• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Would you/do you submit to drug tests at work?

Would you/do you submit to a drug test?

  • Yes

    Votes: 83 67.5%

  • No

    Votes: 34 27.6%

  • Carrots?

    Votes: 6 4.9%
  • Total voters
    123
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
#461
Unrepresented said:
It was originally intended to be ironic a la "Username N/A." I'm clearly representing myself despite the name claiming otherwise. I definitely understand how other people could read it otherwise though.

Maybe I'm too young to have seen them as an intrusion, but I don't see seatbelt laws as unreasonable. Or maybe I'm a hypocrite. I wear mine every second the vehicles I operate are moving.

I'm probably much less rebellious than you think. I am employed by a huge corporation, am in a long term committed relationship, have a couple house cats, and my favorite non-musical hobby is volleyball.

I am passionate about civil liberties though.:)
Click to expand...

OK, civil liberties are great if there's no chance the person who refuses these tests has no chance of harming someone while they're doing their job but if a train runs into another, goes too fast or goes off the tracks ahd kills someone in your family because the driver/engineer is wasted, what would you do? Never mind the fact that it's a transportation-based job, anyone who works for someone else is a representative for that company. If they come into contact with clients/customers, the chance of harming the company is high if they come in with effects of doing whatever is prohibited. Think as if you own a company and someone ruins it because they scammed the test and the effects caused them to do something bad. You would change your mind in a big hurry, I guarantee it. Companies have been shut down because of this.

Someone I grew up with was hunted down and killed in his own factory by an employee who scammed the test and was addicted to either coke, meth or both. The company made parts and accessories for weapons used by the military and drug testing was mandatory. I have no sympathy for anyone who refuses to take a test and loses a job or the chance of being hired- drugs do too much damage and this is different from the way I thought in the past. People who are too selfish to consider that they could damage someone or something by continuing to do something the company forbids are pretty far down on my list of those I want to associate with.
 
#462
1958Bassman said:
OK, civil liberties are great if there's no chance the person who refuses these tests has no chance of harming someone while they're doing their job but if a train runs into another, goes too fast or goes off the tracks ahd kills someone in your family because the driver/engineer is wasted, what would you do? Never mind the fact that it's a transportation-based job, anyone who works for someone else is a representative for that company. If they come into contact with clients/customers, the chance of harming the company is high if they come in with effects of doing whatever is prohibited. Think as if you own a company and someone ruins it because they scammed the test and the effects caused them to do something bad. You would change your mind in a big hurry, I guarantee it. Companies have been shut down because of this.

Someone I grew up with was hunted down and killed in his own factory by an employee who scammed the test and was addicted to either coke, meth or both. The company made parts and accessories for weapons used by the military and drug testing was mandatory. I have no sympathy for anyone who refuses to take a test and loses a job or the chance of being hired- drugs do too much damage and this is different from the way I thought in the past. People who are too selfish to consider that they could damage someone or something by continuing to do something the company forbids are pretty far down on my list of those I want to associate with.
Click to expand...

Eloquently stated.
 
#463
I am not going down that road. You are naive. I'll leave it at that.

Back on topic. So, basically, you think that the rights of the worker trump the rights of the business owner. Does that about sum it up?
 
#466
I would, but then I don't do drugs. I feel it's an invasion of privacy, but if you want the gig and the gig requires a drug test, then you have no choice.

I've worked in places where people used drugs and it never bothered me. As long as the work gets done satisfactorily.

I don't think I'd want to work in a place that required testing.
 
#467
I peed in a cup to start at my current company, and would do for again:


I work for a manufacturing company, so around machinery we need to ensure that everyone is sober and not under any influences.

We also believe in mutuality, so if someone in the plant might need to submit, I'm more than happy to pee in a cup to keep things fair.
 
#468
tplyons said:
I peed in a cup to start at my current company, and would do for again:


I work for a manufacturing company, so around machinery we need to ensure that everyone is sober and not under any influences.

We also believe in mutuality, so if someone in the plant might need to submit, I'm more than happy to pee in a cup to keep things fair.
Click to expand...


A failed test does not mean someone is under the influence. If someone smoked a joint a week ago, that person will fail the test but is certainly not under the influence.
 
#469
So, I guess this is what no one seems to be able to explain to me. How do you tell the difference between a "responsible" smoker and someone who is just plain high at work? If the stuff stays in your system for a week or two, how am I supposed to be able to tell if you "only smoke on your time" or if you are getting stoned at lunch? I would just rather not gamble on it. All of you here who claim to smoke, also claim "I would never go to work high." But that's just you guys. You don't speak for all recreational pot smokers.
 
#471
two fingers said:
So, I guess this is what no one seems to be able to explain to me. How do you tell the difference between a "responsible" smoker and someone who is just plain high at work? If the stuff stays in your system for a week or two, how am I supposed to be able to tell if you "only smoke on your time" or if you are getting stoned at lunch? I would just rather not gamble on it. All of you here who claim to smoke, also claim "I would never go to work high." But that's just you guys. You don't speak for all recreational pot smokers.
Click to expand...

