Drug Testing....where do you stand?

[Big R]

The place where I work is about the same as Lowes. As soon as somebody gets hurt at work they send them to the hospital. But not for treatment - they have to pass a test first. Company's way of saving money on insurance I guess.

We get random tests but have noticed that the president, v.p., and every other bigwig has never had one. I wouldn't mind seeing some doctors, lawyers, elected officials, and random welfare collectors get some too.

 

[boingk]

I agree with screening for people on governement assistance, and the whole 'in your own time' thing.

I'll also let slip that there are a lot of non-addictive drugs out there with a VERY short half life once the effect wears off. Think things like magic mushrooms, nothing created in a lab for meth-heads... God... I see enough of those guys at work (pharmacy). If its natural I'm pretty much for it as long as you keep it in your own time.

Anywho, THC has the downside of being a fat soluble molecule. It likes to hang around.

I say stick with the booze (responsibly) if you get tested. If not, chill out if you feel the need but please work sober - if not for others than for yourself.

Cheers guys, hope I didn't come off as a wiseass/jerk/wowser - boingk

 

[tWistedWheelz]

I agree with screening for people on governement assistance, and the whole 'in your own time' thing.

I'll also let slip that there are a lot of non-addictive drugs out there with a VERY short half life once the effect wears off. Think things like magic mushrooms, nothing created in a lab for meth-heads... God... I see enough of those guys at work (pharmacy). If its natural I'm pretty much for it as long as you keep it in your own time.

Anywho, THC has the downside of being a fat soluble molecule. It likes to hang around.

I say stick with the booze (responsibly) if you get tested. If not, chill out if you feel the need but please work sober - if not for others than for yourself.

Cheers guys, hope I didn't come off as a wiseass/jerk/wowser - boingk

Not at all, I ask this question to get honest responses! Your response is knowledgeable and informative. Thanks

 

[boingk]

No worries twisted. Meanwhile, spotted this gem from up the thread that made me laugh:

True that some of the worst drug addicts are pill poppers. But they have a prescription so its ok. Never mind they are too stoned to do anything.

Man that is true, no worries about it! People come in like clockwork with a prescription for things that you know in your heart aren't doing much other than whack them out of their gourd. One lady I served back in highschool could barely keep it together, eyes half mast and inattentive - the whole nine yards. Looked at the prescription label and it was Valium, alot of it. Almost cracked up, thinking: "Don't need any more of that, hon". Haha, oh well. Not having a dig at people that actually need whatever for legitimate reasons, but damn there are some people out there that are hooked.

Cheers all (blazed on fine ale) - boingk

 

[VonYinzer]

My job is in construction with a LARGE commercial company. We hold all kinds of Govt contracts, and no testing unless you do something really dumb on a jobsite, or operate our heavy equipment. That said, I know for a fact that the majority of our employees use some type of drugs, but NEVER at work. Its just too dangerous. The constrution industry is always in the top percentile of drug and alcohal abuse. Seriously, I would say 75%+ of the guys I know in this business are on something, and for a lot of them its pain pills. This job can really beat ya up, and doctors now a days would rather write you a script for percs than fix you. I personally dont care about recreational drug use, although I dont do any myself. Its a bullshit double standard that you can go to a bar and pound 15 beers, but smoke a joint and its jail time.

 

[Ease]

I love how if you poll non-pot-smokers you will still come up with a reasonable debate FOR making Marijuana legal. My dad doesn't smoke pot, swears he never has, but still doesn't understand why it is illegal.

Personally I'm for testing for harder / addictive drugs... But who cares if you smoke when you're not at work. My cousin welds tanks in northern Alberta with a meth-addict. Worries about getting killed by him every day.

...I smoke pot. No hangover, no sickness, and you can't overdose because you fall asleep first. But I would never do it at work or while trying to do something important, just like I would never have a drink at work...

You have to be careful now because of the new mandatory jail time law for 30grams of weed... This means small amounts only - which means you have to make more illegal transactions - so more people get caught...

