Should drug testing be legal for the workplace?

[che]

Is it right for companies to drug test their employees? So what if someone wants to smoke some weed when they aren't on-duty? On the other hand, I think if you're high at work and can't do your job properly, your employer should reserve the right to drug test you and fire you if necessary. Sort of a don't ask don't tell policy.

Not everyone drug tests. Do you think it helps in all cases, or some, or never?

[Padraic]

I find that it is fair that they can drug test you, because I think that every employer expects you to work to your best potential, and sadly you cannot do that while your baked (If one could, that would be amazing!) Also, doesn't it say that you have to work to your full potential in most contracts? Anyway, if you're gonna smoke up, you might as well do it somewhere more entertaining rather than your workplace, like a park! and I'm not saying that you should skip your work to go get blazed in a park. (You might scare some children!)

So yes, I believe that employers have the right. In all cases.

[che]

I find that it is fair that they can drug test you, because I think that every employer expects you to work to your best potential, and sadly you cannot do that while your baked (If one could, that would be amazing!) Also, doesn't it say that you have to work to your full potential in most contracts? Anyway, if you're gonna smoke up, you might as well do it somewhere more entertaining rather than your workplace, like a park! and I'm not saying that you should skip your work to go get blazed in a park. (You might scare some children!)

So yes, I believe that employers have the right. In all cases.

You don't have to be high at work! If you smoke after work and never smoke before/during, it'd still show up on drug tests even though you're working your ass off.

[Alpha]

No. What I do in my own time is not the business of my employer.

THC can stay in detectable levels in one's bloodstream well after its effects have worn off -- several days in fact.

If an employer suspects that something, perhaps drugs, is negatively affecting an employee, then an employee can be warned/dismissed based on the fact that they are working with diminished capacity. Employers do not have the right to their employees bodies to determine what it is, but employers can hold suspicions. However, employers should make any suspicions abundantly clear ('we think it is drugs'), and an employee can voluntarily get a blood or other test to challenge any suspicions or dismissals.

Actually having or dealing drugs at work, however, is a much more serious issue, assuming they are illegal.

[Padraic]

You don't have to be high at work! If you smoke after work and never smoke before/during, it'd still show up on drug tests even though you're working your ass off.

Oh, damn, I forgot about that... hmm... this changes my whole opinion now... Ok, now it should only be if you show up to work already blazed about 5 times, then yes they have the right to, but no random drug tests, besides invading your personal space, its just downright creepy... collecting someone's urine for the fun of it... ugh...

EDIT: I want to change my vote on the pole now >.<

[Kooky Spice]

I don't think that it should be allowed upon hiring. Just cause My UA shows up dirty does NOT mean that I come to work that way (not recommended for my line of work anyway). Some people do and I feel that a saliva sample should be taken for someone that is believed to be high at that time. I believe that what I do outside of work is none of my employer's muthaf*ckin business unless I bring it to work because then I become a liability either physically or verbally.

[Pete]

I think it depends on the position. For positions where you're required to carry a firearm, or perform really technical skills, or life saving skills, then yes, drug testing should be required. It really covers the asses of the employers more than the employees, because of plausible deny-ability. If something were to get screwed up, and someone were to die, the hiring agency would be in such deep shit for hiring someone who tested positive for assumed illegal drugs in their system. There's really no way to tell WHEN exactly the drugs were consumed, unless you perform a hair test, and even then, you can only get a vague answer based on "they did drugs within the past 30, 60, 90, 180 days," and can't tell you if they did anything ON the job.

As for general bullshit office jobs that really don't alter anything, I don't see why testing would be necessary. Some office jobs are so boring that you'd have to be blazed to make it through the day. Unfortunately, I wasn't

[Sasquatch]

If I own a business, I can choose to hire whomever the hell I want. I can piss-test applicants -- it's not the decision of the government to mandate MY employee standards, other than possibly to set minimums. If I want to tell my applicants that they must be fluent in Spanish to work for me -- even if the position has absolutely nothing to do with anything remotely Spanish-speaking -- that's my prerogative. If I want my employees to know pi to the hundredth place, I don't care who you are -- if you want a job from me, you'd better damn-well know pi to the hundredth place. If I decide to only hire people who have no visible tattoos or facial piercings, that's my call. And if you want a job from me, the first step is to hide your tattoos and take those stupid piercings out. Well, I guess that'd be the third step, with step two being memorizing a hundred places of pi and step one being learning Spanish.

So what's wrong with drug testing? Employers have every right to test their applicants however they want to. You don't like it? You don't apply there.

I'm sure there are plenty of employers just waiting for that perfect employee that smokes, swallows, shoots, and snorts everything they can get ahold of, right?

Plus, it's a liability issue. And not just if you screw something up at work, and not just the idea that druggies are more likely to steal from the company to finance their habit (I mean, you wouldn't want to hire a raging alcoholic, right?) -- I mean their time and money spent training you might go to waste because you got arrested. Then they're down an employee and they've got to start the process over again.

(And if your argument is that you can't just "not apply" somewhere because then you would end up in a shitty low-paying job, maybe that should tell you a little something about your habit.)

[loaf]

Depends on the job in my opinion. When I worked at Best Buy, you have to drug test to get hired. But once you get hired, you are good to go to do whatever drug you want, they can't do anything. I know for a fact, I've heard it from my old Manager himself. I used to show up to Best Buy baked out of my mind all the time, hell half the store was. It didn't change my work performance one bit. I did my work, I did it well. Whoever thinks someone can't do anything cause they are stoned or high is ignorant.

