<strong>When I think of drug tests, I just think of the other lame (but scarier) reasons why people are denied jobs. Using pot is just as arbitrary as not hiring women, or certian ethnic groups, or gays. I won't lie about my life so i can work somewhere that doesn't hire gays, and I won't lie so i can work somewhere that doesn't hire smokers. While one is more serious, it's unfortunately legal for employers to do both, and I regard them with the same gravity.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Poor Taylor,
How is it possible to discriminate against gays and smokers in hiring practices. In almost all situations this is illegal.
I know that advocacy groups and certain types of clubs are legally able to discriminate in this fashion. For example, a Jewish Torah study group could legally refuse admission to a Nazi on the grounds that his presence is antithetical to the groups very purpose. And the American Lung Association could probably get away with refusing to hire smokers.
But the City of Metropolis can't refuse to hire you because you're gay or smoke or are Jewish or whatever without a darn good legal reason.
p.s. my wife's stepdad is a retired firefighter and he smoked most of his adult life. Although I'm not sure that the FD still hires smokers.
How is it possible to discriminate against gays and smokers in hiring practices. In almost all situations this is illegal.
I know that advocacy groups and certain types of clubs are legally able to discriminate in this fashion. For example, a Jewish Torah study group could legally refuse admission to a Nazi on the grounds that his presence is antithetical to the groups very purpose. And the American Lung Association could probably get away with refusing to hire smokers.
But the City of Metropolis can't refuse to hire you because you're gay or smoke or are Jewish or whatever without a darn good legal reason.
p.s. my wife's stepdad is a retired firefighter and he smoked most of his adult life. Although I'm not sure that the FD still hires smokers.
Thoth, any thoughts?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Disclaimer: The following is right to the best of my knowledge, but I haven't been following Equal protection or 1st Amendment case law lately.
On the first bit, you are absolutely right. Private clubs and other organizations generally (note that word) can exclude whomever they wish if it has some relation to their purpose. This comes from the 1st Am free association clause. The Supreme Court has read this to include the freedom not to associate - in other words, you can choose your friends, but they can't choose you. This, as in all things, is qualified somewhat - it involves whether the organization is a public accomodation or if it gets state support etc. A perfect example is Bob Jones University. For a long time they didn't allow in minority groups on the basis of religion and free association. As a consequence, the IRS wasn't supposed to treat them as a tax exempt charitable organization. But they did anyway and some people sued (and lost if I remember correctly because they didn't have standing to challenge the IRS' administration of the tax code). But I digress.
As for the second part, its not that simple. Gays and smokers are NOT a protected class (i.e. protected under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause because of their homosexuality - any law regarding them as a class has to only have a rational basis, and that's a really easy standard to pass in court) as are minorities and women (strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny of measures facially involving these groups). For instance, in the case of Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court held that it was ok to outlaw certain practices b/w consenting adults. However, in the Colorado amendment case (I can't remember the name, it involved a state constitutional amendment supposedly prohibiting gays from having more rights than everybody else), the Supreme Court said that a political body (not a private group) can't single out ANY group for opprobium and hatred (over a vigorous dissent by the author of Bowers, Justice Scalia). In short, it failed to have any rational basis. But, this dealt with a state action, not private, so it appears that homosexuals are still not a protected class. As such, I don't think it is unlawful to decline to hire homosexuals. Smokers are also not a protected group, so you have the same result. As an example, Cracker Barrel restaurants got in trouble in the media for their STATED POLICY of not hiring homosexuals because it was a family restaurant. I had stock then. I sold it as soon as I found out. But, they were within their rights to have that policy (so far).
Finally, whether the city of Metropolis can refuse to hire you b/c you're Jewish - well, they can't because religions are protected groups - see the 1st Amendment (this is different than alienage or gender or race b/c of the specific prohibitions contained in the 1st amendment so they get strict scrutiny too).
As for Gays or smokers, well, they can pretty much do what they want (see rational basis above). ALL BETS ARE OFF, however, if there are statutory anti-discrimination measures. We're here talking about constitutional proscriptions against discrimination (see San Francisco's ordinances).
