Drug Testing

[PerpetualImperfexion]

Should an employer be allowed to demand you pee in a cup? I could understand if there was evidence that you were coming into work high, but otherwise isn't it an invasion of privacy?

[MisterSix]

It should say in your contract if you have to or not. You will have read your contract before signing it and will know if your employer makes people pee in cups. If you don't want people to analyze your pee, don't sign it and find a new job

[huginnmuninn]

If you start working at a place then you represent that place and if you go around getting high and doing drugs then that will reflect on the place. and some employers don't want that type of publicity. Everyplace i've worked at that has made me pee in a cup has done it so that they don't have to actually watch me do it so it's not really that bad. Some places will say that they are going to but they probably actually won't just because it costs money and they are only saying that they will just to stop you from doing drugs at work.

[Dimitri]

NOT AT ALL...personally if I was your employer I wouldn't care if you did any drugs because you wouldn't be working for me. If I found out you were and you tested positive in a test you would have 3 months to get clean...then if I test you at all during those three months then you would be out, no questions asked.

Why would you have someone work for you who is taking drugs...I mean yes, I understand prescription drugs and if you can provide evidence that you need them, i.e a physicians orders then yes...by all means take them. But if not, nope...bye

[Hypers]

No. It's just disgusting and embarrassing for anyone to ask for your pee. You could just go to a clinic and get a drug test, then bring the report to the employer. Much easier and acceptable.

[Abigballofdust]

If you're using drugs from time to time you'd still be able to work for me. But you'd go at the first sign of you turning a junkie. I have no interest in your personal life as long as it doesn't interfere with the working place I lead.

[ImCoolBeans]

No. It's just disgusting and embarrassing for anyone to ask for your pee. You could just go to a clinic and get a drug test, then bring the report to the employer. Much easier and acceptable.

That is a lot easier to fake and get away with it.

I think an employer has ever right to drug test their employees. If you are being payed by them and working their establishment then they have a right to know who is tweakin' when they get out of work and who isn't. It can be a liability and can affect the quality of your work whether you're high on the job or not.

[Dimitri]

That is a lot easier to fake and get away with it.

I think an employer has ever right to drug test their employees. If you are being payed by them and working their establishment then they have a right to know who is tweakin' when they get out of work and who isn't. It can be a liability and can affect the quality of your work whether you're high on the job or not.

Agreed...it doesn't matter if you work in a hospital or bag groceries...what is comes down to is the safety of those around you.

How can you provide when you are impaired...

[Scarface]

to be real honest with you, they want to see how reliable you'll be. Now I'm not going to sit here and down people who do drugs and shit because i would be a hypocrite. However, in certain places that I know that I've worked in management for, we didn't test for drugs, we only tested for the pills or solutions that try to cover UP for the drugs you take. So those solutions that tell you that it will make you clean, well, they test for those. Now the companies I've been in management at have been fortune 500 corporations, so it may vary from place to place. Now it also isn't always piss tests, but they'll give you a swap to put into your mouth, and they will analyze your saliva. It's a more sanitary solution. Do I think they should drug test? Yeah, I think that's perfectly acceptable, now I'm not going to label all people that do drugs unreliable or thief's and shit like that, but for the majority of junkies that are; is the reason they do it. I wouldn't take any offense to it man, they don't "randomly" select you for a piss test nor do they judge unless they see you fucked up on the job, or its just mandatory before youre hired. It's also part of their insurance policy that sometimes requires piss or saliva tests before people are hired.

[Danny_boi 16]

I think its perfectly just. Of Course Employers should drug test their employees. Especially if the company represents something, the cannot have their rep. dirty

[randomnessqueen]

theyre only allowed to if you give them permission to
and if you comply then yes they should be allowed
you can always choose not to

[Gigablue]

I don't think they should be able to test you randomly. If they have reason to suspect you are using drugs, then they should be able to, but for people with no history of drug use and no impaired performance, it seems unnecessary.

