10 ms·

Marijuana testing of job applicants is barred by NYC

136 points by daegloe 8y ago

loteck 8y ago
Should cannabis use should be treated any differently by societies or governments than alcohol use? I'm struggling to come up with any exceptions.
- spaceheretostay 8y ago
  Given that cannabis is far less dangerous than alcohol, both to the person having cannabis and to those nearby them, I think it should be treated very differently indeed! Alcohol use is responsible for like 90,000 deaths per year in the USA and cannabis close to 0 (there may be some related car accidents, I don't know, but no direct deaths and far fewer related ones). Cannabis should be far more acceptable to use in modern society than alcohol. Persons having cannabis are much less likely to cause violence than those with alcohol, and are much more likely to think calmly about ways to improve the world. I can think of 1000s more reasons why cannabis should be treated differently than alcohol by our governments and societies!
- lainga 8y ago
  It has secondhand smoke problems (like tobacco) which alcohol does not
  - codezero 8y ago
    THC has many more delivery methods than smoking leaf. Edibles. Tinctures. Vapes. Salves. Your argument isn’t very informed.
    - thecatspaw 8y ago
      A vape still produces vapor though which can be absorbed by strangers. Also smoking leaf is the most common method by far
      - saiya-jin 8y ago
        Only because thats usually how you end up with it in countries where its illegal. Common Joe doesn't have the skills and equipment to turn it to something non-harmful for consumption. I am amazed how quickly in US the oil vaping industry had developed, and how good the products are compared to old school consumption. Compared to Netherland where this is cca legal for many years, and you can still only buy plants or cakes (which isn't ideal for quite a few reasons, ie hard to get right dosage first time). In fact, oil vaping cartridges are illegal there (no sense whatsoever, you can buy hashish which can be very potent). I can guarantee you, tons of people who don't smoke cigarettes vastly prefer consumption with 0 carcinogens from burning the plant.
      - wolco 8y ago
        I haven't read any studies in this. Vapor absorbed by strangers must be extremely low or this would be a bigger issue.
    - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
      >THC has many more delivery methods than smoking leaf. So does nicotine. That doesn't change the fact that most people smoke it making second hand smoke an issue.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - mises 8y ago
    Thank you for pointing this out. We decided years ago that people shouldn't be involuntarily exposed to smoke, which is carcinogenic and psychoactive. People were fine with it for tobacco, because smoking isn't really "cool" any more. Now all the young, "cool" people want different rules so they can smoke whenever and wherever they want to.
- anonytrary 8y ago
  It should definitely be treated as more benign than alcohol. Cannabis not only doesn't impair you as much as alcohol (e.g. balance and coordination), it's also much safer. The LD50 for alcohol is of the same order of magnitude as the amount you need to get blackout drunk. The LD50 for cannabis is orders of magnitude higher than the amount it takes to put you to bed. The exception here is probably with edibles. It would be far easier to OD on marijuana by ingesting concentrated edibles than it would be to OD on alcohol by ingesting shots. The irony is that edibles are probably a safer way to ingest cannabis (e.g. compared to smoking the flowers) assuming you take a normal dose.
  - dzhiurgis 8y ago
    It really depends, but I feel less able to focus mentally with ANY weedover than DECENT hangover. Can feel effects even 2 days after smoking, not that they matter much more developing. Gathering client requirements day after smoking is near impossible. Not even sure why lethal dose matters here. Did you mean half life? Edit: cannabis half life is anywhere from 1 to 10 days. Considering caffeine's 5-6 hours and fact people usually stay away from coffee after 3PM - it's very realistic to feel cannabis for days after use.
    - AstralStorm 8y ago
      This is your problem when you cannot use it responsibly. (E.g. dosage, some people are sensitive.) The employer can always just fire you for being unable to perform job duties regardless of cannabis laws, if it is a repeat incident. They cannot just use cannabis use alone or drug test results to make an argument. Interestingly enough, mildly drunk or hangover professional drivers routinely cause accidents which even sometimes kill people.
    - anonytrary 8y ago
      The LD50 is pretty important if we're evaluating the safety of the drug, especially if it's easy to ingest that amount. > cannabis half life is anywhere from 1 to 10 days. Considering caffeine's 5-6 hours and fact people usually stay away from coffee after 3PM - it's very realistic to feel cannabis for days after use. The duration of psycho-effects is not the same thing as the half-life. The half-life of cannabinoids is not too important, as the compounds are absorbed by fatty acids and released slowly over time into the body. The actual high for a typical dose lasts a few hours; you might feel groggy for about a day, maybe two if you're an infrequent user. As for your personal experience, I know people who can function normally in conversation on weed. Personally, I can't, but other things like driving and coordination tasks are no problem for me.
