Drug test = Fail - What do you think?
- Thread starter MrKeeno
- Start date
appear fine, test there reaction and logical skills. You'll see a diffrent picture.
That's not ok and would fall under our drugs policy. You would get sacked and be banned from the industry for 5 years if caught.
I won't argue with that. The way I see it is if it doesn't effect your performance, it isn't an issue. Many variables can effect performance; are they going to start testing employees for levels of water intake? People are hired on the basis they can fill a job position and do it well. If that's being achieved, what is the issue?
Few spliffs with mates when the moment is right. Maybe the odd pill for the big occasions (Can't say I've ever taken them, I just see it as acceptable). I just fail to see how being involved in such activities results you in being worthless for your job.
How long does alcohol stay in the system?
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 24,290
You think popping a pill on Friday night's going to still be affecting you by monday morning? Honestly? Look around you in your office on monday morning, if you work with young people there's undoubtedly more than one person around you who took illegal drugs over the weekend. I bet they look better off than the people who went out on the beer all weekend too.
If they consistently overdo it it'll get them in the end, but so will boozing.
People whose work is dangerous and technical, drug test away. Those people need to be bang on it all the time, but if a firm wants to drug test people who are coming for admin jobs, as a random example, they're wasting their time. It's a pointless exercise.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 24,290
And this is my point.
Would you stop me from working for a company because I went out and got battered two weeks ago? Of course you wouldn't as long as I was clean and sober at work... but you advocate drug testing prospective employees using tests that can go back months?
It's ridiculous.
And that's why drugs testing isn't just for illegals, they're looking for any sort of habit that will affect your perfomance.
Jokester
Most places do urine which can detect upto 4 weeks. and thus if you have tested positive you will of been under the influence whilst at work.
You'll find I probably drink a bottle of port once a year, and even that lasts me 2-3 months. Asides the odd sip of wine, and literally one or two cans every year.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 24,290
But what would happen, honestly, if you went for a job and they found you smoked pot? They'd probably not hire you.
And while I think that'd be fair enough if you were obviously a messer, but if you're unaffected in your duties by recreational drug taking in your own time, I consider it unfair and unnecessary to have it affect your career with a company before you even start. I see it on the same level as not hiring someone because they drink. Not to excess, but just at all.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 24,290
Do you really think someone who smoked a joint three weeks ago isn't safe to work?
That's incredibly naive.
But you are affected. same as when you feel fine the next day after a heavy night. if you sat at a computer and did a logic and reaction test. You would be slower.
No they would be fine, but how about the next day when there at work, or even 4 days after?
As unfortunate as a black and white policy on illegal drugs is, it's the only surefire way that companies can use to make sure they're not hiring full blown stoners. I agree that there is a massive difference between someone who has a recreational couple on a saturday evening, and somebody who gets stoned everyday, but it's nigh-on impossible for a company to pick them apart without long term experience of them.
they say they can tell between passive and actual smoking. Not sure it would work if you sat in a room fall of smoke though.
ah thats good then
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 24,290
That's why I agree with drug testing individuals applying for jobs where being affected in a very small way could endanger themselves and other people. Don't misunderstand me, I think it's a necessary evil produced by aspects of society today. It's drug testing people for 'regular' jobs I disagree with, and very strongly.
But you take a warehouse job, there's machines, forklifts etc. So the employee might want to drugs test all of you. It cant then turn around and say oh but we wont test the office staff.
Acid, I find that time period hard to believe. If I have a heavy session, I'm still feeling it in the morning. Maybe the traces are gone but the effects are still very much there. I'd even say I feel worse first thing at college after drinking then if I have a smoke.
I would continue to post but mohinder is saying pretty much what I think, just far better then I can
Oh right, I was under the impression you wasn't one to be siding with the long arm of the law
Smoking and drinking have long term effects. Are you saying those risks are acceptable where as the small chance of schizophrenia isn't? I agree with the last point though; it is what it ultimately comes down to.
I would continue to post but mohinder is saying pretty much what I think, just far better then I can
[TW]Fox;10527191 said:
Oh right, I was under the impression you wasn't one to be siding with the long arm of the law
Smoking and drinking have long term effects. Are you saying those risks are acceptable where as the small chance of schizophrenia isn't? I agree with the last point though; it is what it ultimately comes down to.
what time frame?