When I was in college in Cambridge Mass in the '60s - '70s, the Cambridge police came to our dorm and practically said they’d never bother the use of marijuana unless it were sold to minors or grown in a window overlooking the police station. (Which somebody did.) That was well over 30 years ago, which counts as long run. I see no difference in the success of people who used drugs and people who didn’t.
As for work, anyone impaired while working deserves punishment - whether it is drugs, alcohol, or hooked on porn sites. But when my company was young they had beer blasts every Friday, and celebrations and all hands have alcohol.
When I worked at the regulated AT&T, alcohol was forbidden for fear of offending the moralists. Once we got deregulated, it appeared.
Anything in excess can be bad - drugs, alcohol, sex, comic books.
Stop signs are not meant to impede your forward motion, they are there to save your life. Morals work the same way, at least most of them. Drugs will harm your body over time and leave you with diminished capacity, especially in intelligence and memory. Not to mention the chances taken when driving and doing other tasks while under the influence. If you are young, this probably doesn’t mean anything to you. Those who smoke choose to ignore warnings also.
I realize no one can talk you out of doing drugs, but yourself. Just remember the choices you make today, will turn into the results you will live with in the future.
Say are you the one who’s been producing all those silly anti-marijuana propagan, err, PSA’s on TV lately?
I’ll agree with some of what you said but I don’t think it’s fair to lump everything that’s currently illegal into one big classification as “harmful drugs.” To put meth/ice and marijuana on the same level is the kind of logical jump that only an uneducated person on the manner would. Numerous long-term studies have shown continued alcohol use is considerably more harmful than cannabis.
Although I will agree that if what you do in your personal time starts affecting your work, especially if it puts other humans at risk, it’s an actual problem. But don’t even get me started on the moral police. What people do in their own free time (as long as they don’t negatively affect others) is their own damn business.
I would agree with you, but you do realize that we affect each other to a greater degree than is usually admitted. We are examples, teachers, learners, we are many things to others. Remember for want of a nail the shoe was lost, for want of a shoe the horse was lost, for want of a horse the battle was lost. A lot of truth in that.
I fully support people who show moral outrage at the ethics of drug testing. Since I do not consume nor associate with individuals that partake of recreational drugs, I would pass these kinds of drug tests, and all the ‘outraged’ people who turn their noses up at such employers would just be making it that much easier for me to get the job, since it eliminates competition
For my company, the reason we do drug testing was that the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation gives huge discounts to companies that put Drug Free Workplace programs in place. In other words, companies are fined for not doing it.
In order to comply with DFW, we are required to test for their list of drugs. I can’t remember if we are required to use a certified lab, but we do. Those labs have thresholds that have already been set for what constitutes a positive test. We do not have any input on that.
The benefit for the DFW only lasts for (I think) five years, after which point there is no longer a discount. We will probably drop the program at that point.
There are definitely big problems with testing. The most significant ones have already been brought up. Marijuana stays testable much longer than any of the other drugs. Alcohol, which is a bigger problem, is harder to test for with the testing methods we have to use. In fact, it’s a urine test and I don’t even know if they can test for alcohol. We have an “alcohol policy” in addition to the drug policy which explains how many drinks someone can have at a work function where alcohol is available, etc.
We’re in manufacturing, by the way. It would be extremely dangerous for someone to come to work under the influence of any drug.
The bullshit morality of the federal government is preventing cancer victims in California from getting marijuana to ease their pain and improve their appetite - despite the fact that the voters of this state agreed to make it legal for that purpose.
Is it immoral for them to smoke pot - or is it immoral for the feds to prevent them from doing so?
I think that you may have a point. In every pre-employment screening that I’ve ever been subject to, I’ve been asked to list all prescription and OTC drugs that I have taken in the past thirty days.
Could they be screening for potential health issues that may wind up costing them money in benefits in the long run? Will your prescription for high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholestrol, anti-depressent or arthritus meds eliminate you for a position because they don’t want to have to insure you? Could be…
No, this issue has been hashed around on talk shows. I think it is unfortunate the Feds have this law against medical marijuana. Many illegal drugs have a place under controlled conditions for the use as medicine, and, yes, that is ok.
Drugs are not for recreational purposes due to their potential harmfulness to the body.
The last I heard the Feds are not enforcing the law on legitimate users.
Where in the Constitution does it say it’s the government’s role to control what its citizens put into their bodies? The American government is truly one that shows all the massive problems governments run into when they try to control too many unnecessary things…
There has got to be an ulterior motive for drug testing.
What is the difference to an employer between a worker who can’t do his job because he’s on drugs and a worker who can’t do his job because he’s incompetent? Just fire the guys who can’t do their jobs for whatever reason and keep the ones that can! While I can see testing pilots before a flight (and I think a field sobriety test would be just as useful), or other workers with lives in their hands, any other test just seems like money down the drain.
They just do it so they can put those big “Drug-Free Workplace” signs up all over the building and rake in the customers who don’t know the costs of testing are getting passed to them.
I’m terribly sorry. I skimmed a little on the first page; I obviously wouldn’t have skimmed over your quite informative post on purpose.
So in other words, your company’s ulterior motive is that they are being bribed? My only experience is with the Army, and I cringe when I think of all the taxpayer money flushed away on mandatory 100% UAs for 3 million soldiers several times a year. The ulterior motive there is votes for the politicians, coupled with the fact that the government can just demand money instead of earning it, so cost isn’t (as much of) an issue.
My point is that no employer would waste all that money simply because they want sober employees. Even if they were anti-drug freaks, they could just fire anybody who was high at work and save buttloads of money. The motives for testing come from somewhere else.
I actually don’t know the stated reasons most companies have for their drug testing programs, but I know that many people believe the reasons are involved with safety, or morals, or employee health or something.
If your company is honest and out in the open with “we’re getting paid to have this program and as soon as that incentive is gone so is the testing” then I’m impressed.
You heard wrong. DEA agents are shutting down legitimate clinics, and threatening doctors who prescribe with jail time. I can find some links if you want, but it gets a lot of coverage in the Bay Area.
There is some debate on the harmfulness of marijuana versus legal drugs. I’m pretty certain that it is less harmful than tobacco. I’m glad you agree on the legitimate medical use of marijuana, but I’m afraid many of those with moral objections seem to be unable to be as reasonable as you.
Something just struck me. If the Craig affair is any guide, I bet those Republicans who yell the loudest about the evil of pot have kilos and kilos of weed stashed in their houses.