- briandear 8y ago
  I suppose the differences in psychoactivity might be relevant. Alcohol has generally a predictable intoxication curve while as marijuana can have quite variable effects at a given dosage. Basically, I might argue that marijuana’s “safe” dose is harder to quantify. However, that being said, they should perhaps be treated equally and certainly ought to be a no factor when it comes to employment screening for non safety sensitive positions.
- leggomylibro 8y ago
  I think the main difference is in testing; alcohol disappears in days, cannabis in weeks-months. If your question is, "can we trust Z to show up 20 days a month", an alcohol test might not be a bad one. If your candidate can't be sober for a pre-defined period of a few days, that might merit following up on. But let's be honest, the laws requiring these tests are usually pork-barrel horseshit anyways.
  - xorfish 8y ago
    Alcohol can be detected in hair for up to 90 days.
- ovi256 8y ago
  If alcohol was invented today, it wouldn't be approved for sale, as it's a Group 1 carcinogen.
- rjf72 8y ago
  Your comment is ambiguous here, but this ban is giving marijuana special treatment. It's completely legal to test your employees for e.g. alcohol use and refuse to hire them if they do use it. By taking away the ability to even test for marijuana, it gives marijuana use a special status.
  - locklock 8y ago
    There's a difference between these tests (has this person smoked weed at any point in the last month, roughly?) and breathalyzer tests (is this person currently drunk?) Showing up to work drunk vs. showing up to work two weeks after smoking weed are relatively different scenarios, to say the least.
    - rjf72 8y ago
      Hair tests for alcohol indicates average consumption over a period of months. It can also be detected using blood/urine tests over shorter periods of time, but similarly testing for usage rather than 'are you drunk right now' which hardly needs a test.
- asdff 8y ago
  The impairment is really just acting goofy more than anything, and if you are conscious of that fact you can put on sunglasses and non one would be any the wiser, as no random person will know how goofy you normally act. I'm not convinced it really affects reaction time significantly, based on my anectdata from gaming, playing sports, and going for runs.
briandear 8y ago
This is sensible. As long as the safety sensitive professions are exempt from the ban (as they are in this proposal,) this is good policy.
- flukus 8y ago
  The problem is differentiating current intoxication/high, which is obviously bad in most jobs from someone who had a joint Saturday night two weeks ago, which has no impact on there work.
  - culturestate 8y ago
    There are some situations where even being high at work isn’t really a problem, as long as you aren’t too high. Almost every retail job on earth, for example. I wouldn’t care if my cashier was high as long as they can function.
    - asdff 8y ago
      I've gotten some great, productive work done while pretty up there. For me, it removes inertia and I just get straight into my work and stay in it until I've gotten enough done for the day. It was my secret weapon during finals week when I had to crank out term papers for classes I wasn't especially interested in.
- baroffoos 8y ago
  Operating machinery should probably be tested but if you are working an office job I don't see why it matters. If someone is impaired enough that it matters you will see it without a test.
- petre 8y ago
  It doesn't matter if your sensitive professional was intoxicated more than a day ago in his/her free time and is perfectly apt to operate machinery during work hours.
blackflame7000 8y ago
The drug test is pretty flawed since the fat solubility of THC metabolites makes it stay in your body exponentially longer than harder drugs. Not sure why downvotes, its a fact google it.
- maze-le 8y ago
  I don't know about THC, but I've been tested positively for Amphetamine before and didn't take it or any medication that is a structural derivate of it. This is a problem that is not very well known, even doctors rarely know how unreliable drug tests can be. Amphetamine-derivates for example have one of the highest percentage of false positives: ~15% -- a lot of molecules in your body have a structural similiarity with the metabolites of the substance. If you are ever tested positively for an Amphetamine-like substance, and you know you didn't take it -- you should insist on a second test right there on the spot.
  - Fezzik 8y ago
    There are many types of drug tests. Rapid tests are not super reliable. Lab tests are. We call expert witnesses that do lab tests of urine samples as witnesses all the time... over a multi-decade career, one of our main lab supervisors has overseen the testing of 2 million+ UAs, and they have had one proven error that was due to faulty calibration of an instrument. I would love to see contrary evidence.
    - blackflame7000 8y ago