Anyone interested in the other side of the pot conflict should check out the movie "The Union". Made by a non-weed smoker. It's available to watch for free online.

Sorry for the Hijack! ;D

 

[tWistedWheelz]

no hijack, that is what this topic is for, thanks for sharing!

 

[thompsonmx100]

this thread rocks You hippies ;D

 

[Kanticoy]

True that some of the worst drug addicts are pill poppers. But they have a prescription so its ok. Never mind they are too stoned to do anything.

Here's a bit of information. I run at least 3 overdoses a week on the ambulance. Here are the big four:

Antidepressants (Xanax, Seroquil, Lexapro, Effexor, etc etc etc.)
Opiates (percs, Lortab, any Hydrocodone (Oxy, etc.))
Methamphetamines
Sleeping pills (Lunesta, halcion, Ambien,)

These are all huge killers in the US. In fact 90% of attempted suicides are performed with some sort of anti depressant (ironic, huh?)

Alcohol isn't far behind. I have seen too much death as a result of using this in an unstable environment.

I have never seen anyone that caused damage to themselves or others as a result of marijuana, cylicybin, or the like. It's always the prescription, or hard stuff.

Methamphetamines are so rampant in our block of the planet, and there is practically no recovery rate, and it WILL kill you. But I have also seen liver failure patients because of pain killer use. And HUGE addiction rates to things that the doctors give them.

I don't mean to sound like a fuddy dutty. I love a good beer or wine and the occasional whiskey on the rocks. It's just really hard to ignore the addiction rate when it's in your face 62 hours a week. Be careful folks.

The relevance to this thread, is that drug testing has its place, but it is still so fucked up flawed. They can test you on a 5 panel (most common), but if you test positive for opiates and produce a scrip for the Lortab, then you go right back to work! But THC is an on the spot firing offense. I am a bad conspiracy theorist when it comes to doctors, drugs, and the distribution of them. I won't go into that, all I am saying is to be careful what you take...it can be so terribly dangerous.

 

[Maritime]

My sister is a drug dealer(Pharmacist) ;D and gets hugely pissed off at Doctors who prescribe, the wrong dose, the wrong meds, the deadly mixes etc. etc. etc. and is the first one to tell people, I wouldn't take that, or I would talk to your doctor again if I were you. Etc. but she has no issues with pot, or schrooms. She has studied the effects and will tell you that aspirin is more dangerous. She also likes beer, and I do too. Pot doesn't do anything to me except make me quiet, which is funny because I am super loud. As for testing, unless you operate heavy equipment, flying a plane, driving a bus etc. and are on messed up on the job, I don't think it is right. If you work in an office, ect and you get your work done, who cares what you do on your own time. Hell I had a job before this one were I could go out for lunch and have 2-3 beers and come back and work and no one would care because I was doing a good job. Now the City has a policy, no booze on work time, which is fine, because after work they don't care and even give it out at the X-mass party etc.

Cheers,

 

[thompsonmx100]

Kiley You bring up meth that stuff has got to be the worst drug on the planet. I tried it one time and if i had done it again I knew i'd be hooked. so addictive granted I have a slightly addictive personality but I had to get hell out of AZ just cause i knew someone who knoew someone that could get some. I knew i did not want to be hooked on that crap. That is the kind of stuff they need to get rid of. I always felt by pot being illegal that you kinda became part of the underground if you did it. And by being part of the underground you were exposed to other more dangerous drugs just cause you knew a drug dealer so you could get pot. But if pot were legal you wouldn't be exposed to the underground or other drugs. The experts say pot is a gateway drug well of course it is, its the gateway to a drug dealer that sells more than just pot.

 

[Kanticoy]

Absolutely the worst stuff around man, you're right. I have seen it ruin countless souls. It's terrible.

And you're right about the connections there brother. If it were legal, then you wouldn't have to scrounge in the sewers to get your stuff. The whole "bad boy" mentality about pot is severely out of place IMO. It should be classified as something more akin to a good cup of coffee...not a crack house.

