So:
You don’t think that your employer should be concerned about the fact that you commit felonies when you’re not at work?
I call BS on that.
I’m not asking this to point fingers at you, DeadlyAccurate, but I wonder what various Doper’s positions on madatory random drug testing for people whose work could be affected by the use of illegal drugs? While I was living in NYC there were at least two accidents that I heard of where LIRR employees caused fatalities in part because they were under the influence while operating trains. Similarly, after the SI Ferry crash of last year, do you think that requiring pilots to be subjected to routine random drug tests might be reasonable?
I don’t mean testing in the wake of an accident, I mean a policy specifically set up to act as a deterrent for use.
Just wondering.
Oh, and I’m for it, myself. Of course, as a military vet I really don’t give a hoot about having to give people samples of my urine. (Though I’d prefer to just give 'em a clipping of hair.)
Smoking pot is not a felony in this state. In fact, simple posession isn’t even a crime (it’s in infraction and you just get a ticket.)
Haj
This is everyone, clearly. So: no.
It takes me less than thirty minutes to get drunk. What drug tests do you suppose should be in place?
Point taken, Haj. But the OP doesn’t live in California. I’m not sure how the laws are in Texas, even if it’s a misdemeanor, it’s still illegal.
I don’t know the solution, honestly. Which is part of why I was asking. 
I’m not going to try to convert anyone to my views here - just looking to see whether there’s a consensus, or not.
For one thing, I’m not commiting a felony. For another, no, it’s not their concern, unless it impacts my ability to do my job. And finally, if it’s okay for my employer to keep tabs on me to make sure I’m not committing one “felony” (recreational drug use) is it not also okay for them to check up on me to make sure I’m not, say, molesting children? Beating my spouse? Shoplifting? Not using my turn signal? Why is drug use the one crime where we have decided that’s it’s okay for a private business to take over the role normally filled in our society by the police? And why the fuck didn’t I get a vote on it?
Yeah, it IS their concern re drug use. I’ll retract the ‘felony’ comment, but the fact of the matter that you still commit illegal actions by using a substance that is not legal. You can’t deny that fact.
I think that the child-beating, et al, comments are a little unjustified.
Consider this: If you were arrested for downloading child porn at home, or sleeping with 13-year old girls, do you think that you should be allowed to continue work with no repercussions? I can’t agree with that.
Marijuana is a drug. It is illegal. And, as such, if your company has a policy against allowing people who use drugs for recreational to keep their jobs, then I can’t see where the outrage is coming from.
You are committing an illegal act. Bottom line. Whether it affects your job performance is immaterial. You are engaging in an activity that is illegal. How can you POSSIBLY think it’s okay to keep doing so?
Well, now that you’ve retracted the felony bit, sure…
I’d probably lose my job from the jail time, don’t you think?
Outrage? They don’t own me. I sell eight hours to them, not 24. If they want control over my life for 24 hours, then they can pay me for it. Even then, it remains my discretion whether I should work there or not. If it is reasonable for the employer to have a policy on drugs, so is it reasonable for me to have a policy on drugs. It is even possible that we’d disagree.
Because I’ve never looked to the legislature to tell me what is morally required of me.
I don’t know if this is a Canada thing or what, but I have never heard of anyone being tested for drugs up here, on hiring or randomly. As a matter of fact, I work in the department that does medicals upon hiring new employees for my hospital, and many people have answered affirmatively to the “Do you take illegal drugs?” question and get hired anyway. As long as it’s just pot and occasional, who cares?
What about those who are abusing legal drugs? Over the counter, or prescriptions?
What about those who are on certain medications that they don’t feel comfortable having everyone know about?
And have I, in fact, denied it? If you review my posts in this thread, you will see that no, in fact, I have not.
How so? I mean, molestation and spousal abuse are far, far worse crimes than smoking the occasional bowl. So why don’t employers get to install cameras in their employees houses to make sure they’re not doing any of that? Hey, if you’re not doing anything wrong, you’ve got nothing to worry about, right?
And what’s the big difference between me getting arrested for downloading child porn, and me getting fired because I failed a piss test? That’s right! The inclusion of the lawful authorities! If I get arrested for using drugs, then my employer may be within his rights to fire me. They are not within their rights to conduct an investigation on their own to determine if I’m downloading child porn.
So’s caffeine.
Thanks for the tip, McGruff.
Okay, remind me again which one of us is on drugs? 'Cause you seem to having a really hard time staying on point, here. The outrage is, the company has no business having any such policy. If I can do my job, I get to keep my job. If I can’t do my job, I don’t get to keep my job. Why I can’t do my job is nobody’s business but my own.