      The problem is that you’re disqualifying people from jobs for the equivalent of being drunk up to 3 months ago, which is ridiculous. The other drugs that are tested had to have been consumed within the week, because their half-lives are much shorter.
      - Fezzik 8y ago
        I am definitely not contesting that the drug/work policy in the US is heinous - I fully agree. As long as a person is safely doing their job they should be free to recreate however they see fit. I just think urine analysis lab testing is far more accurate than many people believe it is. I have never even seen a rapid test be wrong once it was sent to a lab, and I have probably seen 200+ such confirmations.
Abishek_Muthian 8y ago
Few days back a lady reported on reddit that she stored clear pee in an off brand 5 hour energy bottle and put it her vagina before interview for maintaining temperature[1]. It apparently got struck and medical intervention was needed. I guess she must have got the idea from people who have been successful earlier with such attempts, so perhaps the test security at jobs aren't fool-proof. [1]:https://www.reddit.com/r/tifu/comments/bbbzpt/tifu_by_putting_a_5_hour_energy_in_my_vagina/ https://www.reddit.com/r/tifu/comments/bbbzpt/tifu_by_puttin...
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  Piss tests for women are utterly demeaning. In a perfect world we'd throw all the people involved in prison.
  - jack_pp 8y ago
    Are you implying it's less demeaning when it happens to men? If so, what's your reasoning?
    - PlasticTank 8y ago
      If I had to take a guess I'd say they have harder time aiming, relatively easy for a male to piss into a small pot, a woman is probably going to end up pissing all over her hand. Fun.
      - cimmanom 8y ago
        That’s not actually how it works. It’s perfectly possible for a woman to pee into those little cups without making a mess (I’m a woman and I’ve done it plenty of times at the doctors office). Speaking of which, peeing into a cup for true medical purposes is not more demeaning to women than to men (except when doctors won’t believe you when you assure them that it would be a medical miracle for you to be pregnant, and they make you take a pregnancy test anyway, wtf). Drug tests are demeaning, period, but gender has nothing to do with it. For those who aren’t too squeamish: the female urethra does not spray like a shower head just because it’s recessed. It runs like a faucet. We may not be able to easily control the direction of the flow, but it’s easy enough to locate the opening and determine the direction by peeing a bit and stopping, and then place the cup to catch the flow.
perfunctory 8y ago
"I believe private businesses should have the power to determine their own hiring practices" In that case I want to have the power to determine my own job acceptance practices. I want my hiring manager to take a drug test too. After all, I don't wanna end up working for a drug edict. The asymmetry of employer/employee relationship is just astonishing.
- dymk 8y ago
  That's not really asymmetrical, in the same way that e.g. wage information is. You can refuse to take their test (and not be hired) the same way they can refuse to take your test (and you refuse to work for them). That being said, I believe that weed usage not being comparable to alcohol usage outside of the workplace doesn't make sense. I think it only makes sense to test for harder drugs e.g. opiates and amphetamines.
  - perfunctory 8y ago
    > You can refuse to take their test (and not be hired) In idealistic world where everybody has the same leverage - perhaps. In real world refusing a job is a luxury most cannot afford. It is asymmetric precisely because negotiation positions are widely unequal.
    - rjf72 8y ago
      The current unemployment rate is < 4%. We're nearing never before seen lows. And that record was set in 1950, when the total labor force (as a percent of the population) was much smaller since women generally did not need to work. You're talking like being offered a job is some unique luxury. Maybe for extremely desirable jobs, but if a job is extremely desirable you generally just precluded the possibility of the employer being some dysfunctional drug addict - which makes your argument a nonstarter. So many companies in so many industries are just starving for good employees.
      - svantana 8y ago
        I dunno, I think you're more likely to find drug addict "employers" in some of the most sought-after businesses -- movies, music, fashion, sports -- compared to normal, boring jobs...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
thr0waway19233 8y ago
I'm one of tech leads for a company that doesn't really deal with anything that sensitive but routinely drug tests, I'm convinced it's just a way to get rid of employees they don't want. I have failed the drug tests 5 out of 5 times with substances significantly more frowned upon than cannabis and have yet to receive anything more than a chuckle when being handed the results while at the same time I've seen multiple others fired on their first offence. Go figure.
- zulln 8y ago
  Have you been offered any help based on the results? Not saying that you are in need of it, but if you fail drug tests for work it seems reasonable enough to suspect abuse/addiction.
  - thr0waway19233 8y ago
