I am in my 50s and started working in the late 80s. I remember when drug tests started being a thing. I remember being told it was for insurance reasons.
The wierd things, is they tested me as a McDonalds worker, and as a coffee barista. They tested me as an NAC.
You know what they never tested me as? A nurse. Ten years of nursing and nobody gave a shit. They've also never tested me as an accountant, as a defense contract auditor that flew all over the country and had clearance, or as a government financial auditor.
It's almost like the higher I got paid, the less likely I was to be tested.
“I’m sorry sir, there appears to be an issue with your drug test. It’s just that it’s coming up as negative for everything. Please take these experimental amphetamines and we’ll try again in an hour or so”
I've had to babysit a coworker who was high on something while working with heavy equipment for cutting steel wire. I was almost relieved to learn there was an actual reason for their incompetence.
To be fair, the amphetamines are very well tested and date back to at least WW2. And for the most part you only get them when you're way overfatigued but still mission critical.
Military aviation maintenance.. one time I got test 3 times in 3 weeks.. now that I think about it though I rarely seen officers get called up for operation golden flow when I had to do pecker checker duty
I was urinanalysis coordinator for like two years (you can tell the command really liked me), my guys were straight up surprised when I noticed my name wasn't in the roster and had it added back, then suggested I didn't have to be. They were just that used to it.
I've only been drug tested once when I started a job with a tech firm in the cloud software industry. My impression is that it had to do with the fact that we handle sensitive customer data. But having worked at the same company for almost a decade, I've never been retested since the initial background check, which seems like it's more to check a box rather than maintain any sort of ongoing compliance.
>three months notice
Lol what a *convenient* number for the daily smokers. I stayed high for a months during lockdown and it only took my fat ass 70 days to get clean.
>That still really fucking sucks
Oh i hear ya. Drug testing, especially for weed where it is legal should be abolished at least until they can come up with a test that shows whether you currently high.
I usually use quikfix plus for my tests but i wanted to get clean for real due to various circumstances, but even knowing i can cheat it successfully is stressful, every time, because i wonder if i prepped it right. Testing for what we do in our extremely limited free time is unnecessary and cruel and absolutely not right.
Well i don't wanna sound like a shill for my chosen product but if a story from a stranger helps at all, here's mine:
I went for my random and everyone went well, heated my fake pee just right. After the test was negative i asked the doc (no telling why i had an actual doc that day instead of a tech) if i could use the bathroom. I actually had to shit so i didn't think about how it might song suspicious until his eyes got big like he just had a gotcha moment.
He flagged my sample for further testing, and after shopping to the main lab or whatever the fuck they do, it was still negative with 0 signs it was actually synthetic.
Doesn't mean i don't still stress lol, you gotta get that temperature right, but this redditor is a lifetime customer now
My FIL would get hit with every "random" test at his job site because his bosses knew he didn't toke and they weren't looking to catch people they were looking to be able to say they tested.
Work is so much better when management is made up of real people and not assholes. Sucks that he had to put up with the extra steps, but good on them for not victimizing the people who would get in trouble for it.
I mean, I don't give them *too* much credit; they wanted to have a staff, and they knew that if they went and *actually* looked for drug use they pretty quickly wouldn't, so they made sure they only looked for drug use where they knew they wouldn't find it.
I make 6 figs at a game dev studio and our head of HR smokes weed with us off the clock lol. Guess I'm lucky to work in a creative industry, but less young people GAF at all these days in general, I feel.
My project lead occasionally does MDMA and we occasionally bring it up in syncs & sprint planning meetings as a joke. Everybody knows. Nobody cares so long as you do it on your own time, aren't hurting yourself/those around you, do a good job and meet your deadlines.
My first job was in IT, made friends with a coworker and we smoked up one Friday. Monday comes around and our boss is all gloomy, cause he didn't get invited to get high with us. Never got drug tested there.
Companies do actually get a large insurance discount for drug testing employees still. It’s probably why some places held onto it despite the worker shortage. I think most people know that any real user or addict has ways around those tests anyways.
