4 ms·

Disregarding the Drug Free Workplace act. Drug testing is a test for the risk tolerance of the employee. This forum may encourage a community of very risk tol

Disregarding the Drug Free Workplace act. Drug testing is a test for the risk tolerance of the employee. This forum may encourage a community of very risk tolerant people, which is evident from the other comments in the thread, but the level of risk tolerance that a person must have to actively use illegal drugs is a pretty strong statement of that persons risk decisions. Anyone's individual opinion on the legality of drugs is irrelevant in this situation, as the judgement call is based on the risk and reward decision regarding something that can cost someone that is caught and prosecuted thousands of dollars, jail time, and a record for something entertainment related. Obvious exceptions for this would be legalized states and medical use. So if you consider what jobs have high cost outcomes for risky behavior, it will probably align pretty closely with high drug test rates. Some of those would be food service, industrial, transportation, medical, and construction which makes up around 30% of the workforce, and the other 20% is probably covered by governments both state and federal along with their contractors.

brazzledazzle 11y ago
>Obvious exceptions for this would be legalized states and medical use. If we're talking about marijuana another exception is states where it's decriminalized. If you're passing on a fantastic candidate in California because they tested positive for marijuana you are arguably insane. Possession of marijuana under an ounce is a violation (ticket) that doesn't require a court appearance or a criminal record (similar to a traffic violation).
- spinlock 11y ago
  I don't think that's how it works. Companies with drug testing policies are usually multi-state and they won't have a separate policy for NY and CA.
  - ConroyBumpus 11y ago
    Actually, they do. I have seen organizations with separate HR policies, by state, to comply with the variances unique to each state (which is why employees in one state were subject to random testing, and the other only "for cause".)
  - brazzledazzle 11y ago
    As ConroyBumpus pointed out it's not unusual for companies to have per-state policies. That said, the differences are usually motivated by compliance with the law rather than serving the business and its goals.
djcapelis 11y ago
I think you should consider the very real possibility that your calculation of risk is just outright incorrect. You say this is about risk tolerance, but in reality, it is much more likely about whether or not someone calculates personal risk based on reality instead of based on what is and isn't legal. I sure know which type of people I'd prefer to work with. By the way, the most common drug addiction with daily users in the United States? Caffeine. Are coffee drinkers showing poor risk management and a high risk tolerance that means it would be a bad idea to employ them?

brazzledazzle 11y ago

>Obvious exceptions for this would be legalized states and medical use. If we're talking about marijuana another exception is states where it's decriminalized. If you're passing on a fantastic candidate in California because they tested positive for marijuana you are arguably insane. Possession of marijuana under an ounce is a violation (ticket) that doesn't require a court appearance or a criminal record (similar to a traffic violation).

spinlock 11y ago
I don't think that's how it works. Companies with drug testing policies are usually multi-state and they won't have a separate policy for NY and CA.
- ConroyBumpus 11y ago
  Actually, they do. I have seen organizations with separate HR policies, by state, to comply with the variances unique to each state (which is why employees in one state were subject to random testing, and the other only "for cause".)
- brazzledazzle 11y ago
  As ConroyBumpus pointed out it's not unusual for companies to have per-state policies. That said, the differences are usually motivated by compliance with the law rather than serving the business and its goals.

djcapelis 11y ago

I think you should consider the very real possibility that your calculation of risk is just outright incorrect. You say this is about risk tolerance, but in reality, it is much more likely about whether or not someone calculates personal risk based on reality instead of based on what is and isn't legal. I sure know which type of people I'd prefer to work with. By the way, the most common drug addiction with daily users in the United States? Caffeine. Are coffee drinkers showing poor risk management and a high risk tolerance that means it would be a bad idea to employ them?