Drug Tests

[Flyndaran]

I have. It's why I refuse to let my friends hang around when they're stoned.

Eh, I never said that it didn't happen. I just wonder how common it really is when ingesting uncut marijuana.

[DrFaroohk]

I actually checked out that wikipedia link:

"To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one has not reasonably ascertained to be true with the intention that it be taken for the truth"

Haha.

To address the birth control argument (clever, that one!), you're leaving out a major factor. If one were to just assume their spouse were on birth control, and it turns out she wasn't, that's not a lie. That's just the husband being a fucking idiot. If, however, the wife says "I am on birth control." and then she's not, that is in fact a lie.

There's still no lying involved in the drug test. Once again I never made the statement to them that I don't do drugs. I also didn't try to beat the test. If I were lying, I would have brought in someone else's urine and substituted it out. That would be a direct lie, because I signed a form saying "This urine is mine". I never signed a form at the job stating I didn't do drugs. I merely agreed to take a test for drugs. Maybe it's a thin distinction, but it's still entirely relevent, no matter how some people's "mental gymnastics" like to call out other people's behavior to make themselves feel better.

[Slytovhand]

Ah... at least I'm amused

Firstly, not disclosing prior to giving a drug test is not (unless there has been some sort of form signed to indicate such) a lie. It is, though, foolish! As has been pointed out. Telling your potential employers up front "Yes, I occasionally smoke a joint because it settles me occasionally, but I have never, and will never, do any drugs during or before my work time as I am aware of the possible influence it can have on my work abilities". Might work too... hell of a lot better of getting you a job than saying nothing, doing the test, and then having to explain it. Companies like employees who take responsibility... and initiative!


Secondly, check the company's policies. If you sign any form of employment contract, I'll guarantee you that you'll see a drug policy... being nil.

Thirdly, so.. you smoke occasionally. It's illegal. You get busted by the cops and get a conviction.... and let's just say you get a bad judge who gives you jail time... why should the company be out an employee for that period?? Not when they can simply hire someone who won't be that risk?

I love (well, no, hate actually) how people will try to justify anything that they do personally to make it alright - and in doing so, make everyone else who is against it wrong.. as against take full responsibility for their actions and the consequences for them. The world does not owe anyone a living! The world does not have to twist itself around so that everyone's little fetishes and desires get accommodated. If you want to do something, then fine! But don't go crying cos the world has a different set of standards. After all, I don't see people on here arguing that we should be allowed to go around rat-arsed driving massive forklifts on the road while waving fully loaded shotguns...

[Nyoibo]

After all, I don't see people on here arguing that we should be allowed to go around rat-arsed driving massive forklifts on the road while waving fully loaded shotguns...

Only on weekends.

[Pedersen]

I actually checked out that wikipedia link:

"To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one has not reasonably ascertained to be true with the intention that it be taken for the truth"

Haha.

And now we are stuck in a war of semantics. Perhaps another link will help you to see that you are, in fact, lying, regardless of how much you want to admit it.

define:statement. In particular, this definition leaps off the page at me:

a nonverbal message; "a Cadillac makes a statement about who you are"; "his tantrums are a statement of his need for attention"

So, you can state something without ever uttering a word. Knowing you, other examples will need to be made in order to show this definitively. Otherwise, we'll be treated to yet another display of interesting illogic. So, other examples where a statement is made without uttering a word:

• The Supreme Court declines to hear a case without comment. The statement made is that this case either is not important enough to warrant their attention, does not have any new constitutional arguments to be resolved, or that they agree with all rulings made on the case to date.
• A parent ignores a child's tantrum. The statement made is either that the child has thrown too many tantrums and the parent is trying to find a new way to get them to stop, or that the tantrum is not worth the time, or that the parent doesn't care.
• In an online forum, a post is made that 100% validates an argument. All other posters ignore the post. The statement made by the posters is either that there is nothing to add, or that they wish the poster would go away.

I know, it's only three such examples, but I'm sure we can make several more without too much effort. Shall I continue, or will you at least finally admit that, without saying a word, it is possible to make a statement?

And, if you make that admission, will you finally admit that it is possible for someone to lie without uttering a word, since they have managed to make a statement, and a statement can be a lie?

To address the birth control argument (clever, that one!), you're leaving out a major factor. If one were to just assume their spouse were on birth control, and it turns out she wasn't, that's not a lie. That's just the husband being a fucking idiot. If, however, the wife says "I am on birth control." and then she's not, that is in fact a lie.

Apparently, it was far too clever for you. Let me re-quote it:

Another way of putting it: If your significant other were to stop taking birth control and not tell you, then when you found out, you would feel as if you were lied to. It's the same thing: A lie (in this case, a lie of omission). The consequences are different, the specifics of the matter are different, but the classification is the same.

