Marijuana legalization clashes with drug testing in the workplace

[Pogo]

Do I really. Where did I say that?




See what I mean? Jellyfish.

Blah! Blah! Blah! Give me a reason why a business doesn't need to drug test, there is no legal reason, it is their right and a business owner has a right to make the guidelines for the people they are going to pay.

Number one, I don't need a reason --- YOU do. You're the apologist for these overbearing dickheads, come up with a basis that justifies it.

And number two, I just busted you. There's no record of my saying any such thing, because it doesn't exist. You made it up; you're a liar.

Like I said, this isn't an issue, give me a reason not to, so far you have given me nothing other than the fact you don't like it. Tell the federal government, tell Obama maybe he will listen to you. No discrimination because taking illegal drugs is a choice not a right. Just like smoking and banning smokers from restaurants and at parks. Charging obese people more for health insurance. Some companies won't hire people that are over weight. Some won't hire because of their age, because of their sex, because of race, religion and sexual preference. There are lots and lots of reasons not to hire people, some are not legal and are done. This is legal, so I really don't care

Yammer yammer everywhere and never stops to think. Still no answer. You continue to bend down for an authoritarian principle that cannot justify its own existence.

Which is about as honest as putting words in other people's mouths above.

I told you it is their right as a business owner, nothing other than that is needed. No rights are being violated, you don't like someone telling you what to do, it get it, you have nothing.

Still nothing.

Again, when I sell you my services I sell my services -- not my bodily fluids.

Just admit it -- there's no justification. The case cannot be made. Period.

You are an idiot, the justification is the business owner wants to and can do it, you don't like it, tough shit. You have no reason or justification not to.

"Wants to" is not a basis.

Still nothing.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

Blah! Blah! Blah! Give me a reason why a business doesn't need to drug test, there is no legal reason, it is their right and a business owner has a right to make the guidelines for the people they are going to pay.

Number one, I don't need a reason --- YOU do. You're the apologist for these overbearing dickheads, come up with a basis that justifies it.

And number two, I just busted you. There's no record of my saying any such thing, because it doesn't exist. You made it up; you're a liar.

Like I said, this isn't an issue, give me a reason not to, so far you have given me nothing other than the fact you don't like it. Tell the federal government, tell Obama maybe he will listen to you. No discrimination because taking illegal drugs is a choice not a right. Just like smoking and banning smokers from restaurants and at parks. Charging obese people more for health insurance. Some companies won't hire people that are over weight. Some won't hire because of their age, because of their sex, because of race, religion and sexual preference. There are lots and lots of reasons not to hire people, some are not legal and are done. This is legal, so I really don't care

Yammer yammer everywhere and never stops to think. Still no answer. You continue to bend down for an authoritarian principle that cannot justify its own existence.

Which is about as honest as putting words in other people's mouths above.

I told you it is their right as a business owner, nothing other than that is needed. No rights are being violated, you don't like someone telling you what to do, it get it, you have nothing.

Still nothing.

Again, when I sell you my services I sell my services -- not my bodily fluids.

Just admit it -- there's no justification. The case cannot be made. Period.

You are an idiot, the justification is the business owner wants to and can do it, you don't like it, tough shit. You have no reason or justification not to.

"Wants to" is not a basis.

Still nothing.

You're a blind. He paid to open the business, he OWNS the business, and he chooses who he hires. The business owner has every right to avoid hiring someone that is breaking the law and could be a hazard due to chemicals fucked up in their brain.

 

[Pogo]

Number one, I don't need a reason --- YOU do. You're the apologist for these overbearing dickheads, come up with a basis that justifies it.

And number two, I just busted you. There's no record of my saying any such thing, because it doesn't exist. You made it up; you're a liar.

Yammer yammer everywhere and never stops to think. Still no answer. You continue to bend down for an authoritarian principle that cannot justify its own existence.

Which is about as honest as putting words in other people's mouths above.

