States consider drug tests for welfare recipients Mar 26 2009

[Ravi]

I knew you couldn't do it soggy.

Unemployment averages about 1.25% of salary. A $40,000 employee would cost around $500 in unemployment insurance per year. A 5% savings on that $500 would be a whopping $25...the average cost of a pre-employment drug test and subsequent random testings is $44 each time. The 5% savings doesn't even pay for one drug test.

And you want us to believe you work in HR...your poor employer.

I am not trying to beat you up Ravi, or anything of the sort. However, it appears you are either misinformed or uninformed about this issue. Exactly what does unemployment insurance have to do with Workmen's Comp? The rate is set by the State for unemployment insurance (suta) and is calculated by the number of claims you had in the previous year. It affords some income if a person is laid off work or becomes unemployed for reasons other than simply quitting. Workmen's Comp is medical insurance among other things if you are hurt on the job. However, the two are entirely separate entities. In both instances the employer bears 100% of the cost.

With 30 or so field personel, Workmen's Comp can run anywhere from 100 to 120 K a year or more. Granted, a 5% discount from WC will not entirely off set the cost of monthly drug testing. However, if you know drug testing is required you build the cost into your bid or pricing structure, whichever the case. Besides, as I posted. It can save lives.
gb

Oops...I must have had unemployment insurance on my mind...I meant to say the average worker's comp...so sub it in. My point was only that a 5% reduction on workers comp is pretty meaningless because you aren't saving money by requiring the drug tests. Some jobs, sure...it absolutely makes sense to drug test your employees. But on AVERAGE it isn't cost effective.

 

[Peejay]

Like I've contended all along, drug test are just too expensive. The federal government already knows what it cost to drug test: $77,000 per positive. Take a look back at my own little cost analysis and you will see that I came up with $67,000, all on my own. Pretty damn close and anyone with the basic numbers and basic math skils can figure it out.

Pragmatists contend that the drop-off is mostly a matter of cost. Although individual drug tests seem cheap — $25 to $50 each, according to Quest — the total expense gets difficult to justify when so few tests come up positive. According to a 1999 ACLU study, the federal government spent $11.7 million to find 153 drug users among almost 29,000 employees tested in 1990, a cost of $77,000 per positive test.

Also, as we have already discussed and Shogun confirms, anyone can beat a drug test just by abstaining for a period of time.

But the benefits were always at best a bit murky. The oft-cited research, the so-called Firestone Study, was actually a 1972 speech given to lunching Firestone Tire and Rubber executives by an advocate for helping employees overcome "medical-behavioral problems" like alcoholism. The advocate, whose name has long been forgotten, mentioned drugs only in passing and never identified the source for the statistics or anything else that might make the numbers credible. Truth be told, employment experts say there has been virtually no research indicating that drug tests improve safety or productivity on the job.

In any event, the reality is that testing doesn't catch most workers who use drugs. The vast majority undergo examinations only when they apply for a job, and they can pass by abstaining from drugs for a reasonable period before the test — or by using a variety of masking agents or devices that make their urine seem clean.

Whatever Happened to Drug Testing? - TIME


In any event, business has realized the cost and short comings of drug testing and the number of companies drug testing has continued to decline since the 90's.

Now, of course, we can argue all day long about whether or not welfare recipients should be tested. I don't think welfare recipients should be buying drugs either. If they can't afford to buy their own food, they shouldn't be buying drugs. That's a no brainer. What takes a little common sense is to see that it will cost us more, a lot more, to drug test recipients than it cost us to tolerate an amount of abuse.

 

[xsited1]

Good question.. very good question.. It's all tied into Workers Comp Insurance innit?

Care sometimes makes these blanket statements and then leaves the thread. I hope she comes back.

any bank, any corporation, even Jackson Memorial hospital, john elliot community blood bank center, the holiday inn for goodness sakes, and shoe vendors like Tommy Hilfiger and Aerosoles and Nine West and Kenneth Cole and Reebok and Rockport, jcpenneys, filenes, Dillards Dept stores etc....none required drug tests...NONE?