I left out a step, I will admit. It was implied that the significant other had stated the use of birth control in the past, and simply stopped without consultation. No verbal communication about the stoppage took place. Have we yet crossed the line into a lie? Or is it still that the person who didn't know is just a "fucking idiot"?

There's still no lying involved in the drug test. Once again I never made the statement to them that I don't do drugs. I also didn't try to beat the test. If I were lying, I would have brought in someone else's urine and substituted it out. That would be a direct lie, because I signed a form saying "This urine is mine". I never signed a form at the job stating I didn't do drugs. I merely agreed to take a test for drugs. Maybe it's a thin distinction, but it's still entirely relevent, no matter how some people's "mental gymnastics" like to call out other people's behavior to make themselves feel better.

If you're going to go with "thin distinctions", then you really shouldn't change around what other people have said. I did not say that you were trying to beat the test. I said you were hoping you would be flagged as a false negative. Maybe it's a thin distinction, but it's still entirely relevant (hmm... that sounds familiar, I wonder where I heard it before?).

The company's non-verbalized question is "Do you use performance or judgement impairing substances?"

Since they have need to make sure of the veracity of your non-verbalized answer, they require drug tests results being submitted.

Your non-verbalized answer is "No, I do not." Your drug test results will contradict your answer, showing you to have lied about it.

And now I eagerly await the twists that will come to show me how wrong I am. Maybe they'll actually happen this time, instead of just flinging poo at the walls and hoping it sticks. Or at least that no one notices the gaps in it.

Secondly, check the company's policies. If you sign any form of employment contract, I'll guarantee you that you'll see a drug policy... being nil.

I'd forgotten about that bit, Slyt, thank you. Even if, by some miracle, you and DrFaroohk manage to convince me he's not lying by failing to disclose before the drug test, he will be lying as soon as he starts employment. The company maintains a drug free workplace (as evidenced by their drug screening). Once an employee starts work, the non-verbal statement on the part of the company is "We expect all employees to remain drug free", and the non-verbal statement on the part of the employee is "Yes, I am in compliance with all company policies." By lighting up, DrFaroohk will be lying in his non-verbal statement.

After all, I don't see people on here arguing that we should be allowed to go around rat-arsed driving massive forklifts on the road while waving fully loaded shotguns...

You're right. Waving them around is just not right. They should be discharged while going around rat-arsed driving massive forklifts on the road. Much more entertaining that way

[DesignFox]

I would just like to state how amused I am by this thread.

Yes, everyone in this world wants everything they do to be perfectly fine with everyone else around them and to hell with them and how they are being affected!

Frankly, I'm getting sick of it. Once in awhile, you have to just suck it up, put your big boy/girl pants/panties on and admit that maybe, just maybe, what is right for YOU isn't right for the others around you.

I have no issue with work places requiring drug testing. As it is, most places threaten to do random testing and never actually go through with it. They just expect you to follow the handbook, or god forbid, not break the LAW, and not do freakin' drugs.

If you don't like a company's policy, get a job someplace else. Period. End of story.

If I were hiring, I'd take the person who tested clean over the person who didn't. Mostly because I don't know the applicants personally. So how can I tell if they are an occasional recreational user or a current addict? If they are breaking one law, how do I know that other laws aren't being broken? As an employer, I wouldn't want to deal with that liability, either!

[Flyndaran]

...
If you don't like a company's policy, get a job someplace else. Period. End of story.

You must live in a nice world in which the masses are able to change jobs so easily. I live in this world where many people are stuck just to keep from getting tossed on the streets.

...If I were hiring, I'd take the person who tested clean over the person who didn't. Mostly because I don't know the applicants personally. So how can I tell if they are an occasional recreational user or a current addict? If they are breaking one law, how do I know that other laws aren't being broken? As an employer, I wouldn't want to deal with that liability, either!

That's the slippery slope / gateway drug garbage.
I may not want employees working high, but demanding their urine is forced self-incrimination in fact if not in modern law.

[BroomJockey]

but demanding their urine is forced self-incrimination in fact if not in modern law.

That's a new definition of fact I've not heard before. The one I know has something to do with "being accurate and truthful." Since self-incrimination only applies to the legal arena, and law is the only source of definition for that area, if it's not true legally, it's not true at all.

You must live in a nice world in which the masses are able to change jobs so easily. I live in this world where many people are stuck just to keep from getting tossed on the streets.

Seems like a damned good reason not to do anything which can potentially limit your options, then. In a choice between pot and a job, one or the other, if jobs really are so scarce, why choose pot? So, despite a dearth of available jobs, you still get to make that choice. You either choose pot, and a job which will accept it, or no pot and a job that won't accept it. If a person needs a job as badly as you imply, Flyn, it should be an easy choice.