    No, I believe they don't want to be seen to be acknowledging the clear difference in treatment. And there is little doubt I am an addict, I'm just able to keep it under control to where it doesn't affect my work or relationships.
    - cryptnotic 8y ago
      That’s amazing. What’s your secret to keeping it under control?
      - thr0waway19233 8y ago
        By being very strict with myself, I set rules on the times and doses that I'm allowed to take and never break them.
- marvin 8y ago
  Huh. That’s a disturbing example of selective enforcement, seemingly by design. Another good reason to legalize some drugs, IMHO.
- 8y ago
dalbasal 8y ago
Is there any general legislation relating to arbitrary restriction/intrusion/inquisitiveness of people's personal life? For a random example, can employees be required to share their workout schedule, or fitbit data? Is drug testing specifically legal?
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  You can reduce the employer paid portion of health insurance premiums and then have the health insurance company reimburse the employees that share their health data, and then the employer reimburse the health insurance company for these rebates. In my experience, you already get $20 to $40 per month for going to the gym a certain number of times or doing a certain number of steps per month.
  - dalbasal 8y ago
    That would be a workaround though, no? Ie, you're sharing this with an insurance company, not an employer. What law(s) would this workaround be working around? Ie, would it be illegal to make sharing this data (regardless of insurance) a condition of employment. I don't mean specific that are covered by other laws (discrimination, medical privacy), just an arbitrary thing an employer might want to know/control about an employee's personal life.
    - lotsofpulp 8y ago
      Presumably, employers aren’t experts at knowing what results in lower healthcare costs, plus it would avoid health data from being shared with another entity unnecessarily. It would also be better PR since health insurance needs your health data anyway, so nothing is changing other than people paying less for being healthier.
- xorfish 8y ago
  It seems it is legal in the US. Most of the developed world forbids them. In Switzerland there are some exceptions for people who may operate trains or buses, but even then, the test has to be performed by a doctor and the employer only gets told if the employee is able to perform the task or not.
dev_north_east 8y ago
Is drug testing common in the US? Here in the UK, outside of certain fields, I've never heard of it and would laugh if I were asked to.
- benwad 8y ago
  It's never happened to me (I'm in the UK) but I know people who have worked on big public-sector projects where they require that everyone working on it is subject to random drug tests. Network Rail was one example.
- danaliv 8y ago
  Depends on the industry and the class of job. In software and white collar work in general it’s almost unheard of. Go farther down the class scale and it becomes very common.
  - anonu 8y ago
    In every bank job I started in NYC I had to take a drug test before I started. Anecdotal... But white collar jobs still do it. I'm also pretty sure most government jobs require it periodically.
    - koolba 8y ago
      I’ve never heard of a finance industry job that required repeated drug testing. Only at first hire time. That also makes it kind of obvious that someone is getting ready to jump ship if they stop smoking marijuana for a couple weeks.
  - numbsafari 8y ago
    If your job requires a security clearance... random testing is a real thing. Same with the medical industry. If you work in a safety critical, or security critical role, then there is randomized testing as well as pre-employment testing. This can be especially frustrating if you work as a contractor in those industries...
  - sametmax 8y ago
syntaxing 8y ago
I'm kind of curious, is it common for software engineers in the East coast get drug tested? I'm a MechE and I almost always get tested.
- dsfyu404ed 8y ago
  Depends on the industry. There's a lot more software jobs in non-software industries (defense, finance, etc) on the east coast so the proportion of developers tested is going to be higher.
- MiddleEndian 8y ago
  I am a software engineer Massachusetts and I was tested when I interned at Intel in Hudson, MA, perhaps because I would be going to their factory on occasion. Never anywhere else, including at a defense company. As an intern I wasn't really in a place to turn down a test, but letting a company examine my bodily fluids is pretty insane.
stevespang 8y ago
Is that a huge sucking sound of businesses leaving New York ?
Simulacra 8y ago
This sounds like both a good and a bad thing. Of course if you’re going to be operating heavy machinery, or something where lives are at risk, you should not be on any drugs. But if you’re sitting as an office worker, or cashier at Diane Reed, I think drug testing is a waste of time
LionBlack8 8y ago
According to this article https://www.ncsm.nl/english/health/pass-urine-drug-test https://www.ncsm.nl/english/health/pass-urine-drug-test , marijuana can be detected in your urine usually for 30-45 days. To speed up one's detoxing process, one should drink a lot of green tea and just be active.

