Marijuana legalization clashes with drug testing in the workplace

[Delta4Embassy]

Marijuana legalization clashes with drug testing in the workplace Guardian Sustainable Business The Guardian

I do not see a problem at all+
I'm all for employee drug testing but there has to be a better way to test. As it stands now all you are testing is if people have residual drugs in their systems. You could have smoked weed 4 weeks ago and fail a drug test and lose you job.

Unless other drugs like alcohol are a disqualifier too, singling out cannabis is discriminatory. Assuming it's legal where ever you are like.

 

[EverCurious]

Well it seems the federally mandated drug testing laws actually have specific "outs" for medically required drugs - I would presume medical pot would fall under that category as well.

On the alcohol bit, and that's different from discriminating against smokers how? An employee can discriminate for /legal/ substances just as well as illegal substances. An employer can choose not to hire someone who has piercings all over their face because they don't' think it'll give a "professional" appearance to their customers. And, of course, as I mentioned, I was passed over on a job because I dislike chocolate. The "definition of" discrimination happens all over the place and for every reason under the sun.

 

[Pogo]

--- And?

And ... That is the difference in propriety.

The employee doesn't have the same investments and responsibilities as the employer.
For instance ... The cost of the equipment and facilities comes out of my pocket ... Not the employee's pocket.

If the employee thinks it is the same ... Then I suggest they give it a whirl and it won't be long until they figure out the difference.

I have no argument with any of that and I never brought up "propriety". I'm still not sure where you're going with this but it's got nothing to do with where I was, which was the assertion that an employer-employee relationship does not somehow constitute a superior-inferior caste relationship. I don't see where these two points are related at all.

Edit:

OK this is all good stuff but I gotta go to the real world now and git thangs done. Later y'all.

Take care Pogo ... And have a good day.
Catch up with you later.

Thank you, you so classy.

The bad news is -- I'm back

 

[Pogo]

"Wants to" is not a basis.

Still nothing.

Good, but it is legal, it is being done, whether you think it is right or wrong is irrelevant.

Here links and the cost of drug abuse.

How Illicit Drug Use Affects Business and the Economy The White House The Real Cost and Effects of Substance and Prescription Drug Abuse For Professionals and Employers Addiction Hope

Now these are potential losses however a business does not need or want an added expense, potential losses can add up.

I don't care whether you agree with me or not but I deal with people and drug abuse in the work place and I can tell you it cost a lot of money. We had a guy who had an accident in a piece of equipment, it cost us $7,000, then we he tested positive for marijuana, he admitted to smoking just before work, we are required to send him to rehab and foot the bill.

You can bullshit all you want but it costs, why should a business put themselves at risk? Please explain why they need to take a chance, when they can get a person that doesn't have the drug problems?

The point is not, and never was, whether it's "legal" or being done. We all know it is. The question is, is there a justification for it? This is the one you haven't come up with an answer for. Addressing that question separates those of us who just roll over when Authority barks, and those of us who stand up and say, "hold up, this is wrong".

(Edit: see distinction between "drugs" and cannabis, next post. Nothing here has been about actual drugs, addictions or "problems")

Interestingly, it's the same question that can't be addressed about the illegalization of weed in the first place. We languish under a law based on complete bullshit, by now we all know it's bullshit, and yet some o' y'all continue bleating "yes master, may I have another". I find such obsequiousness disgusting.

Legalize pot, I don't care. I have long been on record of legalizing it, in fact I'm for legalizing lots of drugs and tax the hell out of it. They can help fund the rehab facilities.

You want to smoke, shoot up, snort, go right ahead.

I am for, an employer not hiring you because you can't pass a skills test, can't lift one pound, you make stupid posts, whatever the hell his reason is. If a business wants to drug test you, fine by me, and if I don't want to work for an ass that drug tests others fine.

I'm not justifying it, it is an employers right. I don't care if it is justified or not. A business has a right to protect itself from liability and unnecessary risks. The potential of loss is there, the links prove drug abuse causes loss of money. That is justification enough.

Now if a business doesn't want to drug test, more power to them. I don't care.

So, I won't justify it because that is blatantly stupid.

Work for whoever you want, hire who you want.

Sure you can do all of the above, and sure it's all within the law. What you can't do, as you've admitted here again, is justify it.

Now if you can waltz through life supporting stuff you can't justify, then you're a far better dancer than I. And I'm sitting this one out, thank you very much.

Drug abuse is a huge cost to business, a business is justified in trying to prevent a loss, since drug abusers have a higher crime rate, higher theft rate, higher health risks than the general population, it is justified, except in your little mind.

Sigh.
Once again... number one, drug abuse is a cost (huge or not) to the user, not the business, but ultimately it's the user's money to spend as he or she wishes, is it not? Drug abuse has no effect on the business whatsoever. The behavior associated with it might, but the presence of such behavior or performance is not a given. Secondly, your unlinked ipse dixit mass generalizations have all the impact of a whiffle ball.

And third, you cannot determine "abuse" by a chemical analysis. All that shows is the presence of a chemical. It does not interpret what the presence of that chemical means or how it manifests, or if it even manifests at all. So let's face it --- it has nothing to do with what one does on the job, and everything to do with what one does OFF the job. When the worker isn't being paid.