[Flyndaran]

That's a new definition of fact I've not heard before. The one I know has something to do with "being accurate and truthful." Since self-incrimination only applies to the legal arena, and law is the only source of definition for that area, if it's not true legally, it's not true at all..

Incriminating oneself is basic english. They force a person to pee into a cup in order to make that person incriminate themself. Pretty basic truth in my veiw. Urine is a bodily fluid, just easier to get than blood. We don't allow blood withdrawl without a court order.

Seems like a damned good reason not to do anything which can potentially limit your options, then. In a choice between pot and a job, one or the other, if jobs really are so scarce, why choose pot? So, despite a dearth of available jobs, you still get to make that choice. You either choose pot, and a job which will accept it, or no pot and a job that won't accept it. If a person needs a job as badly as you imply, Flyn, it should be an easy choice.

I am not really arguing the law against pot, though that is stupid, useless, and insulting. I am only arguing against urine tests all "Gatica like" in forcing self-incrimination.

[Pedersen]

Incriminating oneself is basic english. They force a person to pee into a cup in order to make that person incriminate themself.

If you would like to use the "basic English" argument, then let's explore basic English, shall we?

define:force has a number of entries listed for it. All of them that are related to what we are discussing boil down to this particular entry:

coerce: to cause to do through pressure or necessity, by physical, moral or intellectual means :"She forced him to take a job in the city"; "He squeezed her for information"

Your argument appears to be that the statement from the company of "drug test or no job" is a form of coercion. It's not. It is a condition of employment from that company. It is much the same as other conditions: Don't show up to work drunk, don't sexually harass coworkers, don't steal from the company, etc. This particular condition involves the use of an outside entity to verify the veracity of your compliance since, for some reason, people who do use pot tend to lie about it to people who would disapprove and/or act against them about it.

So, stop with the "force" argument. It's wrong. Call it what it is.

Pretty basic truth in my veiw. Urine is a bodily fluid, just easier to get than blood. We don't allow blood withdrawl without a court order.

And now we get to the second wrong thing in your post: We absolutely do allow the taking of blood without a court order. In fact, the scenario would play out like this:

Cop: We need a blood sample.
Suspect: Okay.

And then blood gets drawn. No court order involved. When is the court order required?

Cop: We need a blood sample.
Suspect: No. I refuse.
Cop: *goes and gets court order*
Cop: Give me the blood sample that the court says you have to.
Suspect: Dammit. *gives blood*

Which, by some strange coincidence, is exactly the same sequence of events for a drug test for a job. The only difference is that the company can't get the court order, and therefore simply declines to hire you.

That's right, the company has less ability to use any sort of force against you. Go figure.

I am not really arguing the law against pot, though that is stupid, useless, and insulting. I am only arguing against urine tests all "Gatica like" in forcing self-incrimination.

Finally: Gattaca, not "Gatica". The movie was named Gattaca because it was a word that could be made out of the symbols used to represent a DNA strand. Curiously, "i" is not one of those symbols.

And here, I actually happen to agree with you. I don't like this road, which is why I do not work for companies that require such testing. I don't even use pot. Hell, I barely use Advil. If I drink, it's only a glass once a week (maybe tice in a busy week). When it comes to such testing, I've got absolutely nothing to hide. And I still won't do it. It's wrong to allow companies such power to invade our privacy.

Just at least be factual about why. Your argument is much stronger when you do that.

[Greenday]

Finally: Gattaca, not "Gatica". The movie was named Gattaca because it was a word that could be made out of the symbols used to represent a DNA strand. Curiously, "i" is not one of those symbols.

And here, I actually happen to agree with you. I don't like this road, which is why I do not work for companies that require such testing. I don't even use pot. Hell, I barely use Advil. If I drink, it's only a glass once a week (maybe tice in a busy week). When it comes to such testing, I've got absolutely nothing to hide. And I still won't do it. It's wrong to allow companies such power to invade our privacy.

Not to be a smartass, but there actually is an I in DNA. It was part of one of my last lectures in Genetics. It's a variation of one of the "normal" four (I think it's A or G).

Companies don't want drug users at work. I don't blame them. It's a very valid point. It's a matter of work safety. It's ensuring that it won't affect your work. They don't care how it affects your personal life, only how it would affect them.

[Slytovhand]

Ped's last point has prompted this question for both...

Do you, therefore, believe that companies shouldn't have the right to know if an employee is either a) doing something illegal that may impinge on the employer, or b) is undertaking an act that may potentially be to the detriment of said company?

We're talking about 'freedoms' and 'rights'... do the companies have none, and the individual have all?

