The problem with testing for marijuana is the length of time it stays detectable in urine or blood, even after the psychotropic effects have abated. Occasional users can test positive 7 days after smoking a joint but not be working under the influence.
(05-05-2018, 01:24 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]The problem with testing for marijuana is the length of time it stays detectable in urine or blood, even after the psychotropic effects have abated. Occasional users can test positive 7 days after smoking a joint but not be working under the influence.
Testing is not done daily. The idea is to find out if a person has used marijuana (or other drugs) when you hire him, not if he's sober that particular day. The odds are that if a person has used marijuana recently he'll use it again, which is a risk factor to consider when hiring if the employer believes marijuana use will negatively affect one's work.
For every 1 person who is capable of being a productive member of society while high, there are 1000 that aren't.
(05-05-2018, 01:40 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2018, 01:24 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]The problem with testing for marijuana is the length of time it stays detectable in urine or blood, even after the psychotropic effects have abated. Occasional users can test positive 7 days after smoking a joint but not be working under the influence.
Testing is not done daily. The idea is to find out if a person has used marijuana (or other drugs) when you hire him, not if he's sober that particular day. The odds are that if a person has used marijuana recently he'll use it again, which is a risk factor to consider when hiring if the employer believes marijuana use will negatively affect one's work.
Testing is also frequently administered randomly post-employment, and is indeed designed to see if you are under the influence while at work.
If marijuana use is as legal as drinking alcohol, why is it fair to prohibit employment for a person who used marijuana on the Friday night before his pre-employment drug test the following Monday, over his potential co-worker who got drunk the same night? Is that person as much, or even more, of a risk?
(05-05-2018, 02:22 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2018, 01:40 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]Testing is not done daily. The idea is to find out if a person has used marijuana (or other drugs) when you hire him, not if he's sober that particular day. The odds are that if a person has used marijuana recently he'll use it again, which is a risk factor to consider when hiring if the employer believes marijuana use will negatively affect one's work.
Testing is also frequently administered randomly post-employment, and is indeed designed to see if you are under the influence while at work.
If marijuana use is as legal as drinking alcohol, why is it fair to prohibit employment for a person who used marijuana on the Friday night before his pre-employment drug test the following Monday, over his potential co-worker who got drunk the same night? Is that person as much, or even more, of a risk?
First off, I'm of the opinion that an employee should be judged solely by his job performance. If you can't tell whether or not a person is on drugs by his job performance, then it doesn't matter.
But I'm not the one who's writing the paychecks. An employer can choose to hire the stoner, or choose to hire the drunk, both, or neither. If you think marijuana users are treated unfairly in employment, start a business and hire marijuana users. No one is stopping you.
And marijuana use is still not legal; not even in states that legalized it since it's still illegal by Federal law. And yes, Constitutionally it should be strictly up to the states, but the nine ruling elite have repeatedly claimed otherwise.
(05-05-2018, 02:22 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2018, 01:40 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]Testing is not done daily. The idea is to find out if a person has used marijuana (or other drugs) when you hire him, not if he's sober that particular day. The odds are that if a person has used marijuana recently he'll use it again, which is a risk factor to consider when hiring if the employer believes marijuana use will negatively affect one's work.
Testing is also frequently administered randomly post-employment, and is indeed designed to see if you are under the influence while at work.
If marijuana use is as legal as drinking alcohol, why is it fair to prohibit employment for a person who used marijuana on the Friday night before his pre-employment drug test the following Monday, over his potential co-worker who got drunk the same night? Is that person as much, or even more, of a risk?
Well, one is a law breaker and the other isn't so...
(05-05-2018, 01:24 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]The problem with testing for marijuana is the length of time it stays detectable in urine or blood, even after the psychotropic effects have abated. Occasional users can test positive 7 days after smoking a joint but not be working under the influence.
More like a month. But the dollar store has tests, so I guess you could figure out if your a fast metabolizer.
(05-05-2018, 09:45 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2018, 02:22 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]Testing is also frequently administered randomly post-employment, and is indeed designed to see if you are under the influence while at work.
If marijuana use is as legal as drinking alcohol, why is it fair to prohibit employment for a person who used marijuana on the Friday night before his pre-employment drug test the following Monday, over his potential co-worker who got drunk the same night? Is that person as much, or even more, of a risk?