Now if that employer wants to pay full wages for 24 hour days seven days a week to buy that time, THEN they have a case to dictate what happens outside the workplace, all 168 hours of the week. Until then -- not so much.

 

[Pogo]

It's different from "no smokers" in that smoking (tobacco) can't be a solitary act -- it affects everyone around the smoker whether they want the intrusion or not.

~chuckles~ Clearly you've never gotten a contact high...

Anyway, I see what you're saying about it being "past use" - but as I said, speak to your boss and get pot use clarified. IF your boss says that they don't want you using pot either, then that's it - end of argument. If you choose to use pot in that case, then you've chosen it over your job.

If an employer doesn't want you using drugs, including pot, that's their choice - and especially if it's an already established requirement for the position. There's really no debate here.

The question is --- there's no justification for it. When you hire on with an employer, you sell your services. That buyer (employer) has a right to expect your full capacity. Screening for past weed use doesn't address that at all. It just generates a parent-child relationship. Creates a caste system within the workforce.

Well **** that. I don't work for parents; I work for equals.

Why don't you go to work stoned or drunk for the next three days and see how that works out for you.

I don't do that, ever. And the reason I don''t do it is it wouldn't work. I need my concentration. It would also be a waste of good substance.

That being said, your post has absolutely nothing to do with the post you quoted. It just kind of floated down from nowhere. Far out man. Don't bogart that thing, it's 4/20 ya know.

 

[Pogo]

Pogo, look I hear what you're saying about "actual skills meeting the needs of the position" and all, but again, and the bottom line, one is choosing to take that particular job - for whatever reason the employer decides to puts drug testing down as a requirement of employment. If one doesn't like that requirement, then they go find a different job, period. An employer has every right to demand that you meet certain requirements for employment and it does NOT have to be job specific skill related at all.

A school crossing guard can be required to know CPR even though that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual "skills" required to hold up a sign and get kids across the street. I was passed over for an interim receptionist job, even though I was more than qualified for the position, simply because I don't like chocolate - no joke. The employer felt very strongly that someone who didn't like chocolate would not fit in with his "chocolate-o-holic" other employees; turns out his employees had an ongoing thing where they all sampled/shared fancy chocolates from around the world. He hired someone else for the job.

Ultimately it doesn't matter what "personal freedom" or "ability" type argument you pull up because if you don't meet the employers requirements for a position, whatever those requirements might be, and for whatever reason the employer has in their head, then you don't get the job. Arguing if x drug has any affect on ones ability to perform x task is pretty much irrelevant. If the employer for whatever reason does NOT want his employee's using drugs, that's it. Maybe one of their current employees is a recovering drug addict and they don't want an employee who might mention their drug use around them?

And if we want to get down to brass tacks on the other argument; the requirement that one show up at X time, or say "no smoking," "no cell phone use at all," "no sitting down while on the clock," "no talking to other employees while on the clock" - all could be argued as a "parent-child" relationship in that the employer is telling the employee what to do. (And those are /all/ examples I have personally heard btw.)

No. An employer's got no right to dictate what their employee does off the clock. Again, if they want to buy my time in full, 168 hours a week, every week, they can make me an offer and it's gonna be a ton of O/T but that's the only way you get to determine what I do on my own time -- by buying it. If I even sell it under those conditions, which I wouldn't.

 

[Pogo]

A conundrum here. IF it's legal to smoke pot in two states, but not the other 48, and federal law mandates drug tests in the wok place in ALL states, what is the sense in that? My position here is and always was, the federal government and all the states in the union have to come to a common consensus here, period. That is it, end of story.

This is a good point. If I live in, say, Illinois and my employer tests for cannabis and one week I test positive, I could just say I went to Colorado over the weekend. What are they gonna do.

Matter of fact maybe everybody should start doing that. They'll have to toss the whole thing in the crapper.

 

[Pogo]

RE the Drug Free Workplace Act: elaws - Drug-Free Workplace Advisor

"The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 requires some Federal contractors and all Federal grantees to agree that they will provide drug-free workplaces as a condition of receiving a contract or grant from a Federal agency. The Act does not apply to those who do not have, nor intend to apply for, contracts/grants from the Federal government. The Act also does not apply to subcontractors or subgrantees."


mmk so basically this is probably /why/ a lot of companies do drug testing actually. Because /if/ they are receiving a federal grant - ala a lot of small business grants - then if they do NOT drug test they lose their funding. Also anyone who contracts with a federal department can lose their contract - aka lose money by not drug testing.

"An individual contractor or grantee who is convicted of a criminal drug offense in the workplace—during the performance of the contract or grant activity—has failed to carry out the requirements of the Act and is subject to penalties. Within 10 calendar days of such a conviction, the contractor or grantee must notify in writing the appropriate contract or grant officer in the agency where the contract or grant was awarded."

and:

"
Your organization — if it is covered by the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 — will be subject to penalties if it:

• Fails to implement the six steps required to establish a drug-free workplace; or

• Employs individuals* convicted of a criminal drug offense in your workplace.

*Although the exact number of convicted employees is not specified in the Act, the contract or grant officer makes the determination on a case-by-case basis."

