Marijuana.com

ihavenoidea

While I think marijuana should be legal obviously, i can see why employers should be allowed to drug test even if it were legal. We don't like it because we don't like the law or businesses telling us what to do with our own body, well, the same way businesses wouldn't like the govt stepping in and telling them they cant know certain information about potential employees. In my mind, employees should be able to hire whoever they want, and not hire whoever they don't, based on anything because they are paying you after all, and they shouldn't have to pay anyone they don't want to. Just like they can deny service to anyone.

Now i know we have laws against discriminating employment based on race and gender, but the above means i don't agree with those either. It doesn't mean i agree with businesses that do that, but i believe they have that choice, like i have a choice to smoke.

__________________
Protector of the High Life

 

ArsenalFan

Are teachers generally drug tested?

KennyD

I knew a stoner teacher once!

Darque Pervert

I think it would depend on the school or school system where they teach and their policies.

__________________

Life is always a spiral. It's the choices of the individual as to whether that spiral is aimed up or down.

feedyourhead

as far as private companies go, a LOT of it has to do with liability issues, not what the CEO's personal opinion is. insurance companies generally don't want to pay benefits or insurance on a worker who is injured if it's proven that they had an illegal drug in their system, so they'll require the company to agree to drug testing before an insurance contract is written.

the best application of this that i can think of is, for example, when i worked at meijer, the only drug testing they did was when a worker was injured. you fail, you're subsequently fired and meijer's insurer doesn't have to worry about possibly paying your medical bill.

__________________

 

Rhymenocerous

I've been pretty lucky in my jobs. I've only had two but never have been drug tested. The first one was for Kroger. Normally they drug test everyone when they start. Just a mouth swab. But for some reason they forgot about testing me. My second job was a local pool store. There was only two stores and it was family owned. They didn't drug test anyone. I got lucky but if you can find a small family owned business maybe you'll get lucky. There was only about seven people that worked at the pool store and we were all in high school.

Outkasted

Zumiez is a pothead dream job. I would get high as fuck every day and just talk to people, listen to my own music and skate in the store all day.

Acidrain09

Funny you should ask. I swear my math teacher was three seconds from lighting up with me after school. He always makes fun of me for smoking before class. Even when I hadent, it was still quite funny.

Lord Vapor

Drug testing is lame and I would love to have a resource to find a job that didn't test. I hate having to quit and then stress over a test or when the test is coming. I think companies shouldn't care what you do in your freetime as long as it doesn't effect your work.

vvicked0471

+1
I can understand insurance company liability issues but I dont agree at all with preemployment drug testing as a result. It seems to me that it would be more beneficial to an insurance company only to test in the event of an accident. Reason being if I were to apply to a company that requires preemployment screening due to contractual agreements then I would fail and not be hired, unless of course I did not consume any illegal drugs in which case I would be hired and the company would have to pay for a second test in the event of an accident, which again I would pass (assuming that I weren't a stoner). If the same company did not drug test until there were an accident then I would fail at that time and the insurance company would not be liable for my treatment. So there would only be one test, and people who smoke would be just as likely to be hired as the non smoker(again assuming they are equally qualified). Preemployment screening costs companies money that they would not otherwise have to spend. It just seems to me that it would be more beneficial to both the insurance company and the hiring company to test only when necessary.