Thanks for the answer. I just can't believe that an employer can refuse to hire someone just because they are gay or smoke (association exemption noted). This grates against my sense of fairness. If you're going to refuse to hire someone because they are gay or smoke, it seems to me that you need to demonstrate that this would somehow be detrimental to you as an employer.
It also seems odd that legal protection against discrimination is an "opt-in" system whereby a law has to first be passed to protect you, rather than an "opt-out" system where a law has to be passed to allow discrimination for a valid reason.
I realize that employers have rights too, but unwarranted discrimination shouldn't be one of them.
Thanks for the answer. I just can't believe that an employer can refuse to hire someone just because they are gay or smoke (association exemption noted). This grates against my sense of fairness. If you're going to refuse to hire someone because they are gay or smoke, it seems to me that you need to demonstrate that this would somehow be detrimental to you as an employer.
It also seems odd that legal protection against discrimination is an "opt-in" system whereby a law has to first be passed to protect you, rather than an "opt-out" system where a law has to be passed to allow discrimination for a valid reason.
I realize that employers have rights too, but unwarranted discrimination shouldn't be one of them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the problem is that those "reasons" are all too easy to come by in the current legal regime. Promotion of "proper" morality would probably suffice. There's lots of case law that says that it is within province of gov't to try to set the moral tone of society through legislation. At this point, homosexuality is a moral, rather than biological issue. If that were to change, then the legal regime might also.
BTW, most laws discriminate in one way or another - criminal laws discriminate against criminals, for instance. Law in general is opt in and opt out at the same time . It is always opt out b/c any law has to have AT LEAST a rational basis, however easy that is to come up with. But, on the other hand, it is Opt-In with respect to what the populace defines as discrimination (in a moral sense, and to a lesser extent gender and race). A body politic can usually decide that it won't tolerate something, and passes a law thus making it opt in for most things (we don't like child labor, so we pass a law against it etc). But your point is well taken. I suggest that problem is not one of how the legal system or legislation works (my suggestions is that it MUST work that way), but rather the definition of the "problem" as one of morality and thus something that is fair game for the legislature to play with.
It gets more complicated when a law of general application has a discriminatory impact on a protected group... .
Thoth
PS: I think that's pretty garbled, but there it is.
cracker barrell is actually exactly what i was thinking of. my friend charlie was fired when he "came out." he was his store's top server, almost every time they announced results. that doesn't matter in that world. he couldn't do anything, because cracker barrell still has that "right."
I believe in fighting to change the laws, but I don't believe in lying to conform to them until they are changed.
There is a reason I don't smoke marijuana anymore. I had to do a blood test for a job as well. The interview went great and it did because I puffed a marijuana cigarette before going in. They didn't notice and I had no inhibitions. It was the perfect place for me. I did my blood test thinking I'm not a heavy user so I shouldn't worry. After a few days my tests got in and I received a call and I was announced that I can go pick up the results and look for another job because they don't hire drug-addicts. I haven't been labeled like that before.
There is a reason I don't smoke marijuana anymore. I had to do a blood test for a job as well. The interview went great and it did because I puffed a marijuana cigarette before going in. They didn't notice and I had no inhibitions. It was the perfect place for me. I did my blood test thinking I'm not a heavy user so I shouldn't worry. After a few days my tests got in and I received a call and I was announced that I can go pick up the results and look for another job because they don't hire drug-addicts. I haven't been labeled like that before.
I too did not think of myself as a "druggie" as such. Back in 2003/04 though, I was doing ecstasy and pot a few times a month.
Come to think of it, I can't remember much of what happened.
A lot of people "use" recreationally, it is quite common... Knowing where to draw the line though, is trickier, IMO.
However, when it is 11am in the morning and you have been out partying for 12 hours, have had a few hits of ecstasy, smoked some pot, and then you are back at some friends place, and they whip out the crack pipe, that's when you go, well, maybe I *am* on the path to being a "drug addict". Luckily around the crack pipe time I left.
Ecs and pot can be quite fun, uplifting, happy, etc. if you are trying it for the first time. However, after several months/ years, things kinda take their toll, I find. Crack and Heroin is no joke, I never did that. I would not be here typing this if I tried it.