[PerpetualImperfexion]

It should say in your contract if you have to or not. You will have read your contract before signing it and will know if your employer makes people pee in cups. If you don't want people to analyze your pee, don't sign it and find a new job

Your argument does not give reasons why they should be allowed to, it simply states that they can and that nothing can be done to change it.

I think its perfectly just. Of Course Employers should drug test their employees. Especially if the company represents something, the cannot have their rep. dirty
If you start working at a place then you represent that place and if you go around getting high and doing drugs then that will reflect on the place. and some employers don't want that type of publicity. Everyplace I've worked at that has made me pee in a cup has done it so that they don't have to actually watch me do it so it's not really that bad. Some places will say that they are going to but they probably actually won't just because it costs money and they are only saying that they will just to stop you from doing drugs at work.

And what if I'm doing drugs in another state, or even country (perhaps one where the drug is legal)? Their reputation may be harmed if they are a large company that presides in many states/countries, but I don't see how it could affect a smaller business. Are you saying that the employer doesn't want the publicity of an employee getting caught with drugs, or the publicity that comes with what they do on those drugs? If it is the latter, then what about alcohol? People can do some pretty stupid shit when they're drunk in public. In the same way, if they get drunk at home, unless they are wife beaters or cause a disturbance, there would be nothing wrong with it. If I'm getting high at home, then why should it matter? The reality is that the company is unable to prove whether or not you're hurting their reputation based on a drug test.

NOT AT ALL...personally if I was your employer I wouldn't care if you did any drugs because you wouldn't be working for me. If I found out you were and you tested positive in a test you would have 3 months to get clean...then if I test you at all during those three months then you would be out, no questions asked.

Why would you have someone work for you who is taking drugs...I mean yes, I understand prescription drugs and if you can provide evidence that you need them, i.e a physicians orders then yes...by all means take them. But if not, nope...bye

But why? What harm do I cause you by doing drugs on my own free time? If it is causing my performance to deteriorate, fire me for not meeting the standards that are expected of me, rather than for the drug use.

That is a lot easier to fake and get away with it.

I think an employer has ever right to drug test their employees. If you are being payed by them and working their establishment then they have a right to know who is tweakin' when they get out of work and who isn't. It can be a liability and can affect the quality of your work whether you're high on the job or not.

Again, if I am high off the job, the drug use is not directly hurting my performance, I am not impaired. If it is causing bad habits and I am stealing to fund my habits, not being productive, or not taking care of myself, then fire me for those things. To assume every person that uses drugs could have these habits is wrong. Yes, harder drugs will almost definitely cause these things, but if someone is simply smoking a joint once every weekend when he isn't working that day or the next day, what is wrong with it?

Agreed...it doesn't matter if you work in a hospital or bag groceries...what is comes down to is the safety of those around you.

How can you provide when you are impaired...

Look at the above example about the one joint on the weekend. How could a scenario like that end up harming others?




p.s. I do not do drugs, I'm simply enjoying the argument. Anytime I mention I, me, etc I am talking hypothetically.

[FreeFall]

It should say in your contract if you have to or not. You will have read your contract before signing it and will know if your employer makes people pee in cups. If you don't want people to analyze your pee, don't sign it and find a new job
There's not much more than this that I think can be said.

[Gigablue]

But why? What harm do I cause you by doing drugs on my own free time? If it is causing my performance to deteriorate, fire me for not meeting the standards that are expected of me, rather than for the drug use.

This. Obviously you should fire people who are high on the job. You don't even need drug tests to tell. If someone's high, it's usually very obvious. People should have to meet the requirements of the job, but what they do in their free time doesn't concern the employer.

[PerpetualImperfexion]

There's not much more than this that I think can be said.

In other words, you have no opinion?

[Cicero]

I see no real reason why they would ask you to do that, especially if your under 18. No questions asked its an invasion of privacy, but is there anything you can do legally? I dont know. If you were working in construction handling large equipment thats one thing, but I doubt a teenager would be hired for such labour intensive work. That being said, if its a fast food restaurant, you should respectfully ask the owner/boss/employer if its mandatory, if he says yes. You can consider getting a new job, pee in the cup (or get lab tests done, ask if you can get that instead) or ask around in your community (like the police force) and ask if its something an employer can ask of an employee.