136 points by daegloe 8y ago

Should cannabis use should be treated any differently by societies or governments than alcohol use? I'm struggling to come up with any exceptions.

spaceheretostay 8y ago
Given that cannabis is far less dangerous than alcohol, both to the person having cannabis and to those nearby them, I think it should be treated very differently indeed! Alcohol use is responsible for like 90,000 deaths per year in the USA and cannabis close to 0 (there may be some related car accidents, I don't know, but no direct deaths and far fewer related ones). Cannabis should be far more acceptable to use in modern society than alcohol. Persons having cannabis are much less likely to cause violence than those with alcohol, and are much more likely to think calmly about ways to improve the world. I can think of 1000s more reasons why cannabis should be treated differently than alcohol by our governments and societies!
lainga 8y ago
It has secondhand smoke problems (like tobacco) which alcohol does not
- codezero 8y ago
  THC has many more delivery methods than smoking leaf. Edibles. Tinctures. Vapes. Salves. Your argument isn’t very informed.
  - thecatspaw 8y ago
    A vape still produces vapor though which can be absorbed by strangers. Also smoking leaf is the most common method by far
    - saiya-jin 8y ago
      Only because thats usually how you end up with it in countries where its illegal. Common Joe doesn't have the skills and equipment to turn it to something non-harmful for consumption. I am amazed how quickly in US the oil vaping industry had developed, and how good the products are compared to old school consumption. Compared to Netherland where this is cca legal for many years, and you can still only buy plants or cakes (which isn't ideal for quite a few reasons, ie hard to get right dosage first time). In fact, oil vaping cartridges are illegal there (no sense whatsoever, you can buy hashish which can be very potent). I can guarantee you, tons of people who don't smoke cigarettes vastly prefer consumption with 0 carcinogens from burning the plant.
    - wolco 8y ago
      I haven't read any studies in this. Vapor absorbed by strangers must be extremely low or this would be a bigger issue.
  - dsfyu404ed 8y ago
    >THC has many more delivery methods than smoking leaf. So does nicotine. That doesn't change the fact that most people smoke it making second hand smoke an issue.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- mises 8y ago
  Thank you for pointing this out. We decided years ago that people shouldn't be involuntarily exposed to smoke, which is carcinogenic and psychoactive. People were fine with it for tobacco, because smoking isn't really "cool" any more. Now all the young, "cool" people want different rules so they can smoke whenever and wherever they want to.
anonytrary 8y ago
It should definitely be treated as more benign than alcohol. Cannabis not only doesn't impair you as much as alcohol (e.g. balance and coordination), it's also much safer. The LD50 for alcohol is of the same order of magnitude as the amount you need to get blackout drunk. The LD50 for cannabis is orders of magnitude higher than the amount it takes to put you to bed. The exception here is probably with edibles. It would be far easier to OD on marijuana by ingesting concentrated edibles than it would be to OD on alcohol by ingesting shots. The irony is that edibles are probably a safer way to ingest cannabis (e.g. compared to smoking the flowers) assuming you take a normal dose.
- dzhiurgis 8y ago
  It really depends, but I feel less able to focus mentally with ANY weedover than DECENT hangover. Can feel effects even 2 days after smoking, not that they matter much more developing. Gathering client requirements day after smoking is near impossible. Not even sure why lethal dose matters here. Did you mean half life? Edit: cannabis half life is anywhere from 1 to 10 days. Considering caffeine's 5-6 hours and fact people usually stay away from coffee after 3PM - it's very realistic to feel cannabis for days after use.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    This is your problem when you cannot use it responsibly. (E.g. dosage, some people are sensitive.) The employer can always just fire you for being unable to perform job duties regardless of cannabis laws, if it is a repeat incident. They cannot just use cannabis use alone or drug test results to make an argument. Interestingly enough, mildly drunk or hangover professional drivers routinely cause accidents which even sometimes kill people.
  - anonytrary 8y ago
    The LD50 is pretty important if we're evaluating the safety of the drug, especially if it's easy to ingest that amount. > cannabis half life is anywhere from 1 to 10 days. Considering caffeine's 5-6 hours and fact people usually stay away from coffee after 3PM - it's very realistic to feel cannabis for days after use. The duration of psycho-effects is not the same thing as the half-life. The half-life of cannabinoids is not too important, as the compounds are absorbed by fatty acids and released slowly over time into the body. The actual high for a typical dose lasts a few hours; you might feel groggy for about a day, maybe two if you're an infrequent user. As for your personal experience, I know people who can function normally in conversation on weed. Personally, I can't, but other things like driving and coordination tasks are no problem for me.
briandear 8y ago
I suppose the differences in psychoactivity might be relevant. Alcohol has generally a predictable intoxication curve while as marijuana can have quite variable effects at a given dosage. Basically, I might argue that marijuana’s “safe” dose is harder to quantify. However, that being said, they should perhaps be treated equally and certainly ought to be a no factor when it comes to employment screening for non safety sensitive positions.
leggomylibro 8y ago
I think the main difference is in testing; alcohol disappears in days, cannabis in weeks-months. If your question is, "can we trust Z to show up 20 days a month", an alcohol test might not be a bad one. If your candidate can't be sober for a pre-defined period of a few days, that might merit following up on. But let's be honest, the laws requiring these tests are usually pork-barrel horseshit anyways.
- xorfish 8y ago
  Alcohol can be detected in hair for up to 90 days.
ovi256 8y ago
If alcohol was invented today, it wouldn't be approved for sale, as it's a Group 1 carcinogen.
rjf72 8y ago
Your comment is ambiguous here, but this ban is giving marijuana special treatment. It's completely legal to test your employees for e.g. alcohol use and refuse to hire them if they do use it. By taking away the ability to even test for marijuana, it gives marijuana use a special status.
- locklock 8y ago
  There's a difference between these tests (has this person smoked weed at any point in the last month, roughly?) and breathalyzer tests (is this person currently drunk?) Showing up to work drunk vs. showing up to work two weeks after smoking weed are relatively different scenarios, to say the least.
  - rjf72 8y ago
    Hair tests for alcohol indicates average consumption over a period of months. It can also be detected using blood/urine tests over shorter periods of time, but similarly testing for usage rather than 'are you drunk right now' which hardly needs a test.
asdff 8y ago
The impairment is really just acting goofy more than anything, and if you are conscious of that fact you can put on sunglasses and non one would be any the wiser, as no random person will know how goofy you normally act. I'm not convinced it really affects reaction time significantly, based on my anectdata from gaming, playing sports, and going for runs.