I told you it is their right as a business owner, nothing other than that is needed. No rights are being violated, you don't like someone telling you what to do, it get it, you have nothing.

Still nothing.

Again, when I sell you my services I sell my services -- not my bodily fluids.

Just admit it -- there's no justification. The case cannot be made. Period.

You are an idiot, the justification is the business owner wants to and can do it, you don't like it, tough shit. You have no reason or justification not to.

"Wants to" is not a basis.

Still nothing.

You're a blind. He paid to open the business, he OWNS the business, and he chooses who he hires. The business owner has every right to avoid hiring someone that is breaking the law and could be a hazard due to chemicals fucked up in their brain.

Wrong again. "Could be" is not a basis. IS is a basis. "Could be" is bullshit. Anyone "could be" anything.

 

[SUPERMAN1929]

I told you it is their right as a business owner, nothing other than that is needed. No rights are being violated, you don't like someone telling you what to do, it get it, you have nothing.

Still nothing.

Again, when I sell you my services I sell my services -- not my bodily fluids.

Just admit it -- there's no justification. The case cannot be made. Period.

You are an idiot, the justification is the business owner wants to and can do it, you don't like it, tough shit. You have no reason or justification not to.

"Wants to" is not a basis.

Still nothing.

You're a blind. He paid to open the business, he OWNS the business, and he chooses who he hires. The business owner has every right to avoid hiring someone that is breaking the law and could be a hazard due to chemicals fucked up in their brain.

Wrong again. "Could be" is not a basis. IS is a basis. "Could be" is bullshit. Anyone "could be" anything.

So now let's stop arresting drunk drivers because they only "could" cause accidents but they haven't done it yet. You have ignorant logic.

 

[MaryL]

God lord. I never knew there were so many hop heads on this board. The fed has to make this legit, not a bunch wanker wanna be poser leftie Starbucks drinking socialist...I will stop with the adverbs. ...

You mean "adjectives," idiot.

You are, without a doubt.... worse than my dear departed Mother. I loved her. and you Unakatre , have your saving grace. We all need a better angel watching over us. You ?

 

[Papageorgio]

Blah! Blah! Blah! Give me a reason why a business doesn't need to drug test, there is no legal reason, it is their right and a business owner has a right to make the guidelines for the people they are going to pay.

Number one, I don't need a reason --- YOU do. You're the apologist for these overbearing dickheads, come up with a basis that justifies it.

And number two, I just busted you. There's no record of my saying any such thing, because it doesn't exist. You made it up; you're a liar.

Like I said, this isn't an issue, give me a reason not to, so far you have given me nothing other than the fact you don't like it. Tell the federal government, tell Obama maybe he will listen to you. No discrimination because taking illegal drugs is a choice not a right. Just like smoking and banning smokers from restaurants and at parks. Charging obese people more for health insurance. Some companies won't hire people that are over weight. Some won't hire because of their age, because of their sex, because of race, religion and sexual preference. There are lots and lots of reasons not to hire people, some are not legal and are done. This is legal, so I really don't care

Yammer yammer everywhere and never stops to think. Still no answer. You continue to bend down for an authoritarian principle that cannot justify its own existence.

Which is about as honest as putting words in other people's mouths above.

I told you it is their right as a business owner, nothing other than that is needed. No rights are being violated, you don't like someone telling you what to do, it get it, you have nothing.

Still nothing.

Again, when I sell you my services I sell my services -- not my bodily fluids.

Just admit it -- there's no justification. The case cannot be made. Period.

You are an idiot, the justification is the business owner wants to and can do it, you don't like it, tough shit. You have no reason or justification not to.

"Wants to" is not a basis.

Still nothing.

Good, but it is legal, it is being done, whether you think it is right or wrong is irrelevant.

Here links and the cost of drug abuse.