Also, in 2002, after a week in Amsterdam on holiday, and the day I had the flight back to SF, USA, I realised I still had a small (few ounces) of pot in my jacket pocket. Around that time, I felt generally okay, except several nights when falling asleep when the room was dark, I could see like "clouds" or "shadows" around the ceiling.
I wasn't too alarmed as I have always been very open-minded, but that's around the time when I was like, wow, I am really different now... maybe?
<strong>Strozek...what do they think you're going to do...sit down and counsel the Teen with a joint in your hand?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not saying that I disagree with you, hmurchison, I completely agree that drug testing is out of hand, and that, in most cases, drug testing policies are ridiculous. In general, if I use drugs, but perform my work duties acceptably, then there should be no problem. But, if I use drugs, and this affects my ability to perform my duties at work, then I should be fired because I cannot perform my duties, not because I use drugs.
Now, I think that there are exceptions to this rule. I don't want my bus driver or airline pilot sucking on a crack pipe, regardless of whether they are able to perform their duties while doing so. I also don't want the people caring for my children (assuming I were straight and had children) using drugs while caring for them.
The job in question is more than just counseling kids. It involves living with the kids, spending 24 hours a day with them for extended periods of time. It involves being responsible for their safety. I won't have evenings off so that I can go home and smoke up. And if I am hired, then I can't exactly be the role model that the kids need when I am hiding behind a tree at night smoking up. It's just one of those jobs that I mentioned above.
I have to agree that drug testing is a bit of an easy way out for employers. My colleague might still be high from ecs the night before, but he may actually do sales on the retail floor quite well that day. Sure, a few months from now he may be severely depressed, or on crack, or, he may be generally more sober and "balanced".
Drug testing at a job interview to give you some sort of "snapshot" of a person's drug habits is not over a period of weeks or months that useful.
Unless you implement drug testing at the company, random drug tests every few days/ weeks. Which would be kinda expensive. May be important for some of the jobs you mentioned above.
You have a good case in point. Besides my sales colleague, my cashier friend came to the company party high on nimetazapine or something like that.
A lot of people in their 20s and 30s do lead quite productive lives, balancing work, play, other time, with and without "recreational" drugs with various patterns of use. We as a society frown on under-20s usage of drugs and alcohol because they usually don't balance it out as well as those in their 20s or 30s? Though of course drug and alcohol abuse for many people can happen at many different levels of age and lifestyle, etc.
Yeah Scott. I think I wouldn't mind Drug Testing in the context of Drivers, Pilots etc. But when you start testing people that answer phones???? Sheesh.
I would encourage slight powdered Valium to be added to everyone's Tea or Coffee at any IT Support Call Center.
"YOU MOTHERFUCKER FIX MY GODDAMN COMPUTER NOW!!!"
"Whoa, dude, it's all cool man, we'll get it, no problem sir, it's all goood......"
There's nothing evil about drug tests. I for one feel better knowing that our transportation workers, law enforcement, military personnel, etc., are drug tested. <hr></blockquote>
If that's the truth then show me the results from the Head of these depts down. Drug testing is only done to the lower rung of employees. One would think that it would be MORE important to have the "Executives" tested....obviously the Enron Execs were on drugs <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison
I don't smoke pot nor do I take any drugs other than the occaisonal Advil. I just have a problem with unilateral idea that EVERYONE is on drugs and must prove their innocence to gain employment. I don't have evidence to support it but I'm sure that a vast majority of Execs are exempt from Drug Tests even though one could argue that their responsibilities are even MORE important to the well being of a company. I agree with Poor Taylor..Drug Testing weeds out individuals from the lower rungs.
You mentioned that Samantha J Ollendale was "Paranoid" in another post but I counter that Paranoia is a very dominant trait in Americans. How many times to we help out that person stuck on the side of the highway? How many times to we just trust that the other person will come through.
Alcohol is easily 10x worse than Marijuana. People don't smoke weed until they Puke are drop into Comas. Drug Testing IMO was a "Feel Good" program that spawned from the War against Drugs.
Gattica..here we come.
Wow hmurch, I never thought *you* to be this counter-culture radical dude. And to quote Gattaca... Awesome. Well done mate.
