Should drug testing be legal for the workplace?

[Sasquatch]

Whoever thinks someone can't do anything cause they are stoned or high is ignorant.

Have you honestly never seen some bumbling stoner try to do something intricate? Performance is diminished, depending on the drug and the amount. Similar to alcohol -- drink one or two beers, and your performance won't diminish any noticeable amount. Hell, depending on what you're doing, performance might actually improve. But drink ten or twelve, and of course you won't do as well.

That is getting into the realm of one's employer extending control of an employee into what is their time, and their time can be spent doing whatever the hell they want.

And the employee can choose to quit if they don't like it. Nobody is forcing them to work there. Besides, you've also got to factor in the appearance of the company. If a company is known to employ drunks and druggies -- even if they aren't drunk or drugged while working -- their reputation will take a hit.

I disagree with it, because if I want to get high on a weekend, that should be my right.

Except it's not -- whether you think it should be or not. You're just bitching about an employer not wanting you to do something that's already against the law.

But if you want to consider it as a "right", you've also got to consider the employers' right to fire you. It's also my right to cuss like a sailor, but I'd be a moron if I didn't expect to get fired from most jobs for screaming obscenities at work.

It's almost like saying that to avoid sexual harassment, or screen for some potential (which is irrelevant to any job you do) your web history for the last 90 days should be checked at random, just to make sure you weren't looking at porn, or anything sexist or mysoginistic. It's a poor analogy, but the concept is similar.

It's an extremely poor analogy, considering the fact that porn isn't illegal. They might frown upon you looking at porn while at work, in which case most places will simply block inappropriate websites. And they can "block you" from doing drugs while at work, but not at home, just like looking at porn -- but again, the difference is that looking at porn isn't against the law and won't affect your work performance.

And sasquatch, unless the person shows up drunk to their drug test, or got hammered the night before, it's unlikely that any large amount of alcohol would show up that would label someone as a raging alcoholic.

It doesn't take a test -- or a genius -- to figure out when somebody's an alcoholic.

People can smoke, snort, and drink casually as well. It's not like everyone who gets high has some massive habit that'll result in them stealing from the company.

Of course -- druggies are well-known for their resistance to addiction and their hesitance towards breaking laws, right?

Amen. If I don't want to hire black people because the sight of them disgusts me, that's my business.

Nice try. That would fall under race/religion/gender/national origin -- and discrimination by those actually is illegal. So no, it's absolutely nothing like refusing to hire a certain color of applicant. You're honestly trying to compare a company legally refusing to hire a criminal to a company illegally refusing to hire a person of a specific race. Keep reaching.

[Joe]

And the employee can choose to quit if they don't like it. Nobody is forcing them to work there. Besides, you've also got to factor in the appearance of the company. If a company is known to employ drunks and druggies -- even if they aren't drunk or drugged while working -- their reputation will take a hit.

But if you want to consider it as a "right", you've also got to consider the employers' right to fire you. It's also my right to cuss like a sailor, but I'd be a moron if I didn't expect to get fired from most jobs for screaming obscenities at work.

It's your right to cuss like a sailor on your own time. But is it your employer's right to fire you if he walks down the street and hears you talking with your buddies and dropping an F bomb? Last I checked, it wasn't, as you aren't on the clock, and what you do in the privacy of your own home, is Your business. And that's what I'm interpreting to issue at hand to be.

It's a massively gray area. Where do employer's rules end and personal rights begin? What happens if marijuana or any other drug is legalized? Is it still as big of a deal for employers to deny or terminate employment based on the consumption of a legal substance on your own time?

A persons habits, addiction, and activities are his or her business, not their employers, at least when it comes to personal time.

[Merlin]

Research has shown that marijuana’s adverse impact on learning and memory can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off. As a result, someone who smokes marijuana every day may be functioning at a suboptimal intellectual level all of the time.

Feel free to look at their sources at the bottom as well: Marijuana - InfoFacts - NIDA

Whether you think you are affected by your extracurricular activities or not is irrelevant. An employer has every right to fire someone who is using drugs, regardless of where it is. Comparing it to cursing outside of work is apples and oranges. Cursing doesn't affect your internal organs. Engaging in unhealthy behavior is not only dangerous to yourself but puts others in danger.

I'm all for random drug tests. Go for it. I have nothing to hide. It's all part of the real world. Your lifestyle choices affect more than just you.

