Legalized Drugs

Great Debates
101

Calm down. That was just a typo. What I meant to say is that it DOESN’T mean that drug testing is illegitimate.

And therein lies the crux of the matter. If you HONESTLY believe that illegal drug use in general has no effect on job performance, then there’s nothing more we can say to pursuade you. Suffice to say that your statement flies in the face of what the medical community says.

Nobody said that it does, so your point is a strawman.

It’s a question of risk reduction. What does the company value more – its productivity and the safety of its employees, or an individuals’ non-existent right to participate in illegal activities?

I used to work with an MD who was a published authority on substance abuse. She would strongly disagree with your assertion. (Moreover, since these are banned substances which have been deemed dangerous by the FDA and AMA, the burden of proof clearly rests on the other side.)

It’s not uncommon for drug use to affect job performance, of course, but I suspect that you are making the claim above with only anecdotal evidence. Please provide some backup.

They only improve performance in the short term. They are also highly addictive and, in the long term, highly destructive. That’s why they are regulated substances.

In other words, the analogy to divorce holds no water.

It was your analogy. Why should I be the one to defend your case with a new analogy?

You said that it does. I’m asking for the specific phraseology which guarantees the right to privacy. In point of fact, it does not, since the very nature of law enforcement presumes that privacy is NOT an inviolate right.

A “rhetorical device”? Oooookay.

No, we’re talking about your claim that the Constitution guarantees the right to privacy. It does not, as evidenced by even a cursory examination of our laws.

Moreover, the government ALSO allows companies to monitor phone calls and install spy cameras – so obviously, this mythical right to privacy is not guaranteed for corporate America either.

102
  1. If marijuana use does in fact lead to use of harder drugs, it is only because it is illegal like the harder drugs. I have my doubts about it being the most significant gateway drug, though. I think the big one would be cigarettes. It has more in common with drugs like cocaine and heroine, in that it causes actual physical cravings and that people will continue to use it after they stop getting a high from it. It is usually the first drug most drug users have ever tried (with alcohol being a close second). I’ve known a lot of ‘hard’ drug users (though very few heroin addicts)). Most people with cocaine or meth habits don’t use marijuana at all, but every single one of them smokes cigarettes. I’ve known many people (like myself) who see marijuana as their drug of choice, and though they may have experimented with harder drugs and may occasionally do them if offered, see marijuana as superior.

You could also make a good case for cocaine being a gateway drug. It’s used recreationally a lot by many functional, successful people, turns up at parties a lot. When teenagers started dropping like flys in Plano from heroin overdoses, it turned out a lot of them had been doing cocaine at parties without having any serious problems when they were introduced to the powder form of heroin - they were already used to snorting drugs, so they give it a shot, and next thing you know they have $300 a day habits.

Anyway, when we are talking about legalization, the term ‘gateway drug’ shouldn’t even come into the debate. The ways people are introduced to recreational drugs will be totally different when the supply structure is changed.

  1. Marijuana could hinder people’s work performance, but only in certain kinds of jobs. For most people, it does not effect their coordination, so it’s not going to directly increase workplace accidents. There was a study that showed that something like 45% of people’s driving was improved after using marijuana, while only 15% did worse on the driving test after smoking some. It DOES cause absent-mindedness, and I would not want to be working in a factory where a stoned person was repairing the machinery, or be operated on by a stoned person - though it wouldn’t impair their ability to do the tasks they were doing, it might cause them to forget something important. But nobody here is saying that employers shouldn’t be allowed to fire someone for coming to work under the influence. Even in a job where being high would not cause any danger or loss of productivity, I can still see an employer wanting their employees to not come to work on drugs, that is their right, just as it is their right to make sure their employees follow the dress code and show respect to their superiors. I do not believe they have the right to fire you for things done on your own time that have no bearing on your work.