 

[thompsonmx100]

Exactly I mean you hang out with losers you become a loser. I don't think I'm a loser just cause i want to spark one but I know some losers cause they know a loser whos job it is to sell drugs. But if I could go to the damn store and get a bag I'd know a guy with a damn store not a damn dope house. I'd be putting some money into the govs pockets and not some guy who has three kids with three different girls and none of those kids got shoe but hes got sneakers on his caddy. Pisses me off but what am I supposed to do grow the shit myself.

 

[Swagger]

This has been an interesting thread for certain.

I've tried lots of stuff, scared the hell outta my parents a couple times. Luckily for me, meth came along after I was done "trying" stuff. I'm sure it was around but it didn't have the terrible momentum it has now.

I tend to follow the broader majority here: what i do on my own time is my F*cking business...not my boss's. If I do my job well, continue to exceed expectations etc...then mind you're own friggin' business. I make wine and spirits (yeah I just bought a still...oops...I mean water purifier) and can enjoy 'sparking one up' with friends but pot's not part of my life on a regular basis. Takes too much money away from the bikes!

I can't see pot, or prostitution for that matter...being legalized any time soon. Pot was made illegal specifically BECAUSE it's a plant. A plant that grows naturally. It's a weed....that's why they call it....umm........you gonna eat that last cookie.....dude?.
In all seriousness, there's no way to regulate it so effective taxation is a waste of policy and man power. I mean why pay taxes on MJ when you can grow it yourself easily? Not gonna happen. There's just no way to build a sufficient infrastructure that would make the FED any money....and it all comes down to money. They made it barely with taxation on spirits. Was a day in the US (and most of the world I think) that a man made his own liquor or could.
Same story...the gov't wanted a piece of that 'market' so they taxed it. There were pretty major conflicts, a whole genre of literature and music devoted to the miasma that came out of that mess.

Could we be in line for a pothead revolution? Nope not likely...too mellow.

 

[isolato]

"What I want to know is how you feel about your employer drug testing you"

this is easy. the owner of the business makes the rules. you make a reasonable, but irrelevant argument.

 

[Nanahan Man]

the owner of the business makes the rules

No! That's simply not the case! Where do you come up with that kind of BS idea?!?!?!?!
Union and non union workers alike have made great progress over the years in creating a reasonably fair and equitable work/ employee relationship. As well as safe working environments that are mandated by law.
The employer doesn't NOT have the right to make any rule they like! Only Wall street can do that

screening for people on governement assistance

You are joking...right?
So it's OK for them to be addicted to nicotine or alcohol or play Bingo or but lottery tickets (etc) but to receive government assistance they have to be clean of dope. Maybe we need to make them do crap jobs for the assistance. Oh, and maybe they should be forced to live in government housing. As you can possibly tell, I don't share your POV.
You know we all receive some government benefits of some description. Where do you draw the line?

OK on to topic.
To descriminate against employees who smoke dope is highly unfair.
I'm am saying that if it can be proven that an employee created a problem due to impairment, from ANY drug, they should be held accountable.
This includes booze and prescription pills. Or texting and cell phone calls , for that matter!
But to just focus on pot is one sided and as close to unconstitutional as you can get.
I'm against random drug testing and I am for testing for impairment if an accident or dangerous incident occurs.
It's fine to say that you have a choice not to work for an employer that has drug teasting but what about YOUR rights if they decide to test after you are hired?
What you do on your own time is your concern as long as it doesn't affect others.
Gosh, next maybe they will test to see if you are "insert choice here" and fire you for that. :

Okaaaaay...I'll put my soap box away now ...where is that 10mm wrench? ;D

 

[isolato]

No! That's simply not the case! Where do you come up with that kind of BS idea?!?!?!?!
Union and non union workers alike have made great progress over the years in creating a reasonably fair and equitable work/ employee relationship. As well as safe working environments that are mandated by law.
The employer doesn't NOT have the right to make any rule they like! Only Wall street can do that You are joking...right?
So it's OK for them to be addicted to nicotine or alcohol or play Bingo or but lottery tickets (etc) but to receive government assistance they have to be clean of dope. Maybe we need to make them do crap jobs for the assistance. Oh, and maybe they should be forced to live in government housing. As you can possibly tell, I don't share your POV.
You know we all receive some government benefits of some description. Where do you draw the line?