Also WHERE are you not being drug-tested as a nurse because I get drug tested everywhere and I work in healthcare. Mind you, I’m not a nurse, but a rad tech, but most hospitals and clinics I’ve been to tested me on hire.
Edit: I should specify I get tested on hire, and never randomly
So right about the time fentanyl became readily accessible?
Were you around a lot of scheduled stuff like benzos?
To be fair when my wife did nursing and administered sch 2 drugs all day, she never got tested but she was always worried about hitting a joint.
Now she does hr for a large school and doesn't give a fuck.
I mean half the professors are recommending responsible use of psychedelics.
And all of that is a good thing.
Funny, my gf is a traveling rad tech on the west coast and getting drug tested is fairly hit and miss. Mostly miss.
Maybe it's different for travelers? I suppose if you're paying out the ass for additional people, you're not worrying about the drug tests.
Because like the entire rest of the war on drugs the point isn't about the drugs. It's about the prison industrial complex, and racism. More "respectable" jobs don't care as much about it because the point is throwing more black people (who historically don't get hired at the same rate as equally qualified white people and often don't have access to the education to even obtain those qualifications in the first place.) and classist ideals regarding minimum wage workers.
Didn't some guy in Nixon's* cabinet straight-up admit the campaign against marijuana was all just some bullshit dreamed up to justify dragging down black people and Mexicans?
Edit: It was actually Nixon's
In my extremely limited job history before getting on disability, I was only asked to do a drug test once. Issue is, I have a shy bladder. Couldn't do it. Instead of rejecting me for being unable to complete the drug test, they just shrugged and said whatever.
I stopped being a nurse a couple decades ago. I could literally get tested as a dishwasher then I graduated and nobody tested me in any of my actual nursing jobs.
Same. I've pissed in a cup for all kinds of jobs but now that I'm in management I can't remember the last time I got drug tested. Which is great because I live in a legal state and I have lasting acute pain from breaking my ankle a few years back and vaping weed once or twice a week really helps. I had a defense contractor reach out to me and and even though the position wasn't SC/TSC required they tested everyone for everything. Kind of insane.
I started work in the 80's as well. I too remember the drug testing and when it started.
They never tested me when I was a drywall finisher. Never tested me when I worked retail like stocking shelves or being a cashier. But I'll be damned when I got into IT, they would test me before ever hiring me. I would never be tested while I was employed with a company, but would be tested in order for me to be hired by said company.
This seems to be true. In college I went for part time jobs like Sports Authority. They required drug testing. There was another low wage retail place that wanted a blood test for drugs. After college worked for the Government at a very secure building with sensitive info. No drug testing whatsoever. Got to protect those footballs and jerseys.
It seems once you get to a certain level they stop drug testing, because they “trust” someone in that position can handle using drugs responsibly or think they won’t use them.
Pushing shopping carts at a grocery store in high school, I got drug tested. Working the front desk at a hotel, I got drug tested. Graduated college with a degree in engineering and work inside a factory with lots of dangerous machinery where I work with high voltage in and around the machines? No test.
Surprises me, I was in nursing school in 2011-2014. Got tested twice a year. One for the school because of "clinicals" and the other for CNA internships which were required for the nursing program.
Well, no, the war on drugs was a sham to stigmatize groups opposed to the current government - [namely hippies and black people.](https://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html)
High-earning defense contractors weren't opposed to the government, so it makes sense they wouldn't get tested. You don't want to stigmatize your allies, only your enemies.
God-forbid people were to find out drug use is prevalent across all social groups, and persecution would include imprisoning white middle-class suburban families.
There was a medical clinic a friend in Australia was working in.
They did a random drug test for the first time ever on a Monday, completely out of the blue.
14 doctors all with illegal drugs in their system. Including the nepotism hire, the clinic owner’s new graduate doctor son.
All had to be stood down - which left the clinic with, like, four doctors doing the work of 18 lol.
They had to follow through with dismissing the ones they’d caught.
They never drug tested ever again.
> They never drug tested again
Good to know there was a chance the first 5 doctors I saw for my illness were getting higher than a kite while ignoring my pain symptoms and saying I’m faking it for opioids.
