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
You can test for all you want, some stuff just doesn't stay in your system. This is why I have problems with it, it's only efficient for marijuana consumption.
Not true at all.
My feeling is if it affects your work then don't do it - the boss/company has a right to expect everyone to be straight at work - for the 'appearance' of the company, for legal resons, for safety.
As a business owner I don't want somebody that's in an altered state working for me - I've yet to meet a substance that makes you work faster, smarter, safer, nicer - most slow you down, distract you, make you care less about work/the job at hand.
As a customer of a business you want a stoner to wait on you? You want drunk taxi drivers? YOu want your dr or nurse or the cop that pulls you over on coke? Meth? Your kids teacher on acid?
I think not.
or a drunk...don't want drunks doing any of those things.
now, can we get back on the subject...now that we have agreed you should not show up at work drunk, stoned, high on anything other than life....
how is that relevant to what your employees do on their off time...remember, i am including alcohol in this as well...can't separate alcohol from pot.
you want to make testing for off duty alcohol use mandatory, too?
The strawman has returned. Once again, no one's argument is that people should be allowed to do drugs while on the job.
i think all of you guys who are supporting this (or at least some of you) are justifying your positions with a red herring...
no one has said employees should be allowed to either come to work high or get high at work...in the same way that no one has said anyone should be allowed to come to work drunk or to drink at work.
what we are saying is (or at least what I am saying) is: treat pot the way we treat alcohol.
there are tests to determine whether someone has been drinking RIGHT NOW...we don't care whether they had a couple of drinks last night.
develop such a test for pot...prevent them from either working high or smoking at work...no problem with that.
but DO NOT punish them for having a doob off work, and then say "oh, if you DRINK off work, that's ok"...for one thing it is hypocritical, and for another thing, in some cases now, you are punishing them for perfectly legal behavior.
is there a test that can show whether someone is under the influence of pot right now in the same way we can test for alcohol right now...don't know, but i have been led to believe not.
so, get on your testing companies, you bosses and make them develop such a test.
until then, unless you actually observe someone smoking at work, or observe some kind of stoned behavior at work, lay off....
or would you rather just have the system we have now, where you fire people for any pot use at all, while you go off to enjoy your beer and whisky off duty, and sanctimoniously talk about "drug users"?
This.
Shhhh! Youre going to get me fired!
Research on ancient esoteric text is easy?
Maybe drawing your own conclusions from it, sure.
If I smoked two days ago I couldnt possibly be alert today?
+1
Marijuana happens to longer in the body long after one lights up, whereas harder, and more dangerous drugs tend to leave the body in a few days time. Seems a bit skewed to me.
tell that to employers who drug test...
To be fair, my girlfriend just got a job. They had her come in for a drug test. It wasnt a pee test, it was a cheek swab. Like me, she had smoked within a day or two of the test, and they hired her. I dont know whatt it is theyre looking for, whether its certain concentration levels or whatnot, but she had to have tested positive for pot. Then again, this is California, maybe they expect us all to be stoned.
Quoted for emphasis. I dont think anyone here is saying that its ok to be under the influence of anything while on the job.
i really don't know what's so hard about that for the people on the other side of this argument to understand.
I think the term is 'willful ignorance'.
I do my taxes while stoned. Never had a problem.
Sorry but until pot is legalized nationwide you most certainly can separate alcohol from pot.
We do not require drug testing at my office however if they did I have nothing to hide
where's the cup?
where's the cup?
Cocaine stays in urine for 2-3 days, amphetamine 1-2 days, mescale and peyote 2-3 days, many opiate 8-24hrs, Vicodin 3-4 days.
You get the idea. It's not really that good against anything but Cannabis.
Also, what business of yours is it what your employees do on their time as long as they are sober when they come in to work? You seem to assume that if they consume, they necessarily consume while working.
For the record, I'm advocating more for marijuana than any other stuff. Like spade say, there's no such thing as a small meth/coke/tar problem.
The folks I mentioned passed the initial test. Their performance and drug tested they were under the influence while on the job, which was the truth in those cases.
Certain professions have a pretty strict cut-off for residual alcohol. Some have to factor in sobriety while on-call.
In that case, you should be okay with letting your employer hang cameras all around your house, since you got nothing to hide.
soooo...it's your job, at the job, the place of employment where, ostensibly, you make money by providing goods and/or services to people better, faster, cheaper than the competition...
it's really your job to engage in law enforcement....well, i never knew...silly me.
so, since that is your job, you better require them to bring in their tax returns and be sure they are not cheating on their taxes.
you better have monitors in all their cars to make sure they are not violating the speed limit.
you better monitor their off-duty habits to make sure they are not poaching or otherwise violating fish and game laws
you better make sure they are not playing poker or otherwise violating gambling laws, in states where gambling is illegal.
you better have their children checked (as well as all the kids they come in contact with) to make sure they are not engaging in child sex.
and on and on....
because, GUESS WHAT, all of those activities i mentioned are precisely as relevant to their job performance as whether they puff a doobie, at home, off work, in private....
For those items, sure, if the price is right. I place a value on all those things, but it isn't infinite.
Probably, though if all they're wanting is information about me, I find it hard to think of something.
Sure. My price for most of this stuff would be starting at "enough to quit the job and retire in comfort tomorrow". I find it hard to believe that anyone posting here as an absolute no would turn down an offer like that.
please explain to me what possible connection there is between having a drink or a doob off work and the job you hold.
do they also test to see if you've used alcohol within the past few months?
just askin'...because i can see no connection at all between having a drink or a puff off duty and what one does ON the job.
again...red herring...as long as one does not come to work stoned or drunk, and as long as one does not actually drink or smoke WHILE at work, there is NO connection
To a degree you are correct
however if a coworker come to work hung over it is possible that he/she might not be as alert as you would need to be when supervising children that have behavioral issues, histories of abuse and neglect, and living with substance abusing caregivers.
Kids are pretty sharp and pick up on how attentive adults are and if they are being genuine and there "for them" instead of just picking up a pay check. They'll know if someone is hungover. If someone showed up with a hangover at my job that has the potential to trigger one of the children I work with which could lead to acting out behaviors, while this scenario could be used as a teaching moment it might not be the best possible method to initiate it.
In the past I saw nothing wrong with smoking pot off the job and did so with regularity. I did not think that doing so impacted my on the job performance. In hindsight it was impacting my work performance in terms of my decision making and the level of care I was providing to the children I was providing. For me there was a connection to how what I was doing off the job effected what I was doing while at work.
People can do what they want when they are not at work. From my experience it impacted my job performance and from my experience others' job performance has been impacted in the same way.
In addition to a drug and HIV test I was required to take when applying for admission to seminary studies for a religious order of Catholic Priests, I was also required to give a complete account that was documented of my sexual history as well as a detailed rendering of my sexual fantasies. Having gone through the intrusion that I just described, drawing a little blood or urine for analyses seems like a casual experience.
- Status
