(05-09-2018, 04:13 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (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.
From conversations I've had and what I've read, businesses in Colorado generally test more often now than before legalization.
Anyone not researching for a major life change like moving and starting a new job enough to know about a company's drug policy are probably too dumb to do said job very well.
I'm kind of on the fence when it comes to this topic. I personally do not use marijuana (though I did so many years ago in my younger days).
On one hand, I personally don't care what people do in their personal lives and/or in their homes. If someone wants to smoke a joint to relax after a day of work or while socializing on the weekends, I don't see any problem with that.
On the other hand, I have heard of and seen cases where people are smoking marijuana while on break at work. This includes places where dangerous machinery is used and regardless of my personal opinion of marijuana use, a person should not be operating machinery, driving, etc. while impaired... especially on the job.
To go along with that, at the place that I work at we handle classified information and have to have a security clearance. A person that can't pass a drug test displays poor judgement and therefor cannot hold a security clearance.
(05-09-2018, 07:18 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]I'm kind of on the fence when it comes to this topic. I personally do not use marijuana (though I did so many years ago in my younger days).
On one hand, I personally don't care what people do in their personal lives and/or in their homes. If someone wants to smoke a joint to relax after a day of work or while socializing on the weekends, I don't see any problem with that.
On the other hand, I have heard of and seen cases where people are smoking marijuana while on break at work. This includes places where dangerous machinery is used and regardless of my personal opinion of marijuana use, a person should not be operating machinery, driving, etc. while impaired... especially on the job.
To go along with that, at the place that I work at we handle classified information and have to have a security clearance. A person that can't pass a drug test displays poor judgement and therefor cannot hold a security clearance.
We feel about the same regarding this subject.
(05-09-2018, 06:35 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2018, 04:13 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]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.
From conversations I've had and what I've read, businesses in Colorado generally test more often now than before legalization.
Anyone not researching for a major life change like moving and starting a new job enough to know about a company's drug policy are probably too dumb to do said job very well.
It would make sense to test more often. And yeah, some of these kids moving out there don't have a plan other than to "live where the weed is legal." What's worse is the guy with a family. I mean, get real. It's hard to believe people are that dumb or naive, but they are. Some think, "well if I don't ask then I can honestly say I didn't know." Yeah, plausible deniability shouldn't be your fall back position in these situations.
(05-09-2018, 08:32 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-09-2018, 07:18 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]I'm kind of on the fence when it comes to this topic. I personally do not use marijuana (though I did so many years ago in my younger days).
On one hand, I personally don't care what people do in their personal lives and/or in their homes. If someone wants to smoke a joint to relax after a day of work or while socializing on the weekends, I don't see any problem with that.
On the other hand, I have heard of and seen cases where people are smoking marijuana while on break at work. This includes places where dangerous machinery is used and regardless of my personal opinion of marijuana use, a person should not be operating machinery, driving, etc. while impaired... especially on the job.
To go along with that, at the place that I work at we handle classified information and have to have a security clearance. A person that can't pass a drug test displays poor judgement and therefor cannot hold a security clearance.
We feel about the same regarding this subject.
(05-09-2018, 06:35 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]From conversations I've had and what I've read, businesses in Colorado generally test more often now than before legalization.
Anyone not researching for a major life change like moving and starting a new job enough to know about a company's drug policy are probably too dumb to do said job very well.
It would make sense to test more often. And yeah, some of these kids moving out there don't have a plan other than to "live where the weed is legal." What's worse is the guy with a family. I mean, get real. It's hard to believe people are that dumb or naive, but they are. Some think, "well if I don't ask then I can honestly say I didn't know." Yeah, plausible deniability shouldn't be your fall back position in these situations.
It all comes down to morals, values and what you want to accomplish in life. If "legal pot" is the priority for some people, then in my opinion their goals in life are pretty low. For me personally, I am finally reaching one of my personal goals, that being to own a small ranch/farm out in the country. I get more of a "high" clearing land and envisioning what I want to do with the property that we bought (36+ acres). I do like to partake in "legal drugs", that being alcohol (specifically beer) on occasion, but it's not a priority for me.