[FreeFall]

In other words, you have no opinion?
I do, yes, just agreed with MasterSixx and saw no need for further input.
But since you ask, I think it should be done. It's for their safety and everyone around them.
If you're the person driving a fork lift, you better not be under the influence of any kind. You need to focus to ensure you're doing your job correctly, not costing the company, and not going to put anyone in harm. It's safer to be alert and aware, not being altered by whatever substance it is you've taken.
If you're the person at the cash register, you need to be able to exchange money properly and not get yourself stuck in the machine or do something to it.
Here I'm going to sound judgmental and probably am, but it's someone to keep an eye on. Watch to make sure they're not stealing from their job to pawn off something to feed in their drug use, not sneaking back in after hours to take things, basically do what they can to get more drugs that harms the company.
Should they be done randomly? I say only if the employer has reason to suspect it needs to be done. But as stated, if it's in the contract and that upsets you then seek other employment. It's like wearing a uniform, it's part of the job. If you're looking for employment, try harder to get yourself clean before the screening. I don't see it as an invasion of privacy, more of a safety precaution and health evaluation.
Also my use "you" here is general, not specifically directing my statements towards you yourself.

[Guillermo]

First off, let's look at why some employers implement drug tests on their employees: to prevent people who use drugs from being employed at their workplace. Ok, yeah, this is a given, but why would they want to do that? Well it all has to do with statistics really. Drug users/abusers are more likely to be late/absent for work, be less productive, and cause problems at work than the worker who doesn't use drugs. I do agree it's fucked up that it has to be like this with some businesses, but it's just how it is because of these people who abuse them and fuck up on their job. So really, it could be seen both ways, eh? In general, though, smaller businesses don't drug test as much as large companies.

OH, and one more point Silent_Rebel; you said above that if an employee was found to be using drugs/high on the job, then just fire them, right? Well, it's not that simple. When you fire them, that costs the business usually thousands of dollars and makes productivity of the business decrease overall. This adds up to 81 billions dollars in lost productivity annually due to drug and alcohol abuse (http://ndwa.org/faq.php) (granted most of this is alcohol abuse - but alcohol is none of the less a drug).

[PerpetualImperfexion]

I see no real reason why they would ask you to do that, especially if your under 18. No questions asked its an invasion of privacy, but is there anything you can do legally? I dont know. If you were working in construction handling large equipment thats one thing, but I doubt a teenager would be hired for such labour intensive work. That being said, if its a fast food restaurant, you should respectfully ask the owner/boss/employer if its mandatory, if he says yes. You can consider getting a new job, pee in the cup (or get lab tests done, ask if you can get that instead) or ask around in your community (like the police force) and ask if its something an employer can ask of an employee.

If I lead you to believe that it was I who was getting drug tested, I'm sorry. That's not the case. I just wanted to argue the legitimacy of random drug tests.

I do, yes, just agreed with MasterSixx and saw no need for further input.
But since you ask, I think it should be done. It's for their safety and everyone around them.
If you're the person driving a fork lift, you better not be under the influence of any kind. You need to focus to ensure you're doing your job correctly, not costing the company, and not going to put anyone in harm. It's safer to be alert and aware, not being altered by whatever substance it is you've taken.
If you're the person at the cash register, you need to be able to exchange money properly and not get yourself stuck in the machine or do something to it.
Here I'm going to sound judgmental and probably am, but it's someone to keep an eye on. Watch to make sure they're not stealing from their job to pawn off something to feed in their drug use, not sneaking back in after hours to take things, basically do what they can to get more drugs that harms the company.
Should they be done randomly? I say only if the employer has reason to suspect it needs to be done. But as stated, if it's in the contract and that upsets you then seek other employment. It's like wearing a uniform, it's part of the job. If you're looking for employment, try harder to get yourself clean before the screening. I don't see it as an invasion of privacy, more of a safety precaution and health evaluation.
Also my use "you" here is general, not specifically directing my statements towards you yourself.

