Author Topic: Would You Urinate in a Cup?  (Read 55654 times)

viper155

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 258
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #150 on: September 15, 2014, 07:32:15 PM »
I do not take illegal drugs--or even those recently made legal in many areas--and am insulted when a company wants my urine.

It's urine. Ew. That is my first experience of the company? Peeing in a cup?

Seems like a bad way to start a relationship. Anyone else feel the same way?

I don't mind if they want to see if I have bad credit and whatnot, but the urine thing is just gross.

Also, what am I to think of a person who can't tell if someone is a drug addict? I think it's fairly obvious to spot them...

This is really immature. Urine samples are for medical purposes. Your job is not a right. But they have a right to know if you are clean. I wish this same set of rules worked for people who accept government handouts as well.

Emilyngh

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 892
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #151 on: September 15, 2014, 07:38:36 PM »

This is really immature. Urine samples are for medical purposes. Your job is not a right. But they have a right to know if you are clean. I wish this same set of rules worked for people who accept government handouts as well.

(a) My employer doing whatever-the-hell-they-want to me is not their right, and no, I'd argue they really have no right to know what's in my body if it's not affecting my performance.   

(b) Goood freakin' Lord.   You might want to think for a minute about how stupid this winds up being in reality: "...But in Tennessee, where drug testing was enacted for welfare recipients last month, only one person in the 800 who applied for help tested positive. In Florida, during the four months the state tested for drug use, only 2.6% of applicants tested positive. Meanwhile, Florida has an illegal drug use rate of 8%, meaning far fewer people on services are using drugs than their better-off counterparts. The drug testing cost taxpayers more money than it saved, and was ruled unconstitutional last year."   http://time.com/3117361/welfare-recipients-drug-testing/


totoro

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2102
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #152 on: September 15, 2014, 08:02:40 PM »
Okay, I'm an employer.  I hire lawyers to work at my firm.  I don't drug test them, but I live in Canada and in no way, shape or form would this be legal.  I do look at social media sites though and, given the character and conduct requirements for lawyers, it would be negligent of me not to imo.

One of the best lawyers I know uses pot in their free time.  When I say the best, I mean likely in the top ten in Canada - the very top legal mind I know of for sure.  This person should be put on a pedestal imo cause they have used their admirable intellect to better social conditions in Canada without regard to financial reward. 

So, I will state for the record that I don't see what rational link smoking pot has with doing jobs that don't, say, operate heavy equipment.  I doubt this lawyer would work at a firm that drug tests and, you know what, I would hire this person in a hot minute and pay the additional premiums if I was in the US.

Moving along to the US, you have a weird (to me) medical system which messes everything up.  The big companies get discounts on their premiums for drug-free staff.  So, drug-free becomes an issue even for non safety-sensitive positions.  If you don't do drugs (like me) so what on a personal level.

Perhaps the legalization of marijuana in some states will impact the situation.  Until then, I don't view it as discriminatory or an imposition on rights and freedoms.  A smart employer looking at a very high value employee will make an exception and do what they can to retain them even if it means paying higher premiums for the whole firm.  There really are not many employees like this in my experience.  If you find them, I say do what it takes to keep them just like google does.   FYI google does not drug test.

For the rest, there is a middle ground where those stats don't support supporting substance use due to negative impacts on performance and premiums.  Most companies are not operating at google level or they have contracts that force drug testing. 

Life is short, make the move that makes the best sense.  It could be a principle thing, but it seems like there is a large middle cohort of employees for whom drug testing might make economic sense in the US.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8830
  • Registered member
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #153 on: September 15, 2014, 08:43:25 PM »
Yeah, I'm sure "the large companies" drug test, but I think it really depends where you are in the organization.  They don't test the engineers, but I'm sure they test the forklift drivers.

At the big companies, everyone gets tested. I'm a software engineer and have been tested multiple times. Even though it can be argued that you could write better software while under the influence. ;-)

Eh, as mentioned by others this is far from ubiquitous.  Care to share which big companies you think test every employee?

Daisy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2138
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #154 on: September 15, 2014, 08:51:26 PM »
Yeah, I'm sure "the large companies" drug test, but I think it really depends where you are in the organization.  They don't test the engineers, but I'm sure they test the forklift drivers.

At the big companies, everyone gets tested. I'm a software engineer and have been tested multiple times. Even though it can be argued that you could write better software while under the influence. ;-)

Eh, as mentioned by others this is far from ubiquitous.  Care to share which big companies you think test every employee?

I could tell you, but I'd have to...well you know the rest.

I'm not arguing pro-drug-test, but I can see why they would test everyone instead of selecting just a few. Keeps the discrimination lawyers away. You wouldn't want certain people being drug tested and others not. Someone's bound to find a racial or ethnic or gender discrepency in there that just isn't worth opening up for lawsuits.

Right back at you - do you know of large companies that only drug test some people?
« Last Edit: September 15, 2014, 08:53:51 PM by Daisy »

devan 11

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 54
  • Location: Iowa, USA
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #155 on: September 15, 2014, 09:12:50 PM »
  I would and I do.  It is a company wide measure that requires random drug tests. Drug addiction is a problem where I work. Employees who test positive are given the option of treatment or leaving.  Most of the positive tests are from salaried management.   A number of years ago, the next -in-line to manage the company where I work was sent away for manufacturing meth.  Addiction doesn't care about race, social status, employment or anything else.  I have the genes and personality that I know that alcohol or drugs could be my master.  I don't risk it.

I was initially afraid of a false positive screwing up my life, but there seem to be enough safeguards such as mandatory second sample tests that are independently verified and with gas spectrum tests, I don't worry about false positive tests anymore.   

JENRETIRE

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #156 on: September 15, 2014, 09:30:56 PM »
http://www.questdiagnostics.com/home/companies/employer/drug-screening/testing-reasons/why-drug-test.html

So the company that makes money by selling drug tests thinks that they're beneficial?  I'm shocked, shocked I say!


Although the "increased morale" is pretty funny.  Who doesn't love to pee in a cup?  It's team building at it's finest!


This information is actually from the National Institutes of Health (but was quoted by Quest diagnostics). The study is pretty interesting from the tidbits I've found online.

totoro

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2102
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #157 on: September 15, 2014, 09:33:21 PM »
Yes, I looked at the source of the information before posting the link because self-interest is a big issue on a website like that.  The information is from government studies.  I didn't go further than that so maybe there are other issues.  Not sure.

DollarBill

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Austin TX
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #158 on: September 15, 2014, 10:05:02 PM »
Meh, I find it hard to get riled by all this. 

