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

[TheVrolok]

Breaking away from Britain wasn't legal either. The government doesn't always know best.

You can't possibly be serious with that analogy?

 

[LumbergTech]

Are you 16 or something? Teenager angst cliche...

complacent old person cliche?

 

[halik]

complacent old person cliche?

I'm 26.

The whole "man is keeping you down, you're all sheep/slaves" nonsense flies till about junior high school. Eventually you're supposed to find something fullfilling and add value to society, rather than bake your brains out every night (not that i didn't do the latter in college, but my point stands).

 

[LumbergTech]

I'm 26.

The whole "man is keeping you down, you're all sheep/slaves" nonsense flies till about junior high school. Eventually you're supposed to find something fullfilling and add value to society, rather than bake your brains out every night (not that i didn't do the latter in college, but my point stands).

Sure, I appreciate your point. The thread is about being prevented from having a job because you smoke marijuana. I just don't agree with it. It isn't an accurate way to filter out bad applicants.

 

[JEDIYoda]

If they had an alcohol test that could detect the use of alcohol up to 30 days after usage would it be fair to sack somebody for 'safety issues' 25 days after they had had a drink?

That has nothing at all to do with the fact that there are laws against marajuana use.
Change the laws don`t use stoopid analogies to try to sound all cool!
I agree with you on the use of alocohol but that has nothing to do with marajuana use being against thge law and responsible alcohol use not.....

 

[JEDIYoda]

it is not addictive in the cocaine sense, but people can become fixated on anything

So people who use alcohol everyday are nor fixated on the use of alcohol??
How convenient.....fixated - addicted same thing!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Well, here's my worthless input.

MJ has withdrawal symptoms. I know this from first hand experience. While it isn't addictive in the sense that opium and amphetamines are, it still leaves you the day after using with a "hankering" to do it again. And, if you can keep your mind off of it, it isn't very hard to stay away. But, for some people, it is almost impossible to get rid of those hankerings. I have a few friends who simply can't go a day without it, and yeah, I think that's pretty pathetic. But that's them and they're living their life, so be it.

Keep in mind I didn't start using until I was turned 22 (24 now). Sometimes I would go months of using about every other day, then quit. Sometimes I would only do it on weekends for a few months, then quit. Reasons for quitting vary, but usually its because of an employment change and subsequent drug tests.

Now, I can definitely say that after using about every other day, then quitting, I had withdrawal. I was getting night sweats, I was irritable, and had trouble falling asleep. After about a week, these problems went away. However, using once every five days or so, I never really experienced withdrawal problems.

I think a lot of the people who have issues quitting are people who have used since teenage years. I do believe it potentially slows development somehow if you begin using while young.

I have never allowed MJ to affect my life and take control of it. I am a very professional person who pays bills on time and holds steady employment, but, most importantly, I am dependable.

Again, this is just my worthless input. I know a lot of the DARE brainwashed members are in the thread, and to be honest, I respect and understand your opinion because I believed all of the drivel that was fed to me up until my 20s when I realized it simply isn't that big of a deal. Sure it is illegal, and that is a major factor why people don't use. MJ can ruin a life, but, only if they let it.

yeah but those who are "fixated" on using marajuana will claim that you were one weak ass fellow.
When in fact there are quite a few people like you who have their head on straight!!

 

[WelshBloke]

What seems to be confusing many of the people on your side of the argument is that alcohol usage is NOT illegal, and marijuana usage IS illegal. This is not an argument of whether or not it SHOULD be illegal (I tend to think it shouldn't be), but currently IT IS and therefore it is a fundamentally different than "testing" for alcohol.

That has nothing at all to do with the fact that there are laws against marajuana use.
Change the laws don`t use stoopid analogies to try to sound all cool!
I agree with you on the use of alocohol but that has nothing to do with marajuana use being against thge law and responsible alcohol use not.....

Drug testing by employers hasn't got a lot to do with the legality of the substance.

If it did they would be passing the results on to the legal authorities, its to do with some misplaced notion of safety and the need to control the workforce.

 

[ViviTheMage]

haha, when I was in high school I gave my friend a little bit of pee, because his parents drug tested him at random ... that is the closest I ever wanted to get to the drug world.

I am always the sober cab too, LOL. I just party hard in other ways

 

[TheVrolok]

Drug testing by employers hasn't got a lot to do with the legality of the substance.

If it did they would be passing the results on to the legal authorities, its to do with some misplaced notion of safety and the need to control the workforce.

Illicit substances are illicit (illegal) because they are dangerous (whether true or not is not the issue unless we're debating deregulation, which we're not) and could therefore affect workplace safety. This is a fairly simple path of logic to follow. Again, I'm not saying it's TRUE, but it is currently in place that way. Change the law, and things may change.

 

[bobdole369]

Illicit substances are illicit (illegal) because they are dangerous (whether true or not is not the issue unless we're debating deregulation, which we're not) and could therefore affect workplace safety.

And often let us realize that a workplace doesn't necessarily CARE whether or not you use illicit substances. They get a break on their insurance (workers comp, liability, etc) if workers are "drug-free".

 

[WelshBloke]

Illicit substances are illicit (illegal) because they are dangerous (whether true or not is not the issue unless we're debating deregulation, which we're not) and could therefore affect workplace safety. This is a fairly simple path of logic to follow. Again, I'm not saying it's TRUE, but it is currently in place that way. Change the law, and things may change.

Drug testing tests whether you have used drugs in the past month or so not if you're impaired in the work place.

Plenty of non illicit things can affect work safety, do those same companies test for them?

