Drug Tests

[Narbisaur]

So why the hell can't someone get a job who smoked weed once 3 weeks ago and has 4 micrograms/million over the limit in his pis? There are people who drink every night til they pass out... they get a job. There are people who did cocaine in copious amounts 3 days before... they get the job.

 

This filter seems ectremely unnecessary. 

 

Let me say that every hard-working, creative, intuitive, moral person I have ever met has smoked weed at least once. Usually more. The people I have met who haven't ever smoked weed and refuse to do so are usually stuck in their shell and egregiously immature. They follow directions and do exactly what they are told.

In fact, the hardest working individuals I know smoke weed quite more often than once in their lifetime. And I know some seriously hard-working individuals. One is a guitar player who does absolutely nothing but music and guitar all day long. Wake to sleep. Nothing.

 

John mayer gets grammies. He ain't shit compared to my friend, who can't pay the rent cuz he's not famous, doesn't have a pretty face, and can't dance....

 

Who would you want to work for you? Does it really matter that they smoked weed a couple of times? Do you really think that this kind of drug screening is an accurate representation of a drug problem?

 

I think that a person's mentality and general character matter way more for a job that requires responsibility. And for those who are impoverished and live a shit-life, weed may be a part of their life. A real JOB might get them OUT of that life.

 

I just don't get this stupidity.

 

I want to meet the heads of these decisions and slap them.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

P.S. I also know people who work for intel who smoke 8 times a day and are worthless who SHOULD'NT have the job, and their ridiculous weed habit is a big red flag, in that case. However, drug tests would not show that detail.

[Masa_1964]

Never used... while I was living on belgium it looked like it was common thing and when I go to my wife place on nederland it can be smelled on bus... in generally I did not like effect what it gave on persons I know. I My Humble Opinion

 

Masa_1964

[ajnl]

I would agree, I know people who smoked weed a couple of times and it never became an addiction. And they are great people, hard working, etc.

 

The problem lies in addiction.

Edited October 12, 2013 by ajnl

[UAdave]

Recreational marijuana use is quickly becoming more and more acceptable but until it's legalized, drugs are drugs. Personally I don't find use here and there any more extreme than alcohol.

[Narbisaur]

Yea, it depends on the person and the circumstance, which is completely out of the test for drugs, as far as I see.

 

There's nothing about the drug test that says whether a person is a good worker or not except if they test positive for some hard shit like cocaine or heroine that would already be gone in 5 days (if it's not gone, it means they have a problem, cuz they knew the test was coming and used anyway).

 

So I just don't get it.

 

All of my most hardworking friends use weed. Not all the time, but they do when it's chill-time. When it's not chill-time, they are busting their asses.

For other people, when it's not chill-time, they watch reality TV while they study some stupid shit for a BULLSHIT mass comm degree, and when it IS chill time, they get wasted.

 

Who is the harder worker?

[Narbisaur]

My point is, when will rich, powerful, anglosaxen white potrestant mutherf***ers stop dictating arbitrary rules they can enforce based on their political connections?

 

This is one of them.

 

There is 0 scholarly evidence to prove that marijuana should be illegal. Especially if alcohol is illegal.

 

So what the hell is going on? Why these arbitrary drug tests with limited, short-sighted results that limit the ability of over-qualified people like me to get a job while I'm going through college? I know more about headphones, speakers, and sound reporduction than the next stupid-ass straight-a student who never smked weed who is gonna get the job.. but I won't, and Office Depot will lose money because of it. Why is this law in effect?

 

 

 

 

 

I'm serous.. Why do you guys think these laws are in effect? What is driving them?

[Masa_1964]

I seen some good fellows gone nuts cause it... never recovered, few yeah but still. Most seem done like less than smoke or alcohol... but those I seen went totally nuts. Not seen it happen with smoke or alco... for rest of life. sad. Why seek easy pleasure? work for it....!

 

Masa_1964

[Narbisaur]

I've never seen or heard of any legitimate case of someone having a psychotic breakdown due to marijuana, and the chemical function of THC and cannibinoids wouldn't suggest it's possible. However, people predisposed to psycho-insanity may have been pushed over the edge, THC being a catalyst. I just don't see it being likely in the least.