If you are high while at work then yes, you should be fired. If an addiction is causing you to develop bad habits such as stealing, etc then you should be fired, but not for drug use. I'm sure there are plenty of people that are capable of doing drugs, while not at work, and then going to work without having problems. The point is you would have no idea these people were doing drugs without forcing them to give you their urine/saliva/hair. The only reason these people are fired is do to drug testing, despite the fact that they've never done anything that actually causes problems. Now, I believe that there are some exceptions. In the medical field for instance. Working around drugs while simultaneously doing drugs, does not mix. You said people working with heavy machinery could be a danger to others. At first I was inclined to agree with you, then I got to thinking. If someone developed a serious addiction, a drug test would likely be too late if this person decides to operate this machinery while under the influence. And what if there is a person who only smokes a joint or two on the weekend when they aren't working? There test results would still get them fired, and yet they've done nothing that could harm anyone. I understand that you want to use the drug test as a preventative measure against someone accidentally killing someone while under the influence, but I honestly don't think it would prevent such accidents and it would hurt a lot of people that are ultimately of no harm to others.

My view on drug testing is a lot like the idea of illegalizing drunk driving rather than alcohol itself. Yes, if someone drinks and drives it is more likely that they are going to cause an accident of some sort, but what about all the people that drink responsibly? Should we take away their right to enjoy themselves?

First off, let's look at why some employers implement drug tests on their employees: to prevent people who use drugs from being employed at their workplace. Ok, yeah, this is a given, but why would they want to do that? Well it all has to do with statistics really. Drug users/abusers are more likely to be late/absent for work, be less productive, and cause problems at work than the worker who doesn't use drugs. I do agree it's fucked up that it has to be like this with some businesses, but it's just how it is because of these people who abuse them and fuck up on their job. So really, it could be seen both ways, eh? In general, though, smaller businesses don't drug test as much as large companies.

OH, and one more point Silent_Rebel; you said above that if an employee was found to be using drugs/high on the job, then just fire them, right? Well, it's not that simple. When you fire them, that costs the business usually thousands of dollars and makes productivity of the business decrease overall. This adds up to 81 billions dollars in lost productivity annually due to drug and alcohol abuse (http://ndwa.org/faq.php) (granted most of this is alcohol abuse - but alcohol is none of the less a drug).

If a person is late/absent from work, is less productive, or causes problems, they are likely to be fired for that. To simply assume every person who does drugs off the job will cause this problem is wrong. I don't mean, oh they're high fire them on the spot. If someone comes to work high and they are incapable of doing they're job this is a reason for a drug test, and therefore the drug test is not random.

[Guillermo]

I just wanted to argue the legitimacy of random drug tests.

Wait a minute. So you want to argue the legitimacy of random drug tests now? Your OP did not include the "random drug test" part...
So you're not arguing about the initial drug test? Because this is what I'm talking about in my post. Please clarify.

[MisterSix]

Your argument does not give reasons why they should be allowed to, it simply states that they can and that nothing can be done to change it.


Well if everyone has a problem with peeing in a cup, no one will sign the contract making you do it.
The employer will then have to take it out of the contract to get new employees.
And if you feel so strongly against peeing in cups you can find a job that doesn't have it in the contract.

In simple words, you allow them to make you pee in cups

[FreeFall]

If you are high while at work then yes, you should be fired. If an addiction is causing you to develop bad habits such as stealing, etc then you should be fired, but not for drug use. I'm sure there are plenty of people that are capable of doing drugs, while not at work, and then going to work without having problems. The point is you would have no idea these people were doing drugs without forcing them to give you their urine/saliva/hair. The only reason these people are fired is do to drug testing, despite the fact that they've never done anything that actually causes problems. Now, I believe that there are some exceptions. In the medical field for instance. Working around drugs while simultaneously doing drugs, does not mix. You said people working with heavy machinery could be a danger to others. At first I was inclined to agree with you, then I got to thinking. If someone developed a serious addiction, a drug test would likely be too late if this person decides to operate this machinery while under the influence. And what if there is a person who only smokes a joint or two on the weekend when they aren't working? There test results would still get them fired, and yet they've done nothing that could harm anyone. I understand that you want to use the drug test as a preventative measure against someone accidentally killing someone while under the influence, but I honestly don't think it would prevent such accidents and it would hurt a lot of people that are ultimately of no harm to others.