briandear 8y ago

This is sensible. As long as the safety sensitive professions are exempt from the ban (as they are in this proposal,) this is good policy.

flukus 8y ago
The problem is differentiating current intoxication/high, which is obviously bad in most jobs from someone who had a joint Saturday night two weeks ago, which has no impact on there work.
- culturestate 8y ago
  There are some situations where even being high at work isn’t really a problem, as long as you aren’t too high. Almost every retail job on earth, for example. I wouldn’t care if my cashier was high as long as they can function.
  - asdff 8y ago
    I've gotten some great, productive work done while pretty up there. For me, it removes inertia and I just get straight into my work and stay in it until I've gotten enough done for the day. It was my secret weapon during finals week when I had to crank out term papers for classes I wasn't especially interested in.
baroffoos 8y ago
Operating machinery should probably be tested but if you are working an office job I don't see why it matters. If someone is impaired enough that it matters you will see it without a test.
petre 8y ago
It doesn't matter if your sensitive professional was intoxicated more than a day ago in his/her free time and is perfectly apt to operate machinery during work hours.

blackflame7000 8y ago

The drug test is pretty flawed since the fat solubility of THC metabolites makes it stay in your body exponentially longer than harder drugs. Not sure why downvotes, its a fact google it.

maze-le 8y ago
I don't know about THC, but I've been tested positively for Amphetamine before and didn't take it or any medication that is a structural derivate of it. This is a problem that is not very well known, even doctors rarely know how unreliable drug tests can be. Amphetamine-derivates for example have one of the highest percentage of false positives: ~15% -- a lot of molecules in your body have a structural similiarity with the metabolites of the substance. If you are ever tested positively for an Amphetamine-like substance, and you know you didn't take it -- you should insist on a second test right there on the spot.
- Fezzik 8y ago
  There are many types of drug tests. Rapid tests are not super reliable. Lab tests are. We call expert witnesses that do lab tests of urine samples as witnesses all the time... over a multi-decade career, one of our main lab supervisors has overseen the testing of 2 million+ UAs, and they have had one proven error that was due to faulty calibration of an instrument. I would love to see contrary evidence.
  - blackflame7000 8y ago
    The problem is that you’re disqualifying people from jobs for the equivalent of being drunk up to 3 months ago, which is ridiculous. The other drugs that are tested had to have been consumed within the week, because their half-lives are much shorter.
    - Fezzik 8y ago
      I am definitely not contesting that the drug/work policy in the US is heinous - I fully agree. As long as a person is safely doing their job they should be free to recreate however they see fit. I just think urine analysis lab testing is far more accurate than many people believe it is. I have never even seen a rapid test be wrong once it was sent to a lab, and I have probably seen 200+ such confirmations.