[che]

Feel free to look at their sources at the bottom as well: Marijuana - InfoFacts - NIDA

Whether you think you are affected by your extracurricular activities or not is irrelevant. An employer has every right to fire someone who is using drugs, regardless of where it is. Comparing it to cursing outside of work is apples and oranges. Cursing doesn't affect your internal organs. Engaging in unhealthy behavior is not only dangerous to yourself but puts others in danger.

I'm all for random drug tests. Go for it. I have nothing to hide. It's all part of the real world. Your lifestyle choices affect more than just you.

Do you really think someone who smoked marijuana five days ago can't make fries at McDonalds or serve you your spicy BBQ wings at Applebees, or create a website for your business, etc?

You (apparently) do not do drugs or drink alcohol or eat poppy seeds, which is 100% fine. But there are people who indulge themselves in many different recreational activities that don't get drug tested (as a lot of companies do not drug test), and they are performing their job just fine. Who are you to say they can't do that?

I can see if your job involves something like being a police officer or fireman or a doctor, in which people's lives are in danger and decisions may not be made in the best manner.

As a result, someone who smokes marijuana every day may be functioning at a suboptimal intellectual level all of the time.

Not everyone is created equal. Does this mean a highly intelligent person who uses marijuana is brought to the level of someone with a lower IQ who doesn't use? The quote you made from that website is ridiculous.

[Heartless Angel]

You (apparently) do not do drugs or drink alcohol or eat poppy seeds, which is 100% fine. But there are people who indulge themselves in many different recreational activities that don't get drug tested (as a lot of companies do not drug test), and they are performing their job just fine. Who are you to say they can't do that?

It's a question of the legality. If I indulge myself by my driving down streets bashing people's mailboxes with a baseball bat, is it OK as long as I don't bring my bat to work? It's against the law. Who is the law to say what people can or can't do? THE LAW. If I feel like obeying the law, and discouraging those who break it, who are you to say I can't? Especially when I'm the one who hands out the paychecks. And just for the record, I do drink, and am only 20, so I do in fact break the law myself, you'd better believe if my workplace gave me random alcohol tests, I wouldn't touch the stuff until my next birthday, when it was legal. I'm not saying you can't go get high on your own time, that's your own damned business, don't get caught, have a great time. But when someone DOES catch you, and expects you to accept the consequences of your actions, deal with it, you dug your own grave.

[che]

I'm not saying you can't go get high on your own time, that's your own damned business, don't get caught, have a great time. But when someone DOES catch you, and expects you to accept the consequences of your actions, deal with it, you dug your own grave.

I bolded in the quote the best thing about your post. Still, this isn't about what the law currently is. Like I said before, this thread isn't about breaking the law, it's about the possibility of changing the law to make sure it's being fair to the people. Your opinion on that can be lots of things. But yes, obviously, if you get caught on a drug test you did dig your own grave because you will get fired. However, did the drug make you bad at your job, or were you just fired because of a law? Step back and look at the big picture. Why is that law there in the first place? Is doing the drug harming your performance at work? That's the issue here.

[Kooky Spice]

Have you honestly never seen some bumbling stoner try to do something intricate? Performance is diminished, depending on the drug and the amount. Similar to alcohol -- drink one or two beers, and your performance won't diminish any noticeable amount. Hell, depending on what you're doing, performance might actually improve. But drink ten or twelve, and of course you won't do as well.

Bumbling stoner huh? Have you ever worked on a car? If you have then you would clearly know that that is pretty intricate in and of itself. 9/10 times I am doing it baked out of my skull with a beer in hand. So before you come out and say that stoners can't do anything intricate consider first what you are saying and then don't say it.

Btw It is also illegal in Arizona to hunt camels. Stupidity is written all over law books.

[Heartless Angel]

Bumbling stoner huh? Have you ever worked on a car? If you have then you would clearly know that that is pretty intricate in and of itself. 9/10 times I am doing it baked out of my skull with a beer in hand. So before you come out and say that stoners can't do anything intricate consider first what you are saying and then don't say it.

That varies with the person and the dosage. I know people who can't work a playstation controller when they're high, let alone fix a car. Studies DO show that consumption of many mind altering substances have negative effects on motor skills and judgement, so what he's suggesting here really isn't that outrageous. Being moderately drunk doesn't nescessarily mean you're incapable of driving in a straight line either, do you advocate drunk driving?

[Kooky Spice]

That varies with the person and the dosage. I know people who can't work a playstation controller when they're high, let alone fix a car. Studies DO show that consumption of many mind altering substances have negative effects on motor skills and judgement, so what he's suggesting here really isn't that outrageous. Being moderately drunk doesn't nescessarily mean you're incapable of driving in a straight line either, do you advocate drunk driving?

