Drug Tests

[BroomJockey]

If that were true, then no one would have a problem with not being hired because of race or religion.

Strawman. Not in any way equivalent. One is a choice to participate in something illegal. Race and religion are not illegal. Further to that, even if it wasn't illegal, pot can and does have deleterious effects on a person's work. Race and religion do not have a direct impact on someone's work, though religion can prompt tricky circumstances in extreme cases.

Do this or we will not hire you so you can feed your family sounds like duress and not legal.

So you'd rather take away the rights of the companies to hire the people they feel can do the job best? Thus possibly impacting the ability of the company to function, if they get stuck with a really bad crop, shutting down, and dumping everyone out on to unemployment?

Remember, a company is made up of persons, and they have rights too. You can't take theirs away just because you want a job.

[Pedersen]

I take issue with drug tests because they are such blatantly against the 5th amendment. I know the supreme court said they aren't, but come on, how is taking your bodily fluids not making you incriminate yourself?

Wow... easiest question ever asked on Fratching, I think. Of course, being ridiculously easy doesn't reduce the number of factors in the answer. How is it not making you incriminate yourself?

1. Who's filing the charges? If the consequences are "We're not going to hire you", you're not incriminating yourself. Incriminating yourself means that you say or do something that aids the state in prosecuting you. You are giving a urine sample to a company, not the state, and the company is actually incapable of starting the criminal proceedings against you. Therefore, no prosecution, and therefore no self-incrimination.

2. The full name for the document containing the 5th Amendment is "The Constitution of the United States of America", not "The Constitution of Joe's Diner". It limits the government, not the people, and not the companies.

3. You have the option of declining. You have the option of finding a company that does not engage in practices you find questionable. The company is stating that, as one of their conditions of employment, you must have a clean drug test, along with other conditions, such as punctuality, cleanliness, cooperation with coworkers, not sleeping on the job, etc. If any condition is too onerous for you, then you know you are at the wrong company and should simply decline.

Your next paragraph, though, is extremely amusing next to the first paragraph you wrote:

As to medical marijuana use in particular states, it is still against federal law. That alone means that feds can and have bust state legal pot sales and use. I wouldn't want to hire someone that is breaking federal law and could be jailed at any time.

In other words, as a company owner, you would not want to hire a user of an illegal substance, but (based on your first paragraph, quoted above) you would actively prevent other company owners from being able to determine whether or not someone is a user of illegal substances.

The self-contradiction amuses me greatly. Thank you for the laugh.

Do this or we will not hire you so you can feed your family sounds like duress and not legal.

So, if you apply for a job, you should get it, regardless? That's a great way to fix the economy, I guess. Since refusal to hire someone is causing duress to the person you've denied, every applicant must be hired. Of course, the fact that companies can't afford that is relevant.

Oh, wait, you didn't mean it that way. You only meant that refusal to hire a user of an illegal substance is duress. Wait, that doesn't make sense either. I've got many candidates for a given position, I need to choose someone. Why should I not refuse to hire someone who is using an illegal substance?

Furthermore, duress involves a credible threat of harm to the person being coerced. Your harm in this case amounts to "We won't give you this job." While that can be harmful, it is not harm in the legal sense. Nor is it even a credible threat of harm. The penalty is something that nearly everybody in the country faces at one time or another: Sorry, we found someone else that is a better match for the job. In this case, that someone else wasn't shown to be using illegal substances and lying to us about it.

And why should I not be able to confirm that they are not doing so? I'd rather have people I can trust to be honest with me. And people who use illegal substances have every reason in the world to lie to me, a total stranger. I have no way of knowing their habits, or the risks those habits present to my company, without getting a third party that I can trust to verify what they are telling me.

Physical evidence are those things, but you normally need a court order to obtain them, but not for your urine.

You need a court order to obtain such evidence when the holder of the evidence refuses to provide it, and yes urine is on that list. If you refuse to provide it, then I refuse to provide a paycheck. Sounds like a simple transaction to me.