Abishek_Muthian 8y ago

Few days back a lady reported on reddit that she stored clear pee in an off brand 5 hour energy bottle and put it her vagina before interview for maintaining temperature[1]. It apparently got struck and medical intervention was needed. I guess she must have got the idea from people who have been successful earlier with such attempts, so perhaps the test security at jobs aren't fool-proof. [1]:https://www.reddit.com/r/tifu/comments/bbbzpt/tifu_by_putting_a_5_hour_energy_in_my_vagina/ https://www.reddit.com/r/tifu/comments/bbbzpt/tifu_by_puttin...

Gibbon1 8y ago
Piss tests for women are utterly demeaning. In a perfect world we'd throw all the people involved in prison.
- jack_pp 8y ago
  Are you implying it's less demeaning when it happens to men? If so, what's your reasoning?
  - PlasticTank 8y ago
    If I had to take a guess I'd say they have harder time aiming, relatively easy for a male to piss into a small pot, a woman is probably going to end up pissing all over her hand. Fun.
    - cimmanom 8y ago
      That’s not actually how it works. It’s perfectly possible for a woman to pee into those little cups without making a mess (I’m a woman and I’ve done it plenty of times at the doctors office). Speaking of which, peeing into a cup for true medical purposes is not more demeaning to women than to men (except when doctors won’t believe you when you assure them that it would be a medical miracle for you to be pregnant, and they make you take a pregnancy test anyway, wtf). Drug tests are demeaning, period, but gender has nothing to do with it. For those who aren’t too squeamish: the female urethra does not spray like a shower head just because it’s recessed. It runs like a faucet. We may not be able to easily control the direction of the flow, but it’s easy enough to locate the opening and determine the direction by peeing a bit and stopping, and then place the cup to catch the flow.

perfunctory 8y ago

"I believe private businesses should have the power to determine their own hiring practices" In that case I want to have the power to determine my own job acceptance practices. I want my hiring manager to take a drug test too. After all, I don't wanna end up working for a drug edict. The asymmetry of employer/employee relationship is just astonishing.

dymk 8y ago
That's not really asymmetrical, in the same way that e.g. wage information is. You can refuse to take their test (and not be hired) the same way they can refuse to take your test (and you refuse to work for them). That being said, I believe that weed usage not being comparable to alcohol usage outside of the workplace doesn't make sense. I think it only makes sense to test for harder drugs e.g. opiates and amphetamines.
- perfunctory 8y ago
  > You can refuse to take their test (and not be hired) In idealistic world where everybody has the same leverage - perhaps. In real world refusing a job is a luxury most cannot afford. It is asymmetric precisely because negotiation positions are widely unequal.
  - rjf72 8y ago
    The current unemployment rate is < 4%. We're nearing never before seen lows. And that record was set in 1950, when the total labor force (as a percent of the population) was much smaller since women generally did not need to work. You're talking like being offered a job is some unique luxury. Maybe for extremely desirable jobs, but if a job is extremely desirable you generally just precluded the possibility of the employer being some dysfunctional drug addict - which makes your argument a nonstarter. So many companies in so many industries are just starving for good employees.
    - svantana 8y ago
      I dunno, I think you're more likely to find drug addict "employers" in some of the most sought-after businesses -- movies, music, fashion, sports -- compared to normal, boring jobs...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

thr0waway19233 8y ago

I'm one of tech leads for a company that doesn't really deal with anything that sensitive but routinely drug tests, I'm convinced it's just a way to get rid of employees they don't want. I have failed the drug tests 5 out of 5 times with substances significantly more frowned upon than cannabis and have yet to receive anything more than a chuckle when being handed the results while at the same time I've seen multiple others fired on their first offence. Go figure.