 

On the other hand, it is super likely with drugs like Adderal and Ritalin, both CNS stimulants that function pretty much like cocaine. Those are legal and sold mass-market in the USA. And there is little to NO evidence to suggest that they function any differently in humans that aren't diagnosed with ADD. The idea that these drugs "calm down" people who have been diagnosed with adhd is nuts. No clinical evidence. In addition, the amount they are distributed legally has resulted in the exponential increase in their abuse by people without a prescription and people misusing (taking too much, or crushing and snorting it) among teens and preteens, which gets them straight into hard drugs as a gateway.

 

Seems like a ridiculous double-standard to me.

 

Btw, MASA, your country makes great beer.

[gibson66]

Im going to have to disagree here. It is in the best interests of the employers to ensure that their employees are sober so they can function at their peek. Alcohol is different because in moderation it can be used without interfering with your work. Marijuana is different. It's effects may not be as drastic, but the effects are visible for more than just an hour or two.

 

I realize that relative to other drugs, marijuana's effects are not particularly detrimental, but it takes a lot longer for the body to filter it out. If you show up a bit hazy they next day, you won't be able to work at peek efficiency, which hurts the company. Try and understand it from the employers perspective. I'm not trying to back up the double standards and I don't necessarily believe weed is a "bad drug," but I see why employers do their best to keep their employees away from it.

[Narbisaur]

Actually, the effects of a hangover (using alcohol to the extent of getting as impaired as smoking weed) are much more intense than the post-effects of weed. Someone who is a raging alcoholic could easily pass a drug test, whereas someone who smoked wee once 3 weeks prior to the drug test will get a positive result. This result for the alcoholic is used by employers as evidence that they do not have a drug problem. The positive result for marijuana says only that. It doesn't include any information about what levels of THC were in someone's body, how frequently they use, how long ago they used...etc.

 

My point is that a drug screening is an entirely inaccurate way to tell if someone will be sober for work, and provides little to no information about how efficiently they work in comparison with other applicants. In fact, like I said, the most industrious people I know smoke quite frequently, and do not drink frequently, at all.

Also, I don't know where you are getting your information, but the effects of THC in the body go away after about 2-3 hours. Usually less. While it may take a while for the body to filter out THC from fat cells where it gets stored, it's active time in the brain is much much less, and very similar to that of alcohol.

 

Also, a drug screening prior to employment seems kind of useless. Random drug screenings during working hours would make much more sense, as people who are drunk or inebriated on some other drug would be weeded out much more practically.

[rolf]

Weed is a soft drugs, Alcohol is a hard drugs. Only difference is acceptance. Alcohol is more addicting than weed. To @Melgibson: If I drink a beer, I still notice it two hours later. If I drink a couple more, I hate waking up the next morning. Alcohol isn't a kind drug, and the effects are noticeable even after one (for me at least).

 

And no, I wouldn't want to hire someone who used weed recently. Nor do I want an alcoholic. Nor do I want someone who isn't sober on his/her interview.

 

Btw, I'm a hard working fellow who hasn't used weed in his entire life (did some alcohol though ). And I know many more. However, just to get reference, I'm Dutch, weed is legal here. Not everyone wants to try the limits on every area, pushing that to "stuck in their shell and egregiously immature" is exactly how you say it.

 

"Someone who is a raging alcoholic could easily pass a drug test". Nope, then he/she wouldn't be a raging alcoholic

 

Also, I've never heard of a alcohol test other than the work areas where being sober is a strong requirement (truck driver, factory work, possibly hospital, etc).

[gibson66]

Both alcohol and weed inhibit the mind. The difference is that I can drink a beer and still function. You can't smoke a joint and expect to pass for sober. Another huge difference between the drugs is that you can drink a beer for the taste. With the exception of college students and alcoholics, most people don't drink booze to get drunk. Weed, unlike alcohol, is focused on the effect. You smoke to get high. And again, I have to take the employers perspective on this. I wouldn't want to work with someone who likes to get high in their spare time just like I wouldn't want to work with someone who gets drunk in their spare time.

 

To preempt  some questions, yes, I have seen the effects of both drugs. I am well aware of the differences between the drugs and how they can cause a person to act, but that doesn't change my opinion. 

[rolf]

"The difference is that I can drink a beer and still function."

With the exception of alcoholics and students, I could often tell if someone had over 2 beer. Also that is the conclusion of people who decide they can still can drive after 2 beers.

 

"You smoke to get high."