My view on drug testing is a lot like the idea of illegalizing drunk driving rather than alcohol itself. Yes, if someone drinks and drives it is more likely that they are going to cause an accident of some sort, but what about all the people that drink responsibly? Should we take away their right to enjoy themselves?
Oh you're talking about being fired. To be fired for failing a drug test depends on your state's drug laws, municipality's drug laws, but mainly on the company policy. You also have the right to deny taking the test, you cannot be forced to do it. But it's better to take it and go through the treatment if you're given that offer.

You're a damn good worker and essential to the company, but failed a drug test, depending on the policy and laws you may still keep your job with or without a tiny tap on the wrist.
If you're Jimmy Joe Bob and you suck at your job, but have never so much has inhaled second hand smoke, you're probably more likely to get fired regardless.

There's actually little prejudice against drug users depending on the circumstances, so there's really not as much of a threat of being booted into the streets as you seem to think. It costs money to fire as stated before, it's easier for employers to offer their failed employee a benefits assistance program, rehab, or therapy. Basically there's a higher chance of an employer offering a treatment plan than immediate termination.

That said, company policy. If you want to rock yourself out on meth, but know you've agreed to take random drug testing for your job, quit or give up your precious drug. You don't get that luxury anymore when you've incorporated yourself into a company, into a team, where everyone's expected to work like well oiled cogs. It's a risk in itself, but it's not fair to the team. You may feel like privacy's invaded if you're strung out when you're not at work, but fail the drug test, but that's just too bad. The print said random testings or testing when suspicious.

Now if i you're not warned there will be tests, anywhere what so ever under any circumstance, and you're tested and fail and are fired, you can indeed bring that to courts. You can sue for violation because you were not aware and they made no effort to make you aware. It's like being released because you weren't Mirandized. People have sued for invasion of privacy due to not being aware, and won, even if they tested positive. The company should either change their policy and update their employees or just hit themselves in the head for having ignored to place that in where you agree to it.

Still, just like with alcohol, there are those that have ruined the party for everyone. They've also ruined lives, some times their own life, sometimes family, sometimes strangers. It's thanks to these idiots and morons, that some good people are looked down on. I frankly do not give a damn if people do drugs unless it personally affects me directly. I won't have them in my life, but still it's not my life to live. Either way drug testing is to help those that work with the user and the user themselves, like it or not it's a safety thing and business thing. If one of the cog's getting slow, you try to help it get back to its original speed, if it falls further behind or has no improvement, you replace it. That's how it goes, drug use or not.

[Cicero]

If I lead you to believe that it was I who was getting drug tested, I'm sorry. That's not the case. I just wanted to argue the legitimacy of random drug tests.



If you are high while at work then yes, you should be fired. If an addiction is causing you to develop bad habits such as stealing, etc then you should be fired, but not for drug use. I'm sure there are plenty of people that are capable of doing drugs, while not at work, and then going to work without having problems. The point is you would have no idea these people were doing drugs without forcing them to give you their urine/saliva/hair. The only reason these people are fired is do to drug testing, despite the fact that they've never done anything that actually causes problems. Now, I believe that there are some exceptions. In the medical field for instance. Working around drugs while simultaneously doing drugs, does not mix. You said people working with heavy machinery could be a danger to others. At first I was inclined to agree with you, then I got to thinking. If someone developed a serious addiction, a drug test would likely be too late if this person decides to operate this machinery while under the influence. And what if there is a person who only smokes a joint or two on the weekend when they aren't working? There test results would still get them fired, and yet they've done nothing that could harm anyone. I understand that you want to use the drug test as a preventative measure against someone accidentally killing someone while under the influence, but I honestly don't think it would prevent such accidents and it would hurt a lot of people that are ultimately of no harm to others.