For some people the priority for being able to partake in their personal vice (marijuana) in my opinion is a very poor decision for moving or going to a certain place.
It's like some of you think that because someone smokes and believes that it should not be a crime that they are all automatically like freaking Jeff Spicoli or something. Believe it or not many accomplished individuals smoke.
Some of the posts reek of pure ignorance to the real impact smoking has on ones life. I think many of you would be stunned at the people you associate with that smoke but will never let you all know because of some of your archaic, government induced Reefer Madness paranoia.
Of course there are the Spicolis of the world but more than likely they would struggle with or without smoking anyhow. Just like a only very small percentage of those that consume alcohol will be useless drunks.
Seems that the illegality of it is what rubs most the wrong way. That's just it though. The illegality is in place due to flawed science, skewed moral standards, extremely strong alcohol/pharmaceutical lobby and of course and probably most importantly a mostly for profit prison system in which billions of tax dollars are changing hands locking up folks on weak pot charges.
It's a good thing that the opinions are starting to sway the other direction IMO. People that desire to will smoke no matter the laws. It is just plain stupid at this point to continue letting that cash just flow south never to be seen in our economy again.
(05-10-2018, 09:15 AM)Jagwired Wrote: [ -> ]It's like some of you think that because someone smokes and believes that it should not be a crime that they are all automatically like freaking Jeff Spicoli or something. Believe it or not many accomplished individuals smoke.
Some of the posts reek of pure ignorance to the real impact smoking has on ones life. I think many of you would be stunned at the people you associate with that smoke but will never let you all know because of some of your archaic, government induced Reefer Madness paranoia.
Of course there are the Spicolis of the world but more than likely they would struggle with or without smoking anyhow. Just like a only very small percentage of those that consume alcohol will be useless drunks.
Seems that the illegality of it is what rubs most the wrong way. That's just it though. The illegality is in place due to flawed science, skewed moral standards, extremely strong alcohol/pharmaceutical lobby and of course and probably most importantly a mostly for profit prison system in which billions of tax dollars are changing hands locking up folks on weak pot charges.
It's a good thing that the opinions are starting to sway the other direction IMO. People that desire to will smoke no matter the laws. It is just plain stupid at this point to continue letting that cash just flow south never to be seen in our economy again.
It's old people, man.
They believed the propaganda.
Just throwing a few thoughts out there on this one...
In my line of work (music) I would say that about 50% of the people I work with or have contact with openly smoke or use THC products. Probably another 10% use it but try to be discreet about it.
I don't use it because it's just not my thing. I enjoyed it in my youth for a few years, but my body chemistry is different now and I do not enjoy the effect.
Regarding the "right to smoke" and all of that, I don't take issue with companies that drug-test for it if they feel it inhibits an employee's ability to do the job. It just makes too much sense.
Medical purposes are a different animal, and I think it's great that medical use is becoming more common and accepted in more places.
I actually give my dog a CBD oil for her glaucoma and it makes a noticeable difference in her comfort.
Personally, my point is...
Whether you smoke or not, you should have sense enough or the ingenuity to be able to pass. That's all.
If you can't do that one simple thing, what can you do?
To me, I'm not debating whether or not it's necessary or where it's most appropriate (if at all.) I'm actually in the boat for legalization of some kind.
But as long as testing is still being done, my point is: a pre-employment screening a very simple hurdle that shouldn't be difficult even for users, if they really care about getting work.
Dropping testing because people don't pass is just laziness and desperation on the part of employers. The guy/gal that wasn't bright enough to pass the test isn't going to be any smarter by allowing them to skip the test.
It's one small effort to show you can be relied upon to complete a task as asked.
I suppose with employment low (and turnover high in some industries) they expect to turnstile a lot of people regardless of testing. In that case, they're saving time/money on the inevitable.
(05-10-2018, 09:50 AM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]...
Whether you smoke or not, you should have sense enough or the ingenuity to be able to pass...
It's one small effort to show you can be relied upon to complete a task as asked.
I agree with this. If it's that difficult for someone to manage and no medical issue is in the mix, then there is a problem present.
