drug tests at work

[Angilion]

We have random drugs test were I work. Too dangerous to have someone on site that's high or drunk. Its in our contract and isn't an issue at all.

The problem I have with this sort of thing is simple: A positive result on a drugs test is not the same as being high or drunk.

I also have a problem with people treating alcohol as though it's not a drug, but that's a seperate issue.

Say I go to Amsterdam at the weekend and have some cannabis cookies on the Saturday afternoon.

Back to work on Monday and I fail a drugs test. I'm certainly not still high.

That policy as stated is fundamentally dishonest.

 

[Deadbeat]

Why should my life be put at risk because someone came into work high or drunk? Most drugs stay in the system for a few days at least.
You have also got to ask yourself depending on where you work, would you put your life in the hands of a drug user? I know I wouldn't want to work next to anyone that did anything like that.

Voice of the masses there, thanks for the input. Subjectively, I think you come off as hysterical and easily influenced by tabloid horror stories. You're making wild, unfounded claims linking drugs being in a person's system to a person's state of mind being altered by drugs, and you're basing it all on a pathetically misinformed opinion that illegal drugs are vehemently deadly and corrupting.

I'm sure you have no problem working next to someone who enjoys a drink on a Friday night, yet if they'd rather have a spliff, suddenly your life is in danger? Obviously after the initial, desirable effects of drugs have worn off there's a longer period of instability, the come-down or a more general fuzziness of thought, but why you think this effect is so much more severe than alcohol, I have no idea.

This, of course, is glossing over the wealth of prescription drugs people take on a routine basis - analgesics including opiates, antidepressants, antacids, antiemetics - all of which have rather severe effects on your mental state, some designed specificqally to do so, and all of which pale in comparison to the hormonal tides in a woman's body during her menstrual cycle and even in men's bodies if they spend a good portion of their time in the company of women.

Again, all subjective here, but your asinine acceptance of whatever you have been told is right or wrong makes you look a fool to anyone with a remotely open-ended approach to subjects about which they are ignorant.

 

[Energize]

Why should my life be put at risk because someone came into work high or drunk? Most drugs stay in the system for a few days at least.

The drugs remain bound to plasma proteins or in fatty tissues, they aren't in the brain exerting any effect on the person just because they are in their body.

You have also got to ask yourself depending on where you work, would you put your life in the hands of a drug user? I know I wouldn't want to work next to anyone that did anything like that.

Almost everyone uses the drugs alcohol or nicotine so it's very likely you do work next to a drug user and is another reason why random drugs tests are ridiculous.

 

[Guest2]

Why should my life be put at risk because someone came into work high or drunk? Most drugs stay in the system for a few days at least.
You have also got to ask yourself depending on where you work, would you put your life in the hands of a drug user? I know I wouldn't want to work next to anyone that did anything like that.

Cannabis stays in the body for about a week but you are not high for a week. It would be a lot more dangerous to work with someone who was hungover from alcohol than someone that had a joint a week ago.

On a site note, I would rather work with someone who was high on ecstasy that someone who was smashed on spirits.

 

[nin9abadga]

http://www.passyourdrugtest.com/timetable.htm interesting link, not sure how right it is.

 

[Chris_83]

Again, all subjective here, but your asinine acceptance of whatever you have been told is right or wrong makes you look a fool to anyone with a remotely open-ended approach to subjects about which they are ignorant.

Sorry, seems I'm blinded by the media and thus aren't allowed an opinion.

Again I'll state depends on the type of work. If you work in an office fair enough, if someone comes in hungover, high, or still has drugs in their system not much of a problem. From an employers point of view would you want your staff interacting with customers while suffering side effects of drugs? Question is would you want to be treated by a nurse / doctor, operated on by a surgeon that had been using drugs the night before? Would you trust the operator of heavy machinery with drugs in their system? How about the operator of an oil rig / chemical plant, hell even a nuclear power plant? What about a soldier? Aircrew? How about the pilot of the plane before you go an holiday?
There are some industries that should have enforced random drugs tests.

 

[Deadbeat]

Sorry, seems I'm blinded by the media and thus aren't allowed an opinion.

Again I'll state depends on the type of work. If you work in an office fair enough, if someone comes in hungover, high, or still has drugs in their system not much of a problem. From an employers point of view would you want your staff interacting with customers while suffering side effects of drugs? Question is would you want to be treated by a nurse / doctor, operated on by a surgeon that had been using drugs the night before? Would you trust the operator of heavy machinery with drugs in their system? How about the operator of an oil rig / chemical plant, hell even a nuclear power plant? What about a soldier? Aircrew? How about the pilot of the plane before you go an holiday?
There are some industries that should have enforced random drugs tests.

You still seem to be missing the point. If someone turned up to work high, or drunk, or had gotten high or drunk the night before, they would still be suffering the drug's effects. If someone had a spliff a week ago, or even two days ago, the effects of the drug would not be altering their state of mind, but the detectable remnants would still be in their system - therefore a random drugs test would legitimise their dismissal, even though their consumption of narcotics had been managed in such a way that it has no effect whatsoever on their working process. What if a random test on a Monday morning revealed that at some point over the previous weekend a person had consumed alcohol? Would you support their dismissal?

 

[Meridian]

Cannabis stays in the body for about a week

I believe it can be detected in the body for about thirty days. One of the ironies about random drug testing in prisons is that prisoners now prefer to take heroin because it flushed from the system much quicker and thus less likely to be detected (which leads to loss of privileges).


M

 

[Greebo]

30 days i was always told. My gf worked in a hospital in London many years ago. They did drug tests on every blodd sample from every patient (without their knowledge but person's name not recorded). The result was that a third of patients had used cannabis in the last 30 days.

