Let's take this a step futher. People are saying "don't work for a company that does testing". okay... What about the high school student that is trying to get into a good college. I have read that some schools are toying with the idea of testing applicants. I believe that it is aready in place that someone cannot apply for federal student aid if they have been convicted for drug use. How do people feel about this? ------------------ 'Deeds, not words, shall speak me.'
I can see why the federal government would want to make sure that their money was going to people who were going to actually use it on school. I'm not suggesting that everyone who does drugs are addicted, or can't suceed in schools or jobs. However, I totally understand why the government would think that this is a good idea. However, I do think that schools can find better ways to make sure they pick the right kids for enrollment. ------------------ When you make an assumption, you make an ass out of yourself and umption. visit www.swirve.com
I don't think a drug test should be a factor to get into college. You are, after all, paying tuition. On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with denying federal funds to convicted drug users. Any person or entity should be able to determine what kind of debtors they want to take on. ------------------ Brought to you by the letter M.
What about when the results are either false or triggered by a legal drug? As a recruiter, I've seen many different results come back and not all are legit. For instance, once I had a guy, an older oriental guy that was being hired as a Test Engineer. Previous to being put through the hiring process his doctor told him to take a legal herb, which you can find in many oriental herb shops, to help him relax and sleep. Well, this legal herb triggered something in his drug screen, a barbituate I believe, causing him to fail. He was obviously very upset when we weren't able to hire him even though the herb was perfectly legal and in a sense prescribed by his doctor. Now I can't hire him for another 6 months. ------------------ GO YANKEES!!! KICK SOME METS A$$!!! 5 GAMES BABY!!
"Any person or entity should be able to determine what kind of debtors they want to take on." Wow! I'm impressed! You think the gov is going to make a morality call over making a buck? Since when? ------------------ 'Deeds, not words, shall speak me.'
there are ways to mask drug tests...wake up... the whole drug testing deal is a waste of company's money and pointless.. as stated coke stays in the system 3 days and weed for 30 that in itself is reason enough to not even have drug tests anyway.. if anything mark mcgwire should be tested for all that juice he shoots up...asterisk next to the home run record...in my opinion.. ------------------ i am a friend of sarah connors i was told she was here can i see her please
I believe you can do hair tests that trace drug use going way, way back. Regarding companies and testing, I think only case when drug use might directly place other individuals in particular danger (pilots, bus drivers, operators of heavy machinery) should testing even be considered a standard policy. Where do you draw the line? Speeding is illegal. So is jaywalking. So is smoking inside a bar (in California). So is sipping alcohol if you are less than 21. So is excessive noise at your house. Should people be fired if they are caught and reported doing these things on their own time or not hired if they can't pass a lie detector test saying they never have??? The line I draw is that companies (or sports leagues) have no business regulating personal behavior off the court or on the persons' own time if the behavior primarily only effects that person (robbery, theft and violent crimes obviously don't meet this definition)-with extremely rare exceptions. One is performance enhancing drugs which impact the fairness of competition, another is the dangerous job role case discussed above. [This message has been edited by Desert Scar (edited November 01, 2000).]
How is Thailand sirhangover? Watch out for those road whores! Don't forget the Valium! ------------------ Thought of the day... Why do they sterilize needles for lethal injections?
Hoop-T: Not that I don't share your curiosity about sirhangover's comment but, aren't you the guy that said civil rights are a farce, they mean nothing and arguing for them is futile? How does that reasoning make sense? ------------------
I've been reading these posts, and I am shocked by the number of people who are so willing to give companies and corporations control over their private lives. Drug testing definitely crosses the line. Part of the problem here is that there is no longer a distinction between work and private time. Workers are expected to be ready, at a moment's notice, to drop everything and head for the office. And God forbid we can be reached via cell phone, e-mail or pager. The argument was made earlier that we shouldn't engage in recreational drug use because we might be "called in" to work. Does this also apply to drinking alcohol? What about spending the day at the beach? These activities all make it hard for us to run immediately back to the office. Do we now have to get the The Company's permission before we do anything, even in our "off" time? I understand that drugs are illegal, but so are a myriad of other activities we all engage in, knowingly or unknowingly, on a daily basis. Does The Company need to know about all of them, too? As for job performance being impaired -- there are any number of things that could cause poor performance -- stress, fatigue, illness, unhappiness, etc... To act as if drugs are the major cause of poor job performance in America is absurd.