1. FEAR - If you live in the United States you know what I mean. If not... turn your attention to the middle east or really anywhere in the world where we have a military base.
2. MONEY - Marijuana is not a profitiable product. It grows from the earth and contains no man made additives. Anyone of us can grow it with little experience and have enough for each season even if you smoked often.
Thank god I live in California and over time we will get Marijuana legalized. Used appropriately, like many things, can be beneficial to us It is not a gateway drug and it not addictive.
To answer the first post...
If you are physically active and eat 3 square meals a day you should be fine within a couple days. I doubt it would even come up.
There is a reason I don't smoke marijuana anymore. I had to do a blood test for a job as well. The interview went great and it did because I puffed a marijuana cigarette before going in. They didn't notice and I had no inhibitions. It was the perfect place for me. I did my blood test thinking I'm not a heavy user so I shouldn't worry. After a few days my tests got in and I received a call and I was announced that I can go pick up the results and look for another job because they don't hire drug-addicts. I haven't been labeled like that before.
Thank you for your contribution, but not for your Scientology link in your signature.
Do you sit around the 'church' on down-time searching forums for 6 year old posts pertaining to drug use? Did you really have to bump a thread that ended so long ago just so you could get that link in? Do you enjoy paying to advance in your 'religion'?
If you'd like, I can provide the OT materials for you. Why give Scientology any more business!?
OK, so I may have to take a drug test soon for a job that I am wanting. I don't smoke pot, but a lot of my friends do, so I am exposed to the second-hand smoke. Will this cause the test to be positive?
More than likely you will not test positive for marijuana as many of the other people here have said.
Now on to the drug testing being used to "weed out" the lower rung employees and not the execs theory. The reason people are drug tested before they can be hired to a company is so the company can say they promote a drug free workplace. Those just being hired on or who are "low" on the corporate ladder have the most contact with the customer. If they are walking around on drugs it looks bad for the company which is why they implement drug testing. And the execs are not out to make people's lives miserable, they are trying to keep the company running. If they just let anything go at work nothing would get done and the company would lose money. Those at the top got to the top by working hard and paying their dues.
OK, so I may have to take a drug test soon for a job that I am wanting. I don't smoke pot, but a lot of my friends do, so I am exposed to the second-hand smoke. Will this cause the test to be positive?
Don't hang out with them when they are smoking then especially if it is coming up soon
Comments
<strong>When I think of drug tests, I just think of the other lame (but scarier) reasons why people are denied jobs. Using pot is just as arbitrary as not hiring women, or certian ethnic groups, or gays. I won't lie about my life so i can work somewhere that doesn't hire gays, and I won't lie so i can work somewhere that doesn't hire smokers. While one is more serious, it's unfortunately legal for employers to do both, and I regard them with the same gravity.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Poor Taylor,
How is it possible to discriminate against gays and smokers in hiring practices. In almost all situations this is illegal.
I know that advocacy groups and certain types of clubs are legally able to discriminate in this fashion. For example, a Jewish Torah study group could legally refuse admission to a Nazi on the grounds that his presence is antithetical to the groups very purpose. And the American Lung Association could probably get away with refusing to hire smokers.
But the City of Metropolis can't refuse to hire you because you're gay or smoke or are Jewish or whatever without a darn good legal reason.
p.s. my wife's stepdad is a retired firefighter and he smoked most of his adult life. Although I'm not sure that the FD still hires smokers.
Thoth, any thoughts?
<strong>
Poor Taylor,
How is it possible to discriminate against gays and smokers in hiring practices. In almost all situations this is illegal.
I know that advocacy groups and certain types of clubs are legally able to discriminate in this fashion. For example, a Jewish Torah study group could legally refuse admission to a Nazi on the grounds that his presence is antithetical to the groups very purpose. And the American Lung Association could probably get away with refusing to hire smokers.
But the City of Metropolis can't refuse to hire you because you're gay or smoke or are Jewish or whatever without a darn good legal reason.
p.s. my wife's stepdad is a retired firefighter and he smoked most of his adult life. Although I'm not sure that the FD still hires smokers.
Thoth, any thoughts?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Disclaimer: The following is right to the best of my knowledge, but I haven't been following Equal protection or 1st Amendment case law lately.