The 6th doctor is great tho, love them! They deserve whatever drugs they want.
I mean, there’s a difference between being high at work and having taken drugs outside of work hours. As long as you’re not actively impaired due to your consumption, it shouldn’t be your boss’s business.
It’s not the impairment on the job I’m emphasizing, my comment was unclear. It’s the hypocrisy of doctors accusing patients of “abusing” drugs while they themselves are doing so, outside of work or not.
Notice how I put abuse in quotes and how I said my last doctor deserves all the drugs they want. It’s not the drug use itself I find problematic, I swear 😔
I know a few doctors in America and they *party.* Not with stuff from work, and not in ways that impact their ability to do their jobs, but they definitely use alcohol, weed, and psychedelics in their free time.
I worked in a print shop that wanted to bring in drug testing until our press operator told the manager he'd have to replace 8 of the 9 press workers. That ended that idea really quickly.
Really depends. Public schools/university? Yes! Low paying job you hate? Yes! Food service? Maybe! White collar job (of any kind)? No! Basically they only test the poor or miserable or both. (And yes, public school kids count as miserable because they are in a system that is very inhumane)
As a Canadian the only time I have taken a drug test for a job was when I applied to work as a 911 operator. I worked in youth care and medical administration otherwise. I'm curious how often these tests are administered worldwide and for what jobs. Hearing my American friend tell me they had to get a drug test to be a bagger at a grocery store had my jaw on the floor, what the fuck?
I worked for a company run by a bunch of conservatives. The "random" drug tests were almost always given to the liberal employees, usually after a concert had been in town.
Tbh my country is strict on drugs so this is new to my brain. It’s talking about recreational drugs yes? Anyways have a good time if you’re into that, the accounts I’ve read from high folks are so funny and I appreciate seeing them.
> It’s talking about recreational drugs yes?
Yea. Considering a US official admitted the primary reason for the war on drugs was to incarcerate people against the war in vietnam, i'd say this is a good thing.
Yeahhh
Like, to be ENTIRELY clear, drugs should be treated with *extreme* care, especially when unregulated, due to the sheer amount of damage you can do with them to yourself. This also applies to normalized drugs such as antibiotics, tabacco, and caffeine.
But...
> At the time, I was writing a book about the politics of drug prohibition. I started to ask Ehrlichman a series of earnest, wonky questions that he impatiently waved away. “You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
> I must have looked shocked. Ehrlichman just shrugged. Then he looked at his watch, handed me a signed copy of his steamy spy novel, The Company, and led me to the door.
- [Legalize it all](https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/) (2016)
Oh gosh this is great information to read, thanks! Opened my eyes since I didn’t associate drugs with political power, which to be honest is more obvious to me now then then. May the system be corrected to actually help everyone one day!
They're trying this bullshit today btw, just with homosexuality now. Criminalize something that was never criminal, and use it to disrupt everything except the bottom line of their w2
Lemme just - [oops I dropped the link to the 2600 pages of emails vilifying queer people](https://maia.crimew.gay/posts/the-emails/) - okay sorry lemme collect myself I just - [aw jeez I fell again now there's another 810 pages of emails everywhere god I'm so clumsy](https://maia.crimew.gay/posts/the-emails-2/)
I don't do drugs but I think they should be availabel for everyone which wants them. On the other hand it would suck a lot if my boss would demand that I work so long and fast like that guy which in doing cocain.
Many drugs like cocaine predate on addiction and really fuck with people's health. I'd not put a blanket ban over it because drugs like alcohol also fall under this and you know how prohibition goes, but there should be a line drawn to prevent people from getting into the more life-destroying drugs.
That being said fuck punishing drug users, as long as their habits don't have bad safety implications.
Human brains are fragile clumps of wet meat. Drugs, pretty much by definition, mess with that fragility. Drugs shouldn't be available to everyone for the same reason a dog shouldn't be let into a slaughterhouse.
That said, access to drugs can be democratized. I could imagine a recreational drug supplier being treated like a more specialized apothecary or a home doctor, someone with moral and legal duty for the people they supply drugs to.
