The tests I’ve heard of involve you going into an unadorned bathroom after they check you to make sure you have nothing in your pockets, etc., and they test the temperature of the pee to make sure it is fresh. Wouldn’t borrowed pee be cold, having been out of the body for so long? How does one go about sneaking it in?
FWIW the Toyota plant up in Point Pleasant, WV goes even further than just pee. For some jobs, they want your hair. (I have also heard that they will strip you down and look for needle tracks but I’m not sure I believe that.) If you’ve ever done drugs, even if it was 20 years ago, they won’t hire you, no matter what.
This thread is reminding me of a run in I had with Wal-Mart back in 1998. They had hired me, and I was due to go in for the drug test the next day. I had a flat tire, though, so I called them and asked if I could take it the next day. Nope. Too bad, so sad, kiss the job goodbye, they said. And the way they spoke to me was so … I don’t know, superior: as if they were just SO SURE that they had caught another dirty drug addict. (They probably thought I had tried to detox with that weird stuff you can get from GNC.) It really pissed me off to be treated as if I were some kind of criminal and only have that one day to do the test. I have never done drugs, ever, and I could have proven that I really did have a flat tire, but nooooooo. Rollback bastards.
Or what if someone owns a company and would like to know such things about their employees? Like it’s any of your business how the shareholders want the company run.
I’m surprised you’d hold that view, as a Libertarian. Who exactly does it affect that your teenaged PetSmart cashier might have smoked a joint over the weekend, when she wasn’t working? (PetSmart being one of the sadly growing trend of retail businesses that drug test all employees, no matter the position)
I was passive about some things I believed in on the job for a number of years.
It affected me, it was a constant issue. I finally had to do something about it.
Make some money, pay the rent, whatever but don’t try to get comfortable with it because you won’t (Or I didn’t). Just keep looking for a job where you can be comfortable.
I see, you’re one of those SPECIAL libertarians who think the gummint has no business getting into people’s lives, but hey, private corporations should be able to run us like clockwork. What difference do you suppose it makes to the average person WHO is treating them like a serf?
I would suspect that ** Libertarian ** would have no issue either with an employer making mandatory background check to make sure you never wore a pair of red socks, and deny employment to all red socks-wearer even though wearing red socks won’t affect anybody in any way. I believe it has more to do with his political stance, which is that any employer has every right ro refuse to hire anybody for whatever reason, sensible or not, since he owns the company and owe you nothing as a potential employee, and in particular doesn’t have to justify to you the way he intends to run his business, as you’re always free not to accept to work for him under the conditions he sets.
I’d just like to point out that your harder drugs such as cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin typically wash out of a user’s system within 2-3 days at most; while marijuana stays detectable in your system for much longer. This is pretty well-known, but I’ll cite this anyway.
And just how do you think they can find out if it’s been 20 years since you’ve done any illicit drugs? Unless you tell them, I mean.
Drug testing via hair follicles does give you a bit more detailed information about one’s history of drug use, but only over the past several months, not several decades.
Not to rain on your parade, but I had to take a drug test for my current job, and that was seven years ago. Didn’t have Ashcroft to blame then. On the other hand, I didn’t care, then or now.
Sorry you have to compromise your principles to get a job. I don’t suppose it is any comfort to say that it’s a small thing.
No, actually, this is a pretty standard Libertarian party position, which is why some people call their utopia a corporate tyranny rather than a democracy.
The company we use for drug tests just returns a sheet of paper that lists half a dozen or so categories of drugs (opiates, cannibanoids, cocaine, etc.) with a “Positive” or “Negative” by each category. Unless you’re on a prescription drug that falls into one of the categories, we would have no way of knowing about it, and certainly they don’t say things like, “And by the way, the subject is pregnant!”
I used to be opposed to drug tests across the boards, but before our company instituted mandatory tests, a stoned guy came to work, saw the “dangerous dog” sign on a cage, and decided to test it out, much to his hand’s detriment. At this point, I’ve got no problem with drug tests in some businesses, especially those that are more dangerous than average; however, I still think it’s obnoxious to be drug-testing the dishwasher at a second-rate restaurant. Some jobs it’s a blessing to be stoned at.
Let’s not forget that in our utopia, corporations enjoy no status as persons and no limited liability for shareholders. I see nothing tyrannical about competition among companies in which coercion is illegal.
Nor do most Libertarians. But I probably shouldn’t get into that here; I was just pointing out that your position was neither hypocritical nor a departure from Libertarian party ideology.
Aside from the part where you’re male, 43, and live in Atlanta (and probably a few other parts), you could be me right now. (Actually, I used to live in Atlanta . . . good times. )
I have to say that I can understand drug testing for certain positions–such as health care, like yosemitebabe said–but I just got a more or less creative position (as an editor), and will be required to pee in a cup.
Heck, I thought drugs were supposed to enhance creativity . . .
At any rate, I’ll be avoiding poppyseed muffins for awhile . . .
)