I let this go at the time because it seemed nonsensical.
But since I assuming you’re referring to me, I’ll pursue it.
What the hell are you talking about? Where is there any indication that I didn’t realize alcohol is a drug? I never said, nor even implied, any such thing. Do you not have good reading comprehension? Are you high?
A friend of mine failed the test- the company didn’t care about his weed card or the fact that it was legal for him to use it under state law. They cited federal law and refused to hire him.
My advice: do the interview and then decline the drug test, if they ask for one. As has been mentioned, better to withdraw from the process than to fail the test (if you believe you will not pass).
I’ve been subject to random drug testing for the last 35 years due to government contracts and other safety-related issues. I still have to excuse myself when I’m around friends who smoke because I just can’t take the chance.
In the depths of the Amazon; this. It isn’t an issue in PA yet but in states where it does (ahem) crop up you just get bounced. Even if you have been hired and hit with a random test afterwards.
Yes, for me that is a true statement. Back before I entered the ranks of the self-employed I turned down job offers from companies that drug tested. I was once approached by a headhunter for a job, interviewed, then received a job offer that I accepted.
On my third day at work I was told I’d need to pass a urine test. I said, “Fuck that” and went home. It was never mentioned prior to my acceptance. They apologized and asked if I’d consider pissing once, at my convenience, then I’d be kept out of the pool of random people.
I picked a date 6 weeks out and abstained (but I was unhappy). I passed my test and they somehow made sure I never got picked for a random (which really mad a mockery of the whole idea). I completed my one year contract, then went into business for myself.
Yeah, it’s a pretty open secret that passing a piss test is as easy as guzzling a gallon of water before the test. There’s also fake pee, or finding a sober friend to donate their urine to the cause. These tests aren’t hard to pass if you know what you’re doing, even if you’re Tommy Chong.
It might have been more important a month ago, but situations change. Now it isn’t, but it’s still in your system, because urinalysis tests whether you’ve smoked a single puff in the past month. Cheek swabs and blood tests are more reasonable, where they basically just test whether you’re under the influence now.
I mean, drinking isn’t more important than getting a job either, but imagine if every time you applied for a job, they tested whether you have had a beer any time within the last month and a half? It’s simply absurd for that to be the standard. Or to defend that standard.
So I guess getting a job WAS more important than smoking weed, since you abstained for 6 weeks. KEEPING the job is another issue entirely 
Let’s see. I, Mr. Pizza Hut Manager, hire you as a delivery driver. I don’t test you for recent drug use. You then have an accident while delivering one of my pizzas. The cops at the scene decide to subject you to a blood or urine test because they suspect impairment. The toxicology report comes back positive for marijuana. It matters not whether the drug was a contributing factor, maybe the accident would have happened anyway, but you have now just opened up Mr. Pizza Hut Manager and Pizza Hut Corp. to a huge lawsuit. Employers HATE it when that happens…
There are good reasons to refuse to hire someone who cannot/will not pass a drug test.
I am defending the standard only in the sense that it is the standard. If I needed a job, and the only ones available drug (or alcohol) tested, then I would refrain from drugs or alcohol in order to get a job. I wouldn’t NOT get a job just because of their ludicrous standards.
Obviously American law is different, and expects greater toadying towards employers, but due to a robust value of freedom in the EU it is illegal to sack or discriminate against an employee for his political beliefs.
Or to influence the way they vote.
*Florida-based ASG Software CEO Arthur Allen informed his employees that he was contemplating a merger that would eliminate “60% of the salaries” of the company – should Romney lose. In Ohio, coal mine owner Robert Murray left employees in no doubt that they were expected to attend a Romney rally – off the clock and without pay. In Cuba, at least they pay workers for show demonstrations.
*
**Brooklyn College political scientist Corey Robin sees a historical pattern:
"During the McCarthy years, the state outsourced the most significant forms of coercion and repression to the workplace. Fewer than 200 people went to jail for their political beliefs, but two out of every five American workers was investigated or subject to surveillance.
“Today, we’re seeing a similar process of outsourcing. Government can’t tell you how to vote, but it allows CEOs to do so.”**
Guardian 2012
History doesn’t tell if Mr. Allen eliminated 60% of his own salary when Romney hit the wall.
*
The judges in Strasbourg found that Arthur Redfearn, 56, was sacked in 2004 from his job in Bradford, driving mainly Asian adults and children with disabilities.
They ruled on a 4-3 majority that the decision by private firm Serco to fire him breached Article 11 – the freedom of assembly and association – because he was sacked only because of his membership of a political party.
The court said it was “struck by the fact that he had been summarily dismissed following complaints about problems which had never actually occurred, without any apparent consideration being given to the possibility of transferring him to a non-customer facing role”.
