Drug testing is wrong.

[James D Hill]

Drug testing in its current form is BS. A UA does not prove you are high on the job or not. All a UA says is that person has used within the past month and until that fact changes then there should be no drug testing. If we can tell a person is drunk behind the wheel or not then we should have a test that proves you are high on the job or not.

Drug testing shows employers do not trust their workers but demand their workers trust them. All an employer should be worried about is how well the job is done and if a workers shows up on time or not. All things that go on off the workplace is private.

It is hard enough to find a good job without giving an employer a reason to discriminate just because of a personal choice in intoxicants. If a worker can do the job, shows up on time and gets along with everbody then who cares what intoxicant they use as long as they show up sober.

All those so called facts that say that drug users get hurt on the job more than non drug users is BS. How can a failed UA say that person was high on the job when they where hurt? It can't and they know it. Oh by the way what if that person was a drinker? They would not fail the drug test and that is hypocricy. Drug testing companies and employers lie about the stats to justify their facism.

 

[Thoreau72]

I agree completely.

Back in the 90's there was a test developed using eye-hand coordination challenges, and it was quite good at testing fitness for duty for those driving vehicles as part of their job. I'm pretty sure that UPS used it for a period of time.

It could detect if a person were unfit for any number of reasons, including taking antihistamines for a cold, and things like that.

Far better than the UA, there was no penalty if a person could not pass.

UA seems to me to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

 

[James D Hill]

I agree completely.

Back in the 90's there was a test developed using eye-hand coordination challenges, and it was quite good at testing fitness for duty for those driving vehicles as part of their job. I'm pretty sure that UPS used it for a period of time.

It could detect if a person were unfit for any number of reasons, including taking antihistamines for a cold, and things like that.

Far better than the UA, there was no penalty if a person could not pass.

UA seems to me to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

I think it is also a violation of the fifth amendment because of the guilty until proven innocent quality of drug testing. If you refuse to play their game then you get fired.

 

[tessaesque]

Just how many times are you going to start the same thread with the same argument, or post the same argument over and over in drug threads?

We get it, you use marijuana and oppose drug testing.

You've still never addressed the verifiable fact that drug using employees (including alcohol and tobacco) cost employers more money than drug free employees. You've still never addressed the fact that marijuana is essentially the only drug that a user will test positive for after the affects of the drug have worn off, meaning that almost all other drugs (and alcohol) are present in the system and affecting the user simultaneously, which means for almost every other drug a UA is more than enough to prove impairment. You've never addressed the fact that a mouth swab test is a cheap and easy means for employers to determine if a drug has been used in the last 24 hours.

 

[tessaesque]

I think it is also a violation of the fifth amendment because of the guilty until proven innocent quality of drug testing. If you refuse to play their game then you get fired.

Stupid argument is stupid. Failing a drug test as a stipulation of being offered employment does not result in criminal penalty. The 5th amendment only applies to the criminal justice system.

 

[James D Hill]

Just how many times are you going to start the same thread with the same argument, or post the same argument over and over in drug threads?

We get it, you use marijuana and oppose drug testing.

You've still never addressed the verifiable fact that drug using employees (including alcohol and tobacco) cost employers more money than drug free employees. You've still never addressed the fact that marijuana is essentially the only drug that a user will test positive for after the affects of the drug have worn off, meaning that almost all other drugs (and alcohol) are present in the system and affecting the user simultaneously, which means for almost every other drug a UA is more than enough to prove impairment. You've never addressed the fact that a mouth swab test is a cheap and easy means for employers to determine if a drug has been used in the last 24 hours.

And you sir have not adressed the fact that a failed drug test does not prove you are hight or not so therefore it is facism and wrong. Workperformance is all that counts. Stop spewing drug testing propaganda.

 

[tessaesque]

And you sir have not adressed the fact that a failed drug test does not prove you are hight or not so therefore it is facism and wrong. Workperformance is all that counts. Stop spewing drug testing propaganda.

Right.

When you want to actually read what I type and utilize the available facts to make a point why don't you just let me know?

Until then, keep on keepin' on.

 

[Moon]

And you sir have not adressed the fact that a failed drug test does not prove you are hight or not so therefore it is facism and wrong. Workperformance is all that counts. Stop spewing drug testing propaganda.

A test doesn't have to prove that you are high, only that you have the drugs in your system. If that violates the policy of the company that you have agreed to work for, and whose policies you've agreed to abide by, then you deserve to be terminated.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Just how many times are you going to start the same thread with the same argument, or post the same argument over and over in drug threads?

My guess is that his own drug use has resulted in permanent damage to his short-term memory, causing him to forget all the previous times he has posted the same crap, so he keeps posting it over and over again, thinking each time that he is posting something new and original.