My view on drug testing is a lot like the idea of illegalizing drunk driving rather than alcohol itself. Yes, if someone drinks and drives it is more likely that they are going to cause an accident of some sort, but what about all the people that drink responsibly? Should we take away their right to enjoy themselves?



If a person is late/absent from work, is less productive, or causes problems, they are likely to be fired for that. To simply assume every person who does drugs off the job will cause this problem is wrong. I don't mean, oh they're high fire them on the spot. If someone comes to work high and they are incapable of doing they're job this is a reason for a drug test, and therefore the drug test is not random.

Oh ok

Well I think they are important if your doing jobs like construction or something manual like that. If your a restaurant employee or anything like that, their would be no reason to drug test. I think the only drug that should be exempt from drug tests across the board (at every job) is marijuana.

[Abyssal Echo]

if you got nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about. XD

I believe thats why its called Randome drug testing.

[PerpetualImperfexion]

Wait a minute. So you want to argue the legitimacy of random drug tests now? Your OP did not include the "random drug test" part...
So you're not arguing about the initial drug test? Because this is what I'm talking about in my post. Please clarify.

Hmmm. Even with an initial drug test, you have to ask why they are doing it. They are doing it to discriminate against drug users. A drug user is more likely to be denied a job then the clean guy. But why? He's done nothing wrong, and there is no way to prove that he'll do something wrong.

Oh you're talking about being fired. To be fired for failing a drug test depends on your state's drug laws, municipality's drug laws, but mainly on the company policy. You also have the right to deny taking the test, you cannot be forced to do it. But it's better to take it and go through the treatment if you're given that offer.

Yes, but you'll likely be expected to stop your drug use, and if you don't you'll then be fired when the next test rolls around. Again, how does the guy who does a little marijuana on the weekends cause any harm? Yet he'd still probably get fired.


You're a damn good worker and essential to the company, but failed a drug test, depending on the policy and laws you may still keep your job with or without a tiny tap on the wrist.
If you're Jimmy Joe Bob and you suck at your job, but have never so much has inhaled second hand smoke, you're probably more likely to get fired regardless.

You MIGHT keep your job? Why should someone who is not causing problems have to worry about that? Again, if multiple drug tests come up positive, you're likely to be fired. I agree that Jimmy Joe Bob should be fired, and if Jimmy Joe Bob happened to also be on drugs, he should be fired for his lack of productivity, not for the drug use.


There's actually little prejudice against drug users depending on the circumstances, so there's really not as much of a threat of being booted into the streets as you seem to think. It costs money to fire as stated before, it's easier for employers to offer their failed employee a benefits assistance program, rehab, or therapy. Basically there's a higher chance of an employer offering a treatment plan than immediate termination.

What if the user's drug habit are not causing problems for them? They wouldn't need those programs. As far as it costing money to fire someone, that money is an investment, as insurance will likely go up if you have someone on your work force who uses drugs. The insurance company likely wouldn't know they were on drugs if you hadn't forced a drug test on them though.


That said, company policy. If you want to rock yourself out on meth, but know you've agreed to take random drug testing for your job, quit or give up your precious drug. You don't get that luxury anymore when you've incorporated yourself into a company, into a team, where everyone's expected to work like well oiled cogs. It's a risk in itself, but it's not fair to the team. You may feel like privacy's invaded if you're strung out when you're not at work, but fail the drug test, but that's just too bad. The print said random testings or testing when suspicious.


If the drug is causing low performance, your employer shouldn't need a drug test to fire you.


