Poll question: Should pre-employment drug testing be legal?

[bijou]

undeterred  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Mon Dec-15-08 01:48 PM
Original message
Poll question: Should pre-employment drug testing be legal?
   
Its increasingly common that in order to be employed you have to pass a drug screen. And what does a drug screen do? It tells whether or not someone has used drugs within a given length of time:

Drug Detection Time
Alcohol 6–24 hours
Amphetamines 2–3 days
Barbituates 1 day to 3 weeks
Benzodiazepines 3–7 days
Cocaine 2–5 days
Codeine 3–5 days
Euphorics (MDMA, Ecstasy) 1–3 days
LSD 1-4 days
Marijuana (THC) 7–30 days
Methadone 3–5 days
Methaqualone 14 days
Opiates 1-4 days
Phencyclidine (PCP) 2–4 days
Steroids (anabolic) 14–30 days

Is it reasonable for a potential employer to discriminate on this basis or should it be illegal?

Poll result (74 votes)
Yes, it protects the employer   (13 votes, 18%)   Vote
No, its an invasion of privacy   (59 votes, 80%)   Vote
OTHER   (2 votes, 3%)   Vote

No surprise there then

[Carl]

What a shock...the scum of society don`t want to be found out or responsible for their actions.

[Wretched Excess]

pre-employment drug testing is infinitely preferable to random drug testing . . . jus' sayin' . . . :innocent:

[Ralph Wiggum]

That's an interesting thread.  While most of the DUmmies are voting no, most of the people who posted a response are saying yes and explaining why.

I guess it's just the automatic DUmmy reaction: Don't take away my right to smoke pot man!

[DumbAss Tanker]

pre-employment drug testing is infinitely preferable to random drug testing . . . jus' sayin' . . . :innocent:

Oh Hell yeah.  Of course in the military you get both.

What does it tell you about someone if, on the day they would normally be expected to put their absolutely best foot forward and be going as showing as close to 100% of perfect as they could possibly project, they show up high on drugs?  Really, who in their right mind would want anyone that damned stupid underfoot in the workplace?

[thundley4]

pre-employment drug testing is infinitely preferable to random drug testing . . . jus' sayin' . . . :innocent:

We have both where I work. If you are injured while on the job, a drug screen is also required.

[Wretched Excess]

Oh Hell yeah.  Of course in the military you get both.

What does it tell you about someone if, on the day they would normally be expected to put their absolutely best foot forward and be going as showing as close to 100% of perfect as they could possibly project, they show up high on drugs?  Really, who in their right mind would want anyone that damned stupid underfoot in the workplace?

I know someone that was contracting at a company, and they wanted to hire her full time.  she failed her drug screen.  and THEN her company gave her another chance, pending a passing result on a drug screen in the next 6 weeks.  they waited 4 weeks, just long enough for the pot to leave her system, and . . . . she failed it again.   

[Sweet Dee]

pre-employment drug testing is infinitely preferable to random drug testing . . . jus' sayin' . . . :innocent:

you = bad boy!!    hehe 

[Wretched Excess]

you = bad boy!!    hehe 

honestly, I haven't done an illegal drug that I can remember since college.

[Ralph Wiggum]

pre-employment drug testing is infinitely preferable to random drug testing . . . jus' sayin' . . . :innocent:

I don't know if this is the case for everyone, but I've never been asked to take a drug test after I've been with a company for a while.  I've only had to take one before being hired.

[Sweet Dee]

honestly, I haven't done an illegal drug that I can remember since college.

You with your sordid past  hehe  

[ReardenSteel]

Warpy  (1000+ posts)        Mon Dec-15-08 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
2. The problem is that the tests don't quantify the drugs
 or even distinguish between many drugs in the same family. There are also quite a few false positives.

Companies who rely on this are denying themselves access to a pool of highly qualified employees because of these stupid things.

Drug testing is only advisable when an employee suddenly becomes erratic on the job, increasing absenteeism and making a lot of serious mistakes. Then it can uncover a problem which the company might choose to offer a valued employee treatment for.

When a test for opiates is positive after a couple of poppyseed muffins, the problem is the test, not the employee.