From my perspective infringing on freedom is way too reactionary of a response to legal workplace drug testing for illegal drugs.  Peeing in a cup seems pretty small potatoes in the grand scheme of things.  It has nothing to do with trust of an individual and everything to do with managing risk and liability.   

Reports indicate "employees who abuse drugs are 2.5 times more likely than other non-substance abusing coworkers to be absent for eight or more days. Drug abusers are 3.6 times more likely to be involved in an accident at work and 5 times more likely to file a workers compensation claim. Forty-four percent of abusers have sold drugs to other employees and 18 percent have stolen from co-workers to support their habit.

Studies suggest that substance abuse – which includes drugs and alcohol – costs the United States an estimated $276 billion a year, with much of the cost resulting from lost work productivity and increased healthcare spending.

Drug testing programs have been shown to improve employee morale and productivity; decrease absenteeism, accidents, downtime, turnover, and theft; and lead to better health among employees and family members as well as decreased use of medical benefits.  Organizations with drug-free workplace programs sometimes qualify for state government incentives or workers’ compensation insurance premium discounts."

http://www.questdiagnostics.com/home/companies/employer/drug-screening/testing-reasons/why-drug-test.html

I was so going to give you props for the post but then you posted this:

Quote
Okay, I'm an employer.  I hire lawyers to work at my firm.  I don't drug test them, but I live in Canada and in no way, shape or form would this be legal.  I do look at social media sites though and, given the character and conduct requirements for lawyers, it would be negligent of me not to imo.

So you look at social media sites but smoking pot doesn't fit into character and conduct requirements for lawyers??

Quote
One of the best lawyers I know uses pot in their free time.  When I say the best, I mean likely in the top ten in Canada - the very top legal mind I know of for sure.  This person should be put on a pedestal imo cause they have used their admirable intellect to better social conditions in Canada without regard to financial reward. 

I know we all have misleading thoughts about lawyers...mostly because lawyers are willing to mislead or spin the truth. Some of the highest people we put on pedestals in life do drugs...does it make it right? Comedians are funny on cocaine, athletes do better on steroids, writers better on pot, students study better on Adderall...but I would look at them as cheaters! If I was an employer I personally would not hire them. But it seems like now-a-days people turn a blind eye for a leg up.

I'm not trying to attack you personally just pointing out the irony.   

Emilyngh

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 892
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #159 on: September 15, 2014, 10:12:20 PM »
Comedians are funny on cocaine, athletes do better on steroids, writers better on pot, students study better on Adderall...but I would look at them as cheaters! If I was an employer I personally would not hire them. But it seems like now-a-days people turn a blind eye for a leg up.

I'm not trying to attack you personally just pointing out the irony.

I'd love to see some evidence that writers do better on pot, or that it gives lawyers a leg up (anymore than say, having a beer could somehow give a lawyer a leg-up).....

totoro

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2102
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #160 on: September 15, 2014, 10:56:09 PM »
I just happen to know a very accomplished and admirable lawyer who does smoke pot occasionally.  I don't think that is at all related to the superior performance and for all I know it might get in the way - not sure. 

All I know for sure is that this individual is absolutely the bees knees as a human being and a legal mind.  I can't reconcile judging character and conduct of someone who I have observed to be truly a decent person negatively because of smoking once in a while. 

I do understand the confusion in my statements so let me try to set out why I wrote what I did. 

I don't do drugs, nor do I surround myself with people who do.  I'm not really opposed to drug testing because maybe it is not such a big deal because either you don't take such a job or you stop doing drugs and if you can't, maybe you need treatment.  And for safety-sensitive positions, I strongly support testing.

And then I remembered that someone I highly admire might fail that drug test, and I would really like them as an employee and I've never seen them impaired on the job.   The person I'm referencing doesn't have to worry about this anyway because there is no such requirement in Canada for this type of position.  And they would have passed any social media test btw.

So, what I can say is that in my field I would make an exception for an exceptional employee who smoked pot once in a while.  If I was in a different field I might not feel that way.  If I didn't know this person as I do I might not feel this way either.

DollarBill

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Austin TX
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #161 on: September 15, 2014, 11:43:40 PM »
I just happen to know a very accomplished and admirable lawyer who does smoke pot occasionally.  I don't think that is at all related to the superior performance and for all I know it might get in the way - not sure. 

All I know for sure is that this individual is absolutely the bees knees as a human being and a legal mind.  I can't reconcile judging character and conduct of someone who I have observed to be truly a decent person negatively because of smoking once in a while. 

I do understand the confusion in my statements so let me try to set out why I wrote what I did. 

I don't do drugs, nor do I surround myself with people who do.  I'm not really opposed to drug testing because maybe it is not such a big deal because either you don't take such a job or you stop doing drugs and if you can't, maybe you need treatment.  And for safety-sensitive positions, I strongly support testing.

And then I remembered that someone I highly admire might fail that drug test, and I would really like them as an employee and I've never seen them impaired on the job.   The person I'm referencing doesn't have to worry about this anyway because there is no such requirement in Canada for this type of position.  And they would have passed any social media test btw.

So, what I can say is that in my field I would make an exception for an exceptional employee who smoked pot once in a while.  If I was in a different field I might not feel that way.  If I didn't know this person as I do I might not feel this way either.

I guess my view is: That this guy has contacts to drugs and decided to act on it by buying drugs so he can put them in his body. Taking a chance to hurt his body/mind, break the law, risk his job. What else is he willing to compromise?? Is he willing to lie to keep someone out of jail? Sorry but I would not want someone to represent me unless I committed a heinous crime and would do what ever it takes to keep me out of jail. I'm about 40 and I only know maybe two people who could get me drugs but I would never want to be seen with them. I just don't understand why you would want someone like that on your team. He may be a good lawyer but what happens if he looses a case and the person who hired him finds out he does drugs? What if it was front page news, would you still stand behind him?

I tend to think a majority of the people fighting the point that Companies should not have the right to give a piss test have never been in a "Leadership Role"...which is different form a Management role.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8493
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #162 on: September 16, 2014, 12:20:39 AM »
That this guy has contacts to drugs and decided to act on it by buying drugs so he can put them in his body. Taking a chance to hurt his body/mind, break the law, risk his job. What else is he willing to compromise??

Drugs are clearly a very polarizing issue.  I think the other side of this argument would respond that this hypothetical lawyer's use of drugs is not dangerous or criminal, and thus not a risk or a compromise.  There's a perverse sort of logic in thinking that it's not "really" illegal if so many other people are doing it, and it's not really dangerous if some people can use responsibly.  To them, weekend recreational pot smoking is no different than weekend recreational drinking, and the fact that marijuana is technically illegal is just an oversight on the part of the justice system, soon to be corrected, so they're not really breaking a real law by smoking it.

