Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean an employer can’t refuse to hire people who fail a test.
I have been pee tested at every job for the last 9 years (since I have been a nurse.) No biggie, it’s expected. I am, however, surprised by the number of nurses who apply, interview well, and yet…fail the drug test.
Um it’s not considered a drug though, it’s legal. That’s like not hiring someone because they drink alcohol which nearly everyone does sometimes. On top of that you can’t overdose on weed and you can with alcohol it’s called alcohol poisoning.
I’ve worked a liquor store, a health food store, and Jimmy John’s bike delivery, none of them cared if I smoked haha. They all had employees that did.
I remember applying at an employment agency once that required hair, I didn’t want them to take any hair from my head so I let them snip off some of my leg hair. It was for a job at a factory, probably not the best place to work if you are on drugs. When I was in the Army we had an exercise in California and all but me and like 12 other people stayed behind. I remember them calling the names for the regular drug test and watched as all the color drained out of the face of a guy whose name was called. If the whole company had been around I could see how maybe the guy would think he was safe but with such a small group of people left behind it doesn’t exactly take a mathematician to figure out your chances of being called have substantially increased.
A company can’t say you can’t do something in your own time that’s legal. In your own time you can drink alcohol and smoke weed (in states where it’s legal or have medical) because it’s legal. In states where only medical is legal than I’m sure you’d have to show that you have a prescription from a doctor. It’s okay though because it’s legal.
In those states a drug test would be for all the lethal drugs like meth, coke, heroin etc. that can kill someone. In those states that’s what’s considered a drug not weed.
Interesting. And how would you, or anyone, know if it was for “sick purposes” or for legitimate concerns about safety and ability to do the job properly?
I am not a lawyer but I think you’re a lot better choosing the second option and not taking the test. You won’t get the job but you also won’t have to worry about encountering the question “Have you ever failed a drug test?” in the future.
Legal has nothing to do with it. There are any number of drugs, including aspirin, which are legal for anyone to buy and possess. Some prescription drugs are legal for the people they’re prescribed to and illegal for others, but either way they’re still drugs.
They can’t prevent you from doing it, but they have the right to refuse to hire you, or to fire you, if you do.
Again, marijuana is a drug whether or not it’s legal. In the states you mention it may not be considered an illegal drug, but it’s still a drug.
You might want to consider getting your information about this stuff from people other than stoners.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Alcohol is a drug.
A drug test is also not talking about aspirin so why did you bring that up?
In the English language there are words that mean several different things at the same time. Welcome to the English language.
Guys, I wasn’t asking for advice. I just wanted to get thoughts and opinions.
If I wasn’t clear, I’m just looking to pick up a couple of shifts until after Christmas or until things turn around with my gigs (I’m self-employed and in a bit of a dry spot, but things will turn around, just don’t know when). If I were in a position where I acutely needed a job, believe me I would stop smoking pot.
At least until I got a job at a place that doesn’t drug test. wink
As others have noted, you are incorrect.
Because if it was for safety reasons, it would be restricted to safety reasons, such as being a nuclear technician or operating a crane. * No union objects to that.
However off the job. it is nobody’s fucking business what I do if it doesn’t affect the workplace. employers are not Moral Police. Therefore it should never be a condition of employment and nor should it be mentioned unless the workplace is affected. And it shouldn’t be imposed on those who are doing normal jobs without especial safety requirements.
- However, I have been told of crane operators in Germany ( where cranes are more used in construction than most places ) drinking a good deal of beer, and taking cannabis up there too, and some more excitable drugs. They don’t have a lot of accidents from this quaint practice.
And no, I rarely have ever drunk alcohol, and have never taken drugs. That’s why it’s a principle.
In my experience, people who think they are going to fail a drug test, usually take it anyway.
They hope that maybe they will pass for some unknown reason, but they certainly won’t get the job if they refuse. While it is possible that some sort of record of a failed drug test might exist in a higher level or very insular profession (and the military), for the vast majority of jobs, the only consequence of failing a test is no job.
Are you sure?
It’s legal to belong to the KKK and the Ayran Nation, and wear T-shirts on your day off that say, “Race Mongrels Not Wanted.”
Do you think a company could fire you if they learned of this conduct?
If they learned of this conduct before hiring you, do you think they could rely on this reason to not extend an offer of employment?
But I feel that’s going off topic in this thread. The topic here isn’t “What should be the basis of our drug laws?” It’s “What’s the best way to handle this situation under our current drug laws?” And for now, employers are free - and even encouraged - to make hiring decisions based on drug use.
Ok I admit defeat in that a company can refuse your business, or choose to hire you or not on their own terms. Like a private college can choose to admit someone or not.
I was right about alcohol being a drug which one of the posters above didn’t realize.
When people talk about a drug test a lot of the time it doesn’t have to do with alcohol even though it is a drug. It’s just been legal for such a long time that people seem to forget.
In that case, I think the answer depends on the individual’s priorities, as follows:
-
If the overriding priority is to get a job, then get off the gear and stay off it for long enough to pass the test. This is the course most likely to lead to employment, which is the priority objective.
-
If you would like a job (and you would; why else have you applied and got to the point of being asked to piss in a cup?) but not to the extent that you are prepared to go clean, then in my view option (b) is the better course. If you take the test you might pass it due to the test being to some degree inaccurate or unreliable. If you refuse and take your stance you might be hired anyway by an employer who admires your chutzpah. In neither case are the chances of being hired particularly good, I would think, and I just don’t know which of the two courses offers the less bad chance. But option (b) is probably more likely to preserve your self-respect, so go with that one.
Just work at Jimmy John’s, they won’t give you one from personal experience haha.
I also worked a liquor store and a health food store (with hippies working there) and they didn’t either.
+1
A company both suspicious enough to impose universal drug testing and anal enough to be unwilling to hire people because they occasionally smoke weed (note: not turn up high to the interview, that’s a clear red flag no matter how open-minded your boss is, unless the job is like, “Bassist for Nickelback”, in which case don’t do it, the pay is good but you’ll hate every second of your miserable existence and they have methods in place to ensure you can’t kill yourself) is usually gonna be full of anal-retentive assholes who have no trust for the people they work with. This is the standard in some fields (I hope my nurse is anal-retentive and doesn’t trust me!) but if the job is just driving pizzas from one end of town to the other… That job is gonna suuuuuuuck.
Oh please. Many of the people I know smoke weed every day. These are experienced professionals who run their own businesses, often construction or landscaping. One’s a lawyer. One of them lit up over lunch with his client before going back to sawing boards for their patio.
And here’s the thing - if it was a beer instead of a joint, nobody would say anything. Because at that dose, it’s not dangerous. It doesn’t make them unable to work or inattentive or dangerous, any more than a Budweiser with their chicken salad sandwich would.
It would be one thing if the person in question was showing up for their interview or to work high. That’s clearly unacceptable. But “smoked weed at any point in the last week” should be about as disqualifying for a job as “had alcohol in the last week”: not at all. And cannabis can show up in your urine for up to 30 days after the fact. I wouldn’t want to stop drinking for a month, any more than I’d want to give up Overwatch for a month, or pass on chocolate for a month. There’s no reason weed should be treated differently.