I bought some synthetic urine for a pre-employment drug test, but I'm kind of afraid

[WelshBloke]

Firstly, I'm not purporting anything, I'm simply rebutting what others have said. Also, I have shown why it is a "safety concern" quite easily, simply because you refuse to believe it does not make it "patently not." Lastly, I'm not arguing a legal issue, I'm simply stating that the legality of weed has some bearing on the reasons for which it is tested - another simple thing to understand. You have done nothing but respond with, "No, you're wrong, it isn't because I say so." So tell me, who doesn't make sense?

You haven't shown its a safety issue at all.

You're still very confused about this and I'm not sure why. Yes, alcohol may, in reality, be more dangerous than weed. HOWEVER, alcohol is LEGAL, weed is ILLEGAL. Therefore, an employer can disallow weed and allow alcohol and still fall in line with social norms. In this way, the employer cuts down on risk (whatever small % it may be) while maintaining the status quo; it's called balance. Does this still confuse you?

Thats your argument?

Remember drug tests for weed don't test if you are impaired at that time.

If you were arguing that some one under the influence of weed at work should be fired I wouldnt argue with you, that's a safety issue.
If you were arguing that someone in possession of weed at work should be fired I wouldn't argue with you, that's a legal issue.

You're arguing that someone who has used weed at anytime in the last month or so should be fired regardless of where or when it happened.

 

[wheresmybacon]

What we're really talking about here is freedom from consequences. People want to smoke but they also want to work.

I'm not going to be the one to stand in your way if you want to get baked all day every day; that's your business. Where I draw the line is when what you do on your time affects me. Or the guy next to me; Joe Public. You get the idea.

People folding clothes at the Gap - smoke all you want. In fact I don't care if you smoke IN the Gap. Maybe it would give people a reason to go in there again.

People driving 18-wheelers, buses, operating construction equipment, doctors, carnies, and anyone else interfacing with the general public, who's relative imparement due to intoxicants can directly or inderectly affect my safety or the personal safety of others, all of them should be required to take hair tests. If you want to smoke, just realize it will preclude you from certain occupations.

my .02

 

[TheVrolok]

You're arguing that someone who has used weed at anytime in the last month or so should be fired regardless of where or when it happened.

Wrong. I'm arguing that the above person broke company policy and is therefore subject to termination. This is part of the distinction you fail to realize.

The argument FOR the policy is that if someone has used in the past 30 days, he is more likely to use before/during work than one who has not - this is why it is a screening tool.

 

[WelshBloke]

What we're really talking about here is freedom from consequences. People want to smoke but they also want to work.

I'm not going to be the one to stand in your way if you want to get baked all day every day; that's your business. Where I draw the line is when what you do on your time affects me. Or the guy next to me; Joe Public. You get the idea.

People folding clothes at the Gap - smoke all you want. In fact I don't care if you smoke IN the Gap. Maybe it would give people a reason to go in there again.

People driving 18-wheelers, buses, operating construction equipment, doctors, carnies, and anyone else interfacing with the general public, who's relative imparement due to intoxicants can directly or inderectly affect my safety or the personal safety of others, all of them should be required to take hair tests. If you want to smoke, just realize it will preclude you from certain occupations.

my .02

Why? Why should it matter if your surgeon smoked a joint 3 months before he operated on you.

And, knowing some surgeons, there's a crap ton of other things you want to worry about them before its their weed habit. You should worry about their golf conversations in the middle of your operation more.

 

[WelshBloke]

Wrong. I'm arguing that the above person broke company policy and is therefore subject to termination. This is part of the distinction you fail to realize.

The argument FOR the policy is that if someone has used in the past 30 days, he is more likely to use before/during work than one who has not - this is why it is a screening tool.

Right so not a safety or legal issue then

 

[TheVrolok]

Why? Why should it matter if your surgeon smoked a joint 3 months before he operated on you.

And, knowing some surgeons, there's a crap ton of other things you want to worry about them before its their weed habit. You should worry about their golf conversations in the middle of your operation more.

Because a surgeon who has a smoking history is more likely to be impaired during surgery than a surgeon without one. Again, this is quite simple. Also, you're not worried at all about weed users, how can you possibly claim someone should be worried about a benign conversation during surgery?

 

[TheVrolok]

Right so not a safety or legal issue then

Now take one more step back. The policy is in place ... wait for it .. because it is a "safety concern" ... one more step ... because it is related to legal matters. Again, you need only to see that things are related.

 

[alkemyst]

Here is a list of things they are *also* allowed to do besides sample your urine at any time even multiple times per day.