On the first bit, you are absolutely right. Private clubs and other organizations generally (note that word) can exclude whomever they wish if it has some relation to their purpose. This comes from the 1st Am free association clause. The Supreme Court has read this to include the freedom not to associate - in other words, you can choose your friends, but they can't choose you. This, as in all things, is qualified somewhat - it involves whether the organization is a public accomodation or if it gets state support etc. A perfect example is Bob Jones University. For a long time they didn't allow in minority groups on the basis of religion and free association. As a consequence, the IRS wasn't supposed to treat them as a tax exempt charitable organization. But they did anyway and some people sued (and lost if I remember correctly because they didn't have standing to challenge the IRS' administration of the tax code). But I digress.
As for the second part, its not that simple. Gays and smokers are NOT a protected class (i.e. protected under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause because of their homosexuality - any law regarding them as a class has to only have a rational basis, and that's a really easy standard to pass in court) as are minorities and women (strict scrutiny and intermediate scrutiny of measures facially involving these groups). For instance, in the case of Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court held that it was ok to outlaw certain practices b/w consenting adults. However, in the Colorado amendment case (I can't remember the name, it involved a state constitutional amendment supposedly prohibiting gays from having more rights than everybody else), the Supreme Court said that a political body (not a private group) can't single out ANY group for opprobium and hatred (over a vigorous dissent by the author of Bowers, Justice Scalia). In short, it failed to have any rational basis. But, this dealt with a state action, not private, so it appears that homosexuals are still not a protected class. As such, I don't think it is unlawful to decline to hire homosexuals. Smokers are also not a protected group, so you have the same result. As an example, Cracker Barrel restaurants got in trouble in the media for their STATED POLICY of not hiring homosexuals because it was a family restaurant. I had stock then. I sold it as soon as I found out. But, they were within their rights to have that policy (so far).
Finally, whether the city of Metropolis can refuse to hire you b/c you're Jewish - well, they can't because religions are protected groups - see the 1st Amendment (this is different than alienage or gender or race b/c of the specific prohibitions contained in the 1st amendment so they get strict scrutiny too).
As for Gays or smokers, well, they can pretty much do what they want (see rational basis above). ALL BETS ARE OFF, however, if there are statutory anti-discrimination measures. We're here talking about constitutional proscriptions against discrimination (see San Francisco's ordinances).
So, that's a 40000 ft overview.
Thoth
Thanks for the answer. I just can't believe that an employer can refuse to hire someone just because they are gay or smoke (association exemption noted). This grates against my sense of fairness. If you're going to refuse to hire someone because they are gay or smoke, it seems to me that you need to demonstrate that this would somehow be detrimental to you as an employer.
It also seems odd that legal protection against discrimination is an "opt-in" system whereby a law has to first be passed to protect you, rather than an "opt-out" system where a law has to be passed to allow discrimination for a valid reason.
I realize that employers have rights too, but unwarranted discrimination shouldn't be one of them.
<strong>Thoth,
Thanks for the answer. I just can't believe that an employer can refuse to hire someone just because they are gay or smoke (association exemption noted). This grates against my sense of fairness. If you're going to refuse to hire someone because they are gay or smoke, it seems to me that you need to demonstrate that this would somehow be detrimental to you as an employer.
It also seems odd that legal protection against discrimination is an "opt-in" system whereby a law has to first be passed to protect you, rather than an "opt-out" system where a law has to be passed to allow discrimination for a valid reason.
I realize that employers have rights too, but unwarranted discrimination shouldn't be one of them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, the problem is that those "reasons" are all too easy to come by in the current legal regime. Promotion of "proper" morality would probably suffice. There's lots of case law that says that it is within province of gov't to try to set the moral tone of society through legislation. At this point, homosexuality is a moral, rather than biological issue. If that were to change, then the legal regime might also.