OK on to topic.
To descriminate against employees who smoke dope is highly unfair.
I'm am saying that if it can be proven that an employee created a problem due to impairment, from ANY drug, they should be held accountable.
This includes booze and prescription pills. Or texting and cell phone calls , for that matter!
But to just focus on pot is one sided and as close to unconstitutional as you can get.
I'm against random drug testing and I am for testing for impairment if an accident or dangerous incident occurs.
It's fine to say that you have a choice not to work for an employer that has drug teasting but what about YOUR rights if they decide to test after you are hired?
What you do on your own time is your concern as long as it doesn't affect others.
Gosh, next maybe they will test to see if you are "insert choice here" and fire you for that. :

Okaaaaay...I'll put my soap box away now ...where is that 10mm wrench? ;D

btw, you're fired

 

[boomshakalaka]

No! That's simply not the case! Where do you come up with that kind of BS idea?!?!?!?!
Union and non union workers alike have made great progress over the years in creating a reasonably fair and equitable work/ employee relationship. As well as safe working environments that are mandated by law.
The employer doesn't NOT have the right to make any rule they like! Only Wall street can do that You are joking...right?
So it's OK for them to be addicted to nicotine or alcohol or play Bingo or but lottery tickets (etc) but to receive government assistance they have to be clean of dope. Maybe we need to make them do crap jobs for the assistance. Oh, and maybe they should be forced to live in government housing. As you can possibly tell, I don't share your POV.
You know we all receive some government benefits of some description. Where do you draw the line?

Took the words right outta my mouth. Its so funny how people with common interest always need to create a common enemy to bond as a group. Unless we are going to prohibit welfare recipients from going out to see a movie, or buying ice cream, I dont see why we would try to keep them from enjoying a beer or some weed. Also, like Nanhan said, we all are receiving kickbacks from the government, just to varying degrees. So while they(welfare recipients) may receive more than me or you, we receive more than the mega rich. So should we have our freedoms curtailed to some extent while the richest of the rich have no rules imposed on them at all?

As far as legalization goes, I am all for it.. for all substances. If someone wants to do meth, they will find it. If someone wants to do heroine they will find it. Cocaine, ecstasy, you name it, theyll find it. So why are we wasting billions of dollars trying to prevent the unpreventable? If advertising for drugs was properly regulated (like it is for the tobacco and alcohol industries, only harsher for harder drugs) I really dont think there would be any significant increase in usage over the long term. And if we funneled even a modest chunk of the money spent fighting the "war on drugs" on honest drug education instead, I think we'd actually see a significant decrease in usage.

 

[Big R]

So it's OK for them to be addicted to nicotine or alcohol or play Bingo or but lottery tickets (etc) but to receive government assistance they have to be clean of dope.

Just want to point out - all of these things are legal. Nicotine and alcohol are regulated, but legal. Not trying to cause a stink, but if something is illegal it should def not be govt funded. And I know, we don't live in a perfect world. But it's the world we live in.

 

[boomshakalaka]

Just want to point out - all of these things are legal. Nicotine and alcohol are regulated, but legal. Not trying to cause a stink, but if something is illegal it should def not be govt funded. And I know, we don't live in a perfect world. But it's the world we live in.

this makes no sense. This is like supporting the punishment of an interracial couple on the grounds of some antiquated law somehow still being on the books. Legality does not equal morality. I do agree that the government should not be funding an illegal act, that is hypocrisy. However in this case you are simply stopping on the first level of thought. The next level would be, "should the act in question be illegal in the first place?" If the answer is no, then we must conclude that the government is wrong in considering the drug illegal and therefore not at fault for funding the act of using it.