1. Require that you work 24 hours a day non-stop continuously until you pass out. As long as they show that if they noticed you were in danger, that medical help was not restricted.
2. Require that you work lots of overtime, not paying time and a half, and when payday comes, reduce your base rate so that you are making minimum wage.
3. Change your job description at will. So executives now scrub toilets.
4. Take a highly paid executive that was VP of something, then when she is blessed with a child, after maternity leave, put her back to work making minimum wage in a physically demanding role in the mailroom.
5. Fire you for any reason, no reason, because you are fat, because you are ugly, because you like the Steelers, but not because you are black or that you blew the whistle on a discrimination complaint.
6. Make you work in a 130 degree sweatshop. (following OSHA guidelines)
7. Fire you because you don't speak spanish.
8. Fire you because you do speak spanish.
9. Require that you not smoke cigarettes anywhere. Fire employees that come in smelling like cigarette smoke.
10. Hold a prayer circle. You aren't required to join in though.

Please provide the link to the law on each of your lines...if you are being sacastic I think we are all missing it.

I have worked in Florida for 30+ years and these are not the laws here.

 

[WelshBloke]

Because a surgeon who has a smoking history is more likely to be impaired during surgery than a surgeon without one. Again, this is quite simple. Also, you're not worried at all about weed users, how can you possibly claim someone should be worried about a benign conversation during surgery?

Right so you trust a surgeon to be up to his elbows in your intestines but not to be responsible in his recreational drug use?

I'd be worried if they were blazing up in the theatre, and those golf conversations can get quite intense.:\
Point is I'm not worried about their golf conversations or their responsible drug use. I'd give them both about the same importance.

 

[WelshBloke]

Now take one more step back. The policy is in place ... wait for it .. because it is a "safety concern" ... one more step ... because it is related to legal matters. Again, you need only to see that things are related.

Unfortunately I don't see company policy changes without a change in the law. Like others have said, a lot of this comes down to liability insurance which boils down to money. If it were to be legalized, I think the groups could then go to work on employers/insurance companies and perhaps gain a bit more ground on policy change. It's just too easy for business to turn and point at a law and say, "See? Look, the government says its bad, so we can easily enforce this."

 

[TheVrolok]

Right so you trust a surgeon to be up to his elbows in your intestines but not to be responsible in his recreational drug use?

I'd be worried if they were blazing up in the theatre, and those golf conversations can get quite intense.:\
Point is I'm not worried about their golf conversations or their responsible drug use. I'd give them both about the same importance.

The point is that you and I, as people who believe that individuals can recreationally smoke and still be responsible and good people, are not everyone. There are MANY people who believe that someone who uses weed is automatically irresponsible, and that is why the laws exist. I'm not entirely sure which side is right, but currently one must abide by the law.

 

[TheVrolok]

What?

 

[wheresmybacon]

Why? Why should it matter if your surgeon smoked a joint 3 months before he operated on you.

And, knowing some surgeons, there's a crap ton of other things you want to worry about them before its their weed habit. You should worry about their golf conversations in the middle of your operation more.

If he smoked 3 months ago, what's to say he wouldn't smoke at lunch right before he opens me up? I'm not going to argue time frame or draw pictures or go any further on why it's dangerous for a surgeon to smoke weed. I'm hedging my bets and hoping you're keen enough to figure that out.

I used to smoke daily. I'm not arguing about your right to smoke. In the scheme of things I say legalize everything, but that's another story for another day. What I am saying, is that if you want to smoke, or shoot, or snort, or put it in your ass or whatever, I don't want you operating on me or driving my kids to school. That's not unreasonable.

 

[WelshBloke]

If he smoked 3 months ago, what's to say he wouldn't smoke at lunch right before he opens me up? I'm not going to argue time frame or draw pictures or go any further on why it's dangerous for a surgeon to smoke weed. I'm hedging my bets and hoping you're keen enough to figure that out.

I used to smoke daily. I'm not arguing about your right to smoke. In the scheme of things I say legalize everything, but that's another story for another day. What I am saying, is that if you want to smoke, or shoot, or snort, or put it in your ass or whatever, I don't want you operating on me or driving my kids to school. That's not unreasonable.

Because he's a responsible surgeon?

 

[DrPizza]

Okay, hypothetical scenario. 2 years from now, you're about to get on a small commuter plane. You're talking to the pilot, and discover he posts on ATOT as well. Then, you discover that he uses the alias "<substitute one of the potheads on ATOT who have bragged incessantly about their drug use.>" on ATOT. But, don't worry, he assures you he only uses pot on the weekend.

Do you feel comfortable getting on the plane?
/thread.

I think it's ridiculous to test people for jobs like french fry cook at McD's, or cashier at Walmart. However, for anyone who operates heavy machinery or otherwise has people's lives in his (or her) hands - I have no problem with testing. Sure, there's only a 5% chance that the "recreational" drug user is going to be high on the job, but there's a ZERO percent chance that the non-user is going to be high on the job.