How Illicit Drug Use Affects Business and the Economy The White House The Real Cost and Effects of Substance and Prescription Drug Abuse For Professionals and Employers Addiction Hope

Now these are potential losses however a business does not need or want an added expense, potential losses can add up.

I don't care whether you agree with me or not but I deal with people and drug abuse in the work place and I can tell you it cost a lot of money. We had a guy who had an accident in a piece of equipment, it cost us $7,000, then we he tested positive for marijuana, he admitted to smoking just before work, we are required to send him to rehab and foot the bill.

You can bullshit all you want but it costs, why should a business put themselves at risk? Please explain why they need to take a chance, when they can get a person that doesn't have the drug problems?

 

[BlackSand]

About half of my employees smoke pot ... Let's just say most of them aren't in the top half.
If any of my employees show up for work in a condition where they cannot do the job I require to the standards I set ... I will fire them on the spot.*


* With the exception of one, because I kind of like him anyway ... He is a genuine fuck-up, but every place needs a Gomer Pyle.

Voilà. That's the way it should work. After all as an employer you're buying labor and if they can't do the gig you're getting shortchanged. As suggested before, if there are motor skills in question run a simple alertness test -- anyone who can't pass it can't work. I guarantee you you'll get workers flagged because they're not fully awake, they're distracted by a spat with their spouse, they're hung over, they're sick, etc, and you'll get other workers passed through who are fully alert who also happen to have cannabis or something else in their urine. If the concern is about "safety" and productivity, then be honest about the screening.

But it isn't about that. It's about dictating lifestyles and holding the big stick of Authority.

There are still circumstances where behavior is part of the service.
The only time I fired someone for being high was because they couldn't behave in the proper manner around clients when stoned.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

yep..I can make my own income through my own efforts...

As do I. But if the bender-overs continue to let the whole thing slide, the day will come when we're required to test ourselves. Presumably some of us will have to inform ourselves that we can't hire ourselves because the chemical test says no and the what the State wants is more important.

If you fly a commercial airplane, drive a commercial truck, operate a commercial train, drive a commercial bus and own the business, it is already there.

I don't drive a commercial truck today. But I used to, for years. Never needed a pee test or blood test.

I know a former CDL driver that drove for years, a month ago got chosen for a random, he lost his CDL for marijuana. He is now looking for work and was discharged with cause. He will have a tough time providing for his family. But it's okay he got to smoke weed, I am sure it was well worth it.

I'm not. But I don't know how you can look at that and not see blatant discrimination, if the cannabis didn't factor in some incident.

This might be addressed in a manner not unlike public accommodations laws, prohibiting private employers from drug testing applicants and employees absent evidence the applicant or employee is indeed using illegal drugs.

 

[EverCurious]

How is this any different (on the surface) from a workplace stating their employees must be non-smokers. They simply say, "No drugs" and there it is. If employee does any drugs they're no longer meeting the requirements for the job's duties.

I don't see an argument. If you're in a job that requires mandatory drug testing, don't do drugs - or if you feel so strongly about it, discuss your pot use with your boss. I'm pretty sure they can tell what drugs one is using, and perhaps the company will go with the flow on pot use. I have had a LOT of bosses who could care less about drug use, and others where they don't want to take the risk.

 

[Unkotare]

I won't play around here I have smoked marijuana. My boss sold me the stuff, and hell, he smoked in front of his family and shared it with his wife and I, in front of his kids at the dinner table. I am no shrinking violet here. I just want marijuana legalized by the fed, that's it, make it acceptable nationaly. I don't have a problem with that. I just don't like carpetbaggers telling me what to do, those out of state buggers.

Hypocrite pot head ^^^

 

[Agit8r]

About half of my employees smoke pot ... Let's just say most of them aren't in the top half.
If any of my employees show up for work in a condition where they cannot do the job I require to the standards I set ... I will fire them on the spot.*


* With the exception of one, because I kind of like him anyway ... He is a genuine fuck-up, but every place needs a Gomer Pyle.