By contrast, there are people for whom drug use is akin to a swastika tattoo, a clear sign of character deficiency that has to be expected to spill over into other areas of their lives.  For those people, anyone who uses an illegal drugs is by definition a criminal and therefore not to be trusted.

I suspect that practical truth lies somewhere in between these two arguments, but writing them both out like that makes it clear that only one of these positions can see any shades of grey.   On the other hand, you could also say that only one of these arguments adopts the sort of moral relativism that might suggest a willingness to ignore rules or rebel against authority, which is maybe something a drug-testing corporation is just as interested in discovering as the drug use itself.

If you've bought the party line that "drugs are bad, m'kay?" then I understand why you'd judge users: they're self-destructive criminal degenerates.  If you've bought the argument that drug use isn't really harmful and shouldn't be illegal, then penalizing addicts is a form of persecution that you expect our progressive nation to outgrow.

I think most of the privacy-based arguments presented here are ex post facto rationalizations, a convenient shorthand that people adopt because they think it will have traction with the audience.  If you're really such a privacy nut that you think it should be illegal to gather evidence of a crime (remember drug use is still a crime) then I'm sure you also object to TSA body scanners and the Terrorist No-Fly list.  And were also outraged by the Edward Snowden leaks showing government data collection of all US citizens private emails and web traffic.  And I'm sure you protested against Stop And Frisk.  And I'm sure you use PGP for all of your online correspondences.  And I'm sure you would never use gmail or facebook or amazon, because those companies profit from collecting information about you.  Get over yourselves, you're not a privacy nut you're a drug use nut.  Nothing to be ashamed of there, just come out and own it. 

In an era where the rights of corporations are expanding by leaps and bounds every year, it's ludicrous to think that little old you have the right to use illegal drugs and still remain employed by a company that doesn't want you to.  They're literally giving you money to follow their rules, and you're saying you want their money but don't want to follow their rules? 

Spartana

  • Guest
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #163 on: September 16, 2014, 12:43:32 AM »
So, I will state for the record that I don't see what rational link smoking pot has with doing jobs that don't, say, operate heavy equipment.  .
Would you feel the same if this person used cocaine, opiates (I.e. even heroin), ecstasy or something other then pot? Drug testing isn't just for pot, it's for a variety of drugs - the ones above and things like barbituates, and serveral types of legal drugs like Oxycontin, vicodin, etc.. I was a public safety employee after I got out of the armed forces and I was tested for many more drugs then just pot alone. I assume it was the same when I was tested while in the service. Here's an example of one set of drugs that employers commonly test for pre-employment:

Employers may use a standard five-panel test of "street drugs" that includes marijuana (THC), cocaine, PCP, opiates (e.g., codeine, morphine) and amphetamines (e.g., methamphetamine). Some employers may elect a nine- or ten-panel drug test that also includes various prescription drugs, such as oxycodone, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, or propoxyphene. Alcohol may also be screened for in the sample. Other more recent drugs of abuse, such as MDMA (ecstacy) may be included. Which drug test is used is dependent upon the private employer, federal requirements, or other workplace guidelines that may be in place.

again, it isn't so much that the person is doing drugs and isn't able to function and do their job (maybe they can), it's that they are engaging in an illegal activity - both by using and procuring illegal drugs - that may compromise the employer or company as well as other employees and clients.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2014, 12:47:25 AM by Spartana »

CerebralPrimate

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 34
  • Location: Erbil, northern Iraq
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #164 on: September 16, 2014, 01:01:33 AM »
Not mocking ya, just wondering when the last time barbituates were commonly abused?

Last I heard, perscription opiates and meth were really the big problem. And now the off-shoot/designer stuff is also rapidly growing as a problem... the so called "bath salts" and Salvia and things like that.

Not that I really have a clue... been away from the states too long to really know... and I have no real interest in drugs.

That said, if I did retire to Uruguay where pot is now legal, I might  be tempted to try it again. Last time I had any was just a short 20+ years ago, so I doubt it's something I'd get in to... but I wont swear it off as an experience right now. It certainly couldnt be much worse for me than drinking (back when I used to drink).

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4061
  • Location: On my bike
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #165 on: September 16, 2014, 01:10:54 AM »
Excellent post Sol!  I clearly fall on the side of it's no big deal.  I know more people who smoke pot than who don't.  Doctors, dentists, lawyers, accountants, programers, musicians, retail workers, blog writers, and every other profession has many people who smoke.  None of these people are worried about it being a black mark on their character.  What they do on their own time has no bearing on their work.  Which of course is why it's ludicrous to think that their employers would somehow benefit from them not working there.


DollarBill, I think you win the Reefer Madness Award for this thread for pointing out how marijuana is surely going to ruin the life of everyone it comes in contact with.

Spartana

  • Guest
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #166 on: September 16, 2014, 01:18:28 AM »
Not mocking ya, just wondering when the last time barbituates were commonly abused?

 
Ha Ha - probably not since the 80's or so (when did LSD go out of fashion?) when the middle class matrons took it for their "nerves". I have heard that they are often used to counter act some of the effects of the newer amphetamines but that may not be true. But really I meant to say Benzodia.. something something... - that is like barbiturates and a fairly common prescription drug that is often abused.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2014, 01:38:38 AM by Spartana »

happyfeet

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 163
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #167 on: September 16, 2014, 05:06:11 AM »
Nice post Sol.  Son had two EE internships and had pee and hair test each time. Company he hired on with out of college also pee and hair tested and does random testing if your number gets picked. All auto related companies.
As a side note, friends father was responsible for hiring trade people for an apprenticeship and out of 135 people tested only 13 were "clean". They wanted to hire
 30 people
« Last Edit: September 16, 2014, 05:08:05 AM by happyfeet »

shotgunwilly

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #168 on: September 16, 2014, 07:25:11 AM »
Wrong.  You need a better way to test sobriety.  Unless you think that everyone who has ever had an alcoholic beverage is a threat to show up to work drunk, there's no reason to think that everyone who has ever used a drug is a threat to show up to work high.  It's nonsensical to separate out illegal drugs from legal drugs when it's not drugs that are the issue but sobriety.

Ok, a better way to test sobriety.

By y'alls arguments, people should not be able to check whether daycare workers and babysitters are pedophiles (by asking for consent to criminal history.)  Feel comfortable trusting a crackhead child molester with your kids all day? Oh, he hasn't done it at his work, just last weekend, so we have no right to hold that against him....

