Welfare drug testing, maybe I was wrong

[Mason66]

Well, this summer I saw Paul McCarthy when I was in San Francisco visiting my sister. You could smell pot in the crowd so that means it may be detected in my system. Let's say I have a job that makes me drug test and I fail because of it, not only could that ruin my employment, it could ruin my reputation in the company if I get fired for drug detection. It's not always going to work fairly and can have quite negative consequences. It doesn't mean you were irresponsible like some would like to believe.

Why was Paul McCarthy visiting your sister?

 

[Mason66]

You said drugs. Caffeine is a drug.

One that many believe improves their performance at work.

Legality and illegality are pretty arbitrary distinctions.

That is a rationalization from somebody that uses ilegal drugs.

 

[Fenton]

You said drugs. Caffeine is a drug.


One that many believe improves their performance at work.

Legality and illegality are pretty arbitrary distinctions.

Actually its not arbitrary at all.

the DEA's drug scheduling is based on objective data, not opinion.

The only reason someone would compare nicotine to illegal drugs is to justify their own use.


A sign of the times as Marijuana these days is described as " medicine" with "health benefits"

 

[What if...?]

That is a rationalization from somebody that uses ilegal drugs.

Nope.

Simple historical observation.

And the fact the DEA STILL refuses to acknowledge that pot has legitimate medical applications proves it pretty clearly. Even research is almost impossible due to schedule 1 classification. As a result, Israeli companies are going to own all the patents, as they are allowed to do research and have been for decades.

 

[What if...?]

Actually its not arbitrary at all.

the DEA's drug scheduling is based on objective data, not opinion.

The only reason someone would compare nicotine to illegal drugs is to justify their own use.


A sign of the times as Marijuana these days is described as " medicine" with "health benefits"

A bureaucrat cop decides.

You obviously don't really know how it works.

 

[The Man]

Although I'm personally not a fan, I have no problem with marijuana, and it does have some good qualities, and I think it should be legal. But, it is illegal, and there are laws to be followed. People breaking the law and claiming that it's not as bad for you as other legal substances is no way to get it legalized.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

As I said, even if they allowed pot I wouldn't work for someone who wants to dictate my behavior during unpaid hours. They are only renting me, they have no deed to my person.

Spoken like a true minimum wage warrior. Go on with your bad self, and rock that zero ambition!

They have no more right to tell me I can't get high on MY time than they do to require me to attend church or keep up with football.

True, but they can say "I don't want potheads on my payroll." Why? 'Cause at this point in history, pot is illegal...church or football are not.

As I've said, figure out how to determine I'm under the influence while you are paying me and I will.work for you. I don't get high at work.

Yeah...sorry, but ALL potheads say "I don't get high at work." Hey, if you want to choose a pipe over a paycheck, that's on you...but don't bitch that some employers don't want you, or perhaps the ones who will, refuse to promote you. Remember...you chose the pipe.

and is more enjoyable as a reward for a hard days work. (I don't drink).

Yeah, I totally believe that.

 

[What if...?]

Spoken like a true minimum wage warrior. Go on with your bad self, and rock that zero ambition!


True, but they can say "I don't want potheads on my payroll." Why? 'Cause at this point in history, pot is illegal...church or football are not.


Yeah...sorry, but ALL potheads say "I don't get high at work." Hey, if you want to choose a pipe over a paycheck, that's on you...but don't bitch that some employers don't want you, or perhaps the ones who will, refuse to promote you. Remember...you chose the pipe.


Yeah, I totally believe that.

Funny, just started a new job starting at almost 4 times minimum wage where there will never be testing.

Benefits, retirement, the whole bit.

Not all employers are douches.

 

[Velvet Elvis]

Funny, just started a new job starting at almost 4 times minimum wage where there will never be testing.

Benefits, retirement, the whole bit.

Not all employers are douches.

Oh yeah? Well, I just started a new job that starts at 10 times minimum wage, and I passed a stringent drug test, where the employer said "I don't employ addicts!" So there! Nyahhhh!!!!

Now didn't that sound as silly as your last post?

 

[What if...?]

Oh yeah? Well, I just started a new job that starts at 10 times minimum wage, and I passed a stringent drug test, where the employer said "I don't employ addicts!" So there! Nyahhhh!!!!

Now didn't that sound as silly as your last post?

At the dispensary where pot is much cheaper than it is on the street, right?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Sorry, but I'm calling bull on that article. I guarantee you that woman smoked the pot herself, and then tried to make an excuse because she failed a drug test.

Not the point. The point is when a swab was taken after the reporter was around second hand smoke for an hour, it was picked up in the test.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Why was Paul McCarthy visiting your sister?

He was playing at Golden Gate Park.

 

[The Man]

Not the point. The point is when a swab was taken after the reporter was around second hand smoke for an hour, it was picked up in the test.

Yeah, because she put the pipe or joint to her lips and took a hit.

And btw, a drug screen isn't a swab to your cheek.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Yeah, because she put the pipe or joint to her lips and took a hit.

Yeah, I kinda doubt the reporter did that and was bold enough to report it:doh

 

[code1211]

This would be "failing to draw the line".