Couldn't the same thing be said about an alcoholic? there are no guarantees that any person that uses any substance will or won't use at work. Isn't that what the rest of the background check should establish (ie has he had problems at work before, arrests, patterns of irresponsible behaviors)?

Wouldn't a responsible pothead be as responsible as any other responsible adult?
 
#472
two fingers said:
So, I guess this is what no one seems to be able to explain to me. How do you tell the difference between a "responsible" smoker and someone who is just plain high at work? If the stuff stays in your system for a week or two, how am I supposed to be able to tell if you "only smoke on your time" or if you are getting stoned at lunch? I would just rather not gamble on it. All of you here who claim to smoke, also claim "I would never go to work high." But that's just you guys. You don't speak for all recreational pot smokers.
Click to expand...

that's just BS...how do you know drinkers aren't getting drunk at work.

do you know any drinkers who just drink when it is appropriate to do so...like at home after hours, or maybe in a bar

considering that alcohol is responsible for a zillion traffic deaths a year and pot is not even mentioned...i really don't know how you can say that with a straight face.

considering the harm that alcohol causes, above and beyond the traffic deaths...broken homes, alcoholics etc...your position is just ludicrous.

might i ask you...do YOU drink? not are you a drunk, but just drink...socially or whatever.

and yet, you single out pot...probably the least harmful of recreational drugs, but you don't single out drinkers?...i cry hypocrite.

davesignatureII-1.png
 
#475
spade2you said:
I heard a story that there was someone at a local hospital who came to work once or twice drunk. Part of the plea to keep his or her license was to come in through the ER and take a breathalyzer prior to every shift. That individual agreed because it meant keeping the job and license.
Click to expand...

Bravo!...now that kind of drug test is relevant and, at least in his case, necessary.

they need to develop tests for drugs, similar to alcohol...are you drugged up, drunk, high etc, RIGHT NOW...not do you generally drink, smoke etc.

we are pretending that pot tests show something they don't show...what pot tests show is whether a person smokes pot at all, not whether he is high right now...i am sorry, but that is just not right.

davesignatureII-1.png
 
#476
Lonesomedave said:
Bravo!...now that kind of drug test is relevant and, at least in his case, necessary.

they need to develop tests for drugs, similar to alcohol...are you drugged up, drunk, high etc, RIGHT NOW...not do you generally drink, smoke etc.

we are pretending that pot tests show something they don't show...what pot tests show is whether a person smokes pot at all, not whether he is high right now...i am sorry, but that is just not right.

davesignatureII-1.png
Click to expand...

I suppose with legalization there may need to be threshold limits. As a mere hospital pharmacist, my first question is how accurately would a urine test indicate cognitive impairment? Needless to say, that would be a good amount of testing to establish ranges, which would cost money. Ok, who wants to pay up? :p

With coke and meth, I'd still want a zero threshold since it's rarely a once in a while type of thing.
 
#477
spade2you said:
I suppose with legalization there may need to be threshold limits. As a mere hospital pharmacist, my first question is how accurately would a urine test indicate cognitive impairment? Needless to say, that would be a good amount of testing to establish ranges, which would cost money. Ok, who wants to pay up? :p

With coke and meth, I'd still want a zero threshold since it's rarely a once in a while type of thing.
Click to expand...

you know, i hate to say it...but i agree with you on the coke, meth thing...i guess i'm a hypocrite too...i don't know.

at least as far as pot goes, there must be that kind of test developed.

as far as who pays for it...don't know & don't really care...it will get paid for.

but considering the relative harm done to society by alcohol and by pot, i think it is important that we develop such tests...i can't stand the thought of a bunch of drinkers making sanctimonious laws about a far less harmful drug than they themselves indulge in.

i also can't believe i am saying this, but until they do have such tests, the current test for pot should be made illegal in the states that have legalized pot...not because i am against testing...i am not.

but because it does not test for what we want it to test for...is the person under the influence RIGHT NOW.

davesignatureII-1.png


ps-edit- oh, and about your question of a urine test re cognitive impairment...don't know that either, but that is not my problem or the problem of pot smokers...develop a test....whether urine, blood, breath etc that DOES...we did it for alcohol, we can do it for pot. there is just no incentive right now for the testing companies to come up with such...make the current tests illegal and they will
 
#479
deeptubes said:
Yes, I am....errrr, they are. :ninja:
Click to expand...
No, You're not. :scowl:


Virginia Marijuana Laws

Possession of marijuana is punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a fine up to $500 for the first offense and up to one year in jail and a fine up to $2,500 for subsequent offenses (§ 18.2-250.1).

Cultivation of marijuana is punishable by 5 - 30 years in prison and a fine up to $10,000. A conviction for manufacturing marijuana must include proof that the marijuana was being grown for a purpose other than the grower's personal use (§ 18.2-248.1).

The delivery or sale of one-half ounce of marijuana or less is punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine up to $2,500. For greater than one-half ounce, the penalties increase to a possible 1 - 10 years in prison and a fine up to $2,500. Sale or delivery of greater than five pounds carries a penalty of 5 - 30 years in prison. Any amount of 100 kilograms or greater is punishable by a mandatory minimum sentence of twenty years in prison with a possible maximum of life in prison and a fine of up to $1,000,000 (§ 18.2-248.1).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back