You couldn't work the Nazis in there somehow?  Fail.

You couldn't work an actually useful rebuttal in there somehow? "Fail."
« Last Edit: September 16, 2014, 07:27:49 AM by shotgunwilly »

Timmmy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #169 on: September 16, 2014, 07:35:13 AM »
Every time I've had to do a drug test I have some fun with it.  I double up on my daily vitamin a couple of hours before the test.  It turns my urine in to a bright glowing yellow color.  Handing it over to the test giver usually gets a strange look. 

I don't mind the tests.  You give up pretty much all of your privacy when you take a job anyway. 

shotgunwilly

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #170 on: September 16, 2014, 07:47:34 AM »

(b) Goood freakin' Lord.   You might want to think for a minute about how stupid this winds up being in reality: "...But in Tennessee, where drug testing was enacted for welfare recipients last month, only one person in the 800 who applied for help tested positive. In Florida, during the four months the state tested for drug use, only 2.6% of applicants tested positive. Meanwhile, Florida has an illegal drug use rate of 8%, meaning far fewer people on services are using drugs than their better-off counterparts. The drug testing cost taxpayers more money than it saved, and was ruled unconstitutional last year."   http://time.com/3117361/welfare-recipients-drug-testing/

Unless, in fact, the ones who did drugs don't go apply for benefits, right?

sheepstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #171 on: September 16, 2014, 07:49:55 AM »
If you're really such a privacy nut that you think it should be illegal to gather evidence of a crime (remember drug use is still a crime) then I'm sure you also object to TSA body scanners and the Terrorist No-Fly list.  And were also outraged by the Edward Snowden leaks showing government data collection of all US citizens private emails and web traffic.  And I'm sure you protested against Stop And Frisk.  And I'm sure you use PGP for all of your online correspondences.  And I'm sure you would never use gmail or facebook or amazon, because those companies profit from collecting information about you.  Get over yourselves, you're not a privacy nut you're a drug use nut.  Nothing to be ashamed of there, just come out and own it. 

In an era where the rights of corporations are expanding by leaps and bounds every year, it's ludicrous to think that little old you have the right to use illegal drugs and still remain employed by a company that doesn't want you to.  They're literally giving you money to follow their rules, and you're saying you want their money but don't want to follow their rules?

I did reference the TSA.  Which is bullshit.  And I agree with Shotgunwilly that a debate over whether drugs should be illegal or not is a completely different matter.

What I need from the pro-drug-test camp is a bright line explanation of why it goes that far and no further.  That's what's missing. What 'their money their rules' sounds like is a rationalization of anything based on the idea that it's good for productivity and everyone feels safer.

In philosophy/logic, we would ask, 'by virtue of what.'  By virtue of what is drug testing okay?  If you say reason a under conditions y then we say, 'great.  actions q, w, and r would also be justified for reason a under conditions y, so its okay to do them too.'  So you need some reason(s) and some conditions which limit it to drug testing.  I guess employers should have complete access to the financial accounts of pension managers because it's such a huge liability for the company if an employee is embezzling and embezzling is illegal.  I guess employers can conduct random body and household searches of pharmacists because pharmacists' stealing is such a huge risk and drug dealing is just as illegal as taking drugs.

Someone mentioned the rights of the company to watch your email account in case you're cheating, and this was obviously meant as a ridiculous example, but adultery did use to be illegal in the US, so would the legal status change your mind?

The famous mathematician John Nash was fired from his government job when he was arrested for gay sex.  He was working for something like the NSA I believe, so, given cultural attitudes towards homosexuality at that time, it did make sense that he couldn't hold a sensitive position when he was so vulnerable to blackmail, as distasteful as the idea of getting fired for your sexual orientation now seems.

My point is that whether something "feels right" or "seems okay" according to current attitudes isn't a pole star telling us whether it's right or not.

But this was at least an example where the crime was brought to the employer's attention. I don't have a problem with employers refusing to hire someone based on a felony drug conviction in their past (though, again, we get into practical problems if that's ubiquitous). What pro-drug-testers are talking about is not about whether you're allowed to take drugs or not and not whether employers deserve to know or not but they are talking about giving an employer more right to investigate someone and look for signs of illegal activity than the police themselves have. 

And I don't encrypt my email because I'm not particularly bothered by the NSA spying on everybody.  Being bothered by something isn't necessary to know it's ethically wrong.


Btw, OP, you might want to check the laws in your state.  http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/employee-rights-book/chapter5-3.html
It looks like in a lot of places they can't ask you to be tested without a job offer.

Interestingly, in some places employers are only allowed to test with probable cause.  But if you think someone's doing something illegal, why wouldn't you just report it to the police?  Why would we privatize this aspect of the justice system?  Why couldn't companies just report suspicious behavior to the police and absolve themselves of liability in that way?
« Last Edit: September 16, 2014, 07:52:37 AM by sheepstache »

shotgunwilly

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 547
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #172 on: September 16, 2014, 07:56:17 AM »
I think most of the privacy-based arguments presented here are ex post facto rationalizations, a convenient shorthand that people adopt because they think it will have traction with the audience.  If you're really such a privacy nut that you think it should be illegal to gather evidence of a crime (remember drug use is still a crime) then I'm sure you also object to TSA body scanners and the Terrorist No-Fly list.  And were also outraged by the Edward Snowden leaks showing government data collection of all US citizens private emails and web traffic.  And I'm sure you protested against Stop And Frisk.  And I'm sure you use PGP for all of your online correspondences.  And I'm sure you would never use gmail or facebook or amazon, because those companies profit from collecting information about you.  Get over yourselves, you're not a privacy nut you're a drug use nut.  Nothing to be ashamed of there, just come out and own it. 

Well said.  This has been my point that there are arguments here that should be in a totally different topic, targeting a different policy.


totoro

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2102
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #173 on: September 16, 2014, 08:00:15 AM »
From what I can tell from real life experience, being a good lawyer and smoking pot recreationally are not mutually exclusive, although maybe for some people there is a negative correlation.

If this individual was charged with possession of marijuana, which seems unlikely given the current state of the laws in our province, there would be a very long line of people standing up to speak on his/her behalf.  I would be one of them.

As far as drug testing goes, I would expect someone subject to a drug test in the workplace should stop taking drugs and if you can't, get some help.

I agree that the black/white thinking re. drug use would mean that an employee who smokes pot is likely to be a bad employee in some way because they are already willing to break the law.  I do find that I have some leaning that way, perhaps because of upbringing.  On the other hand, I speed sometimes which is also breaking the law.  Does that mean I'm a risky employee or bad professional?

