Drug Testing

Heineken Helen

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

go find someone else to insult today helen.....

:rolleyes: take your childishness to pm's and I'll ignore ya there!

Poncier

Heineken Helen wrote:

and yes, you CAN tell by looking at someone.

Every time?? I don't think so. Believe me I know plenty of folks who have such a tolerance that they can appear fine while rather high, and that could definitely affect job performance and in some lines of work that can be very dangerous.

chromiam

Heineken Helen wrote:

and yes, you CAN tell by looking at someone. I've lived with my fair share of stoners.

now you are discriminating and making assumptions about people on the way that they look. Now you are creating a bigger and more subjective problem then a drug test.

Heineken Helen

Poncier wrote:

Every time?? I don't think so. Believe me I know plenty of folks who have such a tolerance that they can appear fine while rather high, and that could definitely affect job performance and in some lines of work that can be very dangerous.

Ok, I can see your point... BUT are there many jobs where, if you smoke OFF the job, it's dangerous? There may be one or two but not many more. I know very few jobs , actually none, where if you have a couple in the evening, you're a risk to your coworkers the following day... you're probably more of a risk if you're hungover. So why should what people do in their spare time be anything to do with their employers?

Heineken Helen

chromiam wrote:

now you are discriminating and making assumptions about people on the way that they look. Now you are creating a bigger and more subjective problem then a drug test.

Huh? You know exactly what I mean... it's all in the eyes!

Dylan Stone

Testing for marijuana...which stays in your system for 30 days?

Or should they just test you each day you show up for work to make sure you haven't had a drink in the last 48 or whatever it is.

I personally think....no...I KNOW.... my brain is WAY more beaten up and absent a day after I was out drinking a good deal than a day after or 10 days after I smoked up a few bong hits....

Not in favor of drug testing.

Invasion of privacy. Where does it start and where does it end? May be appropriate and called for in a few professions. Not in most.

Lukin639

Against

aspoonfulweighsaton

I wish every job would make all of their employees take a drug test every week, so yeah, I'm for it.

I don't care whether you're a crackhead or a pothead, you shouldn't be able to make money to support your habit.

Dylan Stone

aspoonfulweighsaton wrote:

I wish every job would make all of their employees take a drug test every week, so yeah, I'm for it.

I don't care whether you're a crackhead or a pothead, you shouldn't be able to make money to support your habit.

That's why it's best to grow your own.

chromiam

Heineken Helen wrote:

Huh? You know exactly what I mean... it's all in the eyes!

you're discriminating based on how someone's eyes look. Maybe they had a rough night up late with a sick kid, or just couldn't sleep. But in your mind they're in no shape to work because YOU think so by the look of their eyes.

Poncier

chromiam wrote:

you're discriminating based on how someone's eyes look. Maybe they had a rough night up late with a sick kid, or just couldn't sleep. But in your mind they're in no shape to work because YOU think so by the look of their eyes.

Jeez, Marty Feldman would have never gotten any work in Helen's world.

given2fly78

totally 100% against drug testing. If we're talking mood altering substances which can affect the way people safely do their jobs then why shouldn't alcohol be included?

Not to mention, more of the bigger issue IMO is the invasion of privacy. What people do OUTSIDE of work is NOT an employers business (or mine).

Using drugs or alcohol during work obviously is a different story. I belive that should be grounds for termination. There is no place at work for using any substance.

But, again, what people do outside of work is nobody's business. Slowly we're being stripped of our basic rights to privacy.

adam42381

I am for drug testing for most jobs. The thing that may surprise you is that school teachers are NOT tested for drugs. My wife has taught school in 3 states and 4 school districts and has never had the first drug test. She doesn't do any illegal drugs but knows many teachers who do. Tons of teachers smoke weed and she knew of a few who were into much harder things. I think this is a major issue. She talked to a fellow teacher about the lack of testing and was told that it was because so many teachers would lose their jobs...

blackredyellow

Poncier wrote:

I guess it depends on what the job is.
Working with kids or operating heavy machinery or such, I'd have to say yes.

