4 ms·
While I disagree with drug testing, there is a legitimate reason to do so: if an employee is consuming illegal drugs, that greatly increases the risk of said em
by rm_-rf_slash 11y ago
While I disagree with drug testing, there is a legitimate reason to do so: if an employee is consuming illegal drugs, that greatly increases the risk of said employee being caught with such drugs and being arrested and imprisoned. This means that at any time, an employee could be here one day and gone the next, which means that costly adjustments to overall workload must be made at the drop of a hat. Add in the possibility of multiple employees consuming illegal drugs together after hours and you run the risk of an entire team being the equivalent of hit by a bus.
Many recreational drugs aren't bad. Marijuana is not harmful, psychedelics are generally non-addictive, and nearly everybody who's not Mormon or Muslim drinks. The problem - and risk - for an employer, is illegality.
- guard-of-terra 11y agoYou also have the risk of your employees quitting over drug testing, including entire team at once. Naturally you should consider what you fear more. Especially in the world that rapidly progresses towards decriminalization of recreational drugs.
- cname 11y agoBetter test everyone for alcohol then, since drunk driving is more prevalent than illegal drug use.
- rm_-rf_slash 11y agoDrunk driving is a far cry from drug possession. For one thing, you can get drunk frequently, show up to work on time, and never touch the wheel of a car. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
- soylentcola 11y agoSure, but by that token, you can smoke cannabis nightly, show up for work on time, and never touch the wheel of a car either. You'd still fail the piss test. The other thing not touched on too much is how cannabis (despite being one of the least harmful recreational drugs/drugs of abuse, and most commonly used) is one that can be detected the longest. I can go out on a bender drinking liquor and blowing lines of coke this weekend, get called in for a drug test on Thursday, and still piss clean. ...but if I went camping a few weeks ago and spent my evenings passing joints around the fire with friends, I could easily throw a flag for cannabinoids on a urinalysis weeks later. It's really kinda messed up in that way because the logic of "well, what does it say about you that you couldn't lay off the stuff long enough to pass a drug test?" goes out the window with pot. If you like to take a few tokes in the evening after work, that can show up on a test weeks or months later, even if you quit while applying for jobs.
- pc86 11y agoI'm not going to pull it up on my work computer, but the Wikipedia "Cannabis drug testing" article states that for non-habitual users, THC only stays in your system for 3-10 days. Long-term, habitual use will obviously build up in your system and be detectable for much longer. So yes, I think "well, what does it say about you that you couldn't lay off the stuff long enough to pass a drug test?" is still relevant for non-habitual users, and habitual users are exactly the ones these types of policies are designed to detect.
- CaptSpify 11y agoand people can do the same thing with weed, or other drugs. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
- cname 11y agoIt seems that you've conflated "drunk" and "drunk driving". DUIs can be felonies, while drug possession is often only a misdemeanor. Also, killing or maiming someone (including yourself) can have a detrimental effect on a person's ability to work. My point is that drunk driving can lead to people missing work or being put in jail.