 

[rockyct]

And often let us realize that a workplace doesn't necessarily CARE whether or not you use illicit substances. They get a break on their insurance (workers comp, liability, etc) if workers are "drug-free".

Yeah, it's really the insurance companies forcing companies to make employees take drug tests. I've worked at a warehouse where the only time you got drug tested was if you had an accident on the machinery. It was basically a running joke. We'd hear a crash or some sort of metal on metal contact, and we'd all yell out "drug test." It just was part of the incident report. Incidents only happened every other month or so, but that's still often enough.

 

[TheVrolok]

Drug testing tests whether you have used drugs in the past month or so not if you're impaired in the work place.

Someone who has smoked weed in the past month or so is more likely to be impaired at work than someone who has not. It's that simple.

Plenty of non illicit things can affect work safety, do those same companies test for them?

No. Obviously not every aspect of life can (or should) be monitored, what IS being monitored is what society has deemed (again, for right or wrong) to be dangerous substances (that are avoidable and illegal).

So by your logic, reducing risk is pointless unless you can reduce risk to 0%? The logic here is fairly simple to follow, I don't see why you're willfully ignoring it.

 

[Jadow]

And often let us realize that a workplace doesn't necessarily CARE whether or not you use illicit substances. They get a break on their insurance (workers comp, liability, etc) if workers are "drug-free".

that's definitely a part of it, also theft is much higher among drug users than non-drug users, esp in retail.

 

[Powermoloch]

drugs are bad mmmkay

 

[KMFJD]

Someone who has smoked weed in the past month or so is more likely to be impaired at work than someone who has not. It's that simple.



No. Obviously not every aspect of life can (or should) be monitored, what IS being monitored is what society has deemed (again, for right or wrong) to be dangerous substances (that are avoidable and illegal).

So by your logic, reducing risk is pointless unless you can reduce risk to 0%? The logic here is fairly simple to follow, I don't see why you're willfully ignoring it.

fail

 

[TheVrolok]

fail

Explain why. I never said is highly likely, or definitely will be, or anything of that nature. Simply that, statistically, someone who has smoked in the past month or so will be more likely (even if it's a marginal &#37 than someone who has not.

 

[Saint Nick]

Now, more along the lines of the thread...

I think the kid in the OP's article really is pathetic. Now, don't get me wrong, I think drug tests are pretty fucking stupid; however, he is at the mercy of our government's law and his employer's (or potential employer's) policies.

I work in the transportation industry and everyone—even the monkeys that sit at desks (aka: me)—get randomly drug tested. Our company policy states that everyone here is in a safety sensitive position. I could argue that (and to be honest think it is utter bull shit), but, this is a great place to work and I understand why they have the policy the way they do.

If we violate some sort of government regulation out in the field, or, some IT monkey (aka: me) breaks something (or some system) that causes an accident in the field, we're in trouble. They don't want the liability of someone coming to work stoned, high on coke, or drunk because we'll get pounded with fines and lawsuits harder than Gene Simmons would in a federal prison. So that makes me look bad, but more importantly, it makes the COMPANY look bad because some stoned employee screwed up an IT Safety system and caused an accident. Plain and simple. I knew this coming to work here, just as that kid should know as well.

I abstained from pot for about three weeks before applying for this job and others. Once I made it through the interview process, my background check, and yes, my drug test, I had been clean for about 5 weeks. And, yeah, since then I have partaken a few times, but I simply can't because of my company's policy.

Same goes for the fool in the OP. If you want any sort of decent job in the United States, you're gonna have to pass a drug test. Jobs that don't drug test (wait staff, call centers, sales people in general) have such a high turnover rate that it isn't worth drug testing. And they have a high turnover rate because they are dead end jobs.

So, while I am a very avid fan of MJ and very against how our country handles it, I am at everyone's mercy. I'd like to have a great career and a family someday, and smoking pot just isn't worth sacrificing a career for.

TLDR: Person in OP's article is retarded and yes, probably addicted to pot.

 

[WelshBloke]

Someone who has smoked weed in the past month or so is more likely to be impaired at work than someone who has not. It's that simple.



No. Obviously not every aspect of life can (or should) be monitored, what IS being monitored is what society has deemed (again, for right or wrong) to be dangerous substances (that are avoidable and illegal).

So by your logic, reducing risk is pointless unless you can reduce risk to 0%? The logic here is fairly simple to follow, I don't see why you're willfully ignoring it.

More people use alcohol than weed.

People under the effects of alcohol are more impaired than those under the effect of weed.

Alcohol is much more addictive than weed.

Its not about safety. If it was it would make much more sense to not employ anyone who used alcohol.

 

[TheVrolok]

More people use alcohol than weed.

People under the effects of alcohol are more impaired than those under the effect of weed.

Alcohol is much more addictive than weed.

Its not about safety. If it was it would make much more sense to not employ anyone who used alcohol.

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?

 

[Saint Nick]

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?

I actually understand where you're coming from.

I wish that NORML and other Pro MJ groups would focus more on changing company policies instead of trying to reform government. Changing the law is a lost cause, especially this day in age. Changing company policy might be a little more reachable.

 

[WelshBloke]

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?

Your not making sense.

On the one hand you're arguing its a safety issue when it quite patently is not.

On the other hand you're arguing its a legal issue when again it obviously isn't.

 

[TheVrolok]

On the one hand you're arguing its a safety issue when it quite patently is not.

On the other hand you're arguing its a legal issue when again it obviously isn't.

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?

 

[TheVrolok]

I actually understand where you're coming from.

I wish that NORML and other Pro MJ groups would focus more on changing company policies instead of trying to reform government. Changing the law is a lost cause, especially this day in age. Changing company policy might be a little more reachable.

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."