Do you guys work for companies that required drug tests?

That's news to me....

Care

The majority of Fortune 500 companies require drug testing. That includes JC Penneys, Dillards (located in Little Rock), Holiday Inn, etc. Every single company I have ever worked for including a 50 employee start-up required drug testing.

 

[aka520]

I knew you couldn't do it soggy.

Unemployment averages about 1.25% of salary. A $40,000 employee would cost around $500 in unemployment insurance per year. A 5% savings on that $500 would be a whopping $25...the average cost of a pre-employment drug test and subsequent random testings is $44 each time. The 5% savings doesn't even pay for one drug test.

And you want us to believe you work in HR...your poor employer.

I am not trying to beat you up Ravi, or anything of the sort. However, it appears you are either misinformed or uninformed about this issue. Exactly what does unemployment insurance have to do with Workmen's Comp? The rate is set by the State for unemployment insurance (suta) and is calculated by the number of claims you had in the previous year. It affords some income if a person is laid off work or becomes unemployed for reasons other than simply quitting. Workmen's Comp is medical insurance among other things if you are hurt on the job. However, the two are entirely separate entities. In both instances the employer bears 100% of the cost.

With 30 or so field personel, Workmen's Comp can run anywhere from 100 to 120 K a year or more. Granted, a 5% discount from WC will not entirely off set the cost of monthly drug testing. However, if you know drug testing is required you build the cost into your bid or pricing structure, whichever the case. Besides, as I posted. It can save lives.
gb

Oops...I must have had unemployment insurance on my mind...I meant to say the average worker's comp...so sub it in. My point was only that a 5% reduction on workers comp is pretty meaningless because you aren't saving money by requiring the drug tests. Some jobs, sure...it absolutely makes sense to drug test your employees. But on AVERAGE it isn't cost effective.

I don't think Ravi, drug testing was ever meant to be cost effective. It was Just simply another cost of sales. However, the value of preventing serious accidents cannot be estimated in dollars and cannot overlooked. During my years in business, I felt it was a good selling point to advertise our employees were routinely drug tested. With most larger and all government projects it was mandatory. In those cases the cost could be passed along. Sure, there were ways for a select few to beat a drug test but by far most willingly cooperated. Our tests were randomly selected by computer so there was no chance of advance warning. We tested for alcohol also. All tests were performed in the afternoon so as to preclude anything from the night before. One important thing, I was imperative all personnel did drug tests. Office, field supervisory and labor alike. I personally did a drug test every month and posted the results on a bulletin board. Those failing the test had their results discussed in private. In some cases warnings were given for first time offenders. There were no second offence's tolerated.

You might also note:
As a deterrent to on the job use of drugs or alcohol, any employee discharged for drug or alcohol violation was reported to the Department of Labor and unemployment compensation was denied the same as if they had voluntarily quit the job. These were rules and regulations every employee signed prior to employment.
gb

 

[Care4all]

so no one that has ever employed you or others that you know of participated in the workman's compensation program?

Every job i held, including all of my husband's jobs as well, participated in workman's comp and have never required a drug test.

NEVER! Had to drug test.

so the workman's comp thingy that you all are claiming a drug test is necessary is just BUNK, to put it politely as i can , willow.

My husband is working for a large corporation now, who has workman's comp coverage does NOT have to drug test to be employed or to participate.

Care

don't strain at being polite,, it's not necessary.. I've never had a job that participated in the worker's comp program that did not require a drug test. and that the truth of the matter. .

must be YOUR STATE......cuz the last 2 states i worked in and lived in the past don't have any drug testing required to work or to receive workman's comp if injured....And florida didn't have any requirements to drug test when i lived and worked there 10 years ago, at least not required by the 3 corporations that i worked for....