Nope, you smoke to relax. At least, that's what others tell me.

 

I agree with you that as an employer you shouldn't want to work with anyone who gets high or drunk in his spare time, however there are distinctions. Getting drunk is one thing, but post-college students, those with their first job (like me), still hang out at bars sometimes, and probably will for the rest of my life And sometimes I drink a beer too many. But drinking too much is different than drinking to get drunk. I don't care that much what people do in their spare time, although I have a strong preference to be as similar as me because that's awesome. But during work, I expect everyone to be sober. Imho that should be tested if required or expected differently, not on the interview.

 

To get a similar perspective, would you hire people who break the speeding rules? Those with a criminal convict? Overly religious people?

 

For the second I'd strongly consider in which field they'd be working -and in the Netherlands you're allowed to check upon that- but for the others as long as it doesn't interfere with their work I might consider someone else if there'd be many for the job, but it wouldn't be a hard rule to dismiss them immediately.

Edited October 12, 2013 by rolf

[Narbisaur]

You can drink one beer and still function, and if you smoked a similar amount of weed to drinking one beer, you could function as well. Have you ever smoked weed? How many times? It would be very difficult to really take a stance on which inhibits you more unless you have tried both. And as with everything, it's a matter of degree. If the only time you've smoked weed, you took huge bong rips of some really strong shit, you're not getting a very clear picture. That would be like having only drank a fifth of vodka by yourself the first time you drink, and using that as your basis of comparison. And while I make that comparison, it really wouldn't be as bad as drinking a fifth of vodka to yourself. That would make you a blithering idiot. Smoking that much weed would just make you pretty loopy, but you wouldn't be falling all over yourself, vomiting, and possibly have to go to the hospital (depending on who you are and how big you are). Also, even with the strongest stuff out there, it is practically impossible to overdose on weed. However, it is QUITE easy to get blackout drunk and get alcohol poisoning.

 

The driving limit where I live is about 2 beers in one hour for a 6' male @ 170 pounds. Take that into account on how much alcohol inhibits a person. I would also say that more people drive drunk than smoke weed, and there is no test for that on employment applications. You don't even have to say you got DUI's (which just means you got caught). I would be much more worried about someone who thought it was okay to drive over the limit (and possibly run some little girl over) than someone who smokes weed every once in a while.

 

And you could easily tell if someone was drunk.  Way more easily than if they were a little high. People who are high don't stumble around and lose balance. People who are high don't get idiotic and start fights with people and talk shit to people. I think you might not have so much experience with weed (i'm not trying to be rude, at all, please excuse me if I have come off that way). And I would say MOST people drink to feel the effects. Why do you think they go to bars? Why do people buy cheap liquor? Why are there fruity, easy to drink, high % alc/vol drinks like mikes harder lemonade, and the like? It's certainly not for the taste.

 

And of course you smoke to get high.

People take their ADD meds to get high, too. It's just a different kind of high.

People drink coffee to feel the caffeine, too.

And people drink to get drunk. Budweiser is NOT a great beer. It's cheap and if you drink 3 or 4 you can get a lil looser. It's made to get people drunk, and that's why they buy it.

Wine on the other hand is usually a different story. But the majority of people out there are drinking beer, and lots of it.

[gibson66]

Narbisaur, let me explain something. I've smoked more weed than the average person. There was a point in time where I smoked every morning when I got up and every night before I went to bed. Contrary to what you assume about me, I am VERY knowledgeable on the effects of weed.  I've also been so plastered I couldn't stand up for more than a few seconds. Thankfully I've given up drinking in excess and I've quit smoking entirely.

 

 

As I stated earlier, I'm not here to argue the double standards about testing in the work place.  However, I would never hire someone who smokes marijuana. Whatever your opinion on the laws may be, smoking marijuana in the US is against the law. I don't want employees who think it's acceptable to violate the rules and norms when they see fit. I also wouldn't want employees who use a drug, however benign, to get high.

 

Not everyone who drinks alcohol drinks to get drunk or tipsy. If what you stated was true, then the entire US would be a nation of functioning alcoholics. Given that this isn't true, your assertion is proven wrong. People, including myself, drink alcohol in moderation to enjoy the drink. 

 

I have no idea why, but you seem to be interpreting my stance as "weed is bad." I never said that. All I said is that I would never hire a smoker because I would never hire someone who intentionally gets high.