It added: “In fact, prior to his political affiliation becoming public knowledge, neither service users nor colleagues had complained about Mr Redfearn, who was considered a ‘first-class employee’.”
A spokesman at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said: “This amendment does not make any changes to the grounds on which a person can be dismissed. Political affiliation has never been a grounds for dismissing someone.
“Only in cases where a persons political beliefs have interfered with their ability to do their job can there be grounds to bring disciplinary proceedings.
“The amendment gives people the right to bring a claim for unfair dismissal on the grounds of their political beliefs from day one. It would then be up to a tribunal to consider the claim.”*
Telegraph 2016
On the BNP Mr. Redfearn…
*The significance of Section 13 is that employees will have the right to claim unfair dismissal even if they have less than a day’s service on the job - provided that they have a case to argue that the principal reason for their dismissal was related to their political opinions or affiliation. *
People Management 2013
It is important to remember that in the grim past villainous employers in both America and Britain would summarily dismiss workers both for holding socialist or leftist views, or for trade union organizing.
It’s illegal to be a Nazi in Germany, at least. You’re telling me you can go to jail for your political beliefs, but you can’t be fired for them? I don’t believe that EU law is as cut and dried as you make it out to be.
It doesn’t make any difference if you live in a legal state or not. Any company that has contracts with the federal government, or receives grant money from the feds, or has safety concerns, or gets an insurance reduction, will still have a drug free workplace policy in line with the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988.
You will still get a pre-employment drug test, and have to pass. You might never be tested again, but you still have to pass to get hired.
The legality of the drug or having a medical card makes no difference.
What sort of high do you get from smoking “haha”?
They cant do that in CA. They arent supposed to do a drug screening until they are ready to offer you a job if you pass.
That principle is totally incorrect. I have had to pass a drug test for every job I’ve had in the last 20+ years, and I have loved every one of my jobs.
I have worked in one place that didn’t drug test and it was a terrible job. The people were total losers who couldn’t meet deadlines, etc. I wound up doing more than my assigned work load because of it. I quit and the company folded about eight months later.
I live in Oregon (and have lived in Washington). Both of my last two jobs did a pre-employment screening, and would not have hired me if I tested positive for marijuana, even though it’s legal in both states. (Actually, I think maybe it wasn’t legal yet in Washington at the time, but they still test).
Anyway, (B) seems the right answer. If not using is company policy, you probably can’t get away with it forever, and if it’s not or they have leeway, they might hire you anyway. But I’ve never seen an employer that didn’t say somewhere in the pre-application process that a drug test was going to happen, so as an employer I’d be a little puzzled why it didn’t come up until we handed you the cup (or swab).
It is not illegal to be a Nazi. Otherwise half the post-war politicians and civil servants in both German republics would have ended their days in the slammer.
It is illegal to sell or display Nazi memorabilia in some venues; and sort of illegal to belong to a National Socialist party, although obviously one can be in an entirely different party that espouses certain cherished values; and illegal to deny the Holocaust. Which is now more like unwisely denying the Holy Ghost in 16th century Rome rather than having present day relevance. Pure virtue-signalling.
I am unaware of anyone in Germany sent to jail for political beliefs since the Fall of the Wall.
And even were it all illegal to do anything at all, it is not the employer’s business to act as policemen. If they want to fire someone for their own reasons, all well and good; to fire people because the government disapproves of them takes us right back to Salem.
And all that said, there may be employers in Germany and elsewhere who would approve of like-minded employees with a keen interest in the old values. Just like there may be a few Southern employers who foster a nostalgia for the Good Old Cause.
I’ve never had a job that had any drug testing. As far as I know, neither has my wife, or any of our children.
According to this article, drug testing by employers is down, from around 80 percent to around 60 percent. The conclusion:
I think Evan Drake, in the UK, is as confused as I am in Canada about drug testing. It’s used very sparingly here, and I honestly don’t know if it’s a prerequisite for any kind of employment: some military and perhaps people who have highly dangerous jobs, or jobs where screw-ups could have huge safety implications? I don’t know.
I just left a job at a Nuclear facility, and absolutely no drug testing took place at all.
Fitness for work was all that mattered so if you were suspected of being on drugs you could presumably be required to take a test, but I never heard of anyone who did in my 7+ years there.
Sent from my XT1635-02 using Tapatalk
I have worked exclusively in the IT industry for 25+ years. I started out as a developer fresh out of college but became a systems analyst and systems architect and continued on to a variety of other tech roles. I’ve worked in many fortune 500 company and Federal Gov’t sector positions. I’ve not once been asked to take a drug test (not that I’d have any reason to avoid doing so). I’ve had jobs I liked and jobs I hated. Not once did it occurred to me to find fault with a work environment because of a lack of drug testing policies.