So I'm thinking, a lot of places might be requiring drug tests, not only doing so on personal opinion, but because of federal law and the risk to their contracts/grants: because the federal contract/grant they receive is under 'federal' law, not state...


So overall, while we /could/ argue that the feds may/or may not need to repeal the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, we still cannot argue that drug testing by any particular employer isn't "fair" to the employee some how.

EDIT: oops forgot the linky to the actual law ~ http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2009-title41/pdf/USCODE-2009-title41-chap10.pdf

I kinda skimmed over most of this but one quick observation: if some entity's federal funding depends on their committing drug testing, that's STILL the government forcing it to happen. It's just being done by a means other than law.

 

[Papageorgio]

Good, but it is legal, it is being done, whether you think it is right or wrong is irrelevant.

Here links and the cost of drug abuse.

How Illicit Drug Use Affects Business and the Economy The White House The Real Cost and Effects of Substance and Prescription Drug Abuse For Professionals and Employers Addiction Hope

Now these are potential losses however a business does not need or want an added expense, potential losses can add up.

I don't care whether you agree with me or not but I deal with people and drug abuse in the work place and I can tell you it cost a lot of money. We had a guy who had an accident in a piece of equipment, it cost us $7,000, then we he tested positive for marijuana, he admitted to smoking just before work, we are required to send him to rehab and foot the bill.

You can bullshit all you want but it costs, why should a business put themselves at risk? Please explain why they need to take a chance, when they can get a person that doesn't have the drug problems?

The point is not, and never was, whether it's "legal" or being done. We all know it is. The question is, is there a justification for it? This is the one you haven't come up with an answer for. Addressing that question separates those of us who just roll over when Authority barks, and those of us who stand up and say, "hold up, this is wrong".

(Edit: see distinction between "drugs" and cannabis, next post. Nothing here has been about actual drugs, addictions or "problems")

Interestingly, it's the same question that can't be addressed about the illegalization of weed in the first place. We languish under a law based on complete bullshit, by now we all know it's bullshit, and yet some o' y'all continue bleating "yes master, may I have another". I find such obsequiousness disgusting.

Legalize pot, I don't care. I have long been on record of legalizing it, in fact I'm for legalizing lots of drugs and tax the hell out of it. They can help fund the rehab facilities.

You want to smoke, shoot up, snort, go right ahead.

I am for, an employer not hiring you because you can't pass a skills test, can't lift one pound, you make stupid posts, whatever the hell his reason is. If a business wants to drug test you, fine by me, and if I don't want to work for an ass that drug tests others fine.

I'm not justifying it, it is an employers right. I don't care if it is justified or not. A business has a right to protect itself from liability and unnecessary risks. The potential of loss is there, the links prove drug abuse causes loss of money. That is justification enough.

Now if a business doesn't want to drug test, more power to them. I don't care.

So, I won't justify it because that is blatantly stupid.

Work for whoever you want, hire who you want.

Sure you can do all of the above, and sure it's all within the law. What you can't do, as you've admitted here again, is justify it.

Now if you can waltz through life supporting stuff you can't justify, then you're a far better dancer than I. And I'm sitting this one out, thank you very much.

Drug abuse is a huge cost to business, a business is justified in trying to prevent a loss, since drug abusers have a higher crime rate, higher theft rate, higher health risks than the general population, it is justified, except in your little mind.

Sigh.
Once again... number one, drug abuse is a cost (huge or not) to the user, not the business, but ultimately it's the user's money to spend as he or she wishes, is it not? Drug abuse has no effect on the business whatsoever. The behavior associated with it might, but the presence of such behavior or performance is not a given. Secondly, your unlinked ipse dixit mass generalizations have all the impact of a whiffle ball.

And third, you cannot determine "abuse" by a chemical analysis. All that shows is the presence of a chemical. It does not interpret what the presence of that chemical means or how it manifests, or if it even manifests at all. So let's face it --- it has nothing to do with what one does on the job, and everything to do with what one does OFF the job. When the worker isn't being paid.

Now if that employer wants to pay full wages for 24 hour days seven days a week to buy that time, THEN they have a case to dictate what happens outside the workplace, all 168 hours of the week. Until then -- not so much.

Again, if the user is working and has an accident, the potential for a huge payout is there and they can site an improper screening process as one reason the employer is liable. Those that use illegal drugs, or smoke cost a lot of money in loss productivity time. If a worker has a drug issue, we are required to send them through a rehab facility, which costs thousands. Statics show that those that use vs those that don't cost more money for an employer. If you don't like the findings take it up with the Feds not me.

We will continue to test all employees, some because of government regs which also test blood alcohol and other employees in safety positions.

That is all the justification needed, whether your believe it is justified or not is irrelevant. I think it is justified, you disagree. Take care.

 

[Pogo]

The point is not, and never was, whether it's "legal" or being done. We all know it is. The question is, is there a justification for it? This is the one you haven't come up with an answer for. Addressing that question separates those of us who just roll over when Authority barks, and those of us who stand up and say, "hold up, this is wrong".

(Edit: see distinction between "drugs" and cannabis, next post. Nothing here has been about actual drugs, addictions or "problems")

Interestingly, it's the same question that can't be addressed about the illegalization of weed in the first place. We languish under a law based on complete bullshit, by now we all know it's bullshit, and yet some o' y'all continue bleating "yes master, may I have another". I find such obsequiousness disgusting.