  2. There is no drug that’s effects last long enough that it would effect a person’s work on Monday if they took it Friday or Saturday, except maybe nutmeg (it’s effects can last 48 hours or more, but it’s such an unpleasant high that hardly anybody does it, even though it can be obtained legally). Most wouldn’t hurt if they did it the night before. If you smoke a shitload of pot the night before, you might have a sinus headache the next day. Cocaine or other stimulants can give you a hangover comparable to what you would get from alcohol, or if they were up a while they could be tired - but people come to work tired when they don’t get enough sleep without help from drugs. LSD makes some people sore the next day, but the high only lasts 8-12 hours. Knowing that a person has done drugs in no way means that they are going to be under the influence at work. Yes, someone who has a cocaine habit is more likely to come to work high than someone who doesn’t, but someone who has an alcohol habit is likely to as well, but you can’t fire someone for being a drinker, only for coming to work drunk. If drugs were legal, they would have to be treated the same as we treat alcohol. Alcohol can seriously impair you (more than any illegal drug except maybe heroin or LSD), is very addictive, and longterm use can cause health problems that can drive up insurance premiums.

One of the best arguments for drug testing in the workplace is not that the employees might come to work high and mess stuff up, or might miss work because of their drug use - those all apply equally to legal things that are not tested for, and not just alcohol - people who are depressed, lazy, or in poor health. It’s that addicts often steal from their employers, to feed their habit (gambling addicts are bad about this too). This is because the drugs are so damn expensive because of their illegality. People stealing from work to buy cigarettes or booze is not a problem, because it’s cheap.

  1. Drug trace testing is biased because of the chemical differences in different drugs. Cocaine and methamphetamines will only show up in a urine test for 2 or 3 days after their last use. Alcohol is out of your system even quicker. LSD won’t show up at all. Heroin sticks around for about a week, I believe (someone correct me if I am wrong). Marijuana? A month, at least.

When there were rumors at a company I used to work for that they were going to begin drug testing, I quit smoking pot immediately. I didn’t stop using cocaine, nor would I have turned down LSD (though I didn’t have a connect for it at the time so I didn’t have a chance to). I knew that I would have a few days warning before I was tested since it was such a large company, and that I couldn’t get caught with it in my system. I really prefer marijuana to coke though, and was awful tired of it by the time we found out the rumors were just rumors and I went back to pot.

Some people who do drugs will have problems because of it. In my experience, some people are simply more likely to become addicted, and among those there are some who are less able to control their addiction. I had one friend who was without a doubt addicted to cocaine, but she never did it during the work week, and when she couldn’t afford it, she just went without. Some people can’t do that. BUT THE SAME THING IS TRUE WITH ALCOHOL. Most people who drink only do it recreationally, because they feel like getting drunk sometimes. Some people become alcoholics, but they learn how to make sure it doesn’t interfere with their work. Some become alcoholics, and they will go on binges on weeknights and not be able to come in to work, or come in to work still stinking of alcohol. The same is true of illegal drugs.

I personally am in favor of impairment tests. If you come in to work impaired, your employer should be able to fire you, though many would probably choose to give you a warning first. I think these tests should be delivered impartially - if someone never drinks or does drugs but has the habit of coming to work after staying up all night playing computer games and is impaired enough for it to show up on the test, they are just as much a problem as someone who comes to work drunk or stoned. Myself, I don’t come to work on drugs. Even though there is no impairment testing, and my job is one that I could do even if I was stoned as hell or drunk, my coworkers would be able to tell, and that’s not good if I want to continue to get raises and promotions. It would be extremely unfair though if I was fired because of traces of chemicals in my blood despite my always coming to work sober when I have coworkers who come to work drunk, some of whom even drink at work. Luckily, the industry I am in doesn’t do that kind of testing, probably because computer techs are in high demand and they would lose about half of their employees.

103

Of course you haven’t been able to, mangeorge, for the same reason JT has chosen to ignore repeated requests that he back up his unfounded assertions.

But at this point, it seems we (various points of view) are spinning our wheels pretty far along this hijack.

104

Another good post Badtz. . .

Anyway, I’m gonna stop arguing with JTC, as it’s just not going anywhere (for various reasons).

I would personally say alcohol is the main “gateway” drug. I dabble, in purely recreational ways, in certian illicit dugs from time to time. I (and everyone else I knew) was accustomed to drinking before doing anything else. I don’t smoke and neither do any of my friends. Hell, I’d smoked pot before I’d even tried cigarettes. Still, your point about the legal drugs being the actual gateway drugs is right on the money.

A lot of this depends. There were, last I heard, 2 labs in the country that test for LSD. Obviously, since one only puts trace amounts into one’s system to begin with, it has to be a dedicated LSD test, not just a general drug screening. I believe heroin is detectable for longer than a week. My mother is currently doing outpatient rehab for a morphine relapse (she’s a nurse) and has to give urines regularly. I believe it sticks around for a couple of weeks, but that, of course, would all depend on the purity and quantity of the thing one was ingesting. Morphine form the hospital is morphine, heroin from the black market is, as we’ve said, about 5-10% heroin. Anyway, I’m not entirely sure. I’ll ask around.