It's wrong to allow companies such power to invade our privacy.

So, if an employee turns up to work stoned, the company should not have the right to so anything about it? At the very least, if it was merely suspected (ie, bloodshot eyes, bit of a slur), then they company shouldn't have the right to determine if that employee - on their grounds, using their equipment, being an OHS liability - to find out if their suspicions are correct?

[Pedersen]

Not to be a smartass, but there actually is an I in DNA. It was part of one of my last lectures in Genetics. It's a variation of one of the "normal" four (I think it's A or G).

Thank you. I didn't know that existed. Learned something new

Do you, therefore, believe that companies shouldn't have the right to know if an employee is either a) doing something illegal that may impinge on the employer, or b) is undertaking an act that may potentially be to the detriment of said company?

The way that question is phrased is very difficult to say a simple "yes" or "no" to, since just that word will make people ask "What is he responding to?"

I'll simply detail it here: A company needs to know if an employee is doing something that may be detrimental to the company (whether that act is illegal or not). I do not feel it should have the right to do so, though. The reason being that, as a right, the company could make it a requirement that employees detail their personal lives to their managers in a daily report, and the employees would have no recourse.

Depending on the way societal opinion is moving at the time, this could go so far as to include details of the individual's sex life. After all, some sexual acts are considered "unnatural" by some segments of society. If your company relies on one of those segments as a key market, and one of your employees is participating in that act, and it got out to your customers, you could lose a lot of business.

However, what that employee is doing in the bedroom is not something that people should have access to. By making the knowledge of potentially detrimental acts a right, though, it now becomes something the business can demand of an employee.

We're talking about 'freedoms' and 'rights'... do the companies have none, and the individual have all?

Companies should have drastically reduced rights in comparison to people for one specific reason: Companies are artificial constructs, created by people. Until such time as a company is able to come into existence without the aid of people, I would continue to state that opinion. Should companies have some rights? Yes. The right to own property, make sales, and pay taxes. Not much else, though.

So, if an employee turns up to work stoned, the company should not have the right to so anything about it? At the very least, if it was merely suspected (ie, bloodshot eyes, bit of a slur), then they company shouldn't have the right to determine if that employee - on their grounds, using their equipment, being an OHS liability - to find out if their suspicions are correct?

The most the company should do is act on the reasonable suspicion: Send the employee home, and follow disciplinary action as detailed in their employee handbook. Yes, this can lead right up to termination. I'm okay with that.

I'm not okay with the company invading my personal life, nor anybody else's personal life.

That's right, even though I'm pointing out that DrFaroohk is lying to the company that interviewed him, and even though I'm pointing out Flyndaran's logic and vocabulary errors, I happen to agree with both of them that the companies should not be doing this as a matter of policy, not without one helluva good reason.

Good reasons would include being the operator of machinery that, if mishandled, would result in injury. Would also include handling dangerous chemicals, too. Also being in a position where discovery of this habit would leave the person susceptible to blackmail. Other reasons, too. But, as a general rule, these reasons do not apply, and companies should not allow a policy of drug screening.

[Flyndaran]

...
So, if an employee turns up to work stoned, the company should not have the right to so anything about it? At the very least, if it was merely suspected (ie, bloodshot eyes, bit of a slur), then they company shouldn't have the right to determine if that employee - on their grounds, using their equipment, being an OHS liability - to find out if their suspicions are correct?

That turns into a reasonable reason to test. That is not what anyone disagrees with.
I just don't like the, "Give us your urine or we will fire you." force. Yes, it is force if it is a legitimate threat that might lead to your living on the street. Not all force is with a gun, for crying out loud.
Police here need just cause to get a court order. Some judges may not care about civil rights and sign anything that's put in from of them, but most actually read warrants.
I'm not saying that companies don't have a right to fire someone with reason like knowing that someone breaks the law. I just don't like the civil liberties destruction that them taking your bodily fluids leads to.

[BroomJockey]

Incriminating oneself is basic english. They force a person to pee into a cup in order to make that person incriminate themself.

Since it can't be used in a court of law, it's not incriminating. Basic English would show the root of the word being "criminal." Thus related to law. Colloquial usage being the big bag of random shit it is, and since you're specifically talking about rights, freedoms, and law, we're gonna have to go with the real, legal usage of the word. No criminal charges = no incrimination. And it's voluntary. Take the test, or not take the test. Since your conditions of employment are set by the employer, and can't be unilaterally changed to the detriment or benefit of either side, you'd either agreed to it by asking for a job there, or agreed to it by continuing to work there. If you don't agree to it, but continue to work there, you're no longer abiding by your terms of employment, and the company is free to fire you for non-compliance, or to keep you on regardless, modifying your terms of employment to reflect that.