Legalize pot, I don't care. I have long been on record of legalizing it, in fact I'm for legalizing lots of drugs and tax the hell out of it. They can help fund the rehab facilities.

You want to smoke, shoot up, snort, go right ahead.

I am for, an employer not hiring you because you can't pass a skills test, can't lift one pound, you make stupid posts, whatever the hell his reason is. If a business wants to drug test you, fine by me, and if I don't want to work for an ass that drug tests others fine.

I'm not justifying it, it is an employers right. I don't care if it is justified or not. A business has a right to protect itself from liability and unnecessary risks. The potential of loss is there, the links prove drug abuse causes loss of money. That is justification enough.

Now if a business doesn't want to drug test, more power to them. I don't care.

So, I won't justify it because that is blatantly stupid.

Work for whoever you want, hire who you want.

Sure you can do all of the above, and sure it's all within the law. What you can't do, as you've admitted here again, is justify it.

Now if you can waltz through life supporting stuff you can't justify, then you're a far better dancer than I. And I'm sitting this one out, thank you very much.

Drug abuse is a huge cost to business, a business is justified in trying to prevent a loss, since drug abusers have a higher crime rate, higher theft rate, higher health risks than the general population, it is justified, except in your little mind.

Sigh.
Once again... number one, drug abuse is a cost (huge or not) to the user, not the business, but ultimately it's the user's money to spend as he or she wishes, is it not? Drug abuse has no effect on the business whatsoever. The behavior associated with it might, but the presence of such behavior or performance is not a given. Secondly, your unlinked ipse dixit mass generalizations have all the impact of a whiffle ball.

And third, you cannot determine "abuse" by a chemical analysis. All that shows is the presence of a chemical. It does not interpret what the presence of that chemical means or how it manifests, or if it even manifests at all. So let's face it --- it has nothing to do with what one does on the job, and everything to do with what one does OFF the job. When the worker isn't being paid.

Now if that employer wants to pay full wages for 24 hour days seven days a week to buy that time, THEN they have a case to dictate what happens outside the workplace, all 168 hours of the week. Until then -- not so much.

Again, if the user is working and has an accident, the potential for a huge payout is there and they can site an improper screening process as one reason the employer is liable. Those that use illegal drugs, or smoke cost a lot of money in loss productivity time. If a worker has a drug issue, we are required to send them through a rehab facility, which costs thousands. Statics show that those that use vs those that don't cost more money for an employer. If you don't like the findings take it up with the Feds not me.

We will continue to test all employees, some because of government regs which also test blood alcohol and other employees in safety positions.

That is all the justification needed, whether your believe it is justified or not is irrelevant. I think it is justified, you disagree. Take care.

And again -- statistics showing something is one thing; typing the words "statistics show" on an internet message board, with nary a link, is quite something else.

 

[Papageorgio]

Legalize pot, I don't care. I have long been on record of legalizing it, in fact I'm for legalizing lots of drugs and tax the hell out of it. They can help fund the rehab facilities.

You want to smoke, shoot up, snort, go right ahead.

I am for, an employer not hiring you because you can't pass a skills test, can't lift one pound, you make stupid posts, whatever the hell his reason is. If a business wants to drug test you, fine by me, and if I don't want to work for an ass that drug tests others fine.

I'm not justifying it, it is an employers right. I don't care if it is justified or not. A business has a right to protect itself from liability and unnecessary risks. The potential of loss is there, the links prove drug abuse causes loss of money. That is justification enough.

Now if a business doesn't want to drug test, more power to them. I don't care.

So, I won't justify it because that is blatantly stupid.

Work for whoever you want, hire who you want.

Sure you can do all of the above, and sure it's all within the law. What you can't do, as you've admitted here again, is justify it.

Now if you can waltz through life supporting stuff you can't justify, then you're a far better dancer than I. And I'm sitting this one out, thank you very much.

Drug abuse is a huge cost to business, a business is justified in trying to prevent a loss, since drug abusers have a higher crime rate, higher theft rate, higher health risks than the general population, it is justified, except in your little mind.

Sigh.
Once again... number one, drug abuse is a cost (huge or not) to the user, not the business, but ultimately it's the user's money to spend as he or she wishes, is it not? Drug abuse has no effect on the business whatsoever. The behavior associated with it might, but the presence of such behavior or performance is not a given. Secondly, your unlinked ipse dixit mass generalizations have all the impact of a whiffle ball.

And third, you cannot determine "abuse" by a chemical analysis. All that shows is the presence of a chemical. It does not interpret what the presence of that chemical means or how it manifests, or if it even manifests at all. So let's face it --- it has nothing to do with what one does on the job, and everything to do with what one does OFF the job. When the worker isn't being paid.

Now if that employer wants to pay full wages for 24 hour days seven days a week to buy that time, THEN they have a case to dictate what happens outside the workplace, all 168 hours of the week. Until then -- not so much.