Well then I suppose that some might not want to generalize and should start using terms like "In some cases" or "a lot of the time". Also, I in no way condone Drunk Driving or driving while being under the influence of any mind altering substance. However I will not sit idly by and be grouped in with idiots who don't understand the concept of moderation and absolutely refuse to be lumped in with them.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I recall there being a town somewhere in the US in which it was illegal not to smile. Unsurprisingly it was never enforced.

I also remember hearing about a town in which it was illegal to carry ice cream cones in your left back pocket on Wednesdays, or some such. I wish I could remember the program I saw it on, but I was pretty young at the time.

Yep and in Alabama it is illegal to give your dog a lit cigar, and to play poker with it.

Also in Arizona it is illegal to have more than 1 sex toy per room in your home and to keep a donkey in your bathtub/shower.
Lawlz XD

[Jin]

Btw It is also illegal in Arizona to hunt camels. Stupidity is written all over law books.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I recall there being a town somewhere in the US in which it was illegal not to smile. Unsurprisingly it was never enforced.

I also remember hearing about a town in which it was illegal to carry ice cream cones in your left back pocket on Wednesdays, or some such. I wish I could remember the program I saw it on, but I was pretty young at the time.

Laws are fun.

[che]

Have you honestly never seen some bumbling stoner try to do something intricate? Performance is diminished, depending on the drug and the amount. Similar to alcohol -- drink one or two beers, and your performance won't diminish any noticeable amount. Hell, depending on what you're doing, performance might actually improve. But drink ten or twelve, and of course you won't do as well.

And the employee can choose to quit if they don't like it. Nobody is forcing them to work there. Besides, you've also got to factor in the appearance of the company. If a company is known to employ drunks and druggies -- even if they aren't drunk or drugged while working -- their reputation will take a hit.

Except it's not -- whether you think it should be or not. You're just bitching about an employer not wanting you to do something that's already against the law.

But if you want to consider it as a "right", you've also got to consider the employers' right to fire you. It's also my right to cuss like a sailor, but I'd be a moron if I didn't expect to get fired from most jobs for screaming obscenities at work.

It's an extremely poor analogy, considering the fact that porn isn't illegal. They might frown upon you looking at porn while at work, in which case most places will simply block inappropriate websites. And they can "block you" from doing drugs while at work, but not at home, just like looking at porn -- but again, the difference is that looking at porn isn't against the law and won't affect your work performance.

It doesn't take a test -- or a genius -- to figure out when somebody's an alcoholic.

Of course -- druggies are well-known for their resistance to addiction and their hesitance towards breaking laws, right?

Nice try. That would fall under race/religion/gender/national origin -- and discrimination by those actually is illegal. So no, it's absolutely nothing like refusing to hire a certain color of applicant. You're honestly trying to compare a company legally refusing to hire a criminal to a company illegally refusing to hire a person of a specific race. Keep reaching.

I admire your appreciation for what the laws currently are, but with the way you type you seem to come off as if you are unaware that they could eventually change.

Yes, you could argue that right now employers reserve the right to fire someone who is "using", but you are missing the fact that we are basically talking about changing or keeping the current laws. You might get fired for it now, but what if your employer suddenly didn't give a shit if you cursed at work? Would you start doing it?

[Heartless Angel]

Though Sasquatch beat me to it (as usual), I'll go ahead and respond again...

Pronography and being black aren't illegal. Those ARE legally nobody's business. It's not because of the drug specifically that employers don't like this; it's because it's against the damned law. If you commit mass murder in your off hours, would you expect your boss to high five you when you walk in the next day? No! You're a damned criminal, nobody who needs to maintain any kind of public image would want anything to do with you. If weed was legal, I doubt they'd test for it, because then, as long as you weren't showing up to work blazed, it wouldn't have any impact on your work, in which case it would be invasion of privacy if they drug tested you. Seeing whether or not they're employing criminals is not. And at this point in time, weed is illegal, so if you test positive, you are in fact a criminal, criminals recieve no special priveledges, they're punished. Don't like punishment, don't break the law. Simple solution.

[Jin]

You're honestly trying to compare a company legally refusing to hire a criminal to a company illegally refusing to hire a person of a specific race.

No, I'm voicing my opinion on black people.

You don't always have to assume that people who reply to your posts in a tongue and cheek fashion are disagreeing with you.