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

[Floyd Eye]

To make my point simple , let's assume two kids have the same capacities and goals but one is from a poor family and neighborhood and the other the opposite. Let's again assume, again for the sake of the argument, both invest the same amount of work and are equally lucky/unlucky. Will they end up in similar situations? Most definitely not.

Even in societies with democratized education systems (ie: France) it has been proven kids from rich families are more successful.

This is not equal opportunity, some people face way more challenge than others because of which social class they come from, what skin color they have, etc. Social mobility in the US is actually pretty bad.

Success is not based on merit, I would dare say the fraction we can attribute to merit is actually small compared to many other factors.

To believe you get what you deserve or work for is an illusion.

So now having the money to send your kids to college is akin to being discriminatory?

I wonder how all those kids who grew up to be rich and successful even though they were raised in the ghetto ever made it? lol

Life isn't fair, but that doesn't mean that anyone can't be successful. EVERYONE can be successful. YOU have to do it though. Don't expect me to do it for you and don't expect the government to take my money to do it for you. That is not the American dream.

 

[Lonesomedave]

Your speech limits my desires for silence. Your religion limits my desires for secularization. Your arms limit my desires for peace. There is a consequence to every liberty. Just as privacy conflicts with scrutiny.

go where i am not talking

practice your own secularization in private, as i will my religion

my freedom to bear arms...Hunh!...nobody said anything about violating anyone's peace...YOU are using the same argument that those against pot are using for maintaining the status quo...

violating your peace is a crime (at least in the way i think you are using the term)...i never said anything about a right to commit violence.

please, you're gonna have to do better than that

 

[Unrepresented]

So you're cool with me hooking up gas service to grandma's house even though I smoked a big fat bowl of Diesel on the way into work?

No, and I'm beginning to believe that some of the posters on here have learning disabilities.

I am not in support of anyone being intoxicated while performing their job.

It is a false dichotomy to believe that someone is either for drug testing or for risking grandma's life.

No one here is advocating drug use at work. No one.

Go ahead search. Nobody.

Some of us are in favor of limiting an employer's access to our privacy. I don't have to have something to hide in order to not want to share it.

 

[Floyd Eye]

Yes. There is a saliva test that only costs $5 a pop.

And this test detects marijuana that is ingested or vaporized? THC pills too?

 

[fdeck]

Who considers asking perspective employees if they have ever been arrested "Suspect"? Every job I have ever applied for I have been asked that question and it is certainly an employer's right to ask it.

The rationale is that arrests tend to exhibit strong racial / ethnic bias, and most arrests don't lead to a conviction. Thus, basing a hiring decision on your arrest record could lead to the suspicion of bias. Granted it's not an open-and-shut case, and typically an employer would have to be found to have engaged in a widespread and consistent pattern of bias, but it would be "suspect," as I said.

Likewise for asking if you are married, how many kids you have, and so forth.

Now, folks get asked these questions all the time. The conventional wisdom is that these questions tend to get asked by people who have innocent intentions, but who are untrained and unprepared to carry out an effective interview. A hiring manager at a professionally managed company will typically receive training on how to conduct an interview.

 

[Floyd Eye]

No, and I'm beginning to believe that some of the posters on here have learning disabilities.

I am not in support of anyone being intoxicated while performing their job.

It is a false dichotomy to believe that someone is either for drug testing or for risking grandma's life.

No one here is advocating drug use at work. No one.

Go ahead search. Nobody.

Some of us are in favor of limiting an employer's access to our privacy. I don't have to have something to hide in order to not want to share it.

And some people here seem to feel that other people owe them something.

I'll pose the question again. The gas company eliminates random drug testing for weed. I come to work stoned, gas up gramma's house and blow her and her neighbors to smithereens. Are you going to hold the company liable for me being intoxicated at work? Are you going to take their money?

 

[Floyd Eye]

The rationale is that arrests tend to exhibit strong racial / ethnic bias, and most arrests don't lead to a conviction. Thus, basing a hiring decision on your arrest record could lead to the suspicion of bias. Granted it's not an open-and-shut case, and typically an employer would have to be found to have engaged in a widespread and consistent pattern of bias, but it would be "suspect," as I said.

Likewise for asking if you are married, how many kids you have, and so forth.

Now, folks get asked these questions all the time. The conventional wisdom is that these questions tend to get asked by people who have innocent intentions, but who are untrained and unprepared to carry out an effective interview. A hiring manager at a professionally managed company will typically receive training on how to conduct an interview.

They are also subject to credit checks, which I think is BS. The fact is that employers are only allowed to check felony records, not arrest records.

 

[Lonesomedave]

No, and I'm beginning to believe that some of the posters on here have learning disabilities.

I am not in support of anyone being intoxicated while performing their job.

It is a false dichotomy to believe that someone is either for drug testing or for risking grandma's life.

No one here is advocating drug use at work. No one.

Go ahead search. Nobody.

Some of us are in favor of limiting an employer's access to our privacy. I don't have to have something to hide in order to not want to share it.

got to agree..although i don't believe they have learning disabilities...

i just believe they don't have an answer to our basic point...which is

as long as you are not coming to work intoxicated, you are not endangering anyone else.

 

[Floyd Eye]

got to agree..although i don't believe they have learning disabilities...

i just believe they don't have an answer to our basic point...which is

as long as you are not coming to work intoxicated, you are not endangering anyone else.

And you are not answering my points, which are A) How do you determine with any degree of certainty whether an employee is currently stoned ( Trust me, you will never be able to tell by looking at me) and B) Since when do I as an employer not have the right to refuse to hire you because I distrust drug users?

 

[Lonesomedave]

And some people here seem to feel that other people owe them something.