Voilà. That's the way it should work. After all as an employer you're buying labor and if they can't do the gig you're getting shortchanged. As suggested before, if there are motor skills in question run a simple alertness test -- anyone who can't pass it can't work. I guarantee you you'll get workers flagged because they're not fully awake, they're distracted by a spat with their spouse, they're hung over, they're sick, etc, and you'll get other workers passed through who are fully alert who also happen to have cannabis or something else in their urine. If the concern is about "safety" and productivity, then be honest about the screening.

But it isn't about that. It's about dictating lifestyles and holding the big stick of Authority.

I don't think that a lot of people I've worked with could pass that test. Heck, i doubt some people I've worked FOR could pass that test.

 

[eots]

Marijuana legalization clashes with drug testing in the workplace Guardian Sustainable Business The Guardian

I do not see a problem at all+
I'm all for employee drug testing but there has to be a better way to test. As it stands now all you are testing is if people have residual drugs in their systems. You could have smoked weed 4 weeks ago and fail a drug test and lose you job.

 

[Jarlaxle]

People from Oklahoma, Texas, California, Washington, Mexico. All those wonderful people choke my home state with their dysfunctional driving and politics. And you people suck , 55 mph speed limit or a stop sign aren't suggestions, use YOUR FUCKING turn signals when you turn, and IMMIGRATE legally, because, it's what honest upright people do. And at least try and be discreet and fit into the local climate, you condescending know it all bastards.

Wait...what midwestern state has a 55MPH speed limit?!

 

[DigitalDrifter]

President Obama Crushes the Marijuana Movement With 15 Words
While speaking in Jamaica, President Obama had some very stark words about the future of the marijuana industry within the United States.

President Obama crushes marijuana supporters with these 15 words
But, in spite of marijuana's incredible momentum -- which has led 23 states (plus Washington, D.C.) to approve it for medical use, and four states (plus Washington, D.C.) to legalize it for recreational use -- President Obama had some choice words earlier this month while speaking in Jamaica about the future of the marijuana industry in the United States.

When asked about where the U.S. stands on the legalization of marijuana, Obama uttered 15 words sure to send shivers down the spines of marijuana supporters:

I do not foresee, any time soon, Congress changing the law at a national basis.

President Obama's expanded commentary went as follows:

Right now, that is not federal policy, and I do not foresee, any time soon, Congress changing the law at a national basis. But I do think that if there are states that show that they are not suddenly a magnet for additional crime, that they have a strong enough public health infrastructure to push against the potential for increased addiction, then it's conceivable that it will spur on a national debate. But that is going to be some time off.

In other words, we have a reinforcement from the president that the federal government is still concerned with the potential long-term effects marijuana might have on a user in terms of its potential addictive qualities, as well as its potential to increase crime rates.

Of course, getting a straight answer on either point is tough, as there are studies suggesting either side could be correct. The Huffington Post reported in August that, according to the National Incident Based Reporting System and the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, Denver crime rates were up 7% compared to the corresponding period in 2013. Specifically, public drunkenness was up 237% and drug violations rose 20% -- all within the first year of marijuana's legalization within the state of Colorado.

However, just last April, the University of Texas at Dallas released a study suggesting that marijuana legalization not only wouldn't increase crime rates, but it may actually decrease them by reducing the number of people who use alcohol. Researchers proclaimed that people substituting marijuana for alcohol could reduce the incidence rate of certain violent crimes typically caused by alcohol consumption.

President Obama Crushes the Marijuana Movement With 15 Words -- The Motley Fool

 

[BlackSand]

Good, but it is legal, it is being done, whether you think it is right or wrong is irrelevant.

Here links and the cost of drug abuse.

How Illicit Drug Use Affects Business and the Economy The White House The Real Cost and Effects of Substance and Prescription Drug Abuse For Professionals and Employers Addiction Hope

Now these are potential losses however a business does not need or want an added expense, potential losses can add up.