As i have stated, i, nor my husband, nor any close friends that we have had, needed to take a drug test to work for any private company or corporation... so all of this is news to me.

perhaps this is because we held ''executive'' positions and we were exempt or something from taking any??? i mean, a papercut is the worst that could happen to us....so, there wasn't much of a chance on a workman's comp injury claim....

here's a link by state...

massachusetts and maine are not requiring any drug testing for workman's comp, nor offering a discount if businesses drug test.

DRUG TESTING IN THE WORKPLACE

 

[oreo]

One has to take a drug test to get a job--including those jobs a McDonalds, Safeway & other part-time jobs.

It's about time states started giving drug tests to people on the tax-payer dollar.

 

[KittenKoder]

One has to take a drug test to get a job--including those jobs a McDonalds, Safeway & other part-time jobs.

It's about time states started giving drug tests to people on the tax-payer dollar.

Um ... yeah ... generalizations abound, you are just unlucky enough to mention the employment level I use to work at and loved.

Fast Food .... only managers are sometimes required to take random drug tests, and then only in a couple states, not one of the states I ever worked at or managed ever even considered trying that, they'd lose 80% of their workforce. The only people they can get to work those jobs are pot heads, teens, and retirees with too much time on their hands and a lot of energy still. Pots heads being only ones in the age bracket capable of even being considered mature enough to be manager. As a matter of fact I never thought of smoking pot until I started working there.

Safeway, almost the same story I would bet.

 

[Ravi]

I am not trying to beat you up Ravi, or anything of the sort. However, it appears you are either misinformed or uninformed about this issue. Exactly what does unemployment insurance have to do with Workmen's Comp? The rate is set by the State for unemployment insurance (suta) and is calculated by the number of claims you had in the previous year. It affords some income if a person is laid off work or becomes unemployed for reasons other than simply quitting. Workmen's Comp is medical insurance among other things if you are hurt on the job. However, the two are entirely separate entities. In both instances the employer bears 100% of the cost.

With 30 or so field personel, Workmen's Comp can run anywhere from 100 to 120 K a year or more. Granted, a 5% discount from WC will not entirely off set the cost of monthly drug testing. However, if you know drug testing is required you build the cost into your bid or pricing structure, whichever the case. Besides, as I posted. It can save lives.
gb

Oops...I must have had unemployment insurance on my mind...I meant to say the average worker's comp...so sub it in. My point was only that a 5% reduction on workers comp is pretty meaningless because you aren't saving money by requiring the drug tests. Some jobs, sure...it absolutely makes sense to drug test your employees. But on AVERAGE it isn't cost effective.

I don't think Ravi, drug testing was ever meant to be cost effective. It was Just simply another cost of sales. However, the value of preventing serious accidents cannot be estimated in dollars and cannot overlooked. During my years in business, I felt it was a good selling point to advertise our employees were routinely drug tested. With most larger and all government projects it was mandatory. In those cases the cost could be passed along. Sure, there were ways for a select few to beat a drug test but by far most willingly cooperated. Our tests were randomly selected by computer so there was no chance of advance warning. We tested for alcohol also. All tests were performed in the afternoon so as to preclude anything from the night before. One important thing, I was imperative all personnel did drug tests. Office, field supervisory and labor alike. I personally did a drug test every month and posted the results on a bulletin board. Those failing the test had their results discussed in private. In some cases warnings were given for first time offenders. There were no second offence's tolerated.

You might also note:
As a deterrent to on the job use of drugs or alcohol, any employee discharged for drug or alcohol violation was reported to the Department of Labor and unemployment compensation was denied the same as if they had voluntarily quit the job. These were rules and regulations every employee signed prior to employment.
gb

Thank you. I merely wanted to point out that drug testing was not cost effective.

As for the rest of your post...a company certainly has the option of drug testing their employees. It is not something I would do as I feel it is too authoritarian and totally against my philosophy in general.

 

[Shogun]

I knew you couldn't do it soggy.

