Drug Testing....where do you stand?

[Big R]

Like I said, not trying to cause a stink. And I can disagree or agree with you - it doesn't change anything.

I am stopping at the first level of thought and I can admit that. I personally don't care to smoke weed anymore so the laws governing illegal drug usage don't threaten me. But does that mean I narc out every person I think is doing it? Not in the slightest. But if somebody gets busted on their own then that is their fault. It sucks, it can totally screw up their life and the lives of their families and friends. But it's not a secret, they know it is illegal.

In my opinion (not important to anybody but me), I don't care if it's legal or not. Fact of the matter is, we as voters can conclude that the government is wrong all we want. But the laws are just that - laws.

 

[boomshakalaka]

Like I said, not trying to cause a stink. And I can disagree or agree with you - it doesn't change anything.

I am stopping at the first level of thought and I can admit that. I personally don't care to smoke weed anymore so the laws governing illegal drug usage don't threaten me. But does that mean I narc out every person I think is doing it? Not in the slightest. But if somebody gets busted on their own then that is their fault. It sucks, it can totally screw up their life and the lives of their families and friends. But it's not a secret, they know it is illegal.

In my opinion (not important to anybody but me), I don't care if it's legal or not. Fact of the matter is, we as voters can conclude that the government is wrong all we want. But the laws are just that - laws.

fair enough. I didnt mean to cause a stink either, I just enjoy a good debate.

 

[Deviant1]

Where I work there is this 22 yr old kid who has scrips for everything from oxycontin to Adderol(sp?) to flexoril... the list goes on. He's one of those guys who is "in" really good with his drug dealer I mean doctor. He is also an equipment operator and holds a commercial driver's liscence. He drives semi trucks and operates hundred thousand dollar pieces of equipment with all that shit in him. And if he pisses positive for all those things he's okay cuz they're prescribed to him. Now let's say "Charlie" smoked a joint 19 days ago, gets hurt at work and pisses positive for marijuana. Not only does Charlie not have his medical treatment paid for, he has also lost his job. It's a plant that grows in the fucking dirt. Versus Kid Narcotic using everything modern science has available to get fucked up every day all day. Something's wrong with that. I take solace in knowing that the kid's liver is going to give out on him by the time he's 30. Does that make me a bad person?

 

[isolato]

please... get a clue how commercial business works. the employer dosen't give a hoot what you do after work. hipocracy of the law matters even less. he probly gets high too. but his insurance co. DOES care, and so do their shareholders. you losing your job for failing a piss test is NOT their fault. it is yours, and has nothing to do with what's fair. it's common sense and personal responsibility. don't like the boss's rules? quit and start your own business. let YOUR staff self medicate and let us know how it goes.

 

[Deviant1]

^ Dude... relax... take a bong hit and call me in the morning

 

[boomshakalaka]

please... get a clue how commercial business works. the employer dosen't give a hoot what you do after work. hipocracy of the law matters even less. he probly gets high too. but his insurance co. DOES care, and so do their shareholders. you losing your job for failing a piss test is NOT their fault. it is yours, and has nothing to do with what's fair. it's common sense and personal responsibility. don't like the boss's rules? quit and start your own business. let YOUR staff self medicate and let us know how it goes.

but why does the insurance care? Is a person who has weed in their system more likely to cause on the job accidents than a person who drinks heavily (neither of which come to work intoxicated)? If this were the case, then I completely understand. Its just like it sucks that I have to pay insanely high insurance rates because I'm under 25, however I understand that the statistics back up the insurance co.'s policy on age. However I dont think this is the case with weed, its simply easier to test for and happens to be illegal. So it appears to just be a nice way for the insurance companies to pad their bottom line by denying medical help and disability pay to people.

On a side note, Id really like to see a well funded legal team challenge one of these firings. I mean, on what grounds is the person being fired.. the fact that they at some point in recent history committed a misdemeanor? Or are they being fired for being intoxicated on the job? I could be wrong, but I dont think you can legally get fired for jaywalking, so I dont see how the former could hold up. And for the latter, the drug test does not prove when the person was intoxicated, so I have no clue how this could hold up either.

 

[isolato]

but why does the insurance care? Is a person who has weed in their system more likely to cause on the job accidents than a person who drinks heavily (neither of which come to work intoxicated)? If this were the case, then I completely understand. Its just like it sucks that I have to pay insanely high insurance rates because I'm under 25, however I understand that the statistics back up the insurance co.'s policy on age. However I dont think this is the case with weed, its simply easier to test for and happens to be illegal. So it appears to just be a nice way for the insurance companies to pad their bottom line by denying medical help and disability pay to people.

