Drug Tests-

If they found a Drug Test that could accurately test everyone, I’d be for it. As the current way DT describes is one of the only ways I’ve heard (and not just from her), I’m tempted to disagree with drug tests.

Especially since that most of the time, it’s on a case-by-case basis. For example, someone decided to stop smoking weed 2 weeks ago. He gets drug tested for a new job. THC’s still in his body. Wham. He doesn’t get it even though he HAS stopped.

Like I said. It’s a case-by-case basis, and until they find a way to massively test people that works, I’m not accepting of them, but will comply if it is needed. I rarely drink and I don’t do drugs, so why should I be worried?

Almost everyone in my school (or more precisely, the school I just finished) smoked weed, in some cases more than that. Many of the teachers know about this (a few don’t, the dumbasses)

However they ignore the problem, even though some students have been having trouble working (erm…kinda seems to effect performance here, or maybe they just got stupid).

There have been no drug tests, of course if the teachers know, then there isn’t really much point. But it would’ve helped identify those who were taking drugs, and thus they could compare work between those who are/are not taking them, in order to determine if it was effecting work standards/performance.

The worst thing about this is that it is not just the older people, but younger people are also getting involved. The age range is something like 9+ years old, or something. I feel that this is not good, my little brother is 9 and I don’t really want him to start as well.

Also, crime has increased, vandalism and stealing mainly, stuff like windows being smashed, shoplifting, etc. This seems to be caused by drug use, although it is not determined.

Anyway, I am mainly against drugs, and for drug testing…although I disaprove of the current methods and feel they should find a new way to do it. I admit that I can’t think of one myself so don’t go bitching at me for giving my opinion.:enguard:

I do drugs, I drink beer, it’s never affected me when I’m not drunk or high…

I hate those commercials that are like, one puff off a Marijuana cigarette will turn you into a junkie forever and make you smoke crack too. You know what that is all bullshit, I will NEVER do anything more than Marijuana. Well I smoke cigarettes too but that’s besides the point.

Originally posted by Latarali
I hate those commercials that are like, one puff off a Marijuana cigarette will turn you into a junkie forever and make you smoke crack too.

well, despite what they say, the people who made those commercials think that today’s modern american will smoke 2-3 joints before stopping…

that’s probably why they said that…

You have a right to privacy in your own home, your own possessions, etc (as long as they’re within the bounds of law). But that right doesn’t always extend as far when you leave your own home to affect other people’s lives (like going to work or school). Plus, most drugs being tested for are illegal anyway, so you have no real right to them to begin with so I’m not sure what you’re even complaining about. It’s the same thinking that leads to cigarettes being outlawed in a work environment too (for the most part).

Employers can screen potential employees however they want as long as the screening method can be shown to be correlated with job performance and does not discriminate on the basis of whatever that big list of things is (gender, race, religion, creed, whatever). Drug users are more likely to be late or absent from work, to steal, etc. So drug testing is a valid selection criteria…

Just like an aptitude test. Just because someone does well on a test doesn’t mean they will do better on the job than someone who does poorly on the test, but people who score higher might tend to do better. People who don’t do drugs tend to work better.

That’s what it’s all about… anti-drug propaganda. I don’t think it’s there to be discouraging drug use though, and that is fairly unfair to drug users, because not all of them are thieves, or unproductive, and brain dead, etc. It is usually the person that is the problem when it comes to drug using, and not the drug. Those people take drugs to get fucked up, or to escape from problems, but they end up becoming reliant on it, or take on some other alternate life style. This is more common with stimulants, such as cocaine, and methamphetamines, and opiates, like heroin, although not with hallucinagens. The majority of hallucinagens are are fairly safe, compared to other drugs. But anyways, those people were unstable to begin with, and might of been like that without drugs.
There are lots of people who take drugs, other than teenagers, or “low lives” and what not, and someone who could be the best worker in the world could be denied a job, just because they smoke the ocasional joint once in a while. I think this may be though, because of laws, however just because someone does something illegal, doesn’t mean they are suddenly an evil person. Also, I think drug testing may be leading to the rise of jobless drug users, which proves that the government would rather try to make the problem worse, than to fix it. They’d rather leave all the “druggies” homeless and without jobs, and then focus all the media on it, so their own corruption lies hidden. tsk tsk.

Ah but it is BECAUSE of those drug users that do end up fucking up that everyone has to undergo the process. I think it was in the 80s, but in the past, before people had sealed food and drug packages, some asshole slipped something like cyanide into tylenol bottles in a pharmacy and people got killed. Protective measures had to be taken in order to prevent recurrence of such an event. You can’t expect the world to behave responsibly and reasonably in all situations. I can list countless examples where self regulation ended up in some nasty fuck ups. So too bad. Taking drugs is a choice. Addiction can be a result of taking drugs, the result of a choice. People have to live with their choices. Considering how thorough the drug problems were in the 60s and 70s , I don’t think your fears are well founded Gila.