Including people who simply test positive for pot or whatever tells us NOTHING about impairment. Yet is commonly put in the "impaired" column in anti-drug propaganda. Which is what MAKES it propaganda.

My point has always been an employer has a right to an unimpaired workforce. They're paying for ones time and it isnt unreasonable to expect sobriety.They just shouldn't get to dictate behavior during unpaid hours. Employment shouldn't be a form of indenture.

I don't know what the tests reveal or even what they test for.

The insurance companies are in the business of calculating risk and they have determined that drug use and higher rates of expense due to injury correlate.

Earlier I posted a link to the one of the studies that supports this. You may feel that drugs are a thing that helps you to function at a higher level, but the real world would indicate otherwise.

Do you use drugs because they do not help you to relax?

 

[ashurbanipal]

Actually...yes. I DO work at a bank...one of the biggest ones. Let me give you a bit of knowledge...they do try to scam their employer. It's the stupid little naive ones who think that "no one's ever though of their scam, so it'll work." This sort of thing happens more than you know.

What did I write that is in some way inconsistent with this? I never said tellers don't try to steal (though unless they are some kind of criminal genius, or they work at a bank with systems from the 1960's, very few succeed). My point was that a) the vast majority of banks have sophisticated systems to detect teller embezzelment, and b) theft is not limited to drug users.

Sorry, but theft is theft. Addicts are just more notorious for doing it.

I'm not sure why you're saying "sorry," since your first point agrees with mine. I'm not sure that addicts are more notorious for the right reasons, though it's possible. Again, people who smoke pot wouldn't fall into that category anyway.

Fine. I still support the drug testing. Full testing. Let the employer decide whether or not he wants to hire a pothead. Me, personally...I'm probably ok with it. What I'm not ok with, is Mother Government dictating that decision for me.

We live with a number of political paradoxes for which there are no easy solutions. I agree with the sentiment that, in most areas, I don't want anyone with power taking away my freedom. However, government is not the only entity these days with such power; employers also fit that bill. My life is much more constrained by my employer than by government, and I'm unlikely to find different conditions elsewhere. In short, I cannot agree with the idea that employers should be able to do what they like simply because of how they, as a class, are labelled. As a matter of simple fact, employers each and collectively have great power over others, and that power needs to be regulated.

 

[ashurbanipal]

I'm saying that most people are better fit to do a job when they are not drugged. The kind of drug is their concern.

I agree that someone who is currently under the influence of some drug is generally less productive in most cases (there are some exceptions; apparently popular musicians in certain genres actually perform better when mildly drunk and stoned, for instance). However, we're not really talking about people who come to work drunk or stoned or high on some other drug. I'm all for firing those people on the first offense.

Workplace Related Accidents Due to Alcohol and Drug Abuse | Bradford Health Services

From your link:

According to the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration, also known as OSHA, “Of the 17.2 million illicit drug users aged 18 or older in 2005, 12.9 million (74.8 percent) were employed either full or part time.” They further assert that 10-20 percent of work related fatalities test positive for drugs or alcohol.

This means that 80-90 percent of work-related fatalities do not test positive. Post-mortem tests are much more adept at finding drug use than urine tests. I think we can safely infer that this means 80-90% of work related fatalities are not caused by drugs or alcohol. A much larger percentage of the population actually uses drugs or alcohol than 10-20%, so I'm not sure there's any substantive point here. Or, rather, I'm sure there isn't a substantive point.

Whether you are inebriated or sober but hungover, your productivity decreases, you are more likely to make mistakes, and you are five times more likely to injure yourself or others in the workplace.

Being hungover is definitely a drag. But hangovers are mainly associated with alcohol, and again, you can use alcohol and pass a drug test.

 

[Fenton]

A bureaucrat cop decides.


You obviously don't really know how it works.

I'll take his word over yours anyday.

I meam lets see, a " bureao

 

[code1211]

I agree that someone who is currently under the influence of some drug is generally less productive in most cases (there are some exceptions; apparently popular musicians in certain genres actually perform better when mildly drunk and stoned, for instance). However, we're not really talking about people who come to work drunk or stoned or high on some other drug. I'm all for firing those people on the first offense.



From your link:



This means that 80-90 percent of work-related fatalities do not test positive. Post-mortem tests are much more adept at finding drug use than urine tests. I think we can safely infer that this means 80-90% of work related fatalities are not caused by drugs or alcohol. A much larger percentage of the population actually uses drugs or alcohol than 10-20%, so I'm not sure there's any substantive point here. Or, rather, I'm sure there isn't a substantive point.



Being hungover is definitely a drag. But hangovers are mainly associated with alcohol, and again, you can use alcohol and pass a drug test.

Again, you are free to live as you want to live.

All of the news recently regarding texting and driving points out pretty clearly that being distracted is just as harmful as being impaired.

I think we can safely assume that those who are out of work are so for a reason. The thread is about those who are getting public funds also using drugs. If there is a good reason to be out of work and the individula is trying hard to get a job, then good for him. If he's in the parent's basement smoking dope and playing video games and accepting public assistance, maybe not so good.

If he wants to limit his chances and not cost anyone else any skin in the game, I have no problem with him wasting his life, talents, ambition or future.