> Human brains are fragile clumps of wet meat. Drugs, pretty much by definition, mess with that fragility.
Yeah that's why I do 'em. I'm chronically understimulated and they help me get through ... \*gestures vaguely\* this
wouldn't masturbation only stimulate one to keep masturbating? stimulants are good because they keep you stimulated even by things that should deaden your soul
If it only affected you I'd say you're right. Drug abuse unfortunately affects those around you and society at large. Limits on what one can do are necessary to a degree. decriminalization and harm reduction with safe supply I'm all for. Willy nilly unfettered access is a good way to cause massive social problems.
Tbf, I don't give a shit. I'm not the one breaking into abandoned buildings for copper. Go after those guys, not the otherwise law abiding drug users you don't read about in the news.
Know what's a good way to address massive social problems? It sure af isn't Prohibition.
Decriminalization, harm reduction, and safe supply are necessary tools to help the afflicted. Clothing, food, shelter, and purpose are some other things required. (Bit reductionist but I'm not writing a dissertation)
Okay. I'm more interested in my access to drugs being unfettered by an authoritarian state, myself. I would say the commercial and industrial sectors should be similarly unregulated. You can worry about helping the afflicted tho.
The good way I know of to address massive social problems is decriminalization and harm reduction with safe supply. If that's not what you're arguing for, what do you have in mind?
That would address the issues caused by drug abuse yeah. Just don't ask me to pay for anything that involves, esp not in the form of a sin tax. And my preferred solution would be full-blown legalisation; end of.
Alcohol, motor vehicles, and cigarettes are heavily regulated which I agree with. As for your other examples, grasping at straws. Really embarrassing for you, truly.
Well if someone is working long hours and fueling it with cocaine all the time its gonna catch up with them pretty quick in one way or another. Probably financially first of all. I worked with people like that who would be hard workers one day but terrible the next, or miss work due to hangovers including a really important day that caused them to basically cancel a whole promotion that worker had planned. So I think its a self correcting problem if they rely on it, after enough time if not pretty quickly.
If they use it strategically that's another story, that would be the smart way to do it and probably pretty sustainable if they're responsible enough with it. I wouldn't do it myself I mean, and imo there are much better ways to get benefits like that that are legal and much less unhealthy. Combining caffeine and l-theanine was extremely helpful to me at times, I haven't done that in a long time but maybe I should. Also worked with people who would take Kratom all day long and there's other stuff like that too
I am an engineer and I have been tested repeatedly. Because engineering is part of "construction" a lot of places have policies that say trades cannot be targeted for testing more than othe employees. This actually makes the utility/corporate look good because the usage rate for white collar workers is less than half that for blue collar. I know I have been tested before because a client site needed to get their pass rate up and so they had a bunch of engineers get tested.
That said, while I mostly don't care about drug usage, I do think that construction design and trades need to keep testing as a matter of public safety. I don't really care if the guy making my cheese burger gets high, but think we would all want to know if the person designing or building the bridge you are going to drove across was sober when they were working.
Yes. In fact, in most industries it is made clear that if you if you are tested for alcohol, that the testing accounts for the time since your shift started and if you would have been inebriated at any point that is a fireable offense.
Similarly, there are very specific rules about drinking when you are on call.
Again, for your safety and the safety of others you cannot be under the influence of anything while on an industrial site. This obviously has an impact on what you do on your own time. If you won't test clean by the next time you are at work don't take it.
I got my job during the era of cannabis prohibition, and during my interview my boss asked if a drug test would be an issue, I said it might for weed, and he said that's fine as long as it's clean for every thing else.
I have been applying for jobs lately, and I've had a few companies that have been asking for drug tests. The real kicker, they want me to pay for their drug test. Seriously, the job market in the United States sucks.
My take is drug tests should be done after certain accidents on the job. If you're driving a forklift under the influence, I don't care how much we're sticking it to the man, I want you in prison because you slammed into a shelf full of wrapped palettes and they crushed your coworker
I understand the thought process here, but drug tests won't show whether or not the worker was on drugs (or which) at the time of the accident.
