I won't take the bait.
This.
must... not... take... bait
Would you want a surgeon who still has a high level of legal drugs in his body doing an operation on you?
Would you stop drinking and/or smoking if your company told you to?
Drug testing at work
- Thread starter Dr House
- Start date
I won't take the bait.
This.
must... not... take... bait
Would you want a surgeon who still has a high level of legal drugs in his body doing an operation on you?
Would you stop drinking and/or smoking if your company told you to?
I think the problem would be that if you implemented proper systematic drug testing, employers would no longer be able to treat each case individually. They wouldn't be able to say, use it as a way of dismissing mediocre staff whilst meanwhile turning a blind eye to the antics of star performers.
You'd basically have to have an official policy on it and risk doublestandards if you didn't take the same action against staff who have committed the same offence. Great in theory but in the real world I can't see all employers buying into the idea, they may have some great staff adding lots of value to the company that they want to hang on to, even if they like a bit of puff of a weekend.
You'd basically have to have an official policy on it and risk doublestandards if you didn't take the same action against staff who have committed the same offence. Great in theory but in the real world I can't see all employers buying into the idea, they may have some great staff adding lots of value to the company that they want to hang on to, even if they like a bit of puff of a weekend.
Can't be arsed to read the whole thread so don't know if this question has been asked. Suppose you travelled to a country that does allow the legal consumption of substances that are prohibited in the UK, take said drugs, go back to work and are tested, and traces are found in your system and are picked up by the drug tests by your company. How would that work?
Quink
Quink
This.
As long as you are not rendered incapable of performing your duties during working hours, it's none of their business.
I strongly object to a certain family member of mine doing cannabis, but as long as he still turns up for work and isn't hindered, what ****ing business is it of the manager's?
Unless your staff are under the scrutiny of the press or are in the public spotlight by nature, their private life should be their own.
Can't be arsed to read the whole thread so don't know if this question has been asked. Suppose you travelled to a country that does allow the legal consumption of substances that are prohibited in the UK, take said drugs, go back to work and are tested, and traces are found in your system and are picked up by the drug tests by your company. How would that work?
Quink
Depends on the company's policy, but they could very well sack you. As for reporting you to authorities, I don't know. But then again, I'm not sure if they're able to determine when it was used, and whether they can judge the effect it'd have on you. i.e. If you're intoxicated at work.
wow there's a lot of pro-drug sentiment in here.
In my company and sector of business it's standard policy, and a lot of our clients won't work with companies that don't have a alcohol and drugs policy in place.
Regards all the folk "if it's outside work it shouldn't matter", it does matter. A known drug/alcohol user is a risky employee. 99% of the time he might take drugs outside of work and not be under the influence at work. What about the time he's out late the night before, decides he'll just chance it and comes to work the next day. Something happens on site and somebody gets injured or there is a near miss etc.
It would be straight-up dismissal if somebody failed the testing, similarly we've worked for clients who submit sub-contractors to their testing policy and if you don't show up on the testing day you're off the job and will lose your job.
In my company and sector of business it's standard policy, and a lot of our clients won't work with companies that don't have a alcohol and drugs policy in place.
Regards all the folk "if it's outside work it shouldn't matter", it does matter. A known drug/alcohol user is a risky employee. 99% of the time he might take drugs outside of work and not be under the influence at work. What about the time he's out late the night before, decides he'll just chance it and comes to work the next day. Something happens on site and somebody gets injured or there is a near miss etc.
It would be straight-up dismissal if somebody failed the testing, similarly we've worked for clients who submit sub-contractors to their testing policy and if you don't show up on the testing day you're off the job and will lose your job.
I'd say half the trading floor of most international banks would be dismissed if they were all drugs tested.
Plenty of middle class students/recent graduates are heavily into MDMA, Ketamine etc... go to any music festival and you'll frequently see the amusing sight of some naive young sprog with 'ket legs'
Its not all benefit cheating smackheads with candles over spoons...
Would be silly regardless of which jurisdiction the drugs were consumed in. AFAIK in the UK the offence is generally possession - evidence of having previously consumed drugs at some point in time/having traces of it in your system isn't (AFAIK) sufficient to charge you with an offence in itself.
(obv if you've been driving etc.. while under the influence of such substances etc.. then there are other offences being committed.)
Can a company legally restrict the intake of certain substances, regardless of the whole unfit for work thing,
ie - consuming legal drugs (in maybe a different country), and still having residue in your system a few days/weeks later?
I would say no. It's like a company saying that you are not allowed to eat fish on a Friday because we don't agree with it.
Sorry if this is poorly phrased (it's nearly my bedtime) but just because a company disagrees with something (that is to all intents and purposes legal), do they have the right to sack someone for transgressing their rules?
ie - consuming legal drugs (in maybe a different country), and still having residue in your system a few days/weeks later?
I would say no. It's like a company saying that you are not allowed to eat fish on a Friday because we don't agree with it.
Sorry if this is poorly phrased (it's nearly my bedtime) but just because a company disagrees with something (that is to all intents and purposes legal), do they have the right to sack someone for transgressing their rules?
Can a company legally restrict the intake of certain substances, regardless of the whole unfit for work thing,
ie - consuming legal drugs (in maybe a different country), and still having residue in your system a few days/weeks later?
I would say no. It's like a company saying that you are not allowed to eat fish on a Friday because we don't agree with it.
Sorry if this is poorly phrased (it's nearly my bedtime) but just because a company disagrees with something (that is to all intents and purposes legal), do they have the right to sack someone for transgressing their rules?
That's a flawed argument though and I think you'll find it wouldn't matter where the drugs were taken and even if they were legal in the country they were taken in. The company isn't disagreeing with something, it has a policy and if that policy is broken the penalty will be going byebye
Possibly because (certainly in the case of many drugs), if someone is taking them at home there is a chance they are going to be under the influance at work.
Not to mention the increased risk of someone stealing, if they are on a drug that they cannot afford on their normal salary...
And that's before any risks associated with blackmail etc (a lot of banks really don't like employees to be gamblers, or in debt).
Drug tests are pointless, they can only test for a small minority of drugs with long half lives and only give positive or negative results which results in good employees not under the effect of drugs being fired which then results in reduced productivity and an increased cost to the business, as well as a bad reputation for the company and a reduction in the number of job applications because people don't want to work for a company where they will get fired. In addition to that, the high false positive rate means many people who have not taken drugs are fired. Widespread drugs testing results in a trend towards the production and use of shorter acting drugs in my observations, which are undetectable.
Even that doesn't list some medications that are prescribeable.
Just use Epocrates, it's what doctors use all the time
^^
Even that doesn't list some medications that are prescribeable.
Last edited:
Decriminalisation and legalisation are the only things likely to put a big dent in the illegal drug industry.
People will find new ways to avoid detection.
If anything you'll see a boom in the legal high business.
As long as you do your job to a satisfactory level your employer has no right to question what you do in your private life.
Sorry for your loss, but if you don't know all the details, how can you blame the drugs?
For the 2 deaths you believe to be as a result of drug use, I can give hundreds of personal examples of people using for many years and having no problems. I know of 5 people that have died as a result of riding a motorbike though.
A subjective view is always going to be biassed.
Do you have any sources to back up anything you said there?
