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

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,137
12,457
136
:confused: What law? We are talking about drug testing at work.

The law that allows employers to test for illegal substance use...and often, legal substance use as well.

If I'm hiring employees, I'm going to be concerned if they test positive for opiates, even though they may have a prescription for oxycontin. I don't need a worker who's under the influence of oxycodone on the job...even if they're just "folding clothes at a GAP store." (or for that matter, driving to/from work under the influence of oxycodone...which is also illegal)

Even though I personally disagree with the marijuana laws in the USA, it IS still an illegal substance, and I'm going to be less inclined to trust the judgment of someone who knowingly breaks that law. If I'm hiring someone who may drive one of my vehicles, I'm probably not going to hire someone with a bad driving record (more than one ticket/accident) either. BOTH show a lack of regard for the law, and possibly a lack of personal responsibility.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
31,411
9,303
136
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?


No, I'm saying if you trust him enough to open you up then you trust him not to get stoned immediately before your operation.

Whether he got stoned 3 months ago has no bearing on this.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,090
136
No, I'm saying if you trust him enough to open you up then you trust him not to get stoned immediately before your operation.

Whether he got stoned 3 months ago has no bearing on this.

If you need surgery, you need a surgeon. Given the choice, I would bet that most people shopping for a surgeon would prefer one that doesn't use illegal drugs for recreation for the reasons listed all over this thread. BoomerD stated clearly why the fact that he smoked 3 months ago may very well have bearing.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
31,411
9,303
136
If you need surgery, you need a surgeon. Given the choice, I would bet that most people shopping for a surgeon would prefer one that doesn't use illegal drugs for recreation for the reasons listed all over this thread.

I'd rather have the best surgeon. Their skills can vary quite a lot.

You worry if he had a joint 3 months ago on holiday and get the one whose 'clean' regardless of skill level.
I'll get the one with the best track record.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,090
136
I'd rather have the best surgeon. Their skills can vary quite a lot.

You worry if he had a joint 3 months ago on holiday and get the one whose 'clean' regardless of skill level.
I'll get the one with the best track record.

I think most everyone is going to search for the "best surgeon." I don't think anyone is going to find a surgeon with 100% positive outcomes and then go, "Oh well, he smoked a joint once 3 months ago" and turn him down. However that still doesn't mean that his history of illegal drug usage has no bearing on the decision. A more appropriate analogy would be 2 surgeons with identical outcomes, one of which smoked a joint three months ago, and the other who didn't. Can you guess which most people would choose?
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
31,411
9,303
136
I think most everyone is going to search for the "best surgeon." I don't think anyone is going to find a surgeon with 100% positive outcomes and then go, "Oh well, he smoked a joint once 3 months ago" and turn him down. However that still doesn't mean that his history of illegal drug usage has no bearing on the decision.

Why, surely the best surgeon is the one with the best results.

Obviously you can pick him using whatever criteria you like but I'd advice you to go with his results.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
31,411
9,303
136
I think most everyone is going to search for the "best surgeon." I don't think anyone is going to find a surgeon with 100% positive outcomes and then go, "Oh well, he smoked a joint once 3 months ago" and turn him down. However that still doesn't mean that his history of illegal drug usage has no bearing on the decision. A more appropriate analogy would be 2 surgeons with identical outcomes, one of which smoked a joint three months ago, and the other who didn't. Can you guess which most people would choose?


The cheapest?
 

LumbergTech

Diamond Member
Sep 15, 2005
3,622
1
0
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?


can you back that up, or are you just making shit up
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,090
136
The cheapest?

Since you're trying really hard to be overly pedantic, I'll put it this way. If you had two surgeons that were identical in all professional regards (skill, outcome, price, etc.) and one was a recreational drug user, and the other was not (this being the only distinguishable aspect); who do you think most people would choose?
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,137
12,457
136
You did actually read the post I was replying to didn't you? :\

Originally Posted by TheVrolok
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.

Of course I did...it was quoted in your post...

Like it or not, smoking marijuana is illegal. Drug testing is a means for an employer to "weed out" people who disregard the law.
As I've said countless times in these and other forums, I believe marijuana SHOULD be legalized, but taxed and controlled much like liquor is in this country...sold in establishments like liquor stores.
HOWEVER, the current drug testing methods can not discriminate between the joint you smoked last weekend in the comfort of your home, and the joint you smoked 15 minutes ago while driving to work.
Sure, the levels will be different, but if you're a regular smoker, they're going to be higher than an occasional smoker...who may have just "burned one" before he got in his car.
Since marijuana is detectable for up to 30 days by a simple piss test, that's going to make it very difficult to create a test that can do this.
In the mean time, it makes sense to keep it illegal for all except medical marijuana users...and even they are prohibited from driving while under the influence, just as is anyone who takes any prescription medication that could impair their driving ability.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,090
136
can you back that up, or are you just making shit up

Simple logic backs it up. Someone who has smokes, by virtue of being a smoker, is more likely to have smoked on the day of surgery, than one who has never smoked. Even if that chance is incredibly small (and it would be with any responsible pot smoker), it is above 0, which is the chance for a non-smoker.
 