I still don't like the erosion of our rights. Only the second amendment seems to be getting stronger.

I don't like the erosion of our rights, either, but you are attacking the wrong thing. The fundamental issue comes from corporate personhood (in particular, read the sections on Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Corporation). If you want to attack the issue of corporate rights vs human rights, start there.

While you're at it, I'd also work on gaining greater understanding of the legalities of the Constitution. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, not by any stretch, but even I know enough to know who that document limits.

[DrFaroohk]

"Oh, well if he smokes pot, who knows what other laws he'll break!?!?!?!"

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. They might as well say "Well, he got a traffic ticket! He CLEARLY BROKE THE LAW! HE MIGHT BE A MURDERER AND A RAPIST!"

I just think my work should speak for itself. I impressed them at both interviews, so obviously they didn't know just by looking at me that I smoke weed. I'm well spoken, intelligent, logical and in general have a good head on my shoulders (most of the time). I also had the same job for six years wherre I advanced to assistant manager and was the interim manager for a while. I have a good record and a lot of good experience. What should pot have to do with that? I didn't become a different person in the last 12 hours just because they suddenly found out I smoke.

[the_std]

I just think my work should speak for itself. I impressed them at both interviews, so obviously they didn't know just by looking at me that I smoke weed. I'm well spoken, intelligent, logical and in general have a good head on my shoulders (most of the time). I also had the same job for six years wherre I advanced to assistant manager and was the interim manager for a while. I have a good record and a lot of good experience. What should pot have to do with that? I didn't become a different person in the last 12 hours just because they suddenly found out I smoke.

It's not about the person you are, it's about the fact that you choose to break the law. Plain and simple. You know it's against the law and you still do it. That alone is enough reason for most companies not to hire you for liability purposes, let alone the myriad other reasons it might bring up.

[Pedersen]

I didn't become a different person in the last 12 hours just because they suddenly found out I smoke.

Actually, you did. You went from being someone who has an excellent record, good appearance, projecting an image of trustworthiness to being someone who lied about an issue that could cause problems for the company.

Like it or not, seizure laws exist in this country that would allow the feds to seize the company's property if they made the claim that you were dealing on the job.

You've hidden from them something that you know some people have issues with on the grounds that you don't have issues with it. You've shattered your own trustworthy image by committing a lie of omission.

Congratulations.

[LeChatNoir]

I fully support the recreational and medical use of marijuana. That said, I also say it is the company's right to perform drug tests on any employment candidates they choose. It's unfortunate, because I know that pot smoking does not equal incompetent loser (I know many pot smokers who lead completely normal, functioning lives...you would never know they smoked unless they told you). But businesses cannot afford to take that chance.

I have a friend who applied for a job, and he smokes regularly. He ended up buying a package of "fake" urine. I couldn't believe it when he actually passed and got the job.

[the_std]

I fully support the recreational and medical use of marijuana. That said, I also say it is the company's right to perform drug tests on any employment candidates they choose. It's unfortunate, because I know that pot smoking does not equal incompetent loser (I know many pot smokers who lead completely normal, functioning lives...you would never know they smoked unless they told you). But businesses cannot afford to take that chance.

This is exactly how I feel as well. I don't demonize pot, I enjoy it on occasion and have many friends who do as well, all people who lead completely normal lives. But if a company wants to do piss tests, that's their call.

It seems that drug tests are more common in the States than they are here in Canada. I've had many jobs, including one for the federal government and another one for a prestigious university, and I've never once been asked to take a drug test. Hm, nor a credit check for that manner. Does anyone else notice this?

[Dreamstalker]

I wish that silly myth that pot kills brain cells would just die. The only risk from smoking pot is lung cancer.

Well, there is some sort of genetic quirk in a segment of the population that can trigger a schizophrenic break if someone with that mutation (I'm not entirely sure what it is) uses marijuana.