Again, if the user is working and has an accident, the potential for a huge payout is there and they can site an improper screening process as one reason the employer is liable. Those that use illegal drugs, or smoke cost a lot of money in loss productivity time. If a worker has a drug issue, we are required to send them through a rehab facility, which costs thousands. Statics show that those that use vs those that don't cost more money for an employer. If you don't like the findings take it up with the Feds not me.

We will continue to test all employees, some because of government regs which also test blood alcohol and other employees in safety positions.

That is all the justification needed, whether your believe it is justified or not is irrelevant. I think it is justified, you disagree. Take care.

And again -- statistics showing something is one thing; typing the words "statistics show" on an internet message board, with nary a link, is quite something else.

Already gave you links however I don't need to justify anything to you. You believe differently than I do when it comes to the cost of drug abuse in the work place. My life experience tells me something different than your life experience.

Hundreds of millions are lost every year due to drugs in the workplace. I think drug testing gives us a snapshot of 48 hours, if you can't stay off the drugs knowing you are going to get tested...you got bigger problems than needing a new job.

 

[Pogo]

Sure you can do all of the above, and sure it's all within the law. What you can't do, as you've admitted here again, is justify it.

Now if you can waltz through life supporting stuff you can't justify, then you're a far better dancer than I. And I'm sitting this one out, thank you very much.

Drug abuse is a huge cost to business, a business is justified in trying to prevent a loss, since drug abusers have a higher crime rate, higher theft rate, higher health risks than the general population, it is justified, except in your little mind.

Sigh.
Once again... number one, drug abuse is a cost (huge or not) to the user, not the business, but ultimately it's the user's money to spend as he or she wishes, is it not? Drug abuse has no effect on the business whatsoever. The behavior associated with it might, but the presence of such behavior or performance is not a given. Secondly, your unlinked ipse dixit mass generalizations have all the impact of a whiffle ball.

And third, you cannot determine "abuse" by a chemical analysis. All that shows is the presence of a chemical. It does not interpret what the presence of that chemical means or how it manifests, or if it even manifests at all. So let's face it --- it has nothing to do with what one does on the job, and everything to do with what one does OFF the job. When the worker isn't being paid.

Now if that employer wants to pay full wages for 24 hour days seven days a week to buy that time, THEN they have a case to dictate what happens outside the workplace, all 168 hours of the week. Until then -- not so much.

Again, if the user is working and has an accident, the potential for a huge payout is there and they can site an improper screening process as one reason the employer is liable. Those that use illegal drugs, or smoke cost a lot of money in loss productivity time. If a worker has a drug issue, we are required to send them through a rehab facility, which costs thousands. Statics show that those that use vs those that don't cost more money for an employer. If you don't like the findings take it up with the Feds not me.

We will continue to test all employees, some because of government regs which also test blood alcohol and other employees in safety positions.

That is all the justification needed, whether your believe it is justified or not is irrelevant. I think it is justified, you disagree. Take care.

And again -- statistics showing something is one thing; typing the words "statistics show" on an internet message board, with nary a link, is quite something else.

Already gave you links however I don't need to justify anything to you. You believe differently than I do when it comes to the cost of drug abuse in the work place. My life experience tells me something different than your life experience.

Hundreds of millions are lost every year due to drugs in the workplace.

Dood, there are only 120 million workers total. See what I mean about pulling stats out of your ass?

I think drug testing gives us a snapshot of 48 hours, if you can't stay off the drugs knowing you are going to get tested...you got bigger problems than needing a new job.

Again, I don't know if you caught this but I'm addressing cannabis, not "drugs" -- but insofar as that goes, no it's a lot more than "48 hours" (and again, if you're not paying for those preceding 48 hours, it's none of your bidness) -- the actual latency period is a lot longer:

No one can really say how long you will test positive for marijuana, since the rate of THC metabolism varies per individual. The amount of marijuana consumed can also alter the window of time that your body retains traces of THC.

Even still, studies provide some insight into how long the average individual will test positive for marijuana.
​

... Studies suggest someone who smokes often can expect to test positive for around a week following last use. According to the NDCI, after 10 days, most frequent users should pass a urine test at the 50 ng/mL threshold.
....
However, there’s no guarantee that a heavy cannabis smoker will be free of THC metabolites after 10 days. Studies show it’s possible for some users to test positive for up to a month after last use. -- LeafScience
​

Remember Valentine's Day? Sixty-seven days is just before that. Real exact science, huh?
If you're going to fire me for testing positive, then you're also going to pay me for the last sixty-seven days at 24 hours a day, since in order to justify that action you must have been paying me for my time the whole time. That's 1632 hours, or roughly ten months, plus overtime.

Oh by the way that stuff in red is called a "link".

 

[Papageorgio]

Drug abuse is a huge cost to business, a business is justified in trying to prevent a loss, since drug abusers have a higher crime rate, higher theft rate, higher health risks than the general population, it is justified, except in your little mind.

Sigh.
Once again... number one, drug abuse is a cost (huge or not) to the user, not the business, but ultimately it's the user's money to spend as he or she wishes, is it not? Drug abuse has no effect on the business whatsoever. The behavior associated with it might, but the presence of such behavior or performance is not a given. Secondly, your unlinked ipse dixit mass generalizations have all the impact of a whiffle ball.