Because my morality is not defined by legislation. If I choose to smoke pot, I do not cause physical harm to another person. I do not cause loss or damage to the property of another person. I do not in any way prevent another person from exercising any of his rights and priviledges as guaranteed under the Constitution and its various ammendments. Smoking pot hurts no one except, arguably, myself. So, aside from the fact that reactionary, toadying lawmakers have passed a law against it, what on Earth is wrong with me smoking pot? And, again, why is that the business of my employer?
Even if you can partake of illegal drugs and still do your job, what happens that one time when something goes wrong?
The company is covering its own ass. They probably don’t care what you do on your time as long as it doesn’t reflect poorly on them.
Well, Jesus, they’re just going to have to live without that TPS coversheet report, aren’t they? How will corporate America ever survive? :rolleyes:
Here’s an idea: if I fuck up, then you fire me. If I don’t fuck up, you don’t fire me. I can give you a list of fifteen perfectly legal things I could be doing at home that might make me screw up at work. Such as, say, pounding down a bottle of Jack Daniels everynight before passing out on the carpet. Should employers be able to test for alcohol use, and fire someone because their drinking might get out of hand and maybe make me fuck up at work at some future date? Or (and how’s this for a radical idea?) how about the company waits until I actually fuck something up before punishing me for it?
Ah crap…against my better judgement…
This post is a hot button topic for me. I don’t do drugs. At least *government * illegal drugs. Let’s face it, alcohol, tobacco, even sugar are all addictive substances. Their use or the lack thereof can affect ones’ performance in a variety of ways in a variety of tasks. Just try to test the aptitude of your nearest hung-over co-worker next time you see them. But the piss test crowd, a relatively recent phenomenon, seem to think all is well when you hand over that golden personal property of yours to some hack to put in a giant batch, with hundreds or thousands of others, to be sent to some anonymous lab, to be thereby tested by some poor shlep who spends 8 hours a day in a lab testing human urine (talk about job satisfaction 
), while your very employment swings in the wind. Y’now , if I went to college, studied chemistry, and the job I got was testing urine all day, I’d either a) kill myself, or b) fuck with the results just to get even with the cosmic forces that inflicted this upon me. This is, simply, a manufactured industry. An industry that exists because it can get away with implicating every worker in this wonderfully free :dubious: country of ours, if they do NOT get tested. To prove their innocence. The underlying current of drug testing (outside of those areas where the lives of others are in potential danger, such as pilots, subway conductors, etc.) is guilt unless you prove yourself innocent via a test. Simple as that. This is the “Great American Way”? Funny, I always thought it was “Innoncent until proven Guilty”. :smack: Let’s face it; if ALL employers were to demand a drug test, no one could get a job without consenting. The fundamental issue is that non-relevant industries don’t need to absorb the cost of this type of testing, and ultimately pass this cost on to thier customers. What exactly is walmart, a giant employer, protecting it’s consumers from by drug testing? Somebody mis-pricing a barbie doll? Surly checkout service? 
Are their senior managers and corporate staff subject to the same, equal, treatment? Unlikely. It’s a low-level management tool. And the cost is absorbed by all, regardless of wallyworlds alleged lowlow prices. OK, Dopers, bring on the invective pro or con…
Don’t forget my second sentence tho’…
It’s not difficult.
"I love my boss,
I love my job.
I’m self-employed.
Drug testing pisses me off."
(Originally seen on two bumper stickers (on the same bumper)).
Because it’s a helluva lot cheaper to fire you BEFORE you fuck up.
Granted, a missing report won’t likely doom a multi-million dollar corporation, but a machine operator slicing off an arm just might.
Someday, somewhere, someone is gonna walk back to that cheery-faced nurse, hand her the little cup filled to the brim with a steaming potporri of corn and peanuts in a funky brown matrix and say “Here, tell them to analize this.”
That person, yet to be named, will be my hero.
Before you go off,
Should there be drug testing in all industries? No.
Is it going to go away? Unlikely.
Hey, I might fuck up when I’m completely sober! Better fire me right now, just in case.
And speaking of cheaper, how much do these random drug tests cost the corporation? How much money is being pissed down the drain testing employees who are completely clean? And, as sangfroid pointed out, who ultimatly bears the cost of all this testing? I can tell you right now, it’s not the corporation doing the testing.
Right, because no machine operator has ever injured himself while sober. Never happens. It’s only the vigilant drug testors who stand between multi-million dollar corporations and bankruptcy at the hands of thousands of litigious one-armed dope fiends.
Come back when you’ve got a legitimate argument. You’ll forgive me for not holding my breath.