This is conditional and based on the assumption that the business is being harmed. If that's the case, I agree. But, tests are blind and don't differentiate. That's where the problem lies.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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?
- Thread starter zachoff
- Start date
- Status
This is conditional and based on the assumption that the business is being harmed. If that's the case, I agree. But, tests are blind and don't differentiate. That's where the problem lies.
you're entitled to your own opinion, but you are NOT entitled to your own facts.
do some history research and then tell me there were not absolutely segregation laws in place in may southern states (hell, i don't know...maybe others as well).
discrimination was the law in many places.
OK, ya got me- I'm a Northerner and never had to deal with actual laws pertaining to this but smoking pot and segregation laws are two different things.
easy...we just deem them to be illegal, and we deem that no employer can utilize such tests.
the alcohol test you spoke of determines if a person is intoxicated RIGHT NOW...i am all in favor of such tests.
the current pot test does NOT determine if the person is intoxicated RIGHT NOW...it just tests for whether the person generally smokes pot...
i bet the drinkers out there (of whom, i bet there are many on the anti-pot side of this debate right now) would howl if such a test were used on alcohol.
While I agree with this, it still doesn't matter. Some dude who likes to smoke weed has no bearing on my right to refuse to hire him. Period. I don't give a crap what my reason is. My right to hire/fire employees are not subject to some stoner's "Right" to chief out on his couch.
Again, you want a good job, put the bong down. Otherwise feel free to exercise your rights all you want, just be prepared to work at McDonalds or whatever.
Thing is, not everyone who is against testing takes illegal drugs.
The only additionals you'll find in me is some caffeine in the morning and possibly some alcohol from a whisky or two on a friday or saturday night. I'd still say no to testing (in most circumstances) simply because for most of the jobs I'd be in, it has sweet FA to do with the employer and if they can't trust someone off the bat, then I'm not all that interested in continued employment there.
I also have nothing illegal to hide in my home, nothing illegal to hide in my past, nothing illegal to hide on any of the social networking sites and nothing illegal to hide on my email. Employers wouldn't be getting a look into those either (with the exception of disclosure, and only if it's something where the employer justified needing it).
Apples and oranges.
Our stances are not based upon everyone having the right to go to work effed up. They are based upon doing something that has zero effect upon job performance or working conditions.
And you sir, have the correct attitude. People forget that it is not only the employer who has to be happy with the employee. It goes the other way too. If an emplyer has random drug tests and you don't like it, simply get a job somewhere else. Problem solved.
this sums me up nicely...
i will only add that i stopped pot @ 20 years ago, precisely because it is illegal and my wife wanted me to.
if it were legal tomorrow, you better believe i would enjoy the occasional doob.
good post and i agree with it...as long as you don't make the determination using illegal means...
this sums me up nicely...
i will only add that i stopped pot @ 20 years ago, precisely because it is illegal and my wife wanted me to.
if it were legal tomorrow, you better believe i would enjoy the occasional doob.
If my kick *** job wasn't riding on it, so would I. I don't disagree with those who say that smoking on my own time has no bearing on my job. Where I disagree is with those who are unwilling or unable to put the weed down to keep the kick *** job. They are making the choice. They choose weed over the job. No sweat off my ***.
Again, you're putting up an argument against a position I don't even have. I'm not saying you have to hire anyone who applies, but that you shouldn't have the ability to discriminate possible job applicants on something as trivial as that. As Dave has been saying time and time again, these tests show positive not for current use, but for use that may have happened days, weeks, if not months ago. That's a problem. Furthermore, these tests look into the personal lives of people, and that's not cool. I don't think potential, or even current, employees have the same ability to demand drug tests of all their managers or corporate execs, either, which seems unfair and heavily skewed. Regardless, these tests can only show past usage. They have no way of determining or preventing someone from getting drunk/high on the job later on, either.
good post and i agree with it...as long as you don't make the determination using illegal means...
Seeing how it has been upheld by most courts, including the SCOTUS, I am pretty sure they are well within their legal rights to make the determination based on clinical drug screens.
Seeing how it has been upheld by most courts, including the SCOTUS, I am pretty sure they are well within their legal rights to make the determination based on clinical drug screens.
again red herring...of course, they are within their rights, and of course it is now has been upheld...
clearly what i am proposing is a change in the law...at least for states that have legalized pot. in those states, under my theory...the current marijuana test could not longer be performed or used
Businesses ARE INDIVIDUALS! What do you think I am, a ROBOT? I own a business. And I am a human. So what you do as my employees affects ME AND MY HUMAN FAMILY MADE UP OF LIVING BREATHING INDIVIDUALS. And as a human, MY RIGHTS are EVERY BIT as important as YOURS. I AM my business. My business is not the building, or the filing cabinets, or the forklifts. It is ME.