And third, you cannot determine "abuse" by a chemical analysis. All that shows is the presence of a chemical. It does not interpret what the presence of that chemical means or how it manifests, or if it even manifests at all. So let's face it --- it has nothing to do with what one does on the job, and everything to do with what one does OFF the job. When the worker isn't being paid.

Now if that employer wants to pay full wages for 24 hour days seven days a week to buy that time, THEN they have a case to dictate what happens outside the workplace, all 168 hours of the week. Until then -- not so much.

Again, if the user is working and has an accident, the potential for a huge payout is there and they can site an improper screening process as one reason the employer is liable. Those that use illegal drugs, or smoke cost a lot of money in loss productivity time. If a worker has a drug issue, we are required to send them through a rehab facility, which costs thousands. Statics show that those that use vs those that don't cost more money for an employer. If you don't like the findings take it up with the Feds not me.

We will continue to test all employees, some because of government regs which also test blood alcohol and other employees in safety positions.

That is all the justification needed, whether your believe it is justified or not is irrelevant. I think it is justified, you disagree. Take care.

And again -- statistics showing something is one thing; typing the words "statistics show" on an internet message board, with nary a link, is quite something else.

Already gave you links however I don't need to justify anything to you. You believe differently than I do when it comes to the cost of drug abuse in the work place. My life experience tells me something different than your life experience.

Hundreds of millions are lost every year due to drugs in the workplace.

Dood, there are only 120 million workers total. See what I mean about pulling stats out of your ass?

I think drug testing gives us a snapshot of 48 hours, if you can't stay off the drugs knowing you are going to get tested...you got bigger problems than needing a new job.

Again, I don't know if you caught this but I'm addressing cannabis, not "drugs" -- but insofar as that goes, no it's a lot more than "48 hours" (and again, if you're not paying for those preceding 48 hours, it's none of your bidness) -- the actual latency period is a lot longer:

No one can really say how long you will test positive for marijuana, since the rate of THC metabolism varies per individual. The amount of marijuana consumed can also alter the window of time that your body retains traces of THC.

Even still, studies provide some insight into how long the average individual will test positive for marijuana.
​

... Studies suggest someone who smokes often can expect to test positive for around a week following last use. According to the NDCI, after 10 days, most frequent users should pass a urine test at the 50 ng/mL threshold.
....
However, there’s no guarantee that a heavy cannabis smoker will be free of THC metabolites after 10 days. Studies show it’s possible for some users to test positive for up to a month after last use. -- LeafScience
​

Remember Valentine's Day? Sixty-seven days is just before that. Real exact science, huh?

Oh by the way that stuff in red is called a "link".

Dollars, not people. LOL! I figured you were smart, my mistake.

 

[Pogo]

Sigh.
Once again... number one, drug abuse is a cost (huge or not) to the user, not the business, but ultimately it's the user's money to spend as he or she wishes, is it not? Drug abuse has no effect on the business whatsoever. The behavior associated with it might, but the presence of such behavior or performance is not a given. Secondly, your unlinked ipse dixit mass generalizations have all the impact of a whiffle ball.

And third, you cannot determine "abuse" by a chemical analysis. All that shows is the presence of a chemical. It does not interpret what the presence of that chemical means or how it manifests, or if it even manifests at all. So let's face it --- it has nothing to do with what one does on the job, and everything to do with what one does OFF the job. When the worker isn't being paid.

Now if that employer wants to pay full wages for 24 hour days seven days a week to buy that time, THEN they have a case to dictate what happens outside the workplace, all 168 hours of the week. Until then -- not so much.

Again, if the user is working and has an accident, the potential for a huge payout is there and they can site an improper screening process as one reason the employer is liable. Those that use illegal drugs, or smoke cost a lot of money in loss productivity time. If a worker has a drug issue, we are required to send them through a rehab facility, which costs thousands. Statics show that those that use vs those that don't cost more money for an employer. If you don't like the findings take it up with the Feds not me.

We will continue to test all employees, some because of government regs which also test blood alcohol and other employees in safety positions.

That is all the justification needed, whether your believe it is justified or not is irrelevant. I think it is justified, you disagree. Take care.

And again -- statistics showing something is one thing; typing the words "statistics show" on an internet message board, with nary a link, is quite something else.

Already gave you links however I don't need to justify anything to you. You believe differently than I do when it comes to the cost of drug abuse in the work place. My life experience tells me something different than your life experience.

Hundreds of millions are lost every year due to drugs in the workplace.

Dood, there are only 120 million workers total. See what I mean about pulling stats out of your ass?

I think drug testing gives us a snapshot of 48 hours, if you can't stay off the drugs knowing you are going to get tested...you got bigger problems than needing a new job.

Again, I don't know if you caught this but I'm addressing cannabis, not "drugs" -- but insofar as that goes, no it's a lot more than "48 hours" (and again, if you're not paying for those preceding 48 hours, it's none of your bidness) -- the actual latency period is a lot longer:

No one can really say how long you will test positive for marijuana, since the rate of THC metabolism varies per individual. The amount of marijuana consumed can also alter the window of time that your body retains traces of THC.