zulln 8y ago
Have you been offered any help based on the results? Not saying that you are in need of it, but if you fail drug tests for work it seems reasonable enough to suspect abuse/addiction.
- thr0waway19233 8y ago
  No, I believe they don't want to be seen to be acknowledging the clear difference in treatment. And there is little doubt I am an addict, I'm just able to keep it under control to where it doesn't affect my work or relationships.
  - cryptnotic 8y ago
    That’s amazing. What’s your secret to keeping it under control?
    - thr0waway19233 8y ago
      By being very strict with myself, I set rules on the times and doses that I'm allowed to take and never break them.
marvin 8y ago
Huh. That’s a disturbing example of selective enforcement, seemingly by design. Another good reason to legalize some drugs, IMHO.
8y ago

dalbasal 8y ago

Is there any general legislation relating to arbitrary restriction/intrusion/inquisitiveness of people's personal life? For a random example, can employees be required to share their workout schedule, or fitbit data? Is drug testing specifically legal?

lotsofpulp 8y ago
You can reduce the employer paid portion of health insurance premiums and then have the health insurance company reimburse the employees that share their health data, and then the employer reimburse the health insurance company for these rebates. In my experience, you already get $20 to $40 per month for going to the gym a certain number of times or doing a certain number of steps per month.
- dalbasal 8y ago
  That would be a workaround though, no? Ie, you're sharing this with an insurance company, not an employer. What law(s) would this workaround be working around? Ie, would it be illegal to make sharing this data (regardless of insurance) a condition of employment. I don't mean specific that are covered by other laws (discrimination, medical privacy), just an arbitrary thing an employer might want to know/control about an employee's personal life.
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    Presumably, employers aren’t experts at knowing what results in lower healthcare costs, plus it would avoid health data from being shared with another entity unnecessarily. It would also be better PR since health insurance needs your health data anyway, so nothing is changing other than people paying less for being healthier.
xorfish 8y ago
It seems it is legal in the US. Most of the developed world forbids them. In Switzerland there are some exceptions for people who may operate trains or buses, but even then, the test has to be performed by a doctor and the employer only gets told if the employee is able to perform the task or not.

dev_north_east 8y ago

Is drug testing common in the US? Here in the UK, outside of certain fields, I've never heard of it and would laugh if I were asked to.

benwad 8y ago
It's never happened to me (I'm in the UK) but I know people who have worked on big public-sector projects where they require that everyone working on it is subject to random drug tests. Network Rail was one example.
danaliv 8y ago
Depends on the industry and the class of job. In software and white collar work in general it’s almost unheard of. Go farther down the class scale and it becomes very common.
- anonu 8y ago
  In every bank job I started in NYC I had to take a drug test before I started. Anecdotal... But white collar jobs still do it. I'm also pretty sure most government jobs require it periodically.
  - koolba 8y ago
    I’ve never heard of a finance industry job that required repeated drug testing. Only at first hire time. That also makes it kind of obvious that someone is getting ready to jump ship if they stop smoking marijuana for a couple weeks.
- numbsafari 8y ago
  If your job requires a security clearance... random testing is a real thing. Same with the medical industry. If you work in a safety critical, or security critical role, then there is randomized testing as well as pre-employment testing. This can be especially frustrating if you work as a contractor in those industries...
- sametmax 8y ago

syntaxing 8y ago

I'm kind of curious, is it common for software engineers in the East coast get drug tested? I'm a MechE and I almost always get tested.

dsfyu404ed 8y ago
Depends on the industry. There's a lot more software jobs in non-software industries (defense, finance, etc) on the east coast so the proportion of developers tested is going to be higher.
MiddleEndian 8y ago
I am a software engineer Massachusetts and I was tested when I interned at Intel in Hudson, MA, perhaps because I would be going to their factory on occasion. Never anywhere else, including at a defense company. As an intern I wasn't really in a place to turn down a test, but letting a company examine my bodily fluids is pretty insane.

stevespang 8y ago

Is that a huge sucking sound of businesses leaving New York ?

Simulacra 8y ago

This sounds like both a good and a bad thing. Of course if you’re going to be operating heavy machinery, or something where lives are at risk, you should not be on any drugs. But if you’re sitting as an office worker, or cashier at Diane Reed, I think drug testing is a waste of time

LionBlack8 8y ago

According to this article https://www.ncsm.nl/english/health/pass-urine-drug-test https://www.ncsm.nl/english/health/pass-urine-drug-test , marijuana can be detected in your urine usually for 30-45 days. To speed up one's detoxing process, one should drink a lot of green tea and just be active.