Unemployment averages about 1.25% of salary. A $40,000 employee would cost around $500 in unemployment insurance per year. A 5% savings on that $500 would be a whopping $25...the average cost of a pre-employment drug test and subsequent random testings is $44 each time. The 5% savings doesn't even pay for one drug test.

And you want us to believe you work in HR...your poor employer.

I am not trying to beat you up Ravi, or anything of the sort. However, it appears you are either misinformed or uninformed about this issue. Exactly what does unemployment insurance have to do with Workmen's Comp? The rate is set by the State for unemployment insurance (suta) and is calculated by the number of claims you had in the previous year. It affords some income if a person is laid off work or becomes unemployed for reasons other than simply quitting. Workmen's Comp is medical insurance among other things if you are hurt on the job. However, the two are entirely separate entities. In both instances the employer bears 100% of the cost.

With 30 or so field personel, Workmen's Comp can run anywhere from 100 to 120 K a year or more. Granted, a 5% discount from WC will not entirely off set the cost of monthly drug testing. However, if you know drug testing is required you build the cost into your bid or pricing structure, whichever the case. Besides, as I posted. It can save lives.
gb

 

[Cecilie1200]

One has to take a drug test to get a job--including those jobs a McDonalds, Safeway & other part-time jobs.

It's about time states started giving drug tests to people on the tax-payer dollar.

Welfare isn't a job. It's charity, often given to people precisely because they are struggling with a drug problem.

 

[aka520]

Oops...I must have had unemployment insurance on my mind...I meant to say the average worker's comp...so sub it in. My point was only that a 5% reduction on workers comp is pretty meaningless because you aren't saving money by requiring the drug tests. Some jobs, sure...it absolutely makes sense to drug test your employees. But on AVERAGE it isn't cost effective.

I don't think Ravi, drug testing was ever meant to be cost effective. It was Just simply another cost of sales. However, the value of preventing serious accidents cannot be estimated in dollars and cannot overlooked. During my years in business, I felt it was a good selling point to advertise our employees were routinely drug tested. With most larger and all government projects it was mandatory. In those cases the cost could be passed along. Sure, there were ways for a select few to beat a drug test but by far most willingly cooperated. Our tests were randomly selected by computer so there was no chance of advance warning. We tested for alcohol also. All tests were performed in the afternoon so as to preclude anything from the night before. One important thing, I was imperative all personnel did drug tests. Office, field supervisory and labor alike. I personally did a drug test every month and posted the results on a bulletin board. Those failing the test had their results discussed in private. In some cases warnings were given for first time offenders. There were no second offence's tolerated.

You might also note:
As a deterrent to on the job use of drugs or alcohol, any employee discharged for drug or alcohol violation was reported to the Department of Labor and unemployment compensation was denied the same as if they had voluntarily quit the job. These were rules and regulations every employee signed prior to employment.
gb

Thank you. I merely wanted to point out that drug testing was not cost effective.

As for the rest of your post...a company certainly has the option of drug testing their employees. It is not something I would do as I feel it is too authoritarian and totally against my philosophy in general.

It appears you totally missed the point of my post Ravi. Granted, any rebate you receive from WC will not off set the cost of drug testing. However, that's irrelevant. Other costs in the same category as drug testing are safety equipment along with other rules governed by OSHA. These are simply cost of sales. In most cases these ancillary costs are passed on to the end user. Notwithstanding, the potential value of preventing serious accidents and or loss of life due to employees being high on drugs at a job site, is immeasurable. Especially, when people are working around dangerous equipment, several hundred feet or more in the air. However Ravi, even more disturbing is your comment about authoritarianism and it being totally against your philosophy in general. That's just bunk. When other peoples life is on the line, your right to privacy has little to do with anything. That is assuming you are not a hermit, living a cave. Safety first is always paramount, and overrides anyone's right to privacy when it involves the safety of others. Rest assured that person on the other end of the safety line could care less about your resentment of authoritarianism. However, he does have a right to feel secure in the fact your are not high on something and you are not going to forget to hold the rope while you light up another joint. I certainly wouldn't trust my life to you unless I was sure you were clean.

