Marijuana.com

kzkat420

 

cmurray

screw people thinking that it matters if you smoke or not. some of the greatest of the world smoked or were on some type of drug... although some dead beats give stoners a bad rep

Sec

All this would be relavent to drug testing if marijuana were the only drug tested for. You all don't realize, or seem to forget, that while marijuana is included in the array of drug tests, it isn't the only substance that is used and abused by employees both on and off the job. Alcohol, cocaine, opium, amphetamines, PCP, meth and a variety of prescription drugs are also tested for. These drugs do have the propensity to affect the employees performance at work, whether they are using while at work or not. It is proven that illegal drug users and alcohol abusers tend to call in sick more often, have a higher rate of accidents while at work, (and at home, causing them to miss work) and have a lower productivity level while at work than non-users/abusers. Those who posted these studies, don't seem to divide the statistics up to show the rates of those who use different drugs, they just lump all illegal drug use and alcohol abuse into the one study.

I know this isn't a very popular viewpoint, especially here on mj.com, but you all seem to forget that there are other drugs that are dangerous, especially in the workplace. Marijuana is also illegal, it is the most commonly used illegal drug, it is the easiest to test for, is detectable in the body for the longest period of time; all of which helps to sell drug testing to employers. The scare tactics used to sell drug tests are assisted in part by the statistics showing the relatively high positive rate. When selling, it usually isn't broken down by type of drug.

What I would like to see is a test for drugs that gives the level of usage or current level of impairment. That way, employers could test for those using while at work or who are under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol during work hours.

Of course you all know I agree with drug testing and don't think it is an infringement on anyones privacy. The type of job shouldn't matter. If you are a dishwasher in a restaurant and you cut yourself severely because you forgot the glassware was in the sink because you took a break and went out back to smoke a dub. Your mind was on your break. When you got back, you dropped a heavy pot on a glass in your dishwater, stuck your hand in and now the employer has a workers comp claim to deal with.

I know this could happen whether you were high or not, but my point is that testing for certain jobs that appear to be most dangerous doesn't prevent or reduce claims for other employers.

Another thing is many employers have employees who have truely dangerous (safety sensitive jobs) who are required by the Federal Government to test, and also have employees who work in non-safety sensitive positions. Employers want to be fair to all employees, so they test all, no matter what the job description.

Insurance rates are only one reason. Reducing claims, lost time injuries, sick time, high turnover rates, all play a roll in drug testing and having a truely drug free workplace.

__________________
guidelines.
Search

katmiaow25

especially for MJ, is a nonsensical thing. The "harder" drugs, as I have found, leave your system fairly quickly (cocaine, etc.), but with the fat soluability of MJ, it stays longer.

I do believe it is the right thing if an accident occurs (being a driver, etc.), but then and only then.

Besides, there are companies that make their living off of selling products to bypass these "safeguards."

I believe these tests mostly exist to assist pharmaceutical companies, drug testing facilities, and treatment facilites.

S

KillerWeed420

I agree with sec on the concept of there needing to be new testing procedures to test if you are under the influence of a drug NOW. Not 2 days ago or a month ago. I still believe the random drug testing is unconstitional. There needs to be reasonable cause to perform a drug test.

 

Sec

Reasonable cause is also one reason employers can test an employee. Drug testing for employment is not criminal. You have a choice. IF you want the job, you will do what the employer requires. IF you got the job, and it required you to do something you didn't personally agree with, would you do it? If you aren't comfortable with the requirements to obtain the position or with the job description/duties, then don't take or apply for the job.

It is simple; you have a choice with employment testing. The constitution has nothing to do with it. It isn't your right to have this job. It is something you must earn and be qualified for. If one of the qualifications is that you are drug free, then so be it.

Sort of like shutting the barn door after the horses have left the barnyard, don't you think? The entire idea of pre-employment drug screenings is to prevent, or reduce the likelyhood of, the accident happening in the first place. Testing after the fact doesn't save the employer any money, headache or your fellow employee pain.

flasmoker

As an old long time smoker I was blessed without ever having to take drug test for a job. However those days are mostley gone if you want good$$.
The Job i have had for the last 5 years I had to take one for it i simply stopped smoking and was not a problem. They don't do randoms abut they will make you take one if you get hurt or in an accident in a company car
I agree with what SEC said I've seen many people with problems (Other than Mj) that cause them to miss work get hurt etc. it cost me $$ sometimes.
I don't agree with it or like it but it is what it is, Unless we all start by payingattenion to whom we elect to office and other envasions of our rights

shibshib

I believe drug testing is used way too much to weed-out (no pun intended) as many people as possible.

So yeah, in general, I think they are an invasion of privacy and not very helpful in the grand scheme of things.

However, I am with trocisp when it comes to employers rights... however, I have more respect for employers who use drug testing to help identify a source of a problem, rather than assuming anyone with drugs in their system is potentially a bad employee (i.e. if someone is causing alot of problems at work and just are putting off bad vibes, feel free to test them and see if they are doped up).

Sec

It is called Reasonable Suspicion or Reasonable Cause testing and is used when a supervisor has documented reasonable suspicion that an employee is under the influence of a banned substance on the job.

A supervisor has been specifically trained in spotting, documenting, approaching and removing an employee who is suspected of using a banned substance from his duties.

Why should an employer test all applicants as if he assumes that everyone is a potentially bad employee? For the very same reason a potential employer will check the credentials and references of any applicant. I can claim that I have a Masters in this and a Doctorate in that. I can also claim that the Pope is my Best Friend Forever, but the potential employer will double check my claims on the application. You don't seem to have a problem with this. It is as if the employer assumes that everyone is a liar. Why not take this applicant at his word? Every application asks if the applicant has been convicted of a felony. Why then, do potential employers complete a criminal check of the applicant? Shouldn't the employer take the applicant at his word?

Same thing with drug testing. Everyone will say they are drug free. For the same reason a potential employer checks references, education, criminal and employment history, they will check for illegal drug use by conducting a drug test.

shibshib

I'm in no way saying I don't understand why it is done... I'm just saying I don't agree with it.