It's a relatively minor symbol of general responsibility to stay clean long enough to pass a test you know is coming your way.
(05-04-2018, 07:38 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]I think it depends on the job. I know I'm actively working to not hire techs that smoke pot. Say what you want but it's hard to motivate habitual pot smokers to work hard manual labor in the blistering heat.
Weird... I've been a daily pot smoker for 15 years and have worked in greenhouses every bit of it....
Guess it really depends on the person.
Lazy people become more lazy when smoking pot.
People who have their stuff together can smoke pot and still be good employees, citizens, and parents.
Strange... it's almost like dumb people do dumb things.... rather than pot making them do dumb things....
(05-10-2018, 09:53 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2018, 09:50 AM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]...
Whether you smoke or not, you should have sense enough or the ingenuity to be able to pass...
It's one small effort to show you can be relied upon to complete a task as asked.
I agree with this. If it's that difficult for someone to manage and no medical issue is in the mix, then there is a problem present.
It's a relatively minor symbol of general responsibility to stay clean long enough to pass a test you know is coming your way.
I also agree with this. While the game still exists one needs to be able to play it I suppose. Just doesn't make a whole lot of sense is all IMO.
I also happen to agree that a person should not have to manipulate the system. I would rather them just be able to be honest if asked about it.
An observant employer will soon see if the ganja is crippling the persons performance anyhow. If not maybe they are just dull on legal prescribed opioids. The real drug problem this country has.
(05-10-2018, 09:30 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]It's old people, man.
They believed the propaganda.
I would guess many here would consider me old. Hell, my father is 83 and has golf buddies that smoke. Age does not have a whole lot to do with it other than the age/era of the laws on the books.
(05-10-2018, 10:45 AM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ] (05-04-2018, 07:38 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]I think it depends on the job. I know I'm actively working to not hire techs that smoke pot. Say what you want but it's hard to motivate habitual pot smokers to work hard manual labor in the blistering heat.
Weird... I've been a daily pot smoker for 15 years and have worked in greenhouses every bit of it....
Guess it really depends on the person.
Lazy people become more lazy when smoking pot.
People who have their stuff together can smoke pot and still be good employees, citizens, and parents.
Strange... it's almost like dumb people do dumb things.... rather than pot making them do dumb things....
Yeah.
I remember a friend in college with whom I'd travel off campus for lunch on occasion. He was doing a graduate degree in some math field. After lunch he'd roll a joint and smoke it in the parking lot while looking over these equations for his post lunch class that absolutely boggled my mind.
I'd ask how he could comprehend such complex equations while high and he say that if anything, it helped.
He's a successful engineer now and still smokes.
Everybody has their own thing going on, and it affects different people differently.
Well, my 25 years of drug abstinence has finally paid off.
After attending the Trondessa Festival in Charleston, SC (headlined by one of my favorite hippie bands WIDESPREAD PANIC), i was informed that I had been selected to the Company's random drug screen. While there's definitely a smell of weed in the open air event but nothing that we were within 15 feet of direct contact, I was still concerned with 2nd hand smoke, although all of my google searches revealed one would have to he enclosed in a small non-ventilated enclosure filled with heavy smoke for 2 hours to fail a drug screen that was taken 30 minutes after the event. Perhaps even worse, I did a 5-mile run prior to the test which apparently elevate THC levels due to fat breakdown. In any event, I didn't have any THC in my sample that resulted from 2nd hand smoke. Another interesting fact that I learned was that most of the THC remains in the smokers body while very little THC is exhaled out of the system. So even though there is inbound and outgoing smoke to/from the smokers body, the THC concentration is very minimal going out.
That's it for now .....
(05-10-2018, 09:15 AM)Jagwired Wrote: [ -> ]Seems that the illegality of it is what rubs most the wrong way. That's just it though. The illegality is in place to keep black people in their place.
FTFY.
(05-10-2018, 11:03 AM)Jagwired Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2018, 09:30 AM)TrivialPursuit Wrote: [ -> ]It's old people, man.
They believed the propaganda.