yeah pimp ill bring you some valium and a fake tag heur...s*cky f*cky five dollar...from bang-c0ck... anyway the point is dont you find it to be almost a contradiction that i can snort some nose candy on saturday night take a piss test on thursday and be clean yet i smoke a joint on saturday and 3 weeks later my piss is still dirty? isnt coke 'worse'?.. so to me the testing doesnt really make a whole lot of sense when we could penalize a dope smoker who has been clean for 3 weeks yet a coke fiend is clean after 3 days...maybe you think blow isnt so bad...i dont know you might be voting for george bush and my point is rendered invalid.. by the way i have never heard of any company using hair samples although i am sure that it may occur if you are joining the fbi or something..hair analysis is expensive and i believe they can not track lsd in any sort of test (may be wrong) so hoop -t you as an employer would hire a lsd taking snow skiing cokehead yet a guy who likes the occasional blunt is not acceptable? i think the philosophy is flawed and therefore i see it as pointless to test.. you would be suprised at the number of dope, coke, x taking lawyers and so called 'respected individuals' there are out there who dont even smoke because they know its more traceable...are you cool with that? like others are saying testing is dumb and there are ways around it... see you i am going to catch syphilis from a 3 dollar w****..take care guys.. dont forget to tape the games pimp.. ------------------ i am a friend of sarah connors i was told she was here can i see her please
SH, you might be right about companies not using hair tests, I guess only parents to that ;( However the point stands if you think it is OK for companies to randomly drug test I don't see any reason why using hair is any different than other tests in terms of legality. [This message has been edited by Desert Scar (edited November 02, 2000).]
IMO if Johnny had enough time to stop at his friends and hit the bong, he should then be considered to be on his own time and not on company time. Hell, I'm sure something exactly like this happened and some blood-sucking lawyer(no offense to those in the room) decided to drag the employee's company into the mix even though Johnny should have completed his days work before going to his homies place and toking it up! Damn lawyers!! ------------------ Thought of the day... Why do they sterilize needles for lethal injections?
[QUOTE ..and on the way there runs over a little kid in a school zone. Who's liable [/B][/QUOTE] If he is that out of it to run over a little kid, then we can assume he was not going to fast to hurt the kid. Joke: Whats the diffrence between a drunk and a stoner? A drunk will run the stop sign, but a stoner will wait for it to turn green. ------------------ its all good and fun till someone gets hurt ... then its absolutely hilarious!
If a car hits a pedestrian, it will probably seriously hurt/kill them, no matter what the speed. Alcohol (and pot) tend to slow reaction time, so an impaired driver can't stop as quickly. Also, one of the first effects of at least alcohol, is to reduce the ability of a person to judge relative speed -- so there is no reason to necessarily think the driver would be going slower. In fact, they could be going faster. ------------------ Stay Cool...
Once again: What is the difference between a drunk driver and a stoned driver? The drunk driver runs the stop sign; the stoner waits for it to turn green. ------------------ Hey, I've got a new signature! 302
I believe that EDS does hair testing for new hires but they don't do random testing. One thing about testing for mar1juana that has not been emphasized...the urine tests are easily defeated with any of those "clean" kits. Some people I know actually keep them at work. If their number comes up for a random test, then they have to do the test....some time that day! They are not immediately escorted by some security guard like they are a villain. They have to go to the facility. Therefore, they keep the cleaners on hand and use them when they need them. So, unless you are hair testing for pot usage, most have a workaround. I have seen people beat tests this way. The testing is unfair and an invasion in my opinion. You really want to weed out the hell drug users who are in way over their head. I agree with that point. I don't want to work with a person addicted to cocaine, heroine, or crack because these are addicts. What is the point of getting rid of the casual, non-addicted dope user? You might as well get rid of the casual drinkers, too. Then, you would have trouble keeping employees at all because your basically only taking strictly sober people. And the argument of what if you get called into work....well, not all jobs are equal in this regard. Those who are oncall 24 x 7 will always get in trouble even if they are a casual drinker. I've seen this, too. That is completely job specific and does not apply to every job. In some cases, if your in a position where you need to be readily available and are a total druggie, then you have problems. Like Jeff said(as he knows one), plenty of people at work are casual smokers where noone ever knows but they are more productive and better than regular employees in most cases. They don't come to work high, they aren't airheads, and they don't let it affect their work. These are the people who get things done and done right most of the time. I'm sure there are exceptions but these are the ones in the commercial who are sitting around all day long living with Mom while she urges him to get off his duff and go get a job. Meanwhile, he and his buddy are bonging out in the back room. That commercial cracks me up every time. Drugs are bad...mmmkay. Surf ------------------
Corporations test because they don't want the headache of dealing with the liability and other problems that may or may not occur if they employ users. Imagine Johnny is an employee for Corporation X. On the way home from work one Friday, Johnny is asked to run a quick errand for the corporation...then he's off to his fun weekend. But as Johnny gets in the car, he remembers he's also supposed to stop by a friend's house. He does..they smoke a little..Johnny gets back in the car, runs the errand..and on the way there runs over a little kid in a school zone. Who's liable??? Arguably the company...that's the way the law deals with those sort of issues. So if you have a duty to your shareholders and other employees to manage the bottom line, that kind of litigation (even if you win!) is not the sort of thing you want to drag your company through. I realize this is a hypothetical, but it's meant to simply illustrate a point. I have friends who work for big law firms who are essentially on call all the time. They may be called into the office in the middle of the night given any set of circumstances. It is certainly understandable why an employer might want to check it out before they hire the guy...or check along the way to make sure that the guy they're paying $100K/year is more likely to be coherent than not if called in at such a time. ------------------