I did also mention for this policy to be equitable it must apply to all employees, no exceptions.
gb

 

[Shogun]

Ravir got awfully quiet for some reason...

 

[Ravi]

I don't think Ravi, drug testing was ever meant to be cost effective. It was Just simply another cost of sales. However, the value of preventing serious accidents cannot be estimated in dollars and cannot overlooked. During my years in business, I felt it was a good selling point to advertise our employees were routinely drug tested. With most larger and all government projects it was mandatory. In those cases the cost could be passed along. Sure, there were ways for a select few to beat a drug test but by far most willingly cooperated. Our tests were randomly selected by computer so there was no chance of advance warning. We tested for alcohol also. All tests were performed in the afternoon so as to preclude anything from the night before. One important thing, I was imperative all personnel did drug tests. Office, field supervisory and labor alike. I personally did a drug test every month and posted the results on a bulletin board. Those failing the test had their results discussed in private. In some cases warnings were given for first time offenders. There were no second offence's tolerated.

You might also note:
As a deterrent to on the job use of drugs or alcohol, any employee discharged for drug or alcohol violation was reported to the Department of Labor and unemployment compensation was denied the same as if they had voluntarily quit the job. These were rules and regulations every employee signed prior to employment.
gb

Thank you. I merely wanted to point out that drug testing was not cost effective.

As for the rest of your post...a company certainly has the option of drug testing their employees. It is not something I would do as I feel it is too authoritarian and totally against my philosophy in general.

It appears you totally missed the point of my post Ravi. Granted, any rebate you receive from WC will not off set the cost of drug testing. However, that's irrelevant. Other costs in the same category as drug testing are safety equipment along with other rules governed by OSHA. These are simply cost of sales. In most cases these ancillary costs are passed on to the end user. Notwithstanding, the potential value of preventing serious accidents and or loss of life due to employees being high on drugs at a job site, is immeasurable. Especially, when people are working around dangerous equipment, several hundred feet or more in the air. However Ravi, even more disturbing is your comment about authoritarianism and it being totally against your philosophy in general. That's just bunk. When other peoples life is on the line, your right to privacy has little to do with anything. That is assuming you are not a hermit, living a cave. Safety first is always paramount, and overrides anyone's right to privacy when it involves the safety of others. Rest assured that person on the other end of the safety line could care less about your resentment of authoritarianism. However, he does have a right to feel secure in the fact your are not high on something and you are not going to forget to hold the rope while you light up another joint. I certainly wouldn't trust my life to you unless I was sure you were clean.

I did also mention for this policy to be equitable it must apply to all employees, no exceptions.
gb

I guess you missed further up the thread where I stated that drug testing for certain jobs made sense. As an employer, I think I can pretty much decide which jobs do or do not need to be drug tested for, or which employees. And if you are that suspicious of someone, why did you hire them in the first place?

 

[aka520]

Thank you. I merely wanted to point out that drug testing was not cost effective.

As for the rest of your post...a company certainly has the option of drug testing their employees. It is not something I would do as I feel it is too authoritarian and totally against my philosophy in general.

It appears you totally missed the point of my post Ravi. Granted, any rebate you receive from WC will not off set the cost of drug testing. However, that's irrelevant. Other costs in the same category as drug testing are safety equipment along with other rules governed by OSHA. These are simply cost of sales. In most cases these ancillary costs are passed on to the end user. Notwithstanding, the potential value of preventing serious accidents and or loss of life due to employees being high on drugs at a job site, is immeasurable. Especially, when people are working around dangerous equipment, several hundred feet or more in the air. However Ravi, even more disturbing is your comment about authoritarianism and it being totally against your philosophy in general. That's just bunk. When other peoples life is on the line, your right to privacy has little to do with anything. That is assuming you are not a hermit, living a cave. Safety first is always paramount, and overrides anyone's right to privacy when it involves the safety of others. Rest assured that person on the other end of the safety line could care less about your resentment of authoritarianism. However, he does have a right to feel secure in the fact your are not high on something and you are not going to forget to hold the rope while you light up another joint. I certainly wouldn't trust my life to you unless I was sure you were clean.