BTW, most laws discriminate in one way or another - criminal laws discriminate against criminals, for instance. Law in general is opt in and opt out at the same time . It is always opt out b/c any law has to have AT LEAST a rational basis, however easy that is to come up with. But, on the other hand, it is Opt-In with respect to what the populace defines as discrimination (in a moral sense, and to a lesser extent gender and race). A body politic can usually decide that it won't tolerate something, and passes a law thus making it opt in for most things (we don't like child labor, so we pass a law against it etc). But your point is well taken. I suggest that problem is not one of how the legal system or legislation works (my suggestions is that it MUST work that way), but rather the definition of the "problem" as one of morality and thus something that is fair game for the legislature to play with.
It gets more complicated when a law of general application has a discriminatory impact on a protected group... .
Thoth
PS: I think that's pretty garbled, but there it is.
I believe in fighting to change the laws, but I don't believe in lying to conform to them until they are changed.
There is a reason I don't smoke marijuana anymore. I had to do a blood test for a job as well. The interview went great and it did because I puffed a marijuana cigarette before going in. They didn't notice and I had no inhibitions. It was the perfect place for me. I did my blood test thinking I'm not a heavy user so I shouldn't worry. After a few days my tests got in and I received a call and I was announced that I can go pick up the results and look for another job because they don't hire drug-addicts. I haven't been labeled like that before.
I too did not think of myself as a "druggie" as such. Back in 2003/04 though, I was doing ecstasy and pot a few times a month.
Come to think of it, I can't remember much of what happened.
A lot of people "use" recreationally, it is quite common... Knowing where to draw the line though, is trickier, IMO.
However, when it is 11am in the morning and you have been out partying for 12 hours, have had a few hits of ecstasy, smoked some pot, and then you are back at some friends place, and they whip out the crack pipe, that's when you go, well, maybe I *am* on the path to being a "drug addict". Luckily around the crack pipe time I left.
Ecs and pot can be quite fun, uplifting, happy, etc. if you are trying it for the first time. However, after several months/ years, things kinda take their toll, I find. Crack and Heroin is no joke, I never did that. I would not be here typing this if I tried it.
Also, in 2002, after a week in Amsterdam on holiday, and the day I had the flight back to SF, USA, I realised I still had a small (few ounces) of pot in my jacket pocket. Around that time, I felt generally okay, except several nights when falling asleep when the room was dark, I could see like "clouds" or "shadows" around the ceiling.
I wasn't too alarmed as I have always been very open-minded, but that's around the time when I was like, wow, I am really different now... maybe?
Originally posted by hmurchison:
<strong>Strozek...what do they think you're going to do...sit down and counsel the Teen with a joint in your hand?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not saying that I disagree with you, hmurchison, I completely agree that drug testing is out of hand, and that, in most cases, drug testing policies are ridiculous. In general, if I use drugs, but perform my work duties acceptably, then there should be no problem. But, if I use drugs, and this affects my ability to perform my duties at work, then I should be fired because I cannot perform my duties, not because I use drugs.
Now, I think that there are exceptions to this rule. I don't want my bus driver or airline pilot sucking on a crack pipe, regardless of whether they are able to perform their duties while doing so. I also don't want the people caring for my children (assuming I were straight and had children) using drugs while caring for them.
The job in question is more than just counseling kids. It involves living with the kids, spending 24 hours a day with them for extended periods of time. It involves being responsible for their safety. I won't have evenings off so that I can go home and smoke up. And if I am hired, then I can't exactly be the role model that the kids need when I am hiding behind a tree at night smoking up. It's just one of those jobs that I mentioned above.
I have to agree that drug testing is a bit of an easy way out for employers. My colleague might still be high from ecs the night before, but he may actually do sales on the retail floor quite well that day. Sure, a few months from now he may be severely depressed, or on crack, or, he may be generally more sober and "balanced".
Drug testing at a job interview to give you some sort of "snapshot" of a person's drug habits is not over a period of weeks or months that useful.
Unless you implement drug testing at the company, random drug tests every few days/ weeks. Which would be kinda expensive. May be important for some of the jobs you mentioned above.
You have a good case in point. Besides my sales colleague, my cashier friend came to the company party high on nimetazapine or something like that.
A lot of people in their 20s and 30s do lead quite productive lives, balancing work, play, other time, with and without "recreational" drugs with various patterns of use. We as a society frown on under-20s usage of drugs and alcohol because they usually don't balance it out as well as those in their 20s or 30s? Though of course drug and alcohol abuse for many people can happen at many different levels of age and lifestyle, etc.