On a side note, Id really like to see a well funded legal team challenge one of these firings. I mean, on what grounds is the person being fired.. the fact that they at some point in recent history committed a misdemeanor? Or are they being fired for being intoxicated on the job? I could be wrong, but I dont think you can legally get fired for jaywalking, so I dont see how the former could hold up. And for the latter, the drug test does not prove when the person was intoxicated, so I have no clue how this could hold up either.

good point boom. my thought stopped at employer responsibility. beyond that just dosen't matter to me, as I don't prefer existing in altered states. Why do ins. co's care? As far as I can tell, it's just a long line of cover your ass. Protecting investments. I'm not against anybody getting high. I AM against said stoner thinking he can drag some ACLU weasel or union thug through the door of my hard earned business and try to tell me how I have to run it.
What you suspect of ins. co's motives are probably true. They are running a business too. Legalize weed and that all goes bye bye. Till then sorry for your bad luck. I have no sympathy for someone jeopardizing employment to get high. I've got many opinions about performance abilities of different people of diffferent professions, with various substances in their system, but the OP's Q was thoughts on employer drug testing, so those opinions just don't matter. He's only testing because he is required to, and that won't change until laws do.
I guess I'm with you on this and the question should be - why do ins co's require drug testing? Or skip that one and just ask why certain drugs are illegal??

 

[boomshakalaka]

good point boom. my thought stopped at employer responsibility. beyond that just dosen't matter to me, as I don't prefer existing in altered states. Why do ins. co's care? As far as I can tell, it's just a long line of cover your ass. Protecting investments. I'm not against anybody getting high. I AM against said stoner thinking he can drag some ACLU weasel or union thug through the door of my hard earned business and try to tell me how I have to run it.
What you suspect of ins. co's motives are probably true. They are running a business too. Legalize weed and that all goes bye bye. Till then sorry for your bad luck. I have no sympathy for someone jeopardizing employment to get high. I've got many opinions about performance abilities of different people of diffferent professions, with various substances in their system, but the OP's Q was thoughts on employer drug testing, so those opinions just don't matter. He's only testing because he is required to, and that won't change until laws do.
I guess I'm with you on this and the question should be - why do ins co's require drug testing? Or skip that one and just ask why certain drugs are illegal??

Ya, I mean I can understand why it was made illegal, I dont agree with the reasoning, but I can understand the motivations. And I can understand that public opinion supported it being illegal for a long long time. But now... now it seems like the vast majority of citizens are either indifferent, or think its down right ridiculous that weed is illegal.

 

[boingk]

Or skip that one and just ask why certain drugs are illegal??

Well, sorry to break it to you guys but you're the ones that set the international benchmark for weed being illegal. Google Womens Christian Temperance Movement (I know, could you think of a worse group? Zealous, bitchy, religious women...damn!) with reference to the mid-late 1930's and you'll be in the know. Essentially they kicked up a stink and the rest is history. Prior to their interference weed was a preffered treatment for minor ailments like stomach upset, various forms of pain, appetite stimulant, etc etc. Hell, Queen Victoria herself was partial to a tonic of alcohol and marijuana buds...

- boingk

 

[boomshakalaka]

Well, sorry to break it to you guys but you're the ones that set the international benchmark for weed being illegal. Google Womens Christian Temperance Movement (I know, could you think of a worse group? Zealous, bitchy, religious women...damn!) with reference to the mid-late 1930's and you'll be in the know. Essentially they kicked up a stink and the rest is history. Prior to their interference weed was a preffered treatment for minor ailments like stomach upset, various forms of pain, appetite stimulant, etc etc. Hell, Queen Victoria herself was partial to a tonic of alcohol and marijuana buds...

- boingk

well this is kinda the half truth. While yes they were influential, the big driving force was bigotry and xenophobia. If my memory serves me correctly, mexicans came north during the first world war as laborers since much of the labor force was abroad fighting the war. When the war was over, there was an over abundance of labor and not enough jobs. So the big thank you to the mexicans who had been a big force in supporting our troops was to kick them out. But how could this be done legally? Well we could turn them into criminals. Weed was hard to tax and predominantly used by the mexican laborers. Im guessing that the politicians sold the prohibition on weed as a moral christian cause, and the WCTM picked it up and ran with it.