Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I will admit to trolling a little bit with that last post. IMO though, drug tests are completely pointless because they test usually only detect marijuana use, the least harmful of all the drugs. The feds do what they want though.
I remember when my dad was an air traffic controller. We had a neighbor that made this awesome poppy seed bread for the holidays she would give us but my dad could never eat any because of the random drug testing the FAA did. So certainly if poppy seeds could be picked up as something on a drug test, the actual drug made from them would be as well.
(Edited to add: That or he just didn't like her bread and used that as an excuse)
I know I'm probably going to be in the minority here. Let me preface my statement by saying that I am in my 50's, and I do not use drugs of any type. I came of age in the early 1970's, and I tried just about everything. But at some point in my life I decided I would rather be healthy and clear-headed, and I was lucky enough that I never developed any type of dependence on drugs - I was strictly a recreational user. It was easy enough for me to quit, and I haven't touched anything in over 25 years.
Having said that, I have a real issue with mandatory drug testing. Maybe it's the rebel in me (a hold-over from my youth), but in most cases I think it's an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Unless your job involves being responsible for public safety; that is that what you do could endanger the safety of a co-worker or any other person - I don't agree that what you do on your own time outside the workplace is your employer's business. Especially not for someone who has a normal desk job.
If someone has a drug dependence problem, it will become apparent soon enough. At that point - if and when it affects your job performance, then a referral to some type of employee assistance plan would be in order.
If your home or your possessions cannot be searched without probable cause, then I believe that a search of your bodily fluids is even more of an invasion of privacy.
I know I'm probably going to be in the minority here. Let me preface my statement by saying that I am in my 50's, and I do not use drugs of any type. I came of age in the early 1970's, and I tried just about everything. But at some point in my life I decided I would rather be healthy and clear-headed, and I was lucky enough that I never developed any type of dependence on drugs - I was strictly a recreational user. It was easy enough for me to quit, and I haven't touched anything in over 25 years.
Having said that, I have a real issue with mandatory drug testing. Maybe it's the rebel in me (a hold-over from my youth), but in most cases I think it's an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Unless your job involves being responsible for public safety; that is that what you do could endanger the safety of a co-worker or any other person - I don't agree that what you do on your own time outside the workplace is your employer's business. Especially not for someone who has a normal desk job.
If someone has a drug dependence problem, it will become apparent soon enough. At that point - if and when it affects your job performance, then a referral to some type of employee assistance plan would be in order.
If your home or your possessions cannot be searched without probable cause, then I believe that a search of your bodily fluids is even more of an invasion of privacy.
Just my opinion.
I agree with this completely. We may as well start testing for alcohol, btw, as millions are alcoholics, but we don't. I don't have the exact stats, but I know that alcoholism costs employers a LOT of money, yet it's ok to drink and come in hungover.
Having said that, I have a real issue with mandatory drug testing. Maybe it's the rebel in me (a hold-over from my youth), but in most cases I think it's an unwarranted invasion of privacy. Unless your job involves being responsible for public safety; that is that what you do could endanger the safety of a co-worker or any other person - I don't agree that what you do on your own time outside the workplace is your employer's business. Especially not for someone who has a normal desk job.
In the case of this company, a mistake could put the public into grave danger. Think about it this way--would you want the wing of your plane to fall off while you were in midair? While we don't work on aircraft, it's the same idea of the amount of public safety that could be jeopardized by one doped up idiot. This is not about paper pushers at desk jobs. By the time a drug problem became evident, they could have already made mistakes that could cost lives.
I agree with this completely. We may as well start testing for alcohol, btw, as millions are alcoholics, but we don't. I don't have the exact stats, but I know that alcoholism costs employers a LOT of money, yet it's ok to drink and come in hungover.
They have had people sent for breathalyzer screenings and have fired for failing those as well. It's a matter of public safety.
That's a shame. I wonder why people even apply for jobs when they know they will fail the drug screen? Huge waste of time and money.
Wish I could have that job. And I'd pass the drug screen. But what's a girl to do? 3 degrees and used to make $50 per hour. Now I'd work for $10...... But I can't even find that.
In the case of this company, a mistake could put the public into grave danger. Think about it this way--would you want the wing of your plane to fall off while you were in midair? While we don't work on aircraft, it's the same idea of the amount of public safety that could be jeopardized by one doped up idiot. This is not about paper pushers at desk jobs. By the time a drug problem became evident, they could have already made mistakes that could cost lives.
In my post I said that I disagreed with mandatory drug testing unless the job involved public safety.
Although I'll bet there are a lot of other things besides off-the-job drug use that could cause danger to the public in this job, as well as a lot of other jobs. How do you pre-screen for just plain carelessness?
Drug testing for pot is just a way to keep the poor and minorities away from your company. If performance is not affected, who cares if someone smokes pot or not.
so only poor people and minorities are potheads too stupid to not smoke?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