Still, just like with alcohol, there are those that have ruined the party for everyone. They've also ruined lives, some times their own life, sometimes family, sometimes strangers. It's thanks to these idiots and morons, that some good people are looked down on. I frankly do not give a damn if people do drugs unless it personally affects me directly. I won't have them in my life, but still it's not my life to live. Either way drug testing is to help those that work with the user and the user themselves, like it or not it's a safety thing and business thing. If one of the cog's getting slow, you try to help it get back to its original speed, if it falls further behind or has no improvement, you replace it. That's how it goes, drug use or not.

Most teenagers are very immature. I would like to think that a majority of the members of this site are very mature. Hasn't someone (in real life) ever looked down on you simply because you were the same age as a kid who did something very childish? The same is true of responsible drug users and irresponsible drug users. Is that right?

[FreeFall]

Yes it's true that someone that can "responsibly shoot up herion" is in the same boat as a full out addict that leaves destruction and hurt in their wake. That's life, too bad.

Stop focusing in on marijuana. It's the most common drug yes, but it's not the ONLY drug. You cannot give leeway in the world of drugs, why rank the one that uses weed under the one that does cocaine? A drug test is a drug test, the drug does not matter.

Look like it or not there are laws for this. Like it or not this is for safety and business. Like it or not be happy they at least offer help to the failed employee, a chance to "redeem" themselves and cease drug use.

You're so focused on them getting fired, it depends on the policy and laws. Some policy's allow multiple failures, some allow 1. Like I said, your fear of immediate termination is irrational.

But if you're given a chance to shape up and meet the company's standards, yet fail to do it because you don't want to, what do you expect to happen? They give you a foot rub and say oh it's ok, I'll ignore that silly ole policy? Again, drug use or not, you can expect the worse when you don't meet the standards. Shape up or ship out, don't waste your time or the emploeyr's.

Some state laws will come at you, some keep you from getting fired until you're helped.

Again there is not as rampant a discrimination that you seem to seek. So what if the drug user's less likely to be hired next to the clean guy? Company policy. Better yet, that usually does not happen. They do not usually look at one that qualifies but trash him because he's on crack. I've seem many times on my applications that it's actually illegal in some parts to deny employment due to drug use, just like you can no longer deny a convicted person a job.
It goes to who they think is better suited for the job. Sure the drug's tip the scale but again, meet the standards. If not doing drugs is one of them, too bad.

[PerpetualImperfexion]

Yes it's true that someone that can "responsibly shoot up herion" is in the same boat as a full out addict that leaves destruction and hurt in their wake. That's life, too bad.

It is not "life", it is a flaw in our society.


Stop focusing in on marijuana. It's the most common drug yes, but it's not the ONLY drug. You cannot give leeway in the world of drugs, why rank the one that uses weed under the one that does cocaine? A drug test is a drug test, the drug does not matter.

Ok then, let's say there's a guy who shoots up a moderate amount of cocaine during the weekend. He comes to work completely sober and cleaned up. Does he cause any problems? Likely, no. The same is true with someone who uses any substance in moderation.

http://www.differencebetween.net/science/health/difference-between-cocaine-and-weed/


Look like it or not there are laws for this. Like it or not this is for safety and business. Like it or not be happy they at least offer help to the failed employee, a chance to "redeem" themselves and cease drug use.

Laws that are seen outdated or unjust can be changed. Safety? You also mentioned second chances. If you seriously believed that the employee was a danger to others, would you really give that person 3 months(?) where they could potentially be on the drug and harming someone? Business? Could elaborate? Redeem themselves? Redeem means to compensate for faults in something. Why are they at fault though? Simply because they did something that was against the law or policy? Ever thought that the law or policy was unnecessary or wrong?


You're so focused on them getting fired, it depends on the policy and laws. Some policy's allow multiple failures, some allow 1. Like I said, your fear of immediate termination is irrational.

I mentioned this in another post, but I will say it again. Even if it does allow for multiple "failures" (again why is it a failure?), those multiple failures will increase if you refuse to conform to the corrupt rule. Explain to me why it is so wrong.