I don't care whether you agree with me or not but I deal with people and drug abuse in the work place and I can tell you it cost a lot of money. We had a guy who had an accident in a piece of equipment, it cost us $7,000, then we he tested positive for marijuana, he admitted to smoking just before work, we are required to send him to rehab and foot the bill.

You can bullshit all you want but it costs, why should a business put themselves at risk? Please explain why they need to take a chance, when they can get a person that doesn't have the drug problems?

I just wish they could piss test for poor work ethic, shitty home life, theft and latent craziness.
I have fired more non-smokers and incurred greater costs in regards to those problems than anything associated with pot use.

.

 

[Pogo]

Number one, I don't need a reason --- YOU do. You're the apologist for these overbearing dickheads, come up with a basis that justifies it.

And number two, I just busted you. There's no record of my saying any such thing, because it doesn't exist. You made it up; you're a liar.

Yammer yammer everywhere and never stops to think. Still no answer. You continue to bend down for an authoritarian principle that cannot justify its own existence.

Which is about as honest as putting words in other people's mouths above.

I told you it is their right as a business owner, nothing other than that is needed. No rights are being violated, you don't like someone telling you what to do, it get it, you have nothing.

Still nothing.

Again, when I sell you my services I sell my services -- not my bodily fluids.

Just admit it -- there's no justification. The case cannot be made. Period.

You are an idiot, the justification is the business owner wants to and can do it, you don't like it, tough shit. You have no reason or justification not to.

"Wants to" is not a basis.

Still nothing.

Good, but it is legal, it is being done, whether you think it is right or wrong is irrelevant.

Here links and the cost of drug abuse.

How Illicit Drug Use Affects Business and the Economy The White House The Real Cost and Effects of Substance and Prescription Drug Abuse For Professionals and Employers Addiction Hope

Now these are potential losses however a business does not need or want an added expense, potential losses can add up.

I don't care whether you agree with me or not but I deal with people and drug abuse in the work place and I can tell you it cost a lot of money. We had a guy who had an accident in a piece of equipment, it cost us $7,000, then we he tested positive for marijuana, he admitted to smoking just before work, we are required to send him to rehab and foot the bill.

You can bullshit all you want but it costs, why should a business put themselves at risk? Please explain why they need to take a chance, when they can get a person that doesn't have the drug problems?

The point is not, and never was, whether it's "legal" or being done. We all know it is. The question is, is there a justification for it? This is the one you haven't come up with an answer for. Addressing that question separates those of us who just roll over when Authority barks, and those of us who stand up and say, "hold up, this is wrong".

(Edit: see distinction between "drugs" and cannabis, next post. Nothing here has been about actual drugs, addictions or "problems")

Interestingly, it's the same question that can't be addressed about the illegalization of weed in the first place. We languish under a law based on complete bullshit, by now we all know it's bullshit, and yet some o' y'all continue bleating "yes master, may I have another". I find such obsequiousness disgusting.

 

[Pogo]

How is this any different (on the surface) from a workplace stating their employees must be non-smokers. They simply say, "No drugs" and there it is. If employee does any drugs they're no longer meeting the requirements for the job's duties.

I don't see an argument. If you're in a job that requires mandatory drug testing, don't do drugs - or if you feel so strongly about it, discuss your pot use with your boss. I'm pretty sure they can tell what drugs one is using, and perhaps the company will go with the flow on pot use. I have had a LOT of bosses who could care less about drug use, and others where they don't want to take the risk.

We always need to make the distinction in this issue, and it's overdue here, between "drugs" and "cannabis". What I've been addressing, and what virtually all of the thread has been about, has been cannabis. "Drugs" is far too broad a term to be making blanket statements on, with far too broad a range of what they can do. Cannabis is commonly lumped in with them, even though it's not a drug at all -- it's only classified as one for the purpose of propping up a bullshit law based on pure racism (and born in an overtly racist era).