SolMiester

Diamond Member
Dec 19, 2004
5,330
17
76
Does sound like the OP has much choice!, Im quite sure they can test for fake pee if they can test for drugs.....
If it were me, Id just say no, im not going to do the tests, it an invasion of my privacy and walk away.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
64,137
12,457
136
DOT= Dept of Transport? (I'm not from the US)

And DOT does what?

Yep. Department of Transportation.

They REQUIRE companies who hire commercial drivers to drug test those drivers. Pre-employment testing, post-accident testing, and random testing.
I worked maritime construction for many years. Not only was I subject to the "normal" drug testing that almost everyone in the construction industry is, I had to take and pass the DOT drug tests...and being one of the crane operators out on the water, I was subject to a Coast Guard vessel pulling up and taking me for a random test...at any time of day or night.
The testing tolerances by the Coast Guard was VERY strict...ANY detectable levels was a "FAIL," where most drug tests simply have a threshold level, below which is a "PASS."

http://www.dot.gov/ost/dapc/
 
Last edited:

MagnusTheBrewer

IN MEMORIAM
Jun 19, 2004
24,122
1,594
126
I may have experimented once or twice but, I never exhaled! I also have several clearances. The laws regarding marijuana use are beyond stupid. Drug tests by employers are right down there with polygraph tests, they are worthless.

I've worked for the government for quite a few years off and on and, been subject to random testing the entire time. Not only have I never been tested randomly, I've never known anyone who was. The only people who've been "randomly" tested were those who exhibited some kind of behavior problem.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,090
136
I may have experimented once or twice but, I never exhaled! I also have several clearances. The laws regarding marijuana use are beyond stupid. Drug tests by employers are right down there with polygraph tests, they are worthless.

I've worked for the government for quite a few years off and on and, been subject to random testing the entire time. Not only have I never been tested randomly, I've never known anyone who was. The only people who've been "randomly" tested were those who exhibited some kind of behavior problem.

I imagine a lot of those "random" tests were admins hoping to find "an excuse."
 

rockyct

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2001
6,656
32
91
He's right. Whether or not it's a legitimate concern, it is legal to discriminate based on any illegal drug use. Insurance companies lump people who even occasionally do drugs under a potential risk category. Maybe one out of 1000 people who are regular drug users will show up to work and crash a forklift into a wall. They want to avoid paying out any of these incidents so they charge a little less if you do pre-employment and random drug tests in hopes they can screen out these potential accidents. The effectiveness of drug tests or the difference in likelyhood that a person who tests positive for MJ and a person who doesn't of getting into an accident, has no real meaning. They can give incentives for companies to screen for drug users, so companies do to save money on insurance costs.

The insurance industry has decided to screen out people who test positive for drugs. Not the government, not your employer, but your employer's insurance company. If you want this to stop, try to get a law passed that bans pre-employment drug tests or any tests without reasonable suspicion or an incident.
 

alfa147x

Lifer
Jul 14, 2005
29,303
103
106
Does sound like the OP has much choice!, Im quite sure they can test for fake pee if they can test for drugs.....
If it were me, Id just say no, im not going to do the tests, it an invasion of my privacy and walk away.

Reread the op. It was quoted aka not me
 

bobdole369

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2004
4,504
2
0
The law that allows employers to test for illegal substance use...and often, legal substance use as well.

It is actually the lack of a law prohibiting this practice. If something is not specifically exempted, it is allowed.
 

bobdole369

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2004
4,504
2
0
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.

Alkemyst - it is specifically the LACK of laws that allow this to happen!

Read Title 31 - Ch 435 - 452 of the Florida statutes.

As none of the 10 ridiculous cases are specifically disallowed by any federal law - and Florida's labor statutes simply do not exist - all of those 10 cases are allowed.

***We Don't Even Have a Department of Labor with any power to DO anything about any laws, even if they existed.***

http://www.ehow.com/about_5212101_florida-labor-laws-regarding-breaks.html

http://research.lawyers.com/Florida/Employment-Law-in-Florida.html

http://www.laborlawtalk.com/archive/index.php/t-4779.html

Granted these are just links. I spent a LONG time in the law library looking up cases since I really couldn't believe how ridiculous it is here and what employers are able to do. I'm not in a position to quote case law, but if you look into it - its pretty bad.
 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
12
76
My favorite urinalysis story: Random urinalysis is announced. Lady walks into bathroom, and pees in the cup, but before handing it over, tells the observer that she smoked weed over Christmas break and asks if she'll pee for her. The observer says no, takes her pee, and reports her confession to the supervisor.

Her urinalysis was clean. She was fired for what she said.
 

zerocool84

Lifer
Nov 11, 2004
36,041
472
126
I really don't understand why this turned into an argument. If I was actively looking for a job, I'd make sure not to smoke. I don't know what's so hard for people to understand that. If you can't then obviously smoking is more important to you than getting a job so then you have to deal with the consequences. When I used to smoke when I was younger that's what I did. Wasn't that hard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.