? Knock it off
the straight dope on poppy seeds and drug tests (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_116.html)
but it happened to Elaine.
http://www.creamright.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=SFNT&Store_Code=C#nitrous
In.
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 17, 2008, 01:23:16 PM
I've heard that eating poppy seed bagels can actually turn your drug test positive for opium.
False.
Just about every time I have a random piss test at work, at least one person pops for MJ and that person ALWAYS claims it's because they had poppy seeds recently.
Marines are smart.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on January 17, 2008, 01:25:38 PM
http://www.creamright.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=SFNT&Store_Code=C#nitrous
In.
dude, i'm too old for that, so you're way too old for that. i actually owned one just like this:
(http://www.creamright.com/images/Mosa250-red-black-silver-white.gif)
and it got confiscated by the cops in ocean city.
Quote from: Sgt PSN on January 17, 2008, 01:25:50 PM
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 17, 2008, 01:23:16 PM
I've heard that eating poppy seed bagels can actually turn your drug test positive for opium.
False.
Just about every time I have a random piss test at work, at least one person pops for MJ and that person ALWAYS claims it's because they had poppy seeds recently.
Hahaha
You're never too old to get wasted, matthew.
Quote from: reese125 on January 17, 2008, 01:29:13 PM
Quote from: FastFreddie on January 17, 2008, 01:26:51 PM
Marines are smart.
and dumb at the same time
Based on your representative sample, I'd say they have you by a hair.
Quote from: rjs246 on January 17, 2008, 01:28:17 PM
Quote from: Sgt PSN on January 17, 2008, 01:25:50 PMQuote from: FastFreddie on January 17, 2008, 01:23:16 PM
I've heard that eating poppy seed bagels can actually turn your drug test positive for opium.
False.
Just about every time I have a random piss test at work, at least one person pops for MJ and that person ALWAYS claims it's because they had poppy seeds recently.
Hahaha
What's really funny about it though is that our "random" piss tests always occur after a holiday weekend like New Years, Memorial Day, 4th of July or Labor Day......mostly the holidays associated with partying. Yet for some reason, these douchebags still choose to toke up over the 4 day weekend. Idiots.
well, it took longer than expected, but this thread has reached acceptable levels of CF retardation
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on January 17, 2008, 01:28:28 PM
You're never too old to get wasted, matthew.
yes but at our age we have the money to buy real drugs, not hippie crack.
Quote from: SunMo on January 17, 2008, 01:34:51 PM
well, it took longer than expected, but this thread has reached acceptable levels of CF retardation
That's because this thread is about drugs, thus was taken seriously.
Quote from: Sgt PSN on January 17, 2008, 01:33:45 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on January 17, 2008, 01:28:17 PM
Quote from: Sgt PSN on January 17, 2008, 01:25:50 PMQuote from: FastFreddie on January 17, 2008, 01:23:16 PM
I've heard that eating poppy seed bagels can actually turn your drug test positive for opium.
False.
Just about every time I have a random piss test at work, at least one person pops for MJ and that person ALWAYS claims it's because they had poppy seeds recently.
Hahaha
What's really funny about it though is that our "random" piss tests always occur after a holiday weekend like New Years, Memorial Day, 4th of July or Labor Day......mostly the holidays associated with partying. Yet for some reason, these douchebags still choose to toke up over the 4 day weekend. Idiots.
That's not really what I was laughing about, but alright.
Thank you.
Don't laugh. This is a serious topic.
(http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/270911970_db35fdd4ca.jpg)