I did also mention for this policy to be equitable it must apply to all employees, no exceptions.
gb

I guess you missed further up the thread where I stated that drug testing for certain jobs made sense. As an employer, I think I can pretty much decide which jobs do or do not need to be drug tested for, or which employees. And if you are that suspicious of someone, why did you hire them in the first place?

As an employer Ravi, it's definitely your prerogative to hire anyone you wish as it is your prerogative to require drug testing or not. However, as an employer I would think, regardless the nature of business or service, you would prefer to employ people who had their head screwed on straight, at least while on your nickel. After all, because your employees represent you, it's your reputation on the line. Of course that's moot if you live in California and run a pot shop.
gb

 

[Peejay]

It appears you totally missed the point of my post Ravi. Granted, any rebate you receive from WC will not off set the cost of drug testing. However, that's irrelevant. Other costs in the same category as drug testing are safety equipment along with other rules governed by OSHA. These are simply cost of sales. In most cases these ancillary costs are passed on to the end user. Notwithstanding, the potential value of preventing serious accidents and or loss of life due to employees being high on drugs at a job site, is immeasurable. Especially, when people are working around dangerous equipment, several hundred feet or more in the air. However Ravi, even more disturbing is your comment about authoritarianism and it being totally against your philosophy in general. That's just bunk. When other peoples life is on the line, your right to privacy has little to do with anything. That is assuming you are not a hermit, living a cave. Safety first is always paramount, and overrides anyone's right to privacy when it involves the safety of others. Rest assured that person on the other end of the safety line could care less about your resentment of authoritarianism. However, he does have a right to feel secure in the fact your are not high on something and you are not going to forget to hold the rope while you light up another joint. I certainly wouldn't trust my life to you unless I was sure you were clean.

I did also mention for this policy to be equitable it must apply to all employees, no exceptions.
gb

I guess you missed further up the thread where I stated that drug testing for certain jobs made sense. As an employer, I think I can pretty much decide which jobs do or do not need to be drug tested for, or which employees. And if you are that suspicious of someone, why did you hire them in the first place?

As an employer Ravi, it's definitely your prerogative to hire anyone you wish as it is your prerogative to require drug testing or not. However, as an employer I would think, regardless the nature of business or service, you would prefer to employ people who had their head screwed on straight, at least while on your nickel. After all, because your employees represent you, it's your reputation on the line. Of course that's moot if you live in California and run a pot shop.
gb

Of course this brings up one of the often posed questions: Who cares what I do on Sunday afternoon, in my garage ? Drug test don't know when you used, especially pot.

But employers have the right to place all kinds of pre employment conditions. It's their business.

Getting back to the Food Stamp issue, what we seem to have come around to, after many pages of discussion, is that some don't care if it ends up costing us more to drug test recipients. Cost really isn't their issue. Some are willing to pay more, in order to take away food stamps rather than pay less and tolerate abuse. That's the bottom line.

 

[Ravi]

It appears you totally missed the point of my post Ravi. Granted, any rebate you receive from WC will not off set the cost of drug testing. However, that's irrelevant. Other costs in the same category as drug testing are safety equipment along with other rules governed by OSHA. These are simply cost of sales. In most cases these ancillary costs are passed on to the end user. Notwithstanding, the potential value of preventing serious accidents and or loss of life due to employees being high on drugs at a job site, is immeasurable. Especially, when people are working around dangerous equipment, several hundred feet or more in the air. However Ravi, even more disturbing is your comment about authoritarianism and it being totally against your philosophy in general. That's just bunk. When other peoples life is on the line, your right to privacy has little to do with anything. That is assuming you are not a hermit, living a cave. Safety first is always paramount, and overrides anyone's right to privacy when it involves the safety of others. Rest assured that person on the other end of the safety line could care less about your resentment of authoritarianism. However, he does have a right to feel secure in the fact your are not high on something and you are not going to forget to hold the rope while you light up another joint. I certainly wouldn't trust my life to you unless I was sure you were clean.