[Alpha]

I think you've got to distinguish between testing someone before you employ them, and once they are employed.

If you have no experience with a person, and reasonably want to avoid hiring someone who's going to turn up stoned (especially, as it has been established, for issues of liability), then you can make drug testing a condition.

As for on-going drug testing, no, for the reasons I have previously put forward. 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.

EDIT: Unless the drugs negatively affect performance. But that's not a mandate to actually test for drugs. Because that's damn invasive.

[Heartless Angel]

Gotta agree with Sasquatch. Whether the drugs influence your performance or not is irellevant. If the employer thinks it does and he wants his employees clean, stay clean, or you're not gonna be working for him for long. Is it nescessarily fair? Not really. Is it any of my damned business what an employer wants from those he hires? Not really. If you don't like it, don't apply. Not to menton alot of the shit they test for is illegal. Call em' crazy, but some people just don't think employing criminals is a great idea. Granted, that doesn't apply to everything they test for. Some of it is stupid little shit. Like, I know a guy who failed a drug test because he ate a poppy seed bagel for breakfast, apparently that was enough to test positive for opium. Was that ridiculous? Absolutely. But he knew damn well what they tested for, and he was fully aware that poppy seeds can make some drug tests come up positive for opiates, so I don't really feel sorry for him.

If your workplace doesn't give a shit, wonderful, go home and smoke a bowl, nobody cares. If I tell you I don't want a stoner working for me, either don't work for me, or quit with the drugs, don't sit there and bitch about it when I catch you doing what I specifically told you not to do, and fire you for it.

[Joe]

I think it's heavily invasive, and none of my employers business what I do on my own time, so long as it does not affect my work. I work for a fairly prestigious networking company, and they drug-test, yes. I disagree with it, because if I want to get high on a weekend, that should be my right.

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.

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. 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.

[Jin]

If I want to tell my applicants that they must be fluent in Spanish to work for me -- even if the position has absolutely nothing to do with anything remotely Spanish-speaking -- that's my prerogative. If I want my employees to know pi to the hundredth place, I don't care who you are -- if you want a job from me, you'd better damn-well know pi to the hundredth place. If I decide to only hire people who have no visible tattoos or facial piercings, that's my call. And if you want a job from me, the first step is to hide your tattoos and take those stupid piercings out. Well, I guess that'd be the third step, with step two being memorizing a hundred places of pi and step one being learning Spanish.

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

[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.

[midgetbob]

I think some jobs require it... the military for example. Also if your job has the power of life / death over anyone, then yes. Otherwise... no. if you are ****ed up at work and then get ****ed up because of negligence and they test you for your workman's comp - well that's your fault. You took the risk and now you don't get to sit at home carefree.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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

[Heartless Angel]

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.

That's where I must disagree with you. The thread is about the legality of drug TESTS, not the drug itself. As long as the drug remains illegal, the test is absolutely justified. When maijuanna becomes legal, it'll be no different than alcohol. It'll be allowed until some idiot fails to enjoy the priveledge in moderation and ****s it up royally for the rest of us.

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.

Unfortunately, it's the idiots that laws are made for. A moderately intelligent person knows it's probably not the best idea to go operate complicated heavy machinery while shit-faced, and so they drink after hours. But then you have the overwhelming presence of idiots in the world who'd show up shit-faced every day if you didn't specifically tell them not to. And when one of those morons who can't even stand up straight causes a problem, bam, we get a law that ****s the rest of us. Blame stupid people. LAws and warning labels aren't made for 9999/10000 people who excorcise good judgement and common sense, they're for that one dumbass who couldn't pour piss out of a boot without an instruction manual. Sucks for the rest of us, yeah, but it is what it is.

EDIT: MORE STUPID LAWS!

In Nebraska, it is illegal to drive a covered wagon on sundays. I know, I want to take mine out for a sunday drive all the time, but I restrain myself...

I forget where, but there's a place where it's illegal to tie a giraffe to a telephone pole. I mean, where else are you gonna tie the damn thing, amirite?

In Chicago, it is illegal to refuse to leave a burning restaraunt. And as i mentioned here, most laws are the reuslt of one dumbass... makes you wonder who the genius here was. SIR THE BUILDING IS ON FIRE! EVACUATE! Ahem, can you not see I am trying to enjoy my meal?!

[Joe]

Yet if it's just a select few individuals messing it up for the rest of us, then why not simply fire those few individuals and let the rest of the staff go about their way?

I still fail to see how the test is justified simply because the substance is illegal. That's like saying that to get a job in IT I must submit all my home computers to random scans for pirated programs, just to make sure I won't use them on my work computer.

[Heartless Angel]

I don't know, why bother making murder illegal? Just sentence people who commit it. It kinda has to be a low to justify firing them for that reason, just as you'd kinda need to specify that murder was illegal to have any legal right to punish somebody for it... unless of course you carried out that ounishment by murder... which wouldn't be illegal in that scenario... ok, maybe not the BEST analogy, but you get the idea.

As for computer checks, to be perfectly honest, a place could probably get away with that if they made a big enough deal of it, or had experiences with the problem in the past to use to jutsify it in court.