 

[Thoreau72]

Being new here, I'm not familiar with the history of any given poster.

Nonetheless, it seems obvious that UA does not provide any measure of fitness for duty, yet that is the implied reason for using it. The suggestion is that if a person has metabolites of certain drugs in his system, he is unfit for duty, and that is clearly a specious argument.

The HR director of a company I used to work for told me that for Workman's Comp insurance rates, a company that uses UA gets a break on the insurance rates. It seems to have nothing to do with fitness for duty, it's all about some perceived political correctness, and a small break on WC rates.

The eye-hand coordination testing machine I mentioned covered all manner of reasons for one being unfit for duty.

 

[James D Hill]

Stupid argument is stupid. Failing a drug test as a stipulation of being offered employment does not result in criminal penalty. The 5th amendment only applies to the criminal justice system.

Last time I checked drug use was illegal so forcing one to give evidence to incriminate ones self is a violation of the fifth.

 

[James D Hill]

My guess is that his own drug use has resulted in permanent damage to his short-term memory, causing him to forget all the previous times he has posted the same crap, so he keeps posting it over and over again, thinking each time that he is posting something new and original.

I just want to get through to you thick headed ones that drug testing is BS.

 

[tessaesque]

Last time I checked drug use was illegal so forcing one to give evidence to incriminate ones self is a violation of the fifth.

You aren't forced to give any evidence. You have a choice. Submit to a drug test to acquire that job, or find a job that doesn't require a drug test.

Maybe you should educate yourself on how the 5th amendment actually works. Your posts look mighty ignorant.

 

[James D Hill]

A test doesn't have to prove that you are high, only that you have the drugs in your system. If that violates the policy of the company that you have agreed to work for, and whose policies you've agreed to abide by, then you deserve to be terminated.

Why is it an employers business what you do in your own time. That is the police's job not your employer. Who is the business community to judge our morality when they send jobs overseas and lay off Americans. Many things cost money for healthcare like overeating, drinking, smoking and I don't see marijuana smoking on ones own time costing insurance a dime. High on the job is like being drunk on the job. Fire them or send then to rehab.

 

[James D Hill]

You aren't forced to give any evidence. You have a choice. Submit to a drug test to acquire that job, or find a job that doesn't require a drug test.

Maybe you should educate yourself on how the 5th amendment actually works. Your posts look mighty ignorant.

As Americans we should have the right to a job. As long as we perform on that job and show up to work on time is all an employer should care about. What happens when you random drug test you only get drunks and powderheads because their drug of choice gets out of your system in 72 hours. All the potheads get fired and many times they are some of the best employees. What goes on in your own time is nobodies business.

 

[James D Hill]

A test doesn't have to prove that you are high, only that you have the drugs in your system. If that violates the policy of the company that you have agreed to work for, and whose policies you've agreed to abide by, then you deserve to be terminated.

In your system is not high. If that employee is doing a good job then who cares.

 

[James D Hill]

You aren't forced to give any evidence. You have a choice. Submit to a drug test to acquire that job, or find a job that doesn't require a drug test.

Maybe you should educate yourself on how the 5th amendment actually works. Your posts look mighty ignorant.

Every American needs and deserves a job if they want one. You sir need to read the 5th.

 

[tessaesque]

Every American needs and deserves a job if they want one. You sir need to read the 5th.

The 5th has nothing to do with a "right" to a job, first of all.

Secondly, not every job requires that you pass a drug test. It is the employer's right to decide who they want to employ, and what requirements those employees must meet. If you don't want to stay clean for 30 days in order to pass a UA (or 4 days-ish to pass a mouth swab) then that's your choice. If an employer doesn't want to hire those who test positive for drugs, that is their choice.

You have never, in the multitude of threads you've created on this topic, even once offered a legitimate, logical, or compelling argument against drug testing. Until you do, your posts are nothing but epic fail.

 

[Fiddytree]

It's good. It forces you to grow up and be a responsible adult who won't be a drag on your employer's dime.

 

[specklebang]

I'll guess that drug testing has more to do with liability than anything else.

In our litigious country, sleazy attorneys will go after deep pockets no matter how disconnected events might be. I once asked my friend to pick up a quart of milk for me on the way home, she got in an accident and I was sued because of the "agency relationship" of the side errand. Good grief©

A strong drug testing program is a strong defense. If your forklift operator gets high and has an accident, you can demonstrate that you took all possible precautions. Otherwise, you might very well be successfully sued.