I'll pose the question again. The gas company eliminates random drug testing for weed. I come to work stoned, gas up gramma's house and blow her and her neighbors to smithereens. Are you going to hold the company liable for me being intoxicated at work? Are you going to take their money?

well let me ask you a question...

is there a test you can perform which will determine if i am stoned right now...

if not, then no, i would not hold you responsible.

 

[Ziltoid]

Your liberty and rights should find their limit where those of others start. ie: your right to X must not screw up with someone's right to Y.

The enterprises' rights to "whatever they claim they need to test for" must not interfere with my rights to privacy as long as my right to privacy does not interfere with anybody's right to a safe workplace and so on. It's an all interconnected web.

If we see it as such, the logical conclusion I see is that an enterprise can't test me unless they suspect something that could interfere with say, workplace safety.

Prevention (in its intrusive forms such as this one) is in my opinion no valid reason to screw with my rights, suspicion based on something however is a different deal.

I don't know if this makes sense, I'm just throwing my thoughts out here.

 

[Lonesomedave]

And you are not answering my points, which are A) How do you determine with any degree of certainty whether an employee is currently stoned ( Trust me, you will never be able to tell by looking at me) and B) Since when do I as an employer not have the right to refuse to hire you because I distrust drug users?

see my previous post

and yes you do...but i would make current marijuana tests illegal precisely because they fail at what they are supposed to do.

 

[Ziltoid]

And some people here seem to feel that other people owe them something.

I'll pose the question again. The gas company eliminates random drug testing for weed. I come to work stoned, gas up gramma's house and blow her and her neighbors to smithereens. Are you going to hold the company liable for me being intoxicated at work? Are you going to take their money?

I did not see anybody advocate for the right of someone to be stoned on the job.

The main idea I see people defending here is that due to the nature of the tests they are intrusive as it's none of your employer's business if you toked a bit after a show on Saturday night.

 

[Lowactnsatsfctn]

and drinking?

the problem is...alcohol metabolizes faster in the blood than THC...so while drinking is very much more likely to cause a problem at work than pot, the drinker is much more able to hide his problem

so you end up with the anomalous situation that the far more dangerous drug can be hidden, while the far more innocuous drug cannot

sorry...i am not ok with this.

develop a test for pot similar to that for alcohol and then i will back you 100%

I said drugs, meaning chemicals in general. If a test comes back with high enough levels of alcohol, that would be treated the same as any other drug. True that some of the stronger drugs are harder to detect, but its what we have to go by.

I'm not a chemist, or I would pursue a more accurate drug testing method. I think it would be great, but that's way outside of my field.

 

[Floyd Eye]

Your liberty and rights should find their limit where those of others start. ie: your right to X must not screw up with someone's right to Y.

The enterprises' rights to "whatever they claim they need to test for" must not interfere with my rights to privacy as long as my right to privacy does not interfere with anybody's right to a safe workplace and so on. It's an all interconnected web.

If we see it as such, the logical conclusion I see is that an enterprise can't test me unless they suspect something that could interfere with say, workplace safety.

Prevention (in its intrusive forms such as this one) is in my opinion no valid reason to screw with my rights, suspicion based on something however is a different deal.

I don't know if this makes sense, I'm just throwing my thoughts out here.

I would agree to this except for that pesky little right I have as an employer to hire whomever I choose. I did not come to your house and force you to work for my company. That's like saying that just because little Jimmy is dumb as hell he ought to still be accepted to Harvard. What about little Jimmy's right to a quality education?

 

[deeptubes]

And this test detects marijuana that is ingested or vaporized? THC pills too?

If someone is high, it gets leaked into the saliva. We are constantly swallowing spit, which must be replenished to keep our mouths and throats moist. When saliva glands make more, they also draw whatever else is in the bloodstream, simply through osmosis - THC concenrtrations are higher in the blood than the saliva glands, so they absorb THC to achieve balance. THC gets stored in fat cells and slowly metabolized from these cells, which is why it "hangs around" in urine tests for so long.

 

[fdeck]

They are also subject to credit checks, which I think is BS. The fact is that employers are only allowed to check felony records, not arrest records.

Correct. I think we're locked in a cycle of basically agreeing with one another, once we work out the details.

 

[deeptubes]

I did not see anybody advocate for the right of someone to be stoned on the job.

The main idea I see people defending here is that due to the nature of the tests they are intrusive as it's none of your employer's business if you toked a bit after a show on Saturday night.

We've been saying this for many pages now. They're not getting it.

 

[Unrepresented]

go where i am not talking

It gets more complicated, the more "liberties" that are distributed. There are property laws that one has to abide by, so "going" somewhere becomes more difficult.

practice your own secularization in private, as i will my religion

But what about if we wanted to spread our words publicly?

my freedom to bear arms...Hunh!...nobody said anything about violating anyone's peace...YOU are using the same argument that those against pot are using for maintaining the status quo...

violating your peace is a crime (at least in the way i think you are using the term)...i never said anything about a right to commit violence.

please, you're gonna have to do better than that

My point isn't to argue against freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, just to point out that we don't exist in a vacuum, and that our liberties are intertwined. There is a flip side to every liberty that denies others competing liberties.

 

[Floyd Eye]

I did not see anybody advocate for the right of someone to be stoned on the job.

The main idea I see people defending here is that due to the nature of the tests they are intrusive as it's none of your employer's business if you toked a bit after a show on Saturday night.

You gave him the right to intrude when you took the job, knowing full well that there would be random drug testing. Just as I forfeited the right to drive with an alcohol content of more than .04 when I got my CDL. Or any other of the things I agreed to WHEN I TOOK THE JOB.