In general, I have no problem with drug testing by employers given that the research setting out that drug use is correlated with all sorts of elevated employment-related risks and by drug-testing insurance rates are lowered.  I'm just saying that not all employers will do this and if you are a high value employee who smokes pot you are going to have options.

If I was to institute drug testing of all new hires I probably would screen out candidates who tested positive. 

If I was to do it for existing employees and they were high value employees who tested positive for pot, I would probably ask if they were willing to stop.  If they were not willing to stop and it was recreational pot use, I might make an exception.  Police in our province have recognized it is not worth it to charge for personal possession and now give out cautions and the law will likely change.  It is widely accepted behaviour among all sorts of people and it appears they continue to function at work.  It is still illegal, but I can't reconcile terminating an excellent employee on this basis given that the law is not being enforced for public policy reasons.

Other sorts of drugs and I would let even a high value employee go.  It affects professional standards and I would be concerned about addiction and character/conduct.   

sheepstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #174 on: September 16, 2014, 08:21:46 AM »

So really, what's the urine worth to you?  Assuming there are no direct safety implications in your job (which is quite a few of you), would you turn down $1 million to pee in a cup tomorrow?

Oh, I'd pee in a cup tomorrow for much less than a million.  It's not the singular act for me; I would not want to keep working for a company that had such screwed up priorities as to require this.   But, if it were a one-time deal for money that I could then walk away from?-this to me is a very different thing.   

If it's a one-time thing instead of an employment commitment, the question would become: how much would you sell your pee for (assuming the buyer could do what they wanted with it, including drug testing it)?

Any drug testing arrangement can be characterized as a series of singular acts.  Sure, if you are deciding between two employers who pay the same, and one drug tests, you pick the one that doesn't drug test.  If the drug-tester pays $10k/year more and tests once per year, then each drug test you submit gets your $10k.  If they only pay $1k/year more and test weekly, then each test gets you $20.

Ha ha, okay, let's say the employees directly benefit.  The job for 10K more requires a test while the other one doesn't.  Fair enough because there's competition and I have some leverage.  That goes away if it becomes ubiquitous.

Or say the company pays me per drug test.  Every time there are drug tests I can opt out or I can get 1000 bucks.  Good deal.

But let's say companies change the structure so the drug test fee is the bulk of your compensation.  Annual drug test: $60,000.  Annual salary $1.

The good news with that one is they can only leverage you on the one thing.  If they start breaking it up into different chunks for different indignities you still get to pick and choose because you could afford to give up a smaller chunk of your salary.

There aren't always good legal ways to encode what it means to have a choice or what's right, it's interesting to think about.
Given that, regulations will never protect us fully.

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4061
  • Location: On my bike
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #175 on: September 16, 2014, 08:25:17 AM »
The laissez faire attitude that the NFL has had towards what happens off the field is kicking them in the balls and is going to impact the bottom line.   It may not be a strict legal liability,  but it tarnished the brand.  And I say "may" because the news that 1in3 have evidence of brain injury is eventually going to be made part of one of these cases. 
Again, that's at work.

If you saw the pictures of the marks on that little boy, do you want the face of the guy who did it on your company's cereal box?  Are you buying ad space at the game for the team who hires him? 
Is this the Adrian Peterson thing?  It could be black mark on his personal endorsement deals.  No, the Vikings are not going to lose revenue from it.  The NFL is the most watched event in every local market every week.  If one advertiser pulls out, there's another one to take their place.  There are more advertisers than commercial slots, kind of like journalist jobs.


Outing yourself as one who already flouts the laws and thinks "no biggie" doesn't make you look all that great.  How hard is it to just not smoke?

Do you worry that you won't "look all that great" if you get a parking ticket?  In SF, personal pot possession isn't even a criminal offense.  It's a civil offense.  It's akin to a parking ticket.  In Colorado, it's perfectly legal.  You can purchase it similar to beer.  Do you worry that you won't "look all that great" if someone sees you drinking a beer?

It's easy to just not smoke.  I don't smoke most days.  And yet I don't come to a complete stop at stop signs on a daily basis.  Where is the test for that?  I'm flouting the law way more often in this way and yet my employer doesn't require me to wear an ankle monitor.  Why not?  Would you submit to ankle bracelet monitoring from your employer to make sure you're not a traffic scofflaw?  Where is the line drawn?


sheepstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #176 on: September 16, 2014, 08:43:46 AM »
The laissez faire attitude that the NFL has had towards what happens off the field is kicking them in the balls and is going to impact the bottom line.   It may not be a strict legal liability,  but it tarnished the brand.  And I say "may" because the news that 1in3 have evidence of brain injury is eventually going to be made part of one of these cases. 
Again, that's at work.

If you saw the pictures of the marks on that little boy, do you want the face of the guy who did it on your company's cereal box?  Are you buying ad space at the game for the team who hires him? 
Is this the Adrian Peterson thing?  It could be black mark on his personal endorsement deals.  No, the Vikings are not going to lose revenue from it.  The NFL is the most watched event in every local market every week.  If one advertiser pulls out, there's another one to take their place.  There are more advertisers than commercial slots, kind of like journalist jobs.


The question was about employer liability for outside-work acts.  In the case of that penn state coach who was sexually abusing children, I believe PSU was facing some court cases about it.  They were facing those because it seemed they were aware of the activity and looked the other way.  Everyone has the same liability, though, that has nothing to do with being an employer.  And they were liable for ignoring evidence that they were aware of, not for not pre-emptively running psychological tests on the chance the guy might be a pedophile. Nor is the NFL responsible for Ray Rice because they failed to put surveillance equipment in their players' homes to ensure there's no domestic abuse going on.  It's completely different.

DeepEllumStache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3455
  • Location: Hiding under my desk
  • I came, I saw, I made it awkward
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #177 on: September 16, 2014, 08:45:22 AM »
Every time I've had to do a drug test I have some fun with it.  I double up on my daily vitamin a couple of hours before the test.  It turns my urine in to a bright glowing yellow color.  Handing it over to the test giver usually gets a strange look. 

I don't mind the tests.  You give up pretty much all of your privacy when you take a job anyway.

I'm going to try this next time.  Excellent.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3520
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #178 on: September 16, 2014, 08:51:54 AM »
I do not take illegal drugs--or even those recently made legal in many areas--and am insulted when a company wants my urine.

It's urine. Ew. That is my first experience of the company? Peeing in a cup?

Seems like a bad way to start a relationship. Anyone else feel the same way?

I don't mind if they want to see if I have bad credit and whatnot, but the urine thing is just gross.