Yeah Scott. I think I wouldn't mind Drug Testing in the context of Drivers, Pilots etc. But when you start testing people that answer phones???? Sheesh.
I would encourage slight powdered Valium to be added to everyone's Tea or Coffee at any IT Support Call Center.
"YOU MOTHERFUCKER FIX MY GODDAMN COMPUTER NOW!!!"
"Whoa, dude, it's all cool man, we'll get it, no problem sir, it's all goood......"
There's nothing evil about drug tests. I for one feel better knowing that our transportation workers, law enforcement, military personnel, etc., are drug tested. <hr></blockquote>
If that's the truth then show me the results from the Head of these depts down. Drug testing is only done to the lower rung of employees. One would think that it would be MORE important to have the "Executives" tested....obviously the Enron Execs were on drugs <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
I don't smoke pot nor do I take any drugs other than the occaisonal Advil. I just have a problem with unilateral idea that EVERYONE is on drugs and must prove their innocence to gain employment. I don't have evidence to support it but I'm sure that a vast majority of Execs are exempt from Drug Tests even though one could argue that their responsibilities are even MORE important to the well being of a company. I agree with Poor Taylor..Drug Testing weeds out individuals from the lower rungs.
You mentioned that Samantha J Ollendale was "Paranoid" in another post but I counter that Paranoia is a very dominant trait in Americans. How many times to we help out that person stuck on the side of the highway? How many times to we just trust that the other person will come through.
Alcohol is easily 10x worse than Marijuana. People don't smoke weed until they Puke are drop into Comas. Drug Testing IMO was a "Feel Good" program that spawned from the War against Drugs.
Gattica..here we come.
Wow hmurch, I never thought *you* to be this counter-culture radical dude. And to quote Gattaca... Awesome. Well done mate.
1. FEAR - If you live in the United States you know what I mean. If not... turn your attention to the middle east or really anywhere in the world where we have a military base.
2. MONEY - Marijuana is not a profitiable product. It grows from the earth and contains no man made additives. Anyone of us can grow it with little experience and have enough for each season even if you smoked often.
Thank god I live in California and over time we will get Marijuana legalized. Used appropriately, like many things, can be beneficial to us
To answer the first post...
If you are physically active and eat 3 square meals a day you should be fine within a couple days. I doubt it would even come up.
There is a reason I don't smoke marijuana anymore. I had to do a blood test for a job as well. The interview went great and it did because I puffed a marijuana cigarette before going in. They didn't notice and I had no inhibitions. It was the perfect place for me. I did my blood test thinking I'm not a heavy user so I shouldn't worry. After a few days my tests got in and I received a call and I was announced that I can go pick up the results and look for another job because they don't hire drug-addicts. I haven't been labeled like that before.
Thank you for your contribution, but not for your Scientology link in your signature.
Do you sit around the 'church' on down-time searching forums for 6 year old posts pertaining to drug use? Did you really have to bump a thread that ended so long ago just so you could get that link in? Do you enjoy paying to advance in your 'religion'?
If you'd like, I can provide the OT materials for you. Why give Scientology any more business!?
Hail Xenu!
OK, so I may have to take a drug test soon for a job that I am wanting. I don't smoke pot, but a lot of my friends do, so I am exposed to the second-hand smoke. Will this cause the test to be positive?
More than likely you will not test positive for marijuana as many of the other people here have said.
Now on to the drug testing being used to "weed out" the lower rung employees and not the execs theory. The reason people are drug tested before they can be hired to a company is so the company can say they promote a drug free workplace. Those just being hired on or who are "low" on the corporate ladder have the most contact with the customer. If they are walking around on drugs it looks bad for the company which is why they implement drug testing. And the execs are not out to make people's lives miserable, they are trying to keep the company running. If they just let anything go at work nothing would get done and the company would lose money. Those at the top got to the top by working hard and paying their dues.
OK, so I may have to take a drug test soon for a job that I am wanting. I don't smoke pot, but a lot of my friends do, so I am exposed to the second-hand smoke. Will this cause the test to be positive?
Don't hang out with them when they are smoking then especially if it is coming up soon