But if you're given a chance to shape up and meet the company's standards, yet fail to do it because you don't want to, what do you expect to happen? They give you a foot rub and say oh it's ok, I'll ignore that silly ole policy? Again, drug use or not, you can expect the worse when you don't meet the standards. Shape up or ship out, don't waste your time or the emploeyr's.

Why should we have to conform to such a corrupt policy though? Shouldn't we work to change it? "Be the change you want to see."


Some state laws will come at you, some keep you from getting fired until you're helped.

Again there is not as rampant a discrimination that you seem to seek. So what if the drug user's less likely to be hired next to the clean guy? Company policy. Better yet, that usually does not happen. They do not usually look at one that qualifies but trash him because he's on crack. I've seem many times on my applications that it's actually illegal in some parts to deny employment due to drug use, just like you can no longer deny a convicted person a job.
It goes to who they think is better suited for the job. Sure the drug's tip the scale but again, meet the standards. If not doing drugs is one of them, too bad.

Again why conform to a corrupt company policy? They may say it is illegal to deny someone a job simply because they are users, but once they get a job they will be expected to clean up their act.

[FreeFall]

What I've said is not in line with my beliefs, just information. I've already said how I don't care who does what unless it's affecting me directly. In other words, I'm apathetic to the plight of those that feel they shouldn't have to take drugs tests.

I have already explained that drug abusers have ruined any name for those that use drugs. Being allergic to cigarettes and all that come with it, a simple smoker is far more lethal to my health than sitting next to a person strung out on weed. I've got an obvious bias to all smokers, they endanger me but I can weed them out for my safety. A drug test is to prevent danger, no matter how little or meaningless it seems to you. Why allow room for error when you can provide help? They do that, they offer help, if help is refused then oh well, they weed out what does not work, what does not meet the standards.
It sucks but like it or not, that is life, not just society. Society is playing very little role in this actually, if you ever get the chance, go to "Muscle Beach" California and marvel at how many people are face planting on the boardwalk or high as a kite. It's an uneven balance I guess. This is corporate related anyways.


I'll keep saying it till I'm blue in the face. It's company policy. Not every company has the same policy, not every area has the same law. Some company's will not give a second chance, some will give you as many as they see fit. It's a flip of the coin and the company has the right to do as they see fit, you can't really make it universal do to each field of employment being different. Don't like your uniform? Quit. Don't like that you have to take out your facial piercings on the job? Quit. Don't like that you can't have hair past your ears in your work? Quit. Don't like that you'll be subject to drug tests? Either quit the drugs, get better at faking the tests, or quit. Don't like that you get benefits because you're a single mother and have a child with an illness, and you feel they know too much about your home life? Quit. Don't like that you have cook dishes with meat when you're a strict vegan? Quit.

Jobs have rules, they have regulations, they have criteria, you either meet them or you don't. It's not prejudiced nor an invasion of privacy to follow the conduct you (hopefully) knowingly signed on to, and agreed to.

Explain to me though, how is it corrupt or outdated? I fail to how since like with anything else, it's just company protocol. Would you rather that all companies quick out the users and deny them employment on the spot?
Is it an invasion of privacy and prejudiced that a known and convicted child molester is, 9 times out of 10, denied right to work in a daycare? Is it an invasion of privacy that a teacher that sexually engages with students is barred from working in the district again? These people may have done those things on their own personal time, why deny them the right to work because they did it?

Edit: because I read over this again, I have no idea how to re-word it but I sound a bit pugnacious, I'm not though at least I don't mean to be. I'm actually having fun and very interested in your point of view (:

[Human]

Personally I think that if you HAVE been using drugs then you shouldn't of been in the first place and it's completely your fault.
But it should be professional, not pee in a cup

[randomnessqueen]

someone disliked my previous comment, claiming i need to do research.
but i assure you that i have done the research
any drug test is done with your consent. if you dont consent to it, no job can force you to.

[Neptune]

I think they have every right to require you to take a drug test. If you do not want to take a drug test, you have every right to quit your job. You represent where you work - if you are known as the person who is always high, it reflects on where you work. It is bad for business.