I did also mention for this policy to be equitable it must apply to all employees, no exceptions.
gb

I guess you missed further up the thread where I stated that drug testing for certain jobs made sense. As an employer, I think I can pretty much decide which jobs do or do not need to be drug tested for, or which employees. And if you are that suspicious of someone, why did you hire them in the first place?

As an employer Ravi, it's definitely your prerogative to hire anyone you wish as it is your prerogative to require drug testing or not. However, as an employer I would think, regardless the nature of business or service, you would prefer to employ people who had their head screwed on straight, at least while on your nickel. After all, because your employees represent you, it's your reputation on the line. Of course that's moot if you live in California and run a pot shop.
gb

heh...I trust my own judgment. If you don't, test away.

 

[Peejay]

I guess you missed further up the thread where I stated that drug testing for certain jobs made sense. As an employer, I think I can pretty much decide which jobs do or do not need to be drug tested for, or which employees. And if you are that suspicious of someone, why did you hire them in the first place?

As an employer Ravi, it's definitely your prerogative to hire anyone you wish as it is your prerogative to require drug testing or not. However, as an employer I would think, regardless the nature of business or service, you would prefer to employ people who had their head screwed on straight, at least while on your nickel. After all, because your employees represent you, it's your reputation on the line. Of course that's moot if you live in California and run a pot shop.
gb

heh...I trust my own judgment. If you don't, test away.

Good idea. It's a shame that some employers miss out on some fine people because they smoke a little pot.

Of course, I'd be inclined to say that pot is pretty much the exception. Coke and crack and heroin and such surely have a greater affect on one's character and reliability than pot. I know far too many well paid, well positioned pot smokers.

 

[aka520]

I guess you missed further up the thread where I stated that drug testing for certain jobs made sense. As an employer, I think I can pretty much decide which jobs do or do not need to be drug tested for, or which employees. And if you are that suspicious of someone, why did you hire them in the first place?

As an employer Ravi, it's definitely your prerogative to hire anyone you wish as it is your prerogative to require drug testing or not. However, as an employer I would think, regardless the nature of business or service, you would prefer to employ people who had their head screwed on straight, at least while on your nickel. After all, because your employees represent you, it's your reputation on the line. Of course that's moot if you live in California and run a pot shop.
gb

heh...I trust my own judgment. If you don't, test away.

You are not being rational Ravi, or you really just don't give a shit. Either way you would be the loser in the long run. It's possibly you stay high all the time and it would be hypocritical for you to expect otherwise from others. My advice to you is, stay away from self employment and get a menial job where you have little responsibility and cannot be a danger to others.
gb

 

[DvDud1]

As an employer Ravi, it's definitely your prerogative to hire anyone you wish as it is your prerogative to require drug testing or not. However, as an employer I would think, regardless the nature of business or service, you would prefer to employ people who had their head screwed on straight, at least while on your nickel. After all, because your employees represent you, it's your reputation on the line. Of course that's moot if you live in California and run a pot shop.
gb

heh...I trust my own judgment. If you don't, test away.

Good idea. It's a shame that some employers miss out on some fine people because they smoke a little pot.

Of course, I'd be inclined to say that pot is pretty much the exception. Coke and crack and heroin and such surely have a greater affect on one's character and reliability than pot. I know far too many well paid, well positioned pot smokers.

