- Jan 8, 2007
- 30,528
- 2,263
- 1,045
and of COURSE it was the pot, and not anything from an almost infinite list of circumstantial mistakes, that caused the accident, eh? Do you have conclusive proof of this or shall we assume that 30 days of traceable THC is the root of all folly and error?
Neither does smoking pot 30 days ago have any impact on job performance today than does drinking a 5th of whiskey over the weekend. Without a test to indicate intoxication you are pretty much blaming the easy, first excuse that pops up. Again, I am not suggesting getting high at, or before, work is a positive. But, neither do testing methods indicate a hazard to job performance as illustrated by the above example of qualification for unemployment.
and no, it would not bother me in the slightest to find out that employee x engages in recreational use of pot any more than It would finding out that an employee is an alcoholic off of the jobsite. a 30 day window is not indicative of intoxication or a job hazard.
Hell, you do realize that drug testing was the result of a continually failing federal drug policy and NOT because of any specific scourge of deadly potheads on the jobsite, right?
So, i'll ask again, do you apply the same standard to people prescribed Tylonol 3 or oxycontin, arguably worse drugs that cause greater risk than pot, or just marijuana?
The court fucked up Kelo too so it's not like they are infallible in their bullshit decisions.
Neither does smoking pot 30 days ago have any impact on job performance today than does drinking a 5th of whiskey over the weekend. Without a test to indicate intoxication you are pretty much blaming the easy, first excuse that pops up. Again, I am not suggesting getting high at, or before, work is a positive. But, neither do testing methods indicate a hazard to job performance as illustrated by the above example of qualification for unemployment.
and no, it would not bother me in the slightest to find out that employee x engages in recreational use of pot any more than It would finding out that an employee is an alcoholic off of the jobsite. a 30 day window is not indicative of intoxication or a job hazard.
Hell, you do realize that drug testing was the result of a continually failing federal drug policy and NOT because of any specific scourge of deadly potheads on the jobsite, right?
So, i'll ask again, do you apply the same standard to people prescribed Tylonol 3 or oxycontin, arguably worse drugs that cause greater risk than pot, or just marijuana?
The court fucked up Kelo too so it's not like they are infallible in their bullshit decisions.