105

here’s a link with the times for various things to metabolize.

I was gonna post that I remembered from my Correction Center days, that heroin was outta there w/in 48- 72 hours, but didn’t want to rely on my memory.

All you wanted to know about drug testing but were afraid to ask

106

Employer drug testing has already done more to reduce the incidence of drug use for exactly the reasons you mention.
The reason is that it scares the casual user straight, while
not much affecting hardcore addicts. If you think that all drug use is evil then this is no doubt a good thing. What isn’t a good thing is that the hardcore population of addicts remains, mostly not having careers to be afraid about. The violent black market which serves them remains as well. And don’t start about black market cigs and booze.
When’s the last time you heard about a gang driveby shooting
arising from the underage liquor market?

What are you going to do with the people who get thrown out on the street because of your proposal? They’ll still be around. Or did you think they’d just politely vanish??

As far as allowing myself to be treated by impaired professionals, I’m against it. But denying a job to or firing someone because they smoked pot three weeks ago is wrong. I honestly don’t believe that Von’s Grocery Company or Office Depot has a moral right to control their employees’ bodies unless they can show that the employees are impaired with respect to the job that they do.

107

That IS true about scaring casual users straight. If I couldn’t find a job that didn’t do drug testing, I would quit. I would also quit if I ever got busted on a drug possession charge - I figure the enjoyment I get from smoking pot is worth the small risk of getting caught, since I can afford a lawyer and at most would get probation - I don’t sell it, I rarely have more than an ounce at a time, and I don’t ever travel with more than I can eat in the time it takes to get pulled over. The only ways I could get caught would be if the police searched my apartment or if my dealer (who delivers) collaborated with the police, neither is very likely, and neither would lead to me spending more time in jail than it takes to get bailed out. Worst case scenario is 180 days in jail and a $2000 fine, which is the maximum you can get in Texas for possession of under 2 ounces.

I would quit if sentencing was tougher, but that wouldn’t stop true addicts.

108

I used pot fairly regularly in my college years, 1976 - 1980. Recently, after a hiatus of many years, I had a few opportunities to try it again. I don’t know if the pot’s different now, or if I’m different, but I didn’t enjoy it
very much this time.

Maybe that also partly explains the drop in casual use…eventually, you just get bored with it and quit.

109

FYI folks I am all for this kind of testing.

You smoked out 2 weeks ago? Who cares?

You smoked a bowl for breakfast? I dont want you operating power tools around me.

As far as what happens to all these people who are “cast aside.” I know they will not politely disappear, just like they dont today. They find jobs at places that don’t drug test. Or (I know I’m reaching here) they clean up.

With cheaper, legally available drugs, the need to turn to crime would be greatly reduced. Maybe they could afford their habit flipping burgers.

If you wanna go get so messed up all the time and turn yourself into an unemployable junkie thats loaded 24/7, have a nice life, or lack therof. I don’t care if you want to do this with your life. Just don’t expect a pity party from those of us who choose a drug free life.

You wanna have a wild weekend once in a while, that should be ok under the testing linked above.

Remember too folk, alot of this stuff does physical damage to your body of one kind or another. Abusing your body like this = more medical problems = more sick days = legit problem for an employer.

110

I think it depends on what the end goal is. If it’s to make drugs cheaper for the people who like them, by all means legalize them. If the goal is to eliminate things like street corner dealers, gangs, prison costs, etc… Then I have an easier solution. Make use and possesion legal. Make manufacture, selling and buying punishable by death. No 6 year appeal process either. Sold dope to a cop? Go to the chair the next day. Extreme? Sure is… but I think most of this countries crime problem is because of weak/lack of punishment. Prison should be an unpleasant thing, rather than a step up for a lot of people. Visit a Turkish prison… It sure doesn’t cost 30K - 50K a year to support an inmate there. But I’m getting into something that should be a separate thread. As far as black market cigarettes, that’s more on a distributor level. Steal a truckload, sell them at half normal cost to a “mom/pop” store, they sell them at 90% normal cost. I’ve never found a street dealer in a trenchcoat hawking a pack of camels at half price.