Random Bitching Monologues

Tomahawk · January 22, 2007, 04:26:42 PM

Pot's illegal because of propaganda from the 30's. To not smoke because of an antiquated law that shouldn't be on the books is akin to subjugating yourself to any number of ridiculous laws which for reasons contrary to common sense are still on the books.

Wingspan · January 22, 2007, 04:31:46 PM

I was in a position to hire someone, whom we liked, and offered the job. Our company required a drug test. He failed.

We rescinded the offer. And I would do it again. You cannot compare prozac or zoloft, they are perscribed. Pot, X, etc...are illegal in every sense. If the person uses, there's a chance it will be in the building, or there is a chance he would get arrested for having it (and therefore cost the company productivity, and those, among with many other reasons as to why a company will hire someone else who is "clean.")

Rome · January 22, 2007, 04:34:31 PM

I don't really consider pot to be a drug anyway. It's an herb and people smoke it. Big farging deal.

Just don't get high on my time and I won't have a problem with it.

Hard drugs (coke, smack, etc.) are a different story. They do affect job performance. Trust me, I speak from personal experience.

Wingspan · January 22, 2007, 04:36:54 PM

Quote from: Wingspan on January 22, 2007, 04:31:46 PM
I was in a position to hire someone, whom we liked, and offered the job. Our company required a drug test. He failed.

We rescinded the offer. And I would do it again. You cannot compare prozac or zoloft, they are perscribed. Pot, X, etc...are illegal in every sense. If the person uses, there's a chance it will be in the building, or there is a chance he would get arrested for having it (and therefore cost the company productivity, and those, among with many other reasons as to why a company will hire someone else who is "clean.")

BTW, in this situation, I have no idea what drug he failed for, that was not disclosed to us from the testing facility.

Diomedes · January 22, 2007, 04:41:42 PM

Quote from: Wingspan on January 22, 2007, 04:31:46 PMIf the person uses, there's a chance it will be in the building, or there is a chance he would get arrested for having it (and therefore cost the company productivity, and those, among with many other reasons as to why a company will hire someone else who is "clean.")

None of which risks are eliminated by a test. You can't remove every risk from the business of employing people. You gonna test for diabetes, and decline those folks because their more expensive? Test for anger management problems? Test for people who speed too much, increasing risk of missing time for court dates? Etc.

It's an invasion of privacy, and a transfer of responsibility from the company to the employee. If you're gonna employ people, you take risks. That's why employees get paid $50 and the company gets $45,000.

Wingspan · January 22, 2007, 05:11:08 PM

Quote from: Diomedes on January 22, 2007, 04:41:42 PM
Quote from: Wingspan on January 22, 2007, 04:31:46 PMIf the person uses, there's a chance it will be in the building, or there is a chance he would get arrested for having it (and therefore cost the company productivity, and those, among with many other reasons as to why a company will hire someone else who is "clean.")

None of which risks are eliminated by a test. You can't remove every risk from the business of employing people. You gonna test for diabetes, and decline those folks because their more expensive? Test for anger management problems? Test for people who speed too much, increasing risk of missing time for court dates? Etc.

You are right, it does not eliminated the risks. But I can gaurantee you that someone who uses drugs are far more likely to get arrested for possessing drugs than a non-user.

You cannot decline employment if a candidate has been convicted of a misdemeanor or minor traffic voilations. You must own up to a felony if you've ever been convicted though. Same with heath issues, employment will not be denied because someone is diabetic. That's just a stupid comparison.

Court dates will come out of already pre determined vacation or sick time. If a person finds themselves in court more than 15 times a year, then there is a bigger issue.

Quote from: Diomedes on January 22, 2007, 04:41:42 PM
It's an invasion of privacy, and a transfer of responsibility from the company to the employee. If you're gonna employ people, you take risks. That's why employees get paid $50 and the company gets $45,000.

So you shouldnt be held responisible for your own actions? Illegal actions, at that?

An employer will look to minimize all risks where possible. No empolyer in their right mind would willingly trust any part of their business to someone who is a drug user.

hunt · January 22, 2007, 07:25:29 PM

you're comparing doing illegal drugs with diabetes.

might be time to cut back, pothead.

General_Failure · January 22, 2007, 08:57:29 PM

A diabetic without his medication is probably going to be more problematic than the guy who smoked a joint on his lunch break.

Diomedes · January 22, 2007, 10:05:11 PM

I don't and never have smoked on the job. I have tried insulin on the job, though...

Diomedes · January 22, 2007, 10:13:35 PM

Quote from: hunt on January 22, 2007, 07:25:29 PM
you're comparing doing illegal drugs with diabetes. might be time to cut back, pothead.

You're giving a lot of creedance to the law.

And very little to the right to privacy. Yay freedom.

hunt · January 23, 2007, 09:15:58 AM

privacy doesn't mean you're allowed to break the law as long as you're in your own home...if your brain is too fried to understand that employers would rather not hire people who consume illegal, mind altering substances, i don't think there's anything i can post to convince you.

PoopyfaceMcGee · January 23, 2007, 09:18:46 AM

I think people are hilarious that whine about "personal freedoms" and yet would like the Federal government to take even more of our money and distribute it as they see fit, mostly to themselves as it gets tied up in bureaucracy.

Oh yeah... they're called liberal democrats.

Diomedes · January 23, 2007, 09:27:22 AM

if your brain is too fried from television, fast food, and the corporate teat to see that privacy is a civil right that should not be viololated for the sake of risk management and profit protection, then there's nothing I can post to convince you otherwise

PoopyfaceMcGee · January 23, 2007, 09:30:58 AM

I just don't understand why the first step is not reducing the amount of influence government has in our lives. This would include altering/removing laws on drugs that are no more harmful than alcohol or cigarettes and also reducing and simplifying the tax code so we could conceivably have more money to spend on drugs.

I suppose I just don't understand why the standard 2-party system in this country doesn't make more sense. The bottom line should be how much government the country needs. I say less. A lot less.

Wingspan · January 23, 2007, 09:42:13 AM

Quote from: Diomedes on January 23, 2007, 09:27:22 AM
if your brain is too fried from television, fast food, and the corporate teat to see that privacy is a civil right that should not be viololated for the sake of risk management and profit protection, then there's nothing I can post to convince you otherwise

Privacy is not mentioned in the constitution at all. nor in any amendments.

You are allowed to turn down a drug test, but if that means you are also eliminating yourself from the position as well. Well, that is your choice and your problem.