Certain completely legal substances have been known to flag as a false positive. That's what bothers me, that if someone knows that a positive result is false they cannot (to my knowledge) demand a retest.

[Greenday]

Drug tests by companies are a good thing. It will give me a job when I finish college (future forensic chemist for those who don't know).

But yea, I don't see anything wrong with wanting a drugfree workforce at your company. Drugs, whether it is coke, heroin, extacy, weed, etc. prevents you from reaching your max capacity to do work to your fullest ability. Yes, even weed. Denying that weed has any effect on your ability to function is ignoring facts. It does whether you want to believe it or not.

Drug use also proves you are willing to break the law. And if you are willing to break the law now, maybe you'll be willing to break the law later and screw the company over.

[tabbyblack13]

I also believe that drug tests are a good thing too. I work in a open pit mine and its about safety of others. What if someone was doing pot while driving a haul truck loaded with 300 tons of material? What could happen? Someone could be injured, disabled for the rest of their life, or die. I know that its just a chance but, do you want to take that chance. What about drugs that give you hallucinations or make you hyperactive? What risks are you exposing to the rest of the workforce.

There is also this. There have been workers that hid alcohol in the haul trucks and been busted for it. Busted by drug testing or visual confirmation of the bottles. While some wouldn't do drugs at work, others will.

I do support medical use for those who are suffering from cancer, sever pain, and other conditions. If you have those conditions a person should be on disabilities and not be in the workforce. They need to focus on recovering and getting healthier.

While some legal drugs do show up as illegal there is also further testing for that. A good company will send the sample in for further testing to make sure of the test result. I know Codine (sp?) will show up as an opiate and one type of blood pressure medication will show up as Pot. Also before they test you they will ask if what you are taking for meds and over the counter drugs. Vitamins will also skew the result.

[Greenday]

While some legal drugs do show up as illegal there is also further testing for that. A good company will send the sample in for further testing to make sure of the test result. I know Codine (sp?) will show up as an opiate and one type of blood pressure medication will show up as Pot. Also before they test you they will ask if what you are taking for meds and over the counter drugs. Vitamins will also skew the result.

Codeine shows up as an opiate as it is an opiate.

Not sure which tests you are talking about. There are basically two kinds of tests. Quick but okay accurate, and longer but EXTREMELY accurate. A run on a GC/MS won't take drastically long (depending on the range of mass fragments being looked at, 20 minutes the most) and I'll tell you what it is you've been taking.

[anriana]

Considering that my workplace gave someone time off to go to a meth clinic, I'm not sure why they bother screening people for pot in the first place. That said, I understand why companies screen people for drugs but I think it's stupid that some drugs (especially pot) are illegal, and that some drugs (again, especially pot) would have an effect on someone's employment prospects. Having raided with casual and hardcore users of pot and alcohol, I'd much rather hire/work with a pothead than an alcoholic. Is there just not a way to test for alcohol? Would there be too much of a controversy with that since it's legal in most places?

[joe hx]

The only company I've worked for that required a drug test didn't care if you did drugs or not - the testing was a requirement with their insurance company.

[BroomJockey]

Is there just not a way to test for alcohol? Would there be too much of a controversy with that since it's legal in most places?

Might be controversy, but honestly, once you're sober, there's nothing left in your system. The only way would be to check for long-term signs of alcohol abuse. And that would require liver function tests and such. WAY more expensive.

[MaggieTheCat]

I was telling my boyfriend about this thread and he gave me some interesting information that I thought I'd pass along, since it hasn't been mentioned here.

He works for a company that does random drug testing. This company also deals with a lot of confidential, government-related issues. So, the main reason they do the drug testing is so that their employees can't get blackmailed. Apparently it has been an issue, or at least they are afraid it would be an issue, if an employee was doing pot, or anything else, and someone outside the company said, "Hey, give me the confidential information for the project you're working on, or I'll tell your boss/the cops/whoever that you're doing pot." Confidentiality is a huge issue with this company, so they can't have that risk factor.