That's one hell of a high ratio.

 

[bushmins]

Just spoke to my OH who is a nurse and advises cannabis from one smoking session (considering the user is initially clean) will take around 3-4 days to clear their system. For a habitual user you'd be looking at around 45 days before the drug is no longer detected using any medical tests.

Bingo! First correct answer.
For someone who smokes it a couple of times a year it only takes a few days to clear the system, but for long term users it can take over a month

BUT It will stay in your hair for a lot lot longer! And dont try to shave your head, they can take hair from anywhere. Not that companys will go that far.

 

[bushmins]

I've got nothing against people doing this stuff in their private life, as long as it doesn't effect others. But when you have to deal with people on drugs at work it drives the rest of us mad, and isn't ideal for a customer facing role!

Id laugh if you worked in a fast food resturant.

 

[Glaucus]

Say I go to Amsterdam at the weekend and have some cannabis cookies on the Saturday afternoon.

Back to work on Monday and I fail a drugs test. I'm certainly not still high.

That policy as stated is fundamentally dishonest.

Chances are it will still be affecting you to some degree and guess what alcholo is tested for as well and where I work is roughly 1/3rd the limit of drink driving.
You just don't take drugs legal or not. The fact you have taken it in Amsterdam makes no difference. Over the counter and prescription drugs are also included in the test and you can be sacked for that. If you are taking prescription or over the counter drugs you have to tell your manager. Who will print out a form from a medical website, which will include any restriction to duties. Be it you can't drive, be left on your own or possibly unsuitable to work. Even if it is not still affecting you, it has been affecting you at some point and you can not guarantee that, was not at work.

 

[Energize]

Again I'll state depends on the type of work. If you work in an office fair enough, if someone comes in hungover, high, or still has drugs in their system not much of a problem. From an employers point of view would you want your staff interacting with customers while suffering side effects of drugs? Question is would you want to be treated by a nurse / doctor, operated on by a surgeon that had been using drugs the night before? Would you trust the operator of heavy machinery with drugs in their system? How about the operator of an oil rig / chemical plant, hell even a nuclear power plant? What about a soldier? Aircrew? How about the pilot of the plane before you go an holiday?
There are some industries that should have enforced random drugs tests.

Would you feel comfortable if they had been drinking alcohol the day before?

Incidentally, military pilots and soldiers are sometimes given amphetamine because it improves performance.

Even if it is not still affecting you, it has been affecting you at some point and you can not guarantee that, was not at work.

Guilty until proven innocent, love it.

 

[alx]

You still seem to be missing the point. If someone turned up to work high, or drunk, or had gotten high or drunk the night before, they would still be suffering the drug's effects. If someone had a spliff a week ago, or even two days ago, the effects of the drug would not be altering their state of mind, but the detectable remnants would still be in their system - therefore a random drugs test would legitimise their dismissal, even though their consumption of narcotics had been managed in such a way that it has no effect whatsoever on their working process. What if a random test on a Monday morning revealed that at some point over the previous weekend a person had consumed alcohol? Would you support their dismissal?

But what's the other option? It seems you either have random drug tests which may catch people who still have drugs in their system but aren't under any influence or you don't have tests at all. For places of work where taking drugs or alcohol could endanger peoples lives I'd rather play it safe and have the random drugs tests.

 

[Deadbeat]

But what's the other option? It seems you either have random drug tests which may catch people who still have drugs in their system but aren't under any influence or you don't have tests at all. For places of work where taking drugs or alcohol could endanger peoples lives I'd rather play it safe and have the random drugs tests.

It's not as cut and dry as that. Surely you'd be better off assessing an employee's actual performance at work, and deciding from that whether they're a danger to their fellow employees? Just because forklift Johnny has a spliff after work on a Friday doesn't mean he's any more likely to cause an accident at any time during his 9 to 5, yet your drugs test would get him fired and make it hard for him to find another job. You'd have to get some seriously special weed for any effects to carry over from Friday night to Monday morning, and he's more likely to be a little off the ball first thing because he had half a glass of wine too much at his parent's Sunday roast.

I wouldn't condone for a second anybody putting another person at risk, worst of all their coworkers. A random drugs test is a terrible, terrible way to assess the danger of that, though.

 

[Energize]

It seems you either have random drug tests which may catch people who still have drugs in their system but aren't under any influence or you don't have tests at all. .

Or you test people who appear to be under the influence, which is obvious in many cases...

 

[Glaucus]

Or you test people who appear to be under the influence, which is obvious in many cases...

Why?

If you have drugs in your system you are under the influence. You can not prove you are not. Many drugs influence far after you think you are fine.

 

[w3bbo]

I work in a safety critical post. The company I work for has a zero policy of drink/drugs and can and do random drug tests. If any tests are failed then it will lead to instant dismissal. refusing to submit to a test will lead to the same.

AFAIK if it is in your contract of employment then you have no choice. Personally I think it is a good thing, especially if you work in a role that could affect the safety of others.

 

[Energize]

Why?

If you have drugs in your system you are under the influence.

Incorrect, only drugs bound to receptors in the CNS are exerting a psychoactive effect, not drugs bound to plasma proteins. Free drugs can even be present in the blood but not the CNS if they have a low lipid solubility or a charge due to the blood brain barrier.

 

[Glaucus]

Incorrect, only drugs bound to receptors in the CNS are exerting a psychoactive effect, not drugs bound to plasma proteins. Free drugs can even be present in the blood but not the CNS if they have a low lipid solubility or a charge due to the blood brain barrier.

The point is you can't prove you are not under the influence. Hence if it is your system you are classed as under the influence.