Even still, studies provide some insight into how long the average individual will test positive for marijuana.
​

... Studies suggest someone who smokes often can expect to test positive for around a week following last use. According to the NDCI, after 10 days, most frequent users should pass a urine test at the 50 ng/mL threshold.
....
However, there’s no guarantee that a heavy cannabis smoker will be free of THC metabolites after 10 days. Studies show it’s possible for some users to test positive for up to a month after last use. -- LeafScience
​

Remember Valentine's Day? Sixty-seven days is just before that. Real exact science, huh?

Oh by the way that stuff in red is called a "link".

Dollars, not people. LOL! I figured you were smart, my mistake.

Still --- unlinked ipse dixit. Again -- statistics showing something is one thing; typing the words "statistics show" on an internet message board, with nary a link, is quite something else.

 

[Papageorgio]

Again, if the user is working and has an accident, the potential for a huge payout is there and they can site an improper screening process as one reason the employer is liable. Those that use illegal drugs, or smoke cost a lot of money in loss productivity time. If a worker has a drug issue, we are required to send them through a rehab facility, which costs thousands. Statics show that those that use vs those that don't cost more money for an employer. If you don't like the findings take it up with the Feds not me.

We will continue to test all employees, some because of government regs which also test blood alcohol and other employees in safety positions.

That is all the justification needed, whether your believe it is justified or not is irrelevant. I think it is justified, you disagree. Take care.

And again -- statistics showing something is one thing; typing the words "statistics show" on an internet message board, with nary a link, is quite something else.

Already gave you links however I don't need to justify anything to you. You believe differently than I do when it comes to the cost of drug abuse in the work place. My life experience tells me something different than your life experience.

Hundreds of millions are lost every year due to drugs in the workplace.

Dood, there are only 120 million workers total. See what I mean about pulling stats out of your ass?

I think drug testing gives us a snapshot of 48 hours, if you can't stay off the drugs knowing you are going to get tested...you got bigger problems than needing a new job.

Again, I don't know if you caught this but I'm addressing cannabis, not "drugs" -- but insofar as that goes, no it's a lot more than "48 hours" (and again, if you're not paying for those preceding 48 hours, it's none of your bidness) -- the actual latency period is a lot longer:

No one can really say how long you will test positive for marijuana, since the rate of THC metabolism varies per individual. The amount of marijuana consumed can also alter the window of time that your body retains traces of THC.

Even still, studies provide some insight into how long the average individual will test positive for marijuana.
​

... Studies suggest someone who smokes often can expect to test positive for around a week following last use. According to the NDCI, after 10 days, most frequent users should pass a urine test at the 50 ng/mL threshold.
....
However, there’s no guarantee that a heavy cannabis smoker will be free of THC metabolites after 10 days. Studies show it’s possible for some users to test positive for up to a month after last use. -- LeafScience
​

Remember Valentine's Day? Sixty-seven days is just before that. Real exact science, huh?

Oh by the way that stuff in red is called a "link".

Dollars, not people. LOL! I figured you were smart, my mistake.

Still --- unlinked ipse dixit. Again -- statistics showing something is one thing; typing the words "statistics show" on an internet message board, with nary a link, is quite something else.

I gave links a few pages ago. Again, businesses use the potential for loss as a justification, whether you agree with the justification or not is up to you.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

Pogo you're ignorant. The good thing is I didn't say stupid. I believe that maybe someday you are capable of learning.

 

[Pogo]

And again -- statistics showing something is one thing; typing the words "statistics show" on an internet message board, with nary a link, is quite something else.

Already gave you links however I don't need to justify anything to you. You believe differently than I do when it comes to the cost of drug abuse in the work place. My life experience tells me something different than your life experience.

Hundreds of millions are lost every year due to drugs in the workplace.

Dood, there are only 120 million workers total. See what I mean about pulling stats out of your ass?

I think drug testing gives us a snapshot of 48 hours, if you can't stay off the drugs knowing you are going to get tested...you got bigger problems than needing a new job.

Again, I don't know if you caught this but I'm addressing cannabis, not "drugs" -- but insofar as that goes, no it's a lot more than "48 hours" (and again, if you're not paying for those preceding 48 hours, it's none of your bidness) -- the actual latency period is a lot longer:

No one can really say how long you will test positive for marijuana, since the rate of THC metabolism varies per individual. The amount of marijuana consumed can also alter the window of time that your body retains traces of THC.

Even still, studies provide some insight into how long the average individual will test positive for marijuana.
​

... Studies suggest someone who smokes often can expect to test positive for around a week following last use. According to the NDCI, after 10 days, most frequent users should pass a urine test at the 50 ng/mL threshold.
....
However, there’s no guarantee that a heavy cannabis smoker will be free of THC metabolites after 10 days. Studies show it’s possible for some users to test positive for up to a month after last use. -- LeafScience
​

Remember Valentine's Day? Sixty-seven days is just before that. Real exact science, huh?

Oh by the way that stuff in red is called a "link".

Dollars, not people. LOL! I figured you were smart, my mistake.

Still --- unlinked ipse dixit. Again -- statistics showing something is one thing; typing the words "statistics show" on an internet message board, with nary a link, is quite something else.

I gave links a few pages ago. Again, businesses use the potential for loss as a justification, whether you agree with the justification or not is up to you.

You know what's even more cowardly than spewing a bunch of crap with no links?

