Drug Testing

[bjorn_skurj]

Clearly they only wanted people who did drugs.

Did she apply to Ulster Publishing?

[jhc]

Just don't water down your piss before you go,that kind of looks bad,just stay hydrated and your fine!

 

Swtich to something isotonic, like Gatorade, the day before the test, so it doesn't look like you're watering down you piss

[MrRain422]

Hey jhc, are you related to thc?

[jhc]

Hey jhc, are you related to thc?

 

only by marriage

 

looks like the limit on detection for a single joint is about a week, depending on how sensitive the test is

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000138.htm

[plasticeyeball]

looks like the limit on detection for a single joint is about a week, depending on how sensitive the test is

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000138.htm

 

 

don't count on it, that advisory is 23 years old

[Mr. Heartbreak]

why work for a place that gives a rat's ass if you smoke weed in your personal/non-work time? I'd look for another employer.

Just an FYI: anybody in the financial industry - banks, mortgage companies, etc. - is typically bonded, from my experience, and not only fingerprinted, but also subject to drug testing as a condition of employment.

 

I, too, thought weed lasted 3-4 weeks in the system, but I guess if the poster takes all the advice here and still fails the test (with an infinitesimal amount of THC showing up), the best excuse is "I went to a couple rock concerts recently and breathed in some secondhand smoke."

[EL the Famous]

This is my thought process as well: why work for a place that gives a rat's ass if you smoke weed in your personal/non-work time? I'd look for another employer.

 

'Look, I swear that while i'm stoned out of my head when i'm not at work that i'd never, ever be that way at work.'

 

'Well, that sounds pretty good to me. You seem trustworthy, welcome aboard.'

[Lammycat]

'Look, I swear that while i'm stoned out of my head when i'm not at work that i'd never, ever be that way at work.'

 

'Well, that sounds pretty good to me. You seem trustworthy, welcome aboard.'

In my scenario, if it got to the point in the interview where they start asking what I do in my spare time, in terms of items I choose to put in my body, I'd lose interest in the position. It's nobody's business if I want to shoot an 8-ball of gunpowder into my neck on Friday night, as long as I'm not fucked up on the job.

 

Or, if the position was that important to me, I'd lay off the drugs, I suppose. As I said, it depends on your personal priorities, eh?

[jenbobblehead]

studies have shown that US businesses lose up to 3 billion dollars a year due to child-care related issues, and i wonder if the amount lost due to illegal drug related issues is higher, lower or the same?

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

3 billion? The whole country? Really? That's pennies.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

According to the gubment...

 

Problems related to alcohol and drug abuse cost American businesses roughly $81 billion in lost productivity in just one year

# US Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (1995). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Statistics Sourcebook. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services.

[jenbobblehead]

i suspect it effects smaller businesses than anything else, which isn't really good for the economy, but whatever, i'm not an economist. It seemed like a lot of money to me. I did find this neat article about drug testing in the UK when trying to find a dollar amount lost on drug related issues. I wasn't able to find that $ amount, btw.

 

http://www.jrf.org.uk/knowledge/findings/foundations/694.asp

 

According to the gubment...

 

Problems related to alcohol and drug abuse cost American businesses roughly $81 billion in lost productivity in just one year

# US Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (1995). Substance Abuse and Mental Health Statistics Sourcebook. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services.

 

wow! that's a huge number. i wonder what that means/includes...

 

and, i wonder how much of that is alcohol abuse and related issues, because you can't test for that and its not illegal, so its kind of like apples and oranges.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

http://dwp.samhsa.gov/DrugTesting/Files_Dr...heet041906.aspx

Is the site I got that from. It seems to focus a lot on alcohol, which obviously is the most abused drug in the country.

[MattZ]

because you can't test for that

 

How do they come up with any of these numbers? What does "$ in productivity" even mean? And how is it measured? And how does anyone know that Joe Schmoe was less productive today because he was hungover when he got to work? And how are his three unproductive hours translated into $$?

 

EDIT: Not everyone works at a job where they make widgets and sell them so you can say that 3 unproductive hours = x fewer widgets in the market. Teachers, admins, lawyers, the short order cook?

[EL the Famous]

In my scenario, if it got to the point in the interview where they start asking what I do in my spare time, in terms of items I choose to put in my body, I'd lose interest in the position. It's nobody's business if I want to shoot an 8-ball of gunpowder into my neck on Friday night, as long as I'm not fucked up on the job.

 

Or, if the position was that important to me, I'd lay off the drugs, I suppose. As I said, it depends on your personal priorities, eh?

 

Productivity is one thing. As they would likely be providing insurance coverage, they have a vested interest in your health whether you're on the job or not. Plus, your asking for a lot of faith from somebody to trust that your weekend coke binge couldn't infringe on your ability to make it to work on Monday. Granted, we're talking pot here...but to say that an employer shouldn't have at least nominal say on what you put into your body is kind of goofy.

 

That said, like you put it, all depends on your priorities. My employer actually did away w/ random drug screenings due to cost savings. It was funny w/ they did do them, as they alaways happened a year to the day from your last one...soooo random you could set your watch to them.

[jenbobblehead]

i suspect that they track unproductivity the same way they do with other things like illness and child care issues. You're not productive if you're not physically at work because you're either sick, hungover, chasing pink elephants thru the neighborhood or at home with a sick baby. it seems to me (and frankly i don't care either way because i have neither a drug problem or children) that testing for one thing that may or may not make you unproductive (like drugs) but not other things (alcohol, internet gambling, children) seems hardly equitable or even realistic...?