Also, what am I to think of a person who can't tell if someone is a drug addict? I think it's fairly obvious to spot them...

Why is it ok to be invasive on your personal credit but not your urine?  I find both invasive. 

Short answer: I guess I would, because I have.  But, oldtoyota, I have the same icky feelings about it.  It feels like a guilty until proven innocent thing.

I've also known a handful of folks that do recreational drugs "responsibly". (I'm not sure if that's the right phrasing... What I mean is that it does not interfere with their job).

You've known a lot more than a handful.  I guarantee you knew a whole slew of people that used recreational drugs and you never had a clue.

I had to do it for my last job. It didn't really bother me, except for the time that it took. I don't use recreational drugs. However, having to take it with all the rigmarole proved a good indicator of what working for the company would be like.

It does bother me that you can fail the test because you used drugs on the weekend, even if you never are impaired at work. Of course you don't want to hire someone who can't stay off cocaine or alcohol for a couple of days (or is so stupid as to show up for the test with it in their system.) But marijuana leaves traces in your system for a long time after the effects are completely gone.

Quote
Not that they're necessarily LOOKING for it, but couldn't they tell if you were pregnant or not from a urine test?

Drug tests look for certain specific indicators. A pregnancy test looks for different indicators. They don't have one single test that shows everything in your pee--you'd have to run both tests. Which they don't do because it costs more.

Not only are they separate tests but it is illegal for them to test for pregnancy hormones without permission.  If they collect urine for a drug screening they are only legally allowed to test for those drugs.

In college I submitted to one that I was pretty sure I'd fail.  But hey, those things are expensive and fuck them for thinking that it's necessary.  I wanted to see what the results would be, but sadly it was only a pass/fail sort of thing.  A list would've been more interesting.

(note, not a current place I was working)

There's a 0% chance that I'd capitulate today.

They test for the metabolite using a cheaper indicator that basically works like a litmus strip that changes at the cut off level.  Below 50 ng/mL of marijuana metabolite and you get a "negative", above that and you get a "positive".  It's a binary test, it's pass/fail.  It's the same idea for the other drugs (with different cut of levels). If you fail any particular drug then they can use a gas chromatography (GC) unit to verify it's not a false positive, and also quantify the amount.  It costs a lot of money to run a GC though so if they weed out the vast majority using the cheaper pass/fail method, and if you pass then no need to run the expensive test and quantify how much is in it.


garth

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 124
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #179 on: September 16, 2014, 09:02:27 AM »
God bless the internet.

sheepstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2424
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #180 on: September 16, 2014, 09:06:03 AM »
God bless the internet.

Seriously.  The other active thread I'm participating in is about peanut butter.  This forum is the best.

Emilyngh

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 892
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #181 on: September 16, 2014, 09:18:34 AM »

(b) Goood freakin' Lord.   You might want to think for a minute about how stupid this winds up being in reality: "...But in Tennessee, where drug testing was enacted for welfare recipients last month, only one person in the 800 who applied for help tested positive. In Florida, during the four months the state tested for drug use, only 2.6% of applicants tested positive. Meanwhile, Florida has an illegal drug use rate of 8%, meaning far fewer people on services are using drugs than their better-off counterparts. The drug testing cost taxpayers more money than it saved, and was ruled unconstitutional last year."   http://time.com/3117361/welfare-recipients-drug-testing/

Unless, in fact, the ones who did drugs don't go apply for benefits, right?

Both of these examples are pretty recent and short-term; it's not they've been in place for years.   So, it is most likely that the vast majority of the people they were testing had already signed up prior to the testing being enacted.   

Possibly drug users are less likely to apply regardless of whether or not they're testing (which could be true, I don't know), but in which case drug testing is still a useless waste of money.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3520
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #182 on: September 16, 2014, 09:28:59 AM »
I did to work in a hospital setting.  There were strict rules about purses and temperature, but I didn't have to pee in front of anyone.  I'm not sure if that's standard practice somewhere.  I didn't see anything wrong or offensive with it, and if I were a patient, I would want the people working around me to be clean and sober.

I think we all would.  The problem is that drug tests don't measure sobriety.

I meant sobriety by this definition.

"Sobriety is the condition of not having any measurable levels, or effects from mood-altering drugs."
Source- Wikipedia.

I think you have a misunderstanding of how drug tests work.  They don't measure or test for the active drug at all, in any case.  They exclusively test for drug metabolites (the inactive molecules left over after your body metabolized the drug).

You can get high on every drug possible right before a urine test, and still pass the urine test even though you have a lethal amount of illegal drugs in your system.

You can get fucked up on drugs, completely metabolize the drugs and have zero active drugs in your system, and yet still fail a piss test. 

That is the problem with urine testing, especially for marijuana which stays in your system longer than any other drug.  Someone that smoked a joint on friday night will completely fine and sober a few hours later, but will end up failing a drug test 2-4 weeks away because the metabolite stayed in their system.

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3520
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #183 on: September 16, 2014, 09:32:13 AM »
Some of the ignorance in this thread is astounding.  I only made it to page two before my head exploded. 

JENRETIRE

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 19
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #184 on: September 16, 2014, 11:13:03 AM »
Here are few facts from a Department of Labor Study on Drugs in the Workplace.*

Workers Compensation: 38 percent to 50 percent of all Workers Compensation claims are related to substance abuse in the workplace, as substance abusers file three to five times as many Workers Compensation claims.

Medical Costs: Substance abusers incur 300 percent higher medical costs than non-abusers.

Absenteeism: Substance abusers are 2.5 times more likely to be absent eight or more days a year.

Lost Productivity: Substance abusers are 1/3 less productive.

Employee Turnover: It costs a business an average of $7,000 to replace a salaried worker.


I understand that some people are just not willing to submit to a urine test and they obviously have that right. But I think it would be hard to argue that drug using employees (as a whole, I don't care to hear about this person or that person) typically don't help a companies bottom line. So in my mind, weeding out users BEFORE you hire them is a SMART move by companies.

* Source: 'Working Partners', National Conference Proceedings Report: sponsored by U.S. Dept. of Labor, the SBA, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8830
  • Registered member
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #185 on: September 16, 2014, 11:54:01 AM »
Some of the ignorance in this thread is astounding.  I only made it to page two before my head exploded.

In a thread like this, you have to read every third comment to prevent head explosion

Timmmy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 446
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #186 on: September 16, 2014, 12:05:53 PM »
Here are few facts from a Department of Labor Study on Drugs in the Workplace.*

Workers Compensation: 38 percent to 50 percent of all Workers Compensation claims are related to substance abuse in the workplace, as substance abusers file three to five times as many Workers Compensation claims.