It's different from "no smokers" in that smoking (tobacco) can't be a solitary act -- it affects everyone around the smoker whether they want the intrusion or not. And 'no smoking' would apply to pot anyway. What the issue is is that they're NOT testing what a person's productivity or motor skills are -- they're testing for evidence of past use. That past use may be far in the past and completely irrelevant to any work issues (it stays in the body for I understand a month)--- IOW the smoker may have used in a completely responsible manner. Further, regardless if it was three weeks ago or three minutes ago, no one can predict that it's going to affect that individual person in any given way. There is no evidence as in, for example, alcohol, that motor skills or reactions are impaired. It depends on the individual.

So if it's not a screening that demonstrates anything relevant to the job, and it's being done pre-emptively on the basis that the user "MIGHT" be less productive (even though it's equally possible he might be MORE productive) ---- it's nothing more than snooping into one's private off-the-job life and amounts to legislating morality. Not technically "legislating", but it's akin to the school that prohibits its teachers from dating or being seen in the local ice cream parlor.

---- which was literally school policy around the same time cannabis was criminalized in the racist hysteria of a century ago.

 

[TooTall]

Let's remember that these are private companies requiring the tests, not the government – consequently there are no privacy or search and seizure rights violations.

Indeed, in some rare cases government has actually played a role in protecting citizens from searches such as drug tests by their employers; the California state constitution affords privacy rights to both public and private sector employers, for example, and seven other states have enacted similar legislation.

Most everywhere else, however, if you refuse the test you'll likely lose your job or not be hired.

I worked for a company that had random drug testing of those employees that had a secret or higher security clearance as well as others that operated equipment.
When someone failed the test, a Doctor made the determination whether to send the person to a company sponsored drug rehab program or to have him/her terminated. Part of his decision making process was based on the attitude of the employee.

 

[Pogo]

About half of my employees smoke pot ... Let's just say most of them aren't in the top half.
If any of my employees show up for work in a condition where they cannot do the job I require to the standards I set ... I will fire them on the spot.*


* With the exception of one, because I kind of like him anyway ... He is a genuine fuck-up, but every place needs a Gomer Pyle.

Voilà. That's the way it should work. After all as an employer you're buying labor and if they can't do the gig you're getting shortchanged. As suggested before, if there are motor skills in question run a simple alertness test -- anyone who can't pass it can't work. I guarantee you you'll get workers flagged because they're not fully awake, they're distracted by a spat with their spouse, they're hung over, they're sick, etc, and you'll get other workers passed through who are fully alert who also happen to have cannabis or something else in their urine. If the concern is about "safety" and productivity, then be honest about the screening.

But it isn't about that. It's about dictating lifestyles and holding the big stick of Authority.

I don't think that a lot of people I've worked with could pass that test. Heck, i doubt some people I've worked FOR could pass that test.

Indeed. I wouldn't go to a morning gig without copious amounts of strong coffee (oops, that's a drug... but it's on the OK list... ) or I certainly couldn't get through it either, no way. I'm just not a morning person.

But that's the (physical) test they would have to be doing if they were genuinely screening for safety or productivity or whatever -- which demonstrates that that's not their objective at all. It would be a lot cheaper and simpler too.

Basically running a chemical analysis to see if an employee's going to be a problem down the road is like screening a suspected thief by searching what was in his pockets a month ago.

 

[Moonglow]

People from Oklahoma, Texas, California, Washington, Mexico. All those wonderful people choke my home state with their dysfunctional driving and politics. And you people suck , 55 mph speed limit or a stop sign aren't suggestions, use YOUR FUCKING turn signals when you turn, and IMMIGRATE legally, because, it's what honest upright people do. And at least try and be discreet and fit into the local climate, you condescending know it all bastards.

Wait...what midwestern state has a 55MPH speed limit?!

She's still in the 1980's