Drug tests

[HeroofTime55]

IMO it's an invasion of privacy anyway.

Whats illegal is the possession, transportation, and sale of drugs.  Actually using drugs, isn't actually illegal.  You can't be busted for being high, but you can be busted if he then searches you and finds a bag of drugs.  Or if you were like, driving or some shit.

Why?  Because the federal government never was supposed to be able to do this in the first place, so they abused the powers granted by the commerce clause in the Constitution to cause as much trouble as they could, when really it should have been a power left to the States.

So, they are discriminating against you for something that isn't even illegal, by barring you if you fail a drug test.  Yes, being high strongly implies that you were at one point in possession of drugs, but it can't be proven on that basis alone, because there are silly scenarios you can set up where you can get high without at any point transporting, selling, buying, or even possessing contraband, with a little creative effort.  Though if they were really out to fuck your day, you could still be charged as an accessory to whatever "crime" the other participants get charged with, even if it would take a special breed of sperglord to follow through with that.

[strongbad]

Yeah. It's fucked up.

[don't let's]

IMO it's an invasion of privacy anyway.

I wouldn't say that it's an invasion of privacy in that you take the drug test of your own volition because you want the job, but people aren't actually forced to get a job at whatever place is drug testing.

[snoorkel]

IMO it's an invasion of privacy anyway.

Whats illegal is the possession, transportation, and sale of drugs.  Actually using drugs, isn't actually illegal.  You can't be busted for being high, but you can be busted if he then searches you and finds a bag of drugs.  Or if you were like, driving or some shit.

Why?  Because the federal government never was supposed to be able to do this in the first place, so they abused the powers granted by the commerce clause in the Constitution to cause as much trouble as they could, when really it should have been a power left to the States.

So, they are discriminating against you for something that isn't even illegal, by barring you if you fail a drug test.  Yes, being high strongly implies that you were at one point in possession of drugs, but it can't be proven on that basis alone, because there are silly scenarios you can set up where you can get high without at any point transporting, selling, buying, or even possessing contraband, with a little creative effort.  Though if they were really out to fuck your day, you could still be charged as an accessory to whatever "crime" the other participants get charged with, even if it would take a special breed of sperglord to follow through with that.

very true but a private company choosing their employees should still be able to discriminate on any basis they choose. although I disagree with drug testing, it says a lot about a person if the results come back positive for trace amounts of THC vs. positive for coke

[strongbad]

Gotta love how coke filters through your system in a few days while THC takes up to a month lol

[burzumfan420]

i love it cos thats why weed isnt addicting l Ol

[Travis]

i love it cos thats why weed isnt addicting l Ol

not true at all

[HeroofTime55]

very true but a private company choosing their employees should still be able to discriminate on any basis they choose. although I disagree with drug testing, it says a lot about a person if the results come back positive for trace amounts of THC vs. positive for coke

"Niggers, jews, and fags aren't allowed to work at my shop"

There is a very good reason we have laws against discrimination by employers.  I disagree with the idea of quotas, but you should be hired on your merits at completing the job you're applying for, and not really anything else.

I wouldn't say that it's an invasion of privacy in that you take the drug test of your own volition because you want the job, but people aren't actually forced to get a job at whatever place is drug testing.

It would be an invasion of privacy if they, for example, required you to take some sort of "homosexuality test" as a prerequisite to employment, I don't see how this is any different.

[Boogus Epirus Aurelius]

It would be an invasion of privacy if they, for example, required you to take some sort of "homosexuality test" as a prerequisite to employment, I don't see how this is any different.

Yeah, of course sexual preference has the same potential consequences as using an illicit substance in the workplace. Good call.

It's not just a screening tool, but a way for employers to cover their ass if and when issues come up.

If someone gets injured where I work, for example,  they get tested right away.

[HeroofTime55]

Yeah, of course sexual preference has the same potential consequences as using an illicit substance in the workplace. Good call.

It's not just a screening tool, but a way for employers to cover their ass if and when issues come up.

If someone gets injured where I work, for example,  they get tested right away.

Being high on the job is an entirely separate issue from being high in your free time.  I'm not talking about being high while working heavy machinery on the job, I'm talking about the invasion of the private lives of people.

Saying that smoking in your free time equals smoking on the job is the same as assuming homos are going to fuck each other in the ass while on the job.

[burzumfan420]

lmao if you dont think someones personal life doesnt effect their work preformance  also lmao if you get pissed when an employer wants a drug free employee community that represent said employer

[Boogus Epirus Aurelius]

Being high on the job is an entirely separate issue from being high in your free time.  I'm not talking about being high while working heavy machinery on the job, I'm talking about the invasion of the private lives of people.