Say what you want, businesses ARE PEOPLE. Corporations ARE PEOPLE. Stock holders are PEOPLE. There is no such thing as a business that creates itself, is owned by computers or robots, or is NOT OWNED BY YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS.
When in the hell did we get to the point that companies are some sort of enemy made up of space aliens sent here to beat down the little guy?
I am not the great and powerful OZ. I am a guy. Don't talk about businesses as if they are not your friends, family, and fellow citizens. Because your parents, grandparents, friends, uncles, and the girl at the coffee shop hopefully all have retirement accounts. And that means THEY ARE publicly traded companies. All of these huge corporations are owned by EVERYONE who has a 401K. Does that make your parents' rights not important? Their money is tied up in those corporations. And if one dipstick does something stupid to cause a company they are invested in to come crashing down, it is those regular people with a 401K (or any mutual fund account) who are negatively affected.
Geez guys. Grow up would ya'? It's not us against them. We all have the same dreams, goals, aspirations, and needs. Just because I have found a way to achieve some of mine, that doesn't mean I have screwed anybody, or will in the future.
Wal-Mart is people. Exxon is people. BP is people. And most of them are just regular Joes trying make it just like you.
again red herring...of course, they are within their rights, and of course it is now has been upheld...
clearly what i am proposing is a change in the law...at least for states that have legalized pot. in those states, under my theory...the current marijuana test could not longer be performed or used
Good luck with that. This can never happen unless the federal law against marijuana is eliminated by the way.
sure it can....state by state...BUT
i agree i am in the minority and it will be an uphill battle.
what will actually happen, is that as more and more states legalize, some kind of comprise will be reached or the testing companies will come up with a test such as i proposed and this all will become moot.
i did not say "until they cause a problem" i said "until they actually OR POTENTIALLYcause a problem"
so, it's your position is it, that no one who works for you can have a drink off-work, socially?...
just askin'
because i think what you want to do, really, is accept drinkers as long as they don't come to work drunk, but reject all pot smokers whether they come to work high or not.
as said, that is your right, but in my system, one of the tools you currently have for making that discrimination would be taken away.
I never said people can't drink socially if they work for me. What I said is that they had better live up to my expectations and part of this is not doing a single thing that could cause a problem for me or my business and that includes being hungover. I did it and I regret it. I also know that I wasn't at my best and at times, wasn't even close to it. The fact that I did it doesn't exempt me from blame and even though most of us did it, it didn't exactly help the company. Our desire to keep the company alive is the reason it's still in business.
What I have been saying is that an employee doesn't have a right to do these. It may be socially acceptable to drink, but that doesn't mean it does any physical good. It's a crutch and a way to escape when drunkenness is the goal. There's no reason to smoke pot if it's not being used for medicinal reasons and self-medicating isn't the way to go through life. If someone didn't need alcohol or drugs before they started, they probably don't need them at all.
You feel like someone is discriminating against you? That's amazing. Sorry if you feel that your employer wants to set some rules. Sorry for making you feel like a victim. Sorry you can't live without being high. Sorry you can't stop pissing away money on something that only lasts a few hours and doesn't come back.
I'm left wondering why so many think that smoking pot or drinking is a right. Care to explain your reasoning? I'll bet that the same reasons you think this is a right can be used by a business to prohibit it.
From past experience, some people clearly SHOULD NOT have access to some things. That includes drugs and alcohol- I know a lot of people who should never have started these and it ruined or killed some of them.
No, I'm afraid it can't. Federal law trumps state law. A state cannot force a company to violate federal law or knowingly allow someone else to violate federal law. Even if they could, companies would simply abandon states that forced them to allow it.
Let's just say Colorado passes a law making it illegal to test employees for weed. Weed is now legal there. What is going to give the company grounds to disallow people to smoke pot, off company property, on lunch break?
Think your plan through more thoroughly and you may be on to something, but I guarantee you there will have to be way more than just one law changed to accomplish this. Even still, all of this will be trumped by federal law and OSHA. If you don't think non dope smokers are going to object to working with people who are smokers, particularly in positions where those employees can hurt them or the general public, you might be high right now. lol
The liability for any company who does this would be absolutely staggering.
- Status