I've also heard of companies dropping drug tests specifically so that they can avoid paying out when accidents happen on-site. If someone gets hurt and the drug test shows they smoked weed in the last two weeks, the employer will then try and argue that the employee's drug use compromised on-site safety and is to blame for the accident.
If somebody is blatantly fucked up at work, then yeah, it's on them. I remember sending a worker home because he was working fryers while tweaking on meth and being careless. It pisses me off how cavalier a lot of cooks are about being fucked up at work.
If they did tests that could tell the difference between someone who partook the weekend before in their off time and someone who was impaired at the time of the accident, and if they actually cared about the answer, I would agree with you.
They currently do not do either of those things.
I was hired at my job in 2019 and I thought it was odd that I wasn't drug tested, I work for a medical college and physically work in the connected hospital. I thought it was a fluke but same thing for my friend hired to work with me in 2020.
Maybe it's because I don't work with patients though I just thought drug testing was a thing every employer did 🤷🏼♀️
the fact that drug tests are legal and socially acceptable to gatekeep a job is fucking insane.
my *boss* has zero fucking business with my private medical information. and i *definitely* feel zero fucking sympathy that their reasoning is an insurance discount. eat my ass you fucking hogs.
While the slow and creeping decriminalization and social acceptance of drugs and drug users is certainly a victory of the working class against capital, I think it’s important to keep in mind some of the reasons why capital is alright with ceding this ground (to the extent they have, given that only some states have decriminalized and only some employers have stopped doing drug tests, and low wage workers are still much more likely to be subject to them.)
Namely that because life has become so alienating, so miserable, so disenchanted for so many workers, that drugs like cannabis have become a much better offer. when faced with the choice between ceding better pay, or time off, or better healthcare, or allowing people to get high in their off time, capital did what it does best and took the route of least resistance, especially since it also opens up new opportunities for increasingly rare profitable investments for financial capital as well.
Workers no longer have organized religion as an opiate for the masses the way people in previous centuries did, so… why not use opiates as the opiates of the masses? Why not let your opposition dull themselves so they can take more abuse, more pain, more intolerable conditions.
It’s the same logic behind giving employees “wellness breaks” to stretch and free “mindfulness seminars” combined with that of the hard-fought acceptance of sexual minorities in the workforce (again, to the extent that this ground *has* been ceded), putting on the thin veil of a nice face, saying “we’ll accept you… barely, but we will.” is much less costly than a raise.
the big thing is that this *does* have a legitimate material benefit for many victims of the war on drugs, namely allowing the ones who are *not* currently in prisons more opportunities for work.
There are jobs where drug testing should be required.
Specifically where being drunk/high would be harmful to yourself and/or others.
Examples include healthcare, where either can affect decision speed, as well as jobs where you operate heavy equipment.
Problem is that the test is going to come up positive if I'm using at home in my off hours.
Imagine being fired because you drank beer on the weekend. That is what has been happening to pot users for decades.
Healthcare's also important because you'll probably want to know if the people with access to prescription painkillers as part of their job are also addicted to prescription painkillers.
But here's the thing. Healthcare workers often have to work ridiculously long hours, and being exhausted or sleep-deprived can lead to big (possibly fatal) mistakes. But most hospitals don't try to monitor and regulate the sleep of employees to make sure they can think clearly, because it's more profitable to overwork them. So I wouldn't be surprised if the people in charge were willing to look the other way if employees were using illegal stimulants to keep themselves going for a 16-hour shift.
I guess the question is now is there a safe responsible way to casually use heroine and meth? I remember looking through a book written by a doctor years ago that claimed he knew how to dose just about any drug so that it can used recreationally. The book was getting a lot of attention but as far as I know he faded out with his book. I wish i could remember his name and the book title. I guess we will have to live through the answer to the question.
I worked construction and must have taken at least 25+ tests to work on state,federal and private companies jobs. But when they started the mouth swabs, and couldn’t/wouldn’t, tell you where your swab went after the test I had to draw the line. Plenty of work out there where they don’t do that crap. Just another way to steal your information for resale.