One of the major problems with all this drug testing-whether it's for work or for food stamps-is that it primarily targets marijuana smokers, while savvy users of other substances will be able to beat it in most cases.
Meth, cocaine, heroin, and most recreational pharmaceuticals won't show up at detectable levels within anywhere from 24 to 72 hours after you last used them. And someone who knows how to flush their system can beat a drug test even if they're a chronic user, with a little prep time.
But pot's different...the THC is stored in your fat cells, and depending on one's metabolism it is entirely possible that someone who smoked ONE joint a week ago could still have enough of a trace to test positive a week later, even more in some cases.
So all it's really accomplishing is to target people who may be occasional users of marijuana, one of the more benign substances of choice, while in fact not really serving as much if any deterrent to those who are using harder drugs. And the added cost to taxpayers is such that even the people who might start off saying "test 'em-I want to make sure that nobody recieving a government check is getting high on my dime" will be singing a different tune when it finally sinks in just how costly-and ridiculous-that testing is.
Take the money we would spend for drug testing and it it into something more productive...for every stoner you catch, 50 more will just beat it anyway.

I CAN understand Gib ("aka") testing his employess, though, I'd bet that the majority of people who work for Gib wind up turning to drugs to cope.

 

[aka520]

heh...I trust my own judgment. If you don't, test away.

Good idea. It's a shame that some employers miss out on some fine people because they smoke a little pot.

Of course, I'd be inclined to say that pot is pretty much the exception. Coke and crack and heroin and such surely have a greater affect on one's character and reliability than pot. I know far too many well paid, well positioned pot smokers.

One of the major problems with all this drug testing-whether it's for work or for food stamps-is that it primarily targets marijuana smokers, while savvy users of other substances will be able to beat it in most cases.
Meth, cocaine, heroin, and most recreational pharmaceuticals won't show up at detectable levels within anywhere from 24 to 72 hours after you last used them. And someone who knows how to flush their system can beat a drug test even if they're a chronic user, with a little prep time.
But pot's different...the THC is stored in your fat cells, and depending on one's metabolism it is entirely possible that someone who smoked ONE joint a week ago could still have enough of a trace to test positive a week later, even more in some cases.
So all it's really accomplishing is to target people who may be occasional users of marijuana, one of the more benign substances of choice, while in fact not really serving as much if any deterrent to those who are using harder drugs. And the added cost to taxpayers is such that even the people who might start off saying "test 'em-I want to make sure that nobody recieving a government check is getting high on my dime" will be singing a different tune when it finally sinks in just how costly-and ridiculous-that testing is.
Take the money we would spend for drug testing and it it into something more productive...for every stoner you catch, 50 more will just beat it anyway.

I CAN understand Gib ("aka") testing his employess, though, I'd bet that the majority of people who work for Gib wind up turning to drugs to cope.

Not being an expert on substance abuse as you Dud, I was dependent on the competence of testing professionals. However, I was assured other drug abuse was detectable, regardless of your nonchalant disregard. Although, I have been retired from business for a number of years, I would think the testing professionals would have modern safeguards in place to prevent tampering sophisticated enough to foil even the most clever deceiver. Fortunately, I don't think chronic abusers of hard substances will be among those seeking employment nor among those able to maintain a degree of steady employment

From your post you indicate the occasional use of marijuana is an acceptable recreational drug. I don't think the purpose of this thread is to debate the question concerning the harmful or benign effects of the occasional use of marijuana.

The question at hand is, do we want those accepting government assistance to be free to use funds allocated for bare necessities for themselves and their children to be squandered on drugs, benign or not. You will also note the purchase of cigarettes and alcohol is a non purchasable item. Why should recreational drugs not also be classified as non purchasable. Just as when you apply for a drivers license, you sign an implied consent form agreeing to breathalyzer testing. Mandatory alcohol and drug testing should also be implied consent upon acceptance of assistance. My vote would be to require testing, because any funds for drug use would be diverted from those mostly needing assistance. Namely children.
gb