<p>Do you think employers should be allowed to make a drug test mandatoy for employment? I don't think employers should be alloWed to because what you do off the job is personal. Most states are right to work so if an employer suspects an employee is coming disoriented to work they can fire the employee.</p>
<p>No problem with me. Drugs’ effects are hardly confined to the time spent getting high.</p>
<p>I’m not sure of my position, but here’s the apparent rationale:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Source: [Working</a> Partners for an Alcohol- and Drug-Free Workplace](<a href=“http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/drugs/workingpartners/dfworkplace/dt.asp#q1]Working”>http://www.dol.gov/asp/programs/drugs/workingpartners/dfworkplace/dt.asp#q1)</p>
<p>What Sithis said.</p>
<p>I think weed ought to be legalized, and I’d support legalization of harder drugs if someone could come up with a plan to make sure they’d be extremely well-regulated though.</p>
<p>Personally I’d be fine hiring someone who smokes weed now and then, but I don’t think I’d wanna hire a crackhead / heroin shooter /meth addict.</p>
<p>If I was given the choice, I would rather marijuana be legal and alcohol be illegal than the way it is now. But we all know what happened last time they made alcohol illegal.</p>
<p>You also have to decide where to draw the line. The whole slippery slope argument is important, because what if employers want to test for other health problems? If a person is hired and they are not working up to standards, they can be fired regardless of drug use. Employers recieve considerable protection from the law and unlike Europe are free to fire people for whatever reason. Also, recreational drug use does not mean a worker is any less productive. Just look at professional sports, especially th NBA. Many athletes smoke weed in season and still put up big numbers (santonio holmes is one example). If a world class athlete can remain productive even with rec drug use, why can’t someone whose working retail? If a person comes high or drunk to work, they can be fired on the spot. I just think it opens the door for worse abuses. People use the addiction is a disease argument, and if it’s truly considered a disease, then it should not be treated differently than other health ailments. But that’s a stretch.</p>
<p>Actually, if you only smoke weed once or twice a week, you can pass a drug test even if you smoked some the day before. Tests are meant to catch heavy users.</p>
<p>Eh, for most employers, “Hire me, but if I do something ‘bad’ you can always fire me later at that time” doesn’t work. They don’t want to waste resources training people who ostensibly (to them) have a higher chance of being fired later than someone who doesn’t use illicit substences. Not to mention that such an event would reflect poorly on the judgement of the employer in question.</p>
<p>Another fair point. Would you spend money training someone only to risk having them be arrested a week later for possession of heroin?</p>
<p>And I completely agree on the point about alcohol. I always love it when people who get hammered every weekend tell me that smoking is bad. Even more so if they’ve ever driven drunk.</p>
<p>Why would any employer hire a drug user when 10 other candidates don’t use drugs? In case anyone hasn’t noticed, it’s not exactly a job seekers market.</p>
<p>People are failing to make the distinction between drug users and drug addicts. The vast majority of drug users are recreational users. I don’t think rec use negatively impact productivity. I also don’t think drug users are worse workers. I think some people have skewed views of drug users.</p>
<p>I’ve never met a person who regularly does/did anything harder than weed who wasn’t a ****up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s probably true, but people tend to have skewed views of everything. No private business is required to screen for drugs by law, and I think that employers should be able to hire based on their own (legal) criteria. If their criteria are determined through skewed thinking, then that’s just how it has to be. I don’t see why an employer should be able to say “I won’t hire X because I didn’t like the impression I got of X’s personality” and not be able to say “I won’t hire X because X is a drug user and my impression of drugs is that they are bad.” I am sure there are employers that don’t screen for drugs out there, though they may be rare?</p>
<p>None of my jobs required a drug test. I’ve had 4 jobs.</p>
<p>my job didn’t screen for drugs, which isn’t surprising since it’s a Whole Foods :P</p>
<p>they do, however, screen for nicotine usage if you wanna take the health test for a higher discount. I think it’s a bit discriminatory that they only screen for nicotine usage and not other drugs, but whatever.</p>
<p>@tiff90</p>
<p>Well then why are you complaining?</p>
<p>I’m not complaining. I just am sharing my views considering more and more jobs are requiring drug tests. I wouldn’t take a job that drug tested unless I really wanted it. Just because I haven’t been robbed doesn’t mean I don’t have opinions about law enforcement. Just wanted to start a discussion since I’m bored at work.</p>
<p>hmm … not a big fan of drug tests for work (about 1/2 the companies for which I have worked have required them) … however these firms have had employees who …</p>
<p>1) Drive trucks or forklifts
2) Work heavy machinery
3) Work at control centers deciding the next steps for other employees who are at risk
4) Design or build equipment that either controls the safety of equipment or is the safety euipment itself.
5) Dispense prescription drugs.</p>
<p>Do you feel comfortable not knowing if the following folks are high or not?<br>
- The person driving the 18 wheeler?<br>
- The person who build the brakes on the 18 wheeler?
- The person who installed the brakes in the truck?
- The cop responding to a call with a gun drawn?</p>
<p>At 22 I was dead set against drug test … at 52 it is not so clear to me anymore</p>
<p>For jobs like those you should be as clean as the virgin Mary.</p>
<p>Its all relative. I don’t think it is necessary to do a drug test on employees if they do customer service at a local supermarket. A background check is adequate. However, if you are working in a field that will directly affect people’s lives, obviously you need some regulation. You don’t want a crackhead giving you anesthetics while you undergo surgery.</p>