I agree... I'm for it when hiring if there is a safety concern or even a concern of your drug use affecting other people (teachers, day care, etc.).

And I am for it (alcohol included) immediately after a workplace accident or injury.

As far as random testing, unless it's a very dangerous job, then I don't like the idea.

Indian Summer

depends on what you're testing for....I don't have a problem with marijuana use....but chemical shit like Meth I don't want anyone on that shit.

Heineken Helen

chromiam wrote:

you're discriminating based on how someone's eyes look. Maybe they had a rough night up late with a sick kid, or just couldn't sleep. But in your mind they're in no shape to work because YOU think so by the look of their eyes.

I can tell the difference between tired and stoned and so can most people.

South of Seattle

Heineken Helen wrote:

I can tell the difference between tired and stoned and so can most people.

Well people used to think I was stoned before I ever smoked pot. Now when I do, no one can tell unless they smell it. Most people hide it well, seeing as most people are stoned, they just aren't telling you.

Ms. Haiku

Some people told me when they met me they thought I was a stoner. hahahahahahahahahahahaha:D

I just move at the beat of my own drum.

chromiam

Heineken Helen wrote:

I can tell the difference between tired and stoned and so can most people.

and I'm sure you make alot of false assumptions. Plus, by doing it your way, you are putting alot of pressure on a supervisor to make a "guess" on whether or not a newly hired employee is just tired or stoned. Sorry but I'll trade the slight invasion of privacy for the knowledge that my safety and well being are more protected.

Heineken Helen

chromiam wrote:

and I'm sure you make alot of false assumptions. Plus, by doing it your way, you are putting alot of pressure on a supervisor to make a "guess" on whether or not a newly hired employee is just tired or stoned. Sorry but I'll trade the slight invasion of privacy for the knowledge that my safety and well being are more protected.

I still don't get it. I'd MUCH rather work with somebody who had a spliff on the way to work than someone who had a heavy night out the night before. I cannot function at ALL with a hangover but I know plenty of people who smoke who can function as well as your average person.

chromiam

Heineken Helen wrote:

I still don't get it. I'd MUCH rather work with somebody who had a spliff on the way to work than someone who had a heavy night out the night before. I cannot function at ALL with a hangover but I know plenty of people who smoke who can function as well as your average person.

In my line of work, I can't afford to work with either one.
Again, you are bringing up your personal "experience", some people are fine after a night of drinking, others are not. Either way (hungover or stoned), a person's reaction times are impaired and slowed. And their attention to details are lax.

Again, I have no problem with an employer testing for illegal drugs, its one less worry for me on the job.

Heineken Helen

chromiam wrote:

In my line of work, I can't afford to work with either one.
Again, you are bringing up your personal "experience", some people are fine after a night of drinking, others are not. Either way (hungover or stoned), a person's reaction times are impaired and slowed. And their attention to details are lax.

Again, I have no problem with an employer testing for illegal drugs, its one less worry for me on the job.

why do so many people recently have issues with me using my personal experiences as examples? Strange!

What other examples WOULD I have? Should I be using text book cases which so far bear no relevance to my life?

Again, I do have problems with it... but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree!

chromiam

Heineken Helen wrote:

why do so many people recently have issues with me using my personal experiences as examples? Strange!

What other examples WOULD I have? Should I be using text book cases which so far bear no relevance to my life?

Again, I do have problems with it... but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree!

no problem with it just pointing out that your experience may differ completely from someone else's. So a singular personal experience isn't necessarily the best example to give in defense of an viewpoint.

yes we will.

know1

Ms. Haiku wrote:

I guess this should go on MT, but I like AET better

For or against drug testing for employment of non-criminals?

Against (check)

I am for the right of the employer to decide whether drug testing is something they wish to use as a criteria for employment.

brainofPJ

SPEEDY MCCREADY wrote:

i am all for drug testing in the workplace...

pre-employment and random.....

oh me too.

i still can't believe the company i work for doesn't do any testing. well, except for the drivers which i don't work around so i don't care much about that.