Let me disclose that I do smoke a little pot with my one remaining friend who still smokes. We take 2 tokes and listen to audio books. I'm in favor of legalization, particularly of marijuana. But as an employer, you must demonstrate all precautions. The best way to pass a drug test is to stop using drugs. If you can't stop for a month in order to get a job - maybe you DO have a drug problem. That quote is loosely borrowed from Abbie Hoffman BTW.

 

[Ikari]

Drug testing in its current form is BS. A UA does not prove you are high on the job or not. All a UA says is that person has used within the past month and until that fact changes then there should be no drug testing. If we can tell a person is drunk behind the wheel or not then we should have a test that proves you are high on the job or not.

Drug testing shows employers do not trust their workers but demand their workers trust them. All an employer should be worried about is how well the job is done and if a workers shows up on time or not. All things that go on off the workplace is private.

It is hard enough to find a good job without giving an employer a reason to discriminate just because of a personal choice in intoxicants. If a worker can do the job, shows up on time and gets along with everbody then who cares what intoxicant they use as long as they show up sober.

All those so called facts that say that drug users get hurt on the job more than non drug users is BS. How can a failed UA say that person was high on the job when they where hurt? It can't and they know it. Oh by the way what if that person was a drinker? They would not fail the drug test and that is hypocricy. Drug testing companies and employers lie about the stats to justify their facism.

I've recently come around to the thinking that these tests, unprovoked and without suspicion, are a violation of property and privacy.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Every American needs and deserves a job if they want one. You sir need to read the 5th.

You can refuse to self-incriminate by refusing to admit you broke the law. This is the same thing as refusing to take a drug test... by doing so, you are "taking the 5th" so to speak. You are NOT required to take the drug screen.

Further, a business can place any stipulations on employment that they choose, as long as those stipulations to not violate law. Requiring a drug screen does not.

And, btw, there is no right to "have a job" or have a specific job. If you don't like a company's policy on ANYTHING, work somewhere else.

 

[tessaesque]

I'll guess that drug testing has more to do with liability than anything else.

In our litigious country, sleazy attorneys will go after deep pockets no matter how disconnected events might be. I once asked my friend to pick up a quart of milk for me on the way home, she got in an accident and I was sued because of the "agency relationship" of the side errand. Good grief©

A strong drug testing program is a strong defense. If your forklift operator gets high and has an accident, you can demonstrate that you took all possible precautions. Otherwise, you might very well be successfully sued.

Let me disclose that I do smoke a little pot with my one remaining friend who still smokes. We take 2 tokes and listen to audio books. I'm in favor of legalization, particularly of marijuana. But as an employer, you must demonstrate all precautions. The best way to pass a drug test is to stop using drugs. If you can't stop for a month in order to get a job - maybe you DO have a drug problem. That quote is loosely borrowed from Abbie Hoffman BTW.

It is totally about costs and liability, you're right.

Many employers in the health care field have banned tobacco use for their employees. If you smoke cigarettes, dip, or chew, you are not eligible for employment with them...and they can and do test for indicators of tobacco use to ensure you're being honest. And not so much because smokers are an insurance liability from a worker's comp or litigation stand point, but because smokers cost infinitely more money in health care coverage, time off, and lost productivity.

When I smoked, I found it frustrating to know I was totally qualified for the job, but ineligible due to my personal decision to smoke cigarettes. Then I realized I could be a frustrated at as I want, but the employer had every right to maintain that restriction. If I really, really wanted an available position with a no-smoking company I could quit smoking. If I didn't really want that position I could find another job elsewhere. I always had a choice and was never forced to do a damn thing.

And that's what James misses. It would be force if a law existed requiring you to take a drug test prior to employment. But there is no law for private sector jobs. It's all up to the employer's discretion. And employers have plenty of legitimate reasons to deny employment to drug users, whether those drugs are legal or illegal to consume. As much as I support decriminalization of most drugs, I would still simultaneously support the ability of employers to demand that their workers be able to pass random or accident-related drug testing in addition to drug testing as a condition of employment. Why? Because even if they're legal, they still create a liability.

 

[Moon]

In your system is not high. If that employee is doing a good job then who cares.

By definition, violating company policies excludes one from being categorized as doing a good job.

 

[James D Hill]

By definition, violating company policies excludes one from being categorized as doing a good job.

What a crock. Do you always side in the favor of managment? My father is that kind of conservative also. He does think that very few jobs really need to random drug test though. The problem is not only is drug testing facism but it reeks of a lack of trust for your employees. In 1979 you could get a job on your skills and the employer trusted you and many times the boss drank and drugged also. Who says we have to live in a country where the moral crusaders want to violate our personal freedoms at every turn and who cares who that moral crusade is. You employer should not have any more right to invade your personal freedom than the police. All an employer should be worried about is job performance. You can do the job or you can't and that should be the bottom line.