Well, one is a law breaker and the other isn't so...
Every job (other than the military) that I ever had claimed they randomly test after the pre hire drug screen, but they really didn't. They only test you if you are acting messed up on something and they suspect you are high, or if you get hurt on the job, or an accident...Other than that the pre hire drug screen is the only one you have...Oh there was one time my boss said to me, oh yeah, I was supposed to give you and so and so a random drug test last week, so if anyone asks I did and you were negative...
It's not the employers requiring drug testing, it's the health care companies...If an employer does not pre screen and claim random testing, they pay a much higher rate...
(05-05-2018, 08:42 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]I couldn't care less if the service industry hires these fog heads, but letting these people manufacturer actual products is an issue. Hell, as the great Judge Smails once said, "The world needs ditch diggers too".
LOL
It's not 1952 anymore Grandpa.
(05-05-2018, 01:59 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]For every 1 person who is capable of being a productive member of society while high, there are 1000 that aren't.
Just taking a guess there are ya?
We aren’t talking about people who do it 8 times a day. We are talking about people smoking a little bit at night just like people have a few drinks at night.
I take it we should ban alcohol too then?
(05-07-2018, 11:56 AM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2018, 01:59 PM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: [ -> ]For every 1 person who is capable of being a productive member of society while high, there are 1000 that aren't.
Just taking a guess there are ya?
We aren’t talking about people who do it 8 times a day. We are talking about people smoking a little bit at night just like people have a few drinks at night.
I take it we should ban alcohol too then?
His generation thinks alcohol and all the death and destruction caused by it is the bees knees.
But munchies and happiness is the devil!
(05-05-2018, 09:45 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2018, 02:22 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]Testing is also frequently administered randomly post-employment, and is indeed designed to see if you are under the influence while at work.
If marijuana use is as legal as drinking alcohol, why is it fair to prohibit employment for a person who used marijuana on the Friday night before his pre-employment drug test the following Monday, over his potential co-worker who got drunk the same night? Is that person as much, or even more, of a risk?
Well, one is a law breaker and the other isn't so...
My post is based on the premise we're discussing employers in states where marijuana use is legal.
(05-07-2018, 02:05 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2018, 09:45 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Well, one is a law breaker and the other isn't so...
My post is based on the premise we're discussing employers in states where marijuana use is legal.
Technically there aren't any of those.
(05-07-2018, 02:05 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (05-05-2018, 09:45 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Well, one is a law breaker and the other isn't so...
My post is based on the premise we're discussing employers in states where marijuana use is legal.
That's only at state level. If the feds want to be blowhards they can certainly do so and many, many people would be in trouble.
(05-08-2018, 10:53 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-07-2018, 02:05 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]My post is based on the premise we're discussing employers in states where marijuana use is legal.
That's only at state level. If the feds want to be blowhards they can certainly do so and many, many people would be in trouble.
And then you're talking about civil war.
The federal government should never infringe on states' rights.
(05-08-2018, 12:37 PM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ] (05-08-2018, 10:53 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]That's only at state level. If the feds want to be blowhards they can certainly do so and many, many people would be in trouble.
And then you're talking about civil war.
The federal government should never infringe on states' rights.
Never ever ever?
I look at it this way...
If you're looking for a job... for the sake of your family and livelihood... you only have ONE job: pass the drug screening.
If you can't do that... you can't do squat. How little do you think of your family and your ability to feed them that you can't pass the screening?
If you want to see the long-term effects of cannabis usage on humans, look in the mirror. The human race has used cannabis for many centuries.
(05-08-2018, 07:54 PM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]I look at it this way...
If you're looking for a job... for the sake of your family and livelihood... you only have ONE job: pass the drug screening.
If you can't do that... you can't do squat. How little do you think of your family and your ability to feed them that you can't pass the screening?
I would be curious to know if businesses in weed-legal states perform more random drug tests to make sure the person didn't get "clean" just to pass an initial drug test to get the job.
It seems a lot of folks are confused by the fact that just because a state has legalized weed, it doesn't mean businesses accept pot smokers. People who move to a state like Colorado don't seem to take that into consideration so when they go to take a urine test, fail, and are told they don't get the job due to a failed drug test they are shocked. Now they have no job and no money because they spent what they had in moving expenses. This has been a trend there.
You have to pass drug tests to make it into the army or police here but that's pretty much it.