Medical Costs: Substance abusers incur 300 percent higher medical costs than non-abusers.

Absenteeism: Substance abusers are 2.5 times more likely to be absent eight or more days a year.

Lost Productivity: Substance abusers are 1/3 less productive.

Employee Turnover: It costs a business an average of $7,000 to replace a salaried worker.


I understand that some people are just not willing to submit to a urine test and they obviously have that right. But I think it would be hard to argue that drug using employees (as a whole, I don't care to hear about this person or that person) typically don't help a companies bottom line. So in my mind, weeding out users BEFORE you hire them is a SMART move by companies.

* Source: 'Working Partners', National Conference Proceedings Report: sponsored by U.S. Dept. of Labor, the SBA, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

What's the definition of "substance abusers"?  I know a lot of people that aren't substance abusers (in my definition) that would fail a drug test. 

Emilyngh

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 892
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #187 on: September 16, 2014, 12:07:04 PM »
Here are few facts from a Department of Labor Study on Drugs in the Workplace.*

Workers Compensation: 38 percent to 50 percent of all Workers Compensation claims are related to substance abuse in the workplace, as substance abusers file three to five times as many Workers Compensation claims.

Medical Costs: Substance abusers incur 300 percent higher medical costs than non-abusers.

Absenteeism: Substance abusers are 2.5 times more likely to be absent eight or more days a year.

Lost Productivity: Substance abusers are 1/3 less productive.

Employee Turnover: It costs a business an average of $7,000 to replace a salaried worker.


I understand that some people are just not willing to submit to a urine test and they obviously have that right. But I think it would be hard to argue that drug using employees (as a whole, I don't care to hear about this person or that person) typically don't help a companies bottom line. So in my mind, weeding out users BEFORE you hire them is a SMART move by companies.

* Source: 'Working Partners', National Conference Proceedings Report: sponsored by U.S. Dept. of Labor, the SBA, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

Since the definition of a "substance abuser" is based on someone having major issues at work or home as a result of over-using drugs *or alcohol,* (see definition below) then of course, a substance abuser is more likely to have major issues at work (or home).  Duh.

 However, someone who uses drugs is no more automatically a "substance abuser" than anyone who drinks should be automatically categorized as a "substance abuser."   

"A definition of substance abuse that is frequently cited is that in DSM-IV, the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) issued by the American Psychiatric Association. The DSM-IV definition is as follows:

A. A maladaptive pattern of substance use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by one (or more) of the following, occurring within a 12-month period:
Recurrent substance use resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home (e.g., repeated absences or poor work performance related to substance use; substance-related absences, suspensions or expulsions from school; neglect of children or household)
Recurrent substance use in situations in which it is physically hazardous (e.g., driving an automobile or operating a machine when impaired by substance use)
Recurrent substance-related legal problems (e.g., arrests for substance-related disorderly conduct
Continued substance use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of the substance (e.g., arguments with spouse about consequences of intoxication, physical fights)"

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=24405

Spartana

  • Guest
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #188 on: September 16, 2014, 12:51:07 PM »
God bless the internet.

Seriously.  The other active thread I'm participating in is about peanut butter.  This forum is the best.
Hmmm... Peanut butter and marijuana?? I think I see a link :-)!

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14306
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #189 on: September 16, 2014, 01:01:25 PM »
Alright, seriously, how many of y'all are smoking the crack as we speak?

One should only partake of the crack during a drunken stupor.

  - Old Canadian Proverb

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3520
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #190 on: September 16, 2014, 01:09:31 PM »
God bless the internet.

Seriously.  The other active thread I'm participating in is about peanut butter.  This forum is the best.
Hmmm... Peanut butter and marijuana?? I think I see a link :-)!

It's called a firecracker.  http://www.thestonerscookbook.com/recipe/firecrackers

Spartana

  • Guest
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #191 on: September 16, 2014, 01:18:33 PM »
You can get fucked up on drugs, completely metabolize the drugs and have zero active drugs in your system, and yet still fail a piss test. 

That is the problem with urine testing, especially for marijuana which stays in your system longer than any other drug.  Someone that smoked a joint on friday night will completely fine and sober a few hours later, but will end up failing a drug test 2-4 weeks away because the metabolite stayed in their system.
Which is why drug testing isn't used to determine sobriety at that moment (unless there has been an accident and an employee is suspect of possibly being high/intoxicated) or even ability to do the job, but to determine recent usage. many companies don't want people who use drugs even recreationally after working hours on the books cause, you know, drugs are bad M'kay! I chose to work in a field that does mandatory drug tests so have no problem with it myself. If I did I'd say screw you guys I'm going home and look for work in another field or stop drug usage.

Spartana

  • Guest
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #192 on: September 16, 2014, 01:20:26 PM »
God bless the internet.

Seriously.  The other active thread I'm participating in is about peanut butter.  This forum is the best.
Hmmm... Peanut butter and marijuana?? I think I see a link :-)!

It's called a firecracker.  http://www.thestonerscookbook.com/recipe/firecrackers
Ya learn something new everyday :-)! I was more thinking along the lines of peanut butter MJ brownies but firecrackers seem so much better - not that I do any drugs and no I don't even drink - my body is a temple, yadda yadda yadda... :-)!

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3520
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #193 on: September 16, 2014, 01:31:46 PM »
God bless the internet.

Seriously.  The other active thread I'm participating in is about peanut butter.  This forum is the best.
Hmmm... Peanut butter and marijuana?? I think I see a link :-)!

It's called a firecracker.  http://www.thestonerscookbook.com/recipe/firecrackers
Ya learn something new everyday :-)! I was more thinking along the lines of peanut butter MJ brownies but firecrackers seem so much better - not that I do any drugs and no I don't even drink - my body is a temple, yadda yadda yadda... :-)!

The active ingredient in marijuana is soluble in oil, so you can put it in oil and then put it into anything you want. 

Marijuana is hands down the the safest drug to ever exist.  Orders of magnitude safer than even the most benign drugs that we allow children to consume (like caffeine).

Spartana

  • Guest
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #194 on: September 16, 2014, 02:03:52 PM »
God bless the internet.

Seriously.  The other active thread I'm participating in is about peanut butter.  This forum is the best.
Hmmm... Peanut butter and marijuana?? I think I see a link :-)!

It's called a firecracker.  http://www.thestonerscookbook.com/recipe/firecrackers
Ya learn something new everyday :-)! I was more thinking along the lines of peanut butter MJ brownies but firecrackers seem so much better - not that I do any drugs and no I don't even drink - my body is a temple, yadda yadda yadda... :-)!