Saying that smoking the beers in your free time equals smoking the beers on the job is the same as assuming homos are going to fuck each other in the ass while on the job.

That doesn't make much sense though. And this whole privacy argument doesn't have any merit whatsoever in this situation.

Recreational drug use doesn't automatically make someone a poor employee, sure, but how can you blame an employer for wanting their employees to not use, especially in work environments that demand more than others. Regardless, if you're a responsible user, you can just stop smoking or using for a few weeks until you get the fucking job. Don't treat this like it's some massive abuse against people's rights, because it isn't.

A guy that used to work for us broke off a customer's back window on their vehicle with a forklift because he was swimming in Vicodin.

[HeroofTime55]

lmao if you dont think someones personal life doesnt effect their work preformance  also lmao if you get pissed when an employer wants a drug free employee community that represent said employer

"lmao if you get pissed when an employer wants a homosexual free employee community that represent said employer"

Also should employers fire their workers if they, say, I don't know, are going through a rough divorce?  Something that will affect performance much more than taking drugs in their own time.

That doesn't make much sense though. And this whole privacy argument doesn't have any merit whatsoever in this situation.

The argument is about it being an undue invasion of privacy or not, so actually, it does have some merit in this debate.  It's like if an employer started testing for HIV (in a job where that doesn't matter, mind you, in other words, being a surgeon or a porn star), and didn't hire someone on that basis.  The private life is not the business of an employer.  If you're in sales, all that matters is your ability to sell product, not your gender, race, religion, sexuality, HIV status, or recreational drug use in your private life.

Recreational drug use doesn't automatically make someone a poor employee, sure, but how can you blame an employer for wanting their employees to not use, especially in work environments that demand more than others. Regardless, if you're a responsible user, you can just stop smoking the beers or using for a few weeks until you get the fucking job. Don't treat this like it's some massive abuse against people's rights, because it isn't.

A guy that used to work for us broke off a customer's back window on their vehicle with a forklift because he was swimming in Vicodin.

Using drugs on the job is TOTALLY different from what I'm talking about, and if you get high or drunk, if you put yourself under the influence of any substance at all while on company time, your ass should be out the door immediately.  I have NEVER stated otherwise.

My contention is that testing for drugs is an invasion into an individual's private life, which myst necessarily be separate from their working life.

[Boogus Epirus Aurelius]

"lmao if you get pissed when an employer wants a homosexual free employee community that represent said employer"

Also should employers fire their workers if they, say, I don't know, are going through a rough divorce?  Something that will affect performance much more than taking drugs in their own time.

That's overgeneralized bullshit and you know it. You're really giving a little too much credit to users. Believe it or not, they're all not responsible enough to keep their recreational use separate from their place of employment. Things have a way of influencing and bleeding into one another. Remove drug tests and then where's the standard set for people eventually showing up to work high? What could the potential consequences be? How would they go about being reprimanded if there's no tool for identifying it in the first place?

My contention is that testing for drugs is an invasion into an individual's private life, which myst necessarily be separate from their working life.

And keep in mind, and excusing whatever thoughts you have on the legality of things, these are illegal substances. Potential employers have every right to screen for this even just considering and looking from the perspective of the liability slant.

Like I said, if you're using responsibly, these are just the risks you have to take.

And, if you're under the comfortable assumption that home and the workplace are completely separate, cordoned off environments that can't possibly affect one another, you're probably never had a job before.

[HeroofTime55]

Oh, I see where we're at the point where you inform total strangers that they've "never had a job before."  I'm also, shockingly, not a druggie - I'm a libertarian, and I believe that the government and big business need to get the fuck out of our personal lives.  I've smoked pot maybe, like, 3 or 4 times, 2 years ago, just to try it.  Haven't done anything else.  And I do work.  Not currently, I'm in school, but when I'm not in school I work.

My firsthand experience with users, going to an intelligent tech school, is that they are responsible people.  Yes, there are irresponsible people out there too, but they're probably not going to even apply for a job in the first place.

No test?  Have you ever seen someone who is high?  There are signals that reveal it, and once you step in company property in your work clothes, you're fair game to be kicked out of the building on the goddamn spot.  As you should be.

Oh, and whether or not they actually are illegal is up for debate, specifically around the question of whether or not the laws are valid.  I know California is at least one state that is butting heads with the federal government on drug policy, and other states are butting heads on other issues.  The States, basically, are fed up with what the Feds are doing.  And this discounts the reality that even the Constitution isn't some universal law, everything is only worth what support the People are willing to throw behind it.  But that's a little abstract from the issue at hand.

Edit: fuck these gay wordfilters