(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.

---