The active ingredient in marijuana is soluble in oil, so you can put it in oil and then put it into anything you want. 

Marijuana is hands down the the safest drug to ever exist.  Orders of magnitude safer than even the most benign drugs that we allow children to consume (like caffeine).
Lots of carcinogens from smoking it (similar to cigarettes) as well as possible other potential problems depending on one's overall health, and when combined with other drugs - including prescription drugs someone may be usuing. But yeah, compared to other drugs it may be safer when not smoked but eaten. But then I probably wouldn't give kids caffeine...or sugar :-)!
But the issue isn't so much is it safe or not, but currently it is illegal and so that's more so the issue with employers.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/marijuana/safety/HRB-20059701

I personally would be MUCH more concerned with an employer who tried to force me to stop doing some kind of thing in my free time that was legal to do. Like the cig smoking a poster mentioned above, drinking, eating Oreos, riding my motorcycle, etc... That should not be their business unless those things were illegal
« Last Edit: September 16, 2014, 02:07:40 PM by Spartana »

kite

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 606
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #195 on: September 16, 2014, 03:14:36 PM »
The laissez faire attitude that the NFL has had towards what happens off the field is kicking them in the balls and is going to impact the bottom line.   It may not be a strict legal liability,  but it tarnished the brand.  And I say "may" because the news that 1in3 have evidence of brain injury is eventually going to be made part of one of these cases. 
Again, that's at work.

If you saw the pictures of the marks on that little boy, do you want the face of the guy who did it on your company's cereal box?  Are you buying ad space at the game for the team who hires him? 
Is this the Adrian Peterson thing?  It could be black mark on his personal endorsement deals.  No, the Vikings are not going to lose revenue from it.  The NFL is the most watched event in every local market every week.  If one advertiser pulls out, there's another one to take their place.  There are more advertisers than commercial slots, kind of like journalist jobs.


The question was about employer liability for outside-work acts.  In the case of that penn state coach who was sexually abusing children, I believe PSU was facing some court cases about it.  They were facing those because it seemed they were aware of the activity and looked the other way.  Everyone has the same liability, though, that has nothing to do with being an employer.  And they were liable for ignoring evidence that they were aware of, not for not pre-emptively running psychological tests on the chance the guy might be a pedophile. Nor is the NFL responsible for Ray Rice because they failed to put surveillance equipment in their players' homes to ensure there's no domestic abuse going on.  It's completely different.
The comment was more generic than an employer's strict liability.   Quite a few here are taking the position that what you do off the clock is not your employer's business and that it doesn't cost them anything.   That is categorically untrue for a number of jobs.  Mozilla,  Radium One, Penn State,  NYC public schools, A&E, Discovery Channel, Warner Brothers,  CBS, the US Military and every single bank all care about it.  Each has fired or suspended people for doing things on their own time that the employer doesn't like.  Clearly the NFL can't police the behavior of players, no one can.   But even they recognize that they can't adopt a "not my problem" position and retain any level of respectability.
The most bizarre thing in this debate is from those who insist on the right to enjoy the effects of THC coursing through their bloodstream don't seem to respect the right of an employer to say "not on my payroll"

maizeman

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3892
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #196 on: September 16, 2014, 04:10:05 PM »
One of my good friends worked in the marketing department for a major (S&P 500-listed) U.S. company.  Before she started, they demanded not just urine, but a HAIR sample drug test, which apparently lets them test drug use for a much longer time period.  As a casual smoker, she spent a ton of time researching online and had her hair bleached and colored multiple times to basically totally destroy any trace of it.  She passed the test and was one of their best employees.

On average it seems like hair drug test would seem to place a rather unequal burden on women, especially considering the number of guys guys going around with shaved heads these days. If hair grows at a rate of about half an inch a month (looked it up on wikipedia no idea if it's true) passing a hair-based drug test for many women could easily require two years of clean living. Now there are certainly men with long hair and women who shave their heads, but I wonder if a case could still be made...

Eric

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4061
  • Location: On my bike
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #197 on: September 16, 2014, 04:36:57 PM »
The comment was more generic than an employer's strict liability.   Quite a few here are taking the position that what you do off the clock is not your employer's business and that it doesn't cost them anything.   That is categorically untrue for a number of jobs.  Mozilla,  Radium One, Penn State,  NYC public schools, A&E, Discovery Channel, Warner Brothers,  CBS, the US Military and every single bank all care about it.  Each has fired or suspended people for doing things on their own time that the employer doesn't like.  Clearly the NFL can't police the behavior of players, no one can.   But even they recognize that they can't adopt a "not my problem" position and retain any level of respectability.
I don't really know what happened in any of the cases you're citing, but I'm guessing that other people were harmed?  That doesn't really have anything to do with drugs or not.  Ray Rice isn't a shitstorm because he may or may not have been under the influence.  It's because he struck and injured another. 

The most bizarre thing in this debate is from those who insist on the right to enjoy the effects of THC coursing through their bloodstream don't seem to respect the right of an employer to say "not on my payroll"
Well, again, no one thinks it's okay to smoke while on the job.  I'm personally not paid 24 hours a day, so I don't need to act like I'm at work 24 hours per day.  My employer doesn't like me to sleep while on the payroll, yet I still manage to sleep every single day.

I'm still wondering why you're not lobbying for employers to monitor driving or biking habits for signs of lawlessness.  Surely they don't want people with no respect for the rule of law on their payroll.  A simple GPS ankle monitor could easily weed out all of these lawbreakers and keep your company free from those with no respect for authority.  It seems you'd be okay with wearing one of these, right?

frugalnacho

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3520
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Madison Heights, Michigan
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #198 on: September 18, 2014, 09:36:16 AM »

The most bizarre thing in this debate is from those who insist on the right to enjoy the effects of THC coursing through their bloodstream don't seem to respect the right of an employer to say "not on my payroll"


Nobody has insisted that.  That's not even how drug tests work.

No employers check for THC coursing through your blood stream.  No employers even check for THC, or any actual drug.  They check for left over inert metabolites only. 


dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8830
  • Registered member
Re: Would You Urinate in a Cup?
« Reply #199 on: September 18, 2014, 02:34:46 PM »

The most bizarre thing in this debate is from those who insist on the right to enjoy the effects of THC coursing through their bloodstream don't seem to respect the right of an employer to say "not on my payroll"


Nobody has insisted that.  That's not even how drug tests work.

No employers check for THC coursing through your blood stream.  No employers even check for THC, or any actual drug.  They check for left over inert metabolites only.

I don't touch pot, but I do smoke the metabolites