-- Posting "I gave links a few pages ago" when you did no such thing.

I just checked, thinking I must have missed something. But I didn't -- you haven't linked anything, about any point at all, to me or anyone else in this entire thread. Not a single one. Zero. Bupkis. Squatsola.

You are a dishonest hack and dismissed.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Well **** that. I don't work for parents; I work for equals.

If we were equal ... The employee wouldn't be looking for a job.

I'm a Liberal; that means I don't believe in castes. The employer is absolutely not some higher life form.
It's a barter. He needs my services, I need his wages. We trade. It's what equals do.

You miss the point ... If you were equal you would be the employer.
It is not a caste ... Not intelligence ... Not superiority ... You just don't own the business.
If you did own your own business ... Then you would be equal and not looking for a job.

You make that separation in opportunities and responsibilities ... And then try to tell me they are the same.

If you were equal you would be the employer. ---- does not follow.

When I work for you, we're a team. That means I'm one of your players --- not the actual football. It still comes down to a simple barter: my services for your wages. If I deliver the services, you owe the wages. That's all there is to it.

I go to the supermarket deli and make the same kind of exchange ---- my money for their goods. Doesn't make the deli counter person some superior caste.

As a worker, you are a spoke in the wheel.
The employer is the hub.
You are important, but the employer is more important.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

A conundrum here. IF it's legal to smoke pot in two states, but not the other 48, and federal law mandates drug tests in the wok place in ALL states, what is the sense in that? My position here is and always was, the federal government and all the states in the union have to come to a common consensus here, period. That is it, end of story.

Okay, but as I posted earlier, even Obama say's it will not be legal federally any time soon.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Good, but it is legal, it is being done, whether you think it is right or wrong is irrelevant.

Here links and the cost of drug abuse.

How Illicit Drug Use Affects Business and the Economy The White House The Real Cost and Effects of Substance and Prescription Drug Abuse For Professionals and Employers Addiction Hope

Now these are potential losses however a business does not need or want an added expense, potential losses can add up.

I don't care whether you agree with me or not but I deal with people and drug abuse in the work place and I can tell you it cost a lot of money. We had a guy who had an accident in a piece of equipment, it cost us $7,000, then we he tested positive for marijuana, he admitted to smoking just before work, we are required to send him to rehab and foot the bill.

You can bullshit all you want but it costs, why should a business put themselves at risk? Please explain why they need to take a chance, when they can get a person that doesn't have the drug problems?

The point is not, and never was, whether it's "legal" or being done. We all know it is. The question is, is there a justification for it? This is the one you haven't come up with an answer for. Addressing that question separates those of us who just roll over when Authority barks, and those of us who stand up and say, "hold up, this is wrong".

(Edit: see distinction between "drugs" and cannabis, next post. Nothing here has been about actual drugs, addictions or "problems")

Interestingly, it's the same question that can't be addressed about the illegalization of weed in the first place. We languish under a law based on complete bullshit, by now we all know it's bullshit, and yet some o' y'all continue bleating "yes master, may I have another". I find such obsequiousness disgusting.

Legalize pot, I don't care. I have long been on record of legalizing it, in fact I'm for legalizing lots of drugs and tax the hell out of it. They can help fund the rehab facilities.

You want to smoke, shoot up, snort, go right ahead.

I am for, an employer not hiring you because you can't pass a skills test, can't lift one pound, you make stupid posts, whatever the hell his reason is. If a business wants to drug test you, fine by me, and if I don't want to work for an ass that drug tests others fine.

I'm not justifying it, it is an employers right. I don't care if it is justified or not. A business has a right to protect itself from liability and unnecessary risks. The potential of loss is there, the links prove drug abuse causes loss of money. That is justification enough.

Now if a business doesn't want to drug test, more power to them. I don't care.

So, I won't justify it because that is blatantly stupid.

Work for whoever you want, hire who you want.

Sure you can do all of the above, and sure it's all within the law. What you can't do, as you've admitted here again, is justify it.

Now if you can waltz through life supporting stuff you can't justify, then you're a far better dancer than I. And I'm sitting this one out, thank you very much.

Drug abuse is a huge cost to business, a business is justified in trying to prevent a loss, since drug abusers have a higher crime rate, higher theft rate, higher health risks than the general population, it is justified, except in your little mind.

Sigh.
Once again... number one, drug abuse is a cost (huge or not) to the user, not the business, but ultimately it's the user's money to spend as he or she wishes, is it not? Drug abuse has no effect on the business whatsoever. The behavior associated with it might, but the presence of such behavior or performance is not a given. Secondly, your unlinked ipse dixit mass generalizations have all the impact of a whiffle ball.

And third, you cannot determine "abuse" by a chemical analysis. All that shows is the presence of a chemical. It does not interpret what the presence of that chemical means or how it manifests, or if it even manifests at all. So let's face it --- it has nothing to do with what one does on the job, and everything to do with what one does OFF the job. When the worker isn't being paid.

Now if that employer wants to pay full wages for 24 hour days seven days a week to buy that time, THEN they have a case to dictate what happens outside the workplace, all 168 hours of the week. Until then -- not so much.

"Drug abuse has no effect on the business whatsoever." ?!!!!!

Did he just say that ?