 

i'll tell you a little aside that makes me crazy, though--people who come to work sick because they've either used all their sick days having to stay home with sick kids, or they like to use their sick time when they are well. That really pisses me off because they leave germs all over the place and they complain and whine.

 

grr!

[Lammycat]

Productivity is one thing. As they would likely be providing insurance coverage, they have a vested interest in your health whether you're on the job or not. Plus, your asking for a lot of faith from somebody to trust that your weekend coke binge couldn't infringe on your ability to make it to work on Monday. Granted, we're talking pot here...but to say that an employer shouldn't have at least nominal say on what you put into your body is kind of goofy.

I just think it's putting the cart before the horse. I believe people should be left alone in their private-life decisions as long as it doesn't effect their job performance (again, specifically relating to drugs here). Not hiring someone based on a dirty drug test assumes the person is incapable of performing the job well, before even being given a chance to prove otherwise.

[Duck-Billed Catechist]

Hiring and firing are pains in the ass. Companies use the interview process to try to predict performance. Thus, the drug test. The entire process is speculative, unless you've worked for the company before.

[jenbobblehead]

I just think it's putting the cart before the horse. I believe people should be left alone in their private-life decisions as long as it doesn't effect their job performance (again, specifically relating to drugs here). Not hiring someone based on a dirty drug test assumes the person is incapable of performing the job well, before even being given a chance to prove otherwise.

 

and if what employers really want to do is insure good health they'd hire based on genetics, whether or not you wash your hands every time you use the bathroom, whether or not you smoke, whether or not you engage in risky sexual behavior etc.

[plasticeyeball]

i used to work for a construction equipment rental and sales company from 1985 to 1991. we had about 15 employees, maybe 20, and during that period we would go through 10 to 12 cases of beer a week. it was harder working there than keeping up in college.

 

productivity was typically measured in 12 ounce increments.

 

i always said that if i didn't leave there, i'd be dead.

[EL the Famous]

i'll tell you a little aside that makes me crazy, though--people who come to work sick because they've either used all their sick days having to stay home with sick kids, or they like to use their sick time when they are well. That really pisses me off because they leave germs all over the place and they complain and whine.

 

agree on using sick days when your well, that blows. but, what are you supposed to do when you actually have a sick kid?

 

we no longer have a specific amount of 'sick' days or 'vacation days'...they put them together into one massive 'PTO' account.

 

I just think it's putting the cart before the horse. I believe people should be left alone in their private-life decisions as long as it doesn't effect their job performance (again, specifically relating to drugs here). Not hiring someone based on a dirty drug test assumes the person is incapable of performing the job well, before even being given a chance to prove otherwise.

 

or, since pot is illegal (whether you agreee or not)...maybe they just don't want to risk hiring someone who is technically breaking the law. your risking your ability to actually show up to work to 'perform the job well' by involvement in something that could land you in jail. plus, you're completely sidestepping the possible insurance implications.

 

besides, a job interview in and of itself is putting the cart before the horse...it's one big assumption based on what you see on a resume and in an interview. i have no issue w/ somebody smoking up, but I also have no issue w/ an employer preferring to hire somebody who doesn't.

 

and if what employers really want to do is insure good health they'd hire based on genetics, whether or not you wash your hands every time you use the bathroom, whether or not you smoke, whether or not you engage in risky sexual behavior etc.

 

so you're comparing doing illegal drugs to washing your hands.

[plasticeyeball]

and if what employers really want to do is insure good health they'd hire based on genetics, whether or not you wash your hands every time you use the bathroom, whether or not you smoke, whether or not you engage in risky sexual behavior etc.

 

employers, me included, wouldn't drug test to promote good heath, they drug test to reduce liability insurance costs or because a client they have a contract with requires it. (or in the instance mentioned below)

 

in a small company with a small plan, there are no benefits or cost reduction on your health insurance for promoting well being.

 

we don't drug test, and since 66.66% of the ownership are pot smokers, i don't see it coming soon.

however, if one of my mechanics gets hurt and it becomes a workers comp claim, our carrier will ask for a tox screen when they send the guy to the approved heathcare place.

[Lammycat]

or, since pot is illegal (whether you agreee or not)...maybe they just don't want to risk hiring someone who is technically breaking the law. your risking your ability to actually show up to work to 'perform the job well' by involvement in something that could land you in jail. plus, you're completely sidestepping the possible insurance implications.

Alcohol is legal and I'd posit that it contributes to a lot more "problems" relating to productivity than weed, though you're point is well taken.

[EL the Famous]

Alcohol is legal and I'd posit that it contributes to a lot more "problems" relating to productivity than weed.

 

i hear you, but that is another debate entirely. i'm not here to debate whether pot should or shouldn't be legal.

[jenbobblehead]

so you're comparing doing illegal drugs to washing your hands.

 

well, if what drug testing is about is keeping health costs down, then yeah. But if that isn't what drug testing is about, then no. But the truth is that there are many things that cause people to be not productive at work and if you can not hire based on drugs that you do on your time away from the office, then you should be not hiring based on other behaviors or lifestyle choices that affect work place production.

 

However, illegal drugs are the only thing that are illegal so i suppose that's the only thing you can measure. But if i had to chose between a mom with two little kids and a woman who smokes a little weed on the weekend when she goes to see rock shows, i'd go with the weed smoking mom. however, that would be illegal for me to make that choice, wouldn't it?