I would guess many here would consider me old. Hell, my father is 83 and has golf buddies that smoke. Age does not have a whole lot to do with it other than the age/era of the laws on the books.
When I say old I really mean the attitude. It's an old man's attitude.
The gubment tells us its bad, so it is bad! Trust in the gubment!
(05-10-2018, 09:41 AM)NYC4jags Wrote: [ -> ]Just throwing a few thoughts out there on this one...
In my line of work (music) I would say that about 50% of the people I work with or have contact with openly smoke or use THC products. Probably another 10% use it but try to be discreet about it.
I don't use it because it's just not my thing. I enjoyed it in my youth for a few years, but my body chemistry is different now and I do not enjoy the effect.
Regarding the "right to smoke" and all of that, I don't take issue with companies that drug-test for it if they feel it inhibits an employee's ability to do the job. It just makes too much sense.
Medical purposes are a different animal, and I think it's great that medical use is becoming more common and accepted in more places.
I actually give my dog a CBD oil for her glaucoma and it makes a noticeable difference in her comfort.
Your whole point is pretty much in line with my thinking. As I stated before, I don't care what people do on their own time. However, I have seen cases where people are using during working hours. Impaired is impaired whether someone smokes a joint while on a work break or has a few drinks.
Regarding the part in bold, I also agree with you. As of matter of fact, I have even assisted family members going through certain medical procedures in obtaining THC products to help them. There certainly is a medical benefit.
(05-10-2018, 09:50 AM)pirkster Wrote: [ -> ]Personally, my point is...
Whether you smoke or not, you should have sense enough or the ingenuity to be able to pass. That's all.
If you can't do that one simple thing, what can you do?
To me, I'm not debating whether or not it's necessary or where it's most appropriate (if at all.) I'm actually in the boat for legalization of some kind.
But as long as testing is still being done, my point is: a pre-employment screening a very simple hurdle that shouldn't be difficult even for users, if they really care about getting work.
Dropping testing because people don't pass is just laziness and desperation on the part of employers. The guy/gal that wasn't bright enough to pass the test isn't going to be any smarter by allowing them to skip the test.
It's one small effort to show you can be relied upon to complete a task as asked.
I suppose with employment low (and turnover high in some industries) they expect to turnstile a lot of people regardless of testing. In that case, they're saving time/money on the inevitable.
You also make the same point that I was trying to make.
I think a failed drug test says more about how stupid the person taking it is than anything else. The ways to beat it range from complex cocktails of vitamins and supplements to just drinking several gallons of water over the course of a couple days.
(05-10-2018, 09:59 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]I think a failed drug test says more about how stupid the person taking it is than anything else. The ways to beat it range from complex cocktails of vitamins and supplements to just drinking several gallons of water over the course of a couple days.
In some states you can still purchase synthetic urine. I know guys that travel to Mobile, AL to pass their 2 screens a year as land surveyors (drug screenings are required to get access to gulf power properties etc).
Comes with a elastic band and heating pad to get it to temp.
Outside of probation or somewhere where they watch you pee (I think they watch in the NFL) it's too easy to pass screenings to fail one lol
(05-11-2018, 09:51 AM)Kane Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2018, 09:59 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]I think a failed drug test says more about how stupid the person taking it is than anything else. The ways to beat it range from complex cocktails of vitamins and supplements to just drinking several gallons of water over the course of a couple days.
In some states you can still purchase synthetic urine. I know guys that travel to Mobile, AL to pass their 2 screens a year as land surveyors (drug screenings are required to get access to gulf power properties etc).
Comes with a elastic band and heating pad to get it to temp.
Outside of probation or somewhere where they watch you pee (I think they watch in the NFL) it's too easy to pass screenings to fail one lol
I am a daily cannabis user, have been for about 45 years. A few years ago I had to submit a urine specimen for drug screening as part of a job application process. I had 10 days warning. I stopped smoking as soon as I was notified of the testing appointment, and drank over a gallon of water per day, then nearly doubled my water intake the night before and morning of the test. I actually risked a failed test due to excessive dilution. As a frequent user, cannabis should be detectable in my urine for 30 days, but I passed the test.