Heck, if the employees of McD's were outside smoking a joint on their break, then went back inside to work while under the effects of MJ, I wouldn't care. But, I hope that companies that are responsible for my safety would take every possible measure to ensure that their employees aren't using drugs on the job. Many such jobs also pay well. I really have no sympathies for people unwilling to trade recreational use of drugs for the ability to have many of these high paying jobs.

 

[WelshBloke]

The point is that you and I, as people who believe that individuals can recreationally smoke and still be responsible and good people, are not everyone. There are MANY people who believe that someone who uses weed is automatically irresponsible, and that is why the laws exist. I'm not entirely sure which side is right, but currently one must abide by the law.

What law? We are talking about drug testing at work.

 

[TheVrolok]

What law? We are talking about drug testing at work.

Are you going to disagree with the fact that weed is tested for because it is an illegal drug? The law regarding MJ usage goes hand-in-hand with employer testing.

 

[WelshBloke]

Okay, hypothetical scenario. 2 years from now, you're about to get on a small commuter plane. You're talking to the pilot, and discover he posts on ATOT as well. Then, you discover that he uses the alias "<substitute one of the potheads on ATOT who have bragged incessantly about their drug use.>" on ATOT. But, don't worry, he assures you he only uses pot on the weekend.

Do you feel comfortable getting on the plane?
/thread.

I think it's ridiculous to test people for jobs like french fry cook at McD's, or cashier at Walmart. However, for anyone who operates heavy machinery or otherwise has people's lives in his (or her) hands - I have no problem with testing. Sure, there's only a 5% chance that the "recreational" drug user is going to be high on the job, but there's a ZERO percent chance that the non-user is going to be high on the job.

Heck, if the employees of McD's were outside smoking a joint on their break, then went back inside to work while under the effects of MJ, I wouldn't care. But, I hope that companies that are responsible for my safety would take every possible measure to ensure that their employees aren't using drugs on the job. Many such jobs also pay well. I really have no sympathies for people unwilling to trade recreational use of drugs for the ability to have many of these high paying jobs.

We aren't talking about that though. Your lumping everyone who smokes with some retard on ATOT.

Would you say someone who has maybe a glass of wine with a meal a few times a week should be lumped in with the alcoholics?

 

[wheresmybacon]

because he's a responsible surgeon?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ytCEuuW2_A

 

[WelshBloke]

Are you going to disagree with the fact that weed is tested for because it is an illegal drug? The law regarding MJ usage goes hand-in-hand with employer testing.

Whether it is or isn't is a different debate.

There is no law that requires you to take a drug test at work. Is there even a law that requires employers to drug test?

 

[TheVrolok]

Heck, if the employees of McD's were outside smoking a joint on their break, then went back inside to work while under the effects of MJ, I wouldn't care. But, I hope that companies that are responsible for my safety would take every possible measure to ensure that their employees aren't using drugs on the job. Many such jobs also pay well. I really have no sympathies for people unwilling to trade recreational use of drugs for the ability to have many of these high paying jobs.

For the most part, I agree with you, I think the online problem with the above quoted part is the hypothetical situation in which Joe Schmo McD's french fry cook goes to smoke a joint on his break, comes back in and has an accident with some scalding fry oil because he was under the influence. Should McD's be responsible for paying out any of the medical costs/workers comp of this employee? Well, I imagine they'd be safe anyway, because in the real world he would be taken to the hospital for treatment and most likely be given a drug test on the spot, but it's still a workplace accident that could have been avoided.

 

[WelshBloke]

***price is right failhorn***

You think he's responsible to slop out your innards into a bucket in the theater.

 

[TheVrolok]

Whether it is or isn't is a different debate.

No it isn't. It IS this debate. People were claiming that drug tests should not exist and I was simply providing some of the rationale for their existence. It's called support for a claim.

 

[TheVrolok]

You think he's responsible to slop out your innards into a bucket in the theater.

Now you're saying that anyone who holds a professional position is automatically assumed to be responsible regardless of other factors on the merit of holding the position itself?

 

[WelshBloke]

For the most part, I agree with you, I think the online problem with the above quoted part is the hypothetical situation in which Joe Schmo McD's french fry cook goes to smoke a joint on his break, comes back in and has an accident with some scalding fry oil because he was under the influence. Should McD's be responsible for paying out any of the medical costs/workers comp of this employee? Well, I imagine they'd be safe anyway, because in the real world he would be taken to the hospital for treatment and most likely be given a drug test on the spot, but it's still a workplace accident that could have been avoided.

I agree with you here, smoking at work, even on your break, causes a bunch of stuff the employer might be liable for.

Smoke at work=dismissal
Smoke at home=your business.