4 ms·

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

by 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...
    - rjf72 8y ago
      Hahah, that's probably a pretty fair point! Though I suppose it gets back to the same point though that even if you do find out that your e.g. sports manager is a dysfunctional coke head, you're probably not going to be pass up a fat contract to do something you love.
  - arvinsim 8y ago
    Just because you are employed doesn't mean you are compensated well. > So many companies in so many industries are just starving for good employees. Perhaps we should consider the possibility that qualified candidates are not willing to work for sub-standard compensation.
krageon 8y ago
Knowing of plenty of places where absolutely nobody has to take drug tests to get hired, I fail to follow the line of reasoning that it makes sense at all. Could you elaborate?
- burfog 8y ago
  It makes perfect sense for pharmacists, nurses, doctors, and others who are have to work with drugs. It would be awful to have them stealing from patients. It is also a generic test, kind of like a credit check, to avoid general mayhem. Things are correlated.
loeg 8y ago
Nothing else stays in your system nearly as long as marijuana metabolites. Testing is only going to catch really frequent users, and what, you don't think you're not going to notice if that makes them unable to do their job?
- wolco 8y ago
  You would be surprised at the high quality code being made by experienced/daily pot smokers. Not to be confused with someone smoking for the first time sitting outside passed out after the first hit.
  - loeg 8y ago
    Ah, to be clear my earlier comment was focused on regular non-marijuana drug users (i.e., daily coke or opiate or amphetamine use). Either it affects their work performance (negatively), or it doesn't, but the urine doesn't tell you that — their work output does. Ditto marijuana and alcohol.
stordoff 8y ago
> I think it only makes sense to test for harder drugs e.g. opiates and amphetamines. Why? Why is it any of my employer's business what I do outside of work?
- colejohnson66 8y ago
  Because it can affect your work life
- dymk 8y ago
  Same reason I don't let crack addicts into my house. They're going to steal from me.
_Schizotypy 8y ago
Can you explain what pharmacological properties of a substance makes a drug "hard"? This is defined nowhere in literature.
- Simon_says 8y ago
  https://geology.com/minerals/mohs-hardness-scale.shtml https://geology.com/minerals/mohs-hardness-scale.shtml
- pennaMan 8y ago
  Disabling withdrawal symptoms, mainly. The literature has plenty of quantizations of harmfulness of drugs.
  - _Schizotypy 8y ago
    Cocaine has negligible withdrawal symptoms especially when compared to benzodiazepines or alcohol, so this is absolutely not the case. The literature that I have read does not say that any compounds are "hard" or "soft" The literature that I have read also has noted that the impact of alcohol and tobacco are worse than the drugs people always refer to as "hard" drugs.
  - mruts 8y ago
    cocaine and meth don’t have withdrawels. alcohol, benzos, and opiates do. I’m not sure you could agree that one group is “harder” than the other.
auiya 8y ago
> I think it only makes sense to test for harder drugs e.g. opiates and amphetamines. I think you would be shocked to learn how many of your co-workers take prescription opiates and amphetamines, and aren't punished at all for it.
- mruts 8y ago
  I work in finance a good number of people are popping pills and doing lines in the bathroom all day long. It’s a little rarer, but a not insignificant group of people are doing heroin as well. I used to be addicted to the stuff and ended up starting becauase an analyst gave me some when we were working on a model late at night.

by dymk 8y ago

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...
  - rjf72 8y ago
    Hahah, that's probably a pretty fair point! Though I suppose it gets back to the same point though that even if you do find out that your e.g. sports manager is a dysfunctional coke head, you're probably not going to be pass up a fat contract to do something you love.
- arvinsim 8y ago
  Just because you are employed doesn't mean you are compensated well. > So many companies in so many industries are just starving for good employees. Perhaps we should consider the possibility that qualified candidates are not willing to work for sub-standard compensation.

krageon 8y ago

Knowing of plenty of places where absolutely nobody has to take drug tests to get hired, I fail to follow the line of reasoning that it makes sense at all. Could you elaborate?

burfog 8y ago
It makes perfect sense for pharmacists, nurses, doctors, and others who are have to work with drugs. It would be awful to have them stealing from patients. It is also a generic test, kind of like a credit check, to avoid general mayhem. Things are correlated.

loeg 8y ago

Nothing else stays in your system nearly as long as marijuana metabolites. Testing is only going to catch really frequent users, and what, you don't think you're not going to notice if that makes them unable to do their job?

wolco 8y ago
You would be surprised at the high quality code being made by experienced/daily pot smokers. Not to be confused with someone smoking for the first time sitting outside passed out after the first hit.
- loeg 8y ago
  Ah, to be clear my earlier comment was focused on regular non-marijuana drug users (i.e., daily coke or opiate or amphetamine use). Either it affects their work performance (negatively), or it doesn't, but the urine doesn't tell you that — their work output does. Ditto marijuana and alcohol.

stordoff 8y ago

> I think it only makes sense to test for harder drugs e.g. opiates and amphetamines. Why? Why is it any of my employer's business what I do outside of work?

colejohnson66 8y ago
Because it can affect your work life
dymk 8y ago
Same reason I don't let crack addicts into my house. They're going to steal from me.

_Schizotypy 8y ago

Can you explain what pharmacological properties of a substance makes a drug "hard"? This is defined nowhere in literature.

Simon_says 8y ago
https://geology.com/minerals/mohs-hardness-scale.shtml https://geology.com/minerals/mohs-hardness-scale.shtml
pennaMan 8y ago
Disabling withdrawal symptoms, mainly. The literature has plenty of quantizations of harmfulness of drugs.
- _Schizotypy 8y ago
  Cocaine has negligible withdrawal symptoms especially when compared to benzodiazepines or alcohol, so this is absolutely not the case. The literature that I have read does not say that any compounds are "hard" or "soft" The literature that I have read also has noted that the impact of alcohol and tobacco are worse than the drugs people always refer to as "hard" drugs.
- mruts 8y ago
  cocaine and meth don’t have withdrawels. alcohol, benzos, and opiates do. I’m not sure you could agree that one group is “harder” than the other.

auiya 8y ago

> I think it only makes sense to test for harder drugs e.g. opiates and amphetamines. I think you would be shocked to learn how many of your co-workers take prescription opiates and amphetamines, and aren't punished at all for it.

mruts 8y ago
I work in finance a good number of people are popping pills and doing lines in the bathroom all day long. It’s a little rarer, but a not insignificant group of people are doing heroin as well. I used to be addicted to the stuff and ended up starting becauase an analyst gave me some when we were working on a model late at night.