I wonder how tolerent Warpy might be if "a lot of serious mistakes" is what it takes to drug test a doctor* or lawyer* whom he or a loved one is in need of.

*and/or:

- a police officer
- the person in charge of Warpy's payroll
- a dentist
- a fireman
- a mechanic
- a cook
- accountant
- the person doing Warpy's taxes
- the engineer who designed the bridge he drives over next
- etc etc (etc etc etc etc) 

[ReardenSteel]

Democrats_win (1000+ posts)      Mon Dec-15-08 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
4. Why do DU polls leave out the category: Hell NO! ?
 The drug testing is another instance of capitalism forgetting that they exist to serve us. Not the other way around. If they can't give jobs to people and they refuse to pay taxes, then what's the point?

Maybe the bush depression will change their attitude. They are damn lucky to be doing business in America. Instead they tell us that we are lucky to have their fricking jobs. "Take this job and shuv it!"

Whoa nelly. 

Capitalism (economic liberty) exist (such as it is in existance) to provide freedom in the marketplace, not to give reefer addicts a paycheck.

Sidenote:
Unrelated to the above, all through grade school I thought "reefer addict" was one word and it meant retarded. 

[mamacags]

Where I used to work we had pre-employment tests plus random ones plus accident ones, and ones to get a raise.

I would never knowingly let someone stoned so anything for me even as small as trying on shoes.  I think it is an insult and a total disservice to customers to NOT give your employees tests.  Then again I am not a drug addicted loser idiot that posts on DU.

[NHSparky]

pre-employment drug testing is infinitely preferable to random drug testing . . . jus' sayin' . . . :innocent:

Try working for someone who does BOTH.  AND random vehicle/lunchbox/etc inspections, random FFD (fitness for duty) checks, etc...

[Wretched Excess]

Whoa nelly. 

Capitalism (economic liberty) exist (such as it is in existance) to provide freedom in the marketplace, not to give reefer addicts a paycheck.

Sidenote:
Unrelated to the above, all through grade school I thought "reefer addict" was one word and it meant retarded. 

 

that may not be the most deranged post that i have ever read on DU, but it is definitely top 5 material.

[NHSparky]

all through grade school I thought "reefer addict" was one word and it meant retarded. 

Well, you were right on the second part.

[Wretched Excess]

Where I used to work we had pre-employment tests plus random ones plus accident ones, and ones to get a raise.

I would never knowingly let someone stoned so anything for me even as small as trying on shoes.  I think it is an insult and a total disservice to customers to NOT give your employees tests.  Then again I am not a drug addicted loser idiot that posts on DU.

sometimes, around here, I think we would be better off to promote all of the stoned employees.

[USA4ME]

Does welfare quit when the economy goes bad?  Since they aren't going to be looking for any work anyway, why would they care about drug testing?

Should they ever leave the basement and go to a job interview, I suppose they're going to ask if there's a drug test they have to pass.  Since they're asking questions. I think another good thing for them to ask is if they ever press charges.

. 

[ScubaGuy]

I work for a one man company and even I'm subject to random drug testing.  One of my clients requires that all companies they contract with have a drug testing policy in place with random screening.

So far after almost 15 years in business my number never came up so it's not an issue. 

[Lord Undies]

Who drug tests the drug tester?  That's a question I once asked.  I don't know those people.  Why should I trust them to judge me? 

[Eupher]

Who drug tests the drug tester?  That's a question I once asked.  I don't know those people.  Why should I trust them to judge me? 

When was the last time a politician had to piss in the cup? ANY politician?

[LC EFA]

I say pre employment AND random , like many of the jobs here are. You're also tested after any major writeup or accident.

I'd also support regular mandatory drug testing for any person paid benefits from the public purse. Every time they go in to get their welfare is about the right frequency.

[Chris_]

I say pre employment AND random , like many of the jobs here are. You're also tested after any major writeup or accident.

I'd also support regular mandatory drug testing for any person paid benefits from the public purse. Every time they go in to get their welfare is about the right frequency.

Absolutely. All people on welfare should have to do a random drug test every 6 mths. Any drugs they are taking legally for medical conditions excluded of course

[rich_t]

When a test for opiates is positive after a couple of poppyseed muffins, the problem is the test, not the employee.

Doesn't happen. Another liberal myth.