And latarali is a prime example of the drunk not caring of his own drunkeness.

Originally posted by Dragon Tear
[b]Hmmm; just thought I’d post a few facts from my school about that here.

Some people were doing drugs (“just” dope, actually) and gave out some free stuff to make people addicted and make money or something; I don’t know the exact story. However, the teachers were pretty pissed and tested the WHOLE SCHOOL on drugs. That took weeks, because they watched you while you pissed into the little glass- and most of the students just “couldn’t”, which is not a surprise. I mean, not everybody can piss on command and even less when being watched by your Math/English/Geography/ whatever teacher.
Burt after about 2 weeks, the school was proud to announce that everybody is clean. Now, every week I think, some students are picked randomly to get tested.

Hah, good one. :wink: Half of the school is still doing drugs, and the possibility that they’re getting tested is pretty low. Nobody has been tested as positive yet.
Conclusion: They should use the money for other things. One test costs 60 Euro after all… :moogle: [/b]

Here at least that is so illegal its not funny, and wouldnt surprise me if its not legal there too, if that happened to me id flatly refuse, and if they pursued it I would milk the school for all its worth teach them a real lesson.

That’s a great thing about being in the Marine Corps, when I apply for another job I won’t have to worry since they will already know if I’m clean or not (they do random drug tests here). However, the problem with complaining about random drug test is that it isn’t justified. You say that they shouldn’t be able to since it invades your privacy. They are just enforcing laws. Since they shouldn’t because of privacy is stupid since what if you had sex with kids or some shit like that. It would eb behind closed doors, but it is still illegal. The employer doesn’t make the law, the government does. Besides, drugs are something that you shouldn’t be doing anyways so it shouldn’t bug you in the first place. Besides, drug tests aren’t that bad. YOU PISS IN A CUP. It is almost like pissing in a toilet. It is no big deal. Besides, they aren’t invading your privacy since you want their job for their money. They get your piss and time and you get their money.

“They get your piss and time and you get their money.”

I like that 8D

Originally posted by Sinistral
“They get your piss and time and you get their money.”

that’s a good thing to me, but i still find that wrong for some reason…

meh, probably just me…:o

Employee drug testing has nothing to do with businesses trying to enforce anti-drug laws. Even if the drugs were legal, businesses could still screen their employees with them as long as it could be shown that people who test positive are more likely to cause problems. Businesses can use whatever screening and selection methods they like as long as they can show that it can be used as a predictor of how well someone will perform on the job.

For jobs where there is potential personal danger, obviously most people agree that drug testing would definitely be a good thing. Even for other, less dangerous jobs drug testing can still be valid. According to a textbook I have here, in one study in 1990, 5,465 job applicants were tested for illicit drugs. Those who tested positive had 59% higher absenteeism rate and 47% higher involuntary turnover rate (fired), and it was estimated that savings from screening out drug users would have been 52 million dollars.

All they need to do is show that it is valid and doesn’t have an adverse impact against a particular protected group (members of a race, gender, religion, color, or nationality), and then it is legal. And if they show these things, it shows the company would also be better off using the screening method, since the business would then be better off.

The fact that some people who would have been good employees are rejected is irrelevant. There is no way to see the future, and any screening method including ordinary tests of abilities and skills will also result in some people who otherwise would be good employees failing and not being hired because of that. Likewise, some people who pass employment tests will go on to become bad employees. But only hiring people who pass the tests makes it more likely that the people who are hired will be better employees.

Also it can be argued that the US government shouldn’t be allowed to use drug testing for employment on the grounds of involuntary search and invasion of privacy and whatever, since that stuff is unconstitutional. But that can probably be argued either way.

I don’t like drug tests AT ALL, but, as long as everyone (including the supervisors and higher-ups making ME go through it) have to go through them too, I can live with it.

Though I was not subjected to any when I applied to work at [Shinra]. None of us were. Good thing, too, because I’m like one of three people at my specific store that DOESN’T at least occasionally smoke pot or take Vicodin or something. :wink: And it doesn’t effect anybody’s performance on the job, because nobody’s dumb enough to do it at a time where it’s gonna affect their showing up on time and working (well, there’s that one dude, but he got fired. So there ya go.)

I don’t like picking people out and testing them at random, because I question how “random” the selection actually was. Everyone or no one. Don’t half-ass it.