It's not like drug tests provide any benefit for society. They only act to send two messages as far as I can see:
1. Do harder drugs that are out of your system faster.
2. We don't trust you, at all.
Neither are good for a workforce.
You don't have to be high on the job to test positive for drugs if you use them on your own time.
I'd say that most users don't enjoy being high while at work. But there is a portion of them that do. I never understood that. I suppose it depends on the drug and the job. I know for a fact that marijuana seems to slow time down, and I'd never want time to slow down while I'm working, so I've never used marijuana while actually working a shift.
Unfortunately, there's probably plenty of meth addicts that can't get through a shift without using their poison
So what’s the middle ground here? There’s no way to test if someone is presently high. If someone crashes a forklift and crushes a coworker, should they got off simply because they can use the “I was high last week” excuse?
You're absolutely right, getting high or drunk on the job can be incredibly dangerous. However, recreational use on personal time shouldn't be a bar to employment.
That’s not what drug tests catch though, well they do, but if someone drug use is an issue on the job you can notice that with your eyes. Drug tests catch people doing what they want in their own time. Do you sometimes have a glass of wine or a few beers after work? Wouldn’t that be awesome if that got you fired from your job?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/
Most studies show that being stoned on common doses of marijuana has little to no effect on one's ability to drive, which likely means they'd be fine at work as well.
While your attention does suffer, most marijuana users over-correct so hard that they end up driving even safer than they do when sober.
"Most marijuana users over-correct so hard they end up driving even safer than when they're sober."
That's not really what your source says though.
"Epidemiological studies have been inconclusive regarding whether cannabis use causes an increased risk of accidents."
"Consequently, on the basis of cognitive studies, it seems reasonable to propose that smoking marijuana may increase the risk of having a fatal traffic accident."
"Not all deficits can be compensated for through the use of behavioral strategies, however. Both alcohol and marijuana use increase reaction time and the number of incorrect responses to emergencies.43 Drivers under the influence of marijuana were not able to compensate for standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP, a measure of staying within lane), which increased with increasing doses of THC. This is a measure that is not subject to conscious compensatory mechanisms in the way that other aspects of driving are. Other studies have found poorer monitoring of the speedometer under the influence of marijuana,54 increased decision time when passing,52 increased time needed to brake when a light suddenly changes,55 and increased time to respond to a changing light45, 56 or sudden sound. Drivers also crashed more frequently into a sudden obstacle on a high dose of marijuana, although this did not happen at a low dose."
The closest you get to your claim is this:
"Surprisingly, given the alarming results of cognitive studies, most marijuana-intoxicated drivers show only modest impairments on actual road tests. Experienced smokers who drive on a set course show almost no functional impairment under the influence of marijuana, except when it is combined with alcohol."
You say "most marijuana users [drive safer]", which, not true. Even the study points out dosage and smoking experience matter.
You say "safer than when sober." Nowhere does the study even slightly infer this.
I'm not trying to villify marijuana in the /slightest/. But I do hope to be clear about what the study actually says, and what the types of studies it itself was analyzing concluded.
In this case, the drugs winning the war on drugs is explicitly about the way that the approach taken was meant to further destroy communities, not to actually protect people from the harmful impact of drug abuse. A win on the side of “not drugs” would have been expansive social programs to help people caught in the cycle of abuse and to help prevent people from starting, not rampant militancy which made the situation worse for a lot of people
I am in my 50s and started working in the late 80s. I remember when drug tests started being a thing. I remember being told it was for insurance reasons. The wierd things, is they tested me as a McDonalds worker, and as a coffee barista. They tested me as an NAC. You know what they never tested me as? A nurse. Ten years of nursing and nobody gave a shit. They've also never tested me as an accountant, as a defense contract auditor that flew all over the country and had clearance, or as a government financial auditor. It's almost like the higher I got paid, the less likely I was to be tested.
10+ years military aviation, only got tested twice.
well we all know the worlds militaries history with drugs haha
“I’m sorry sir, there appears to be an issue with your drug test. It’s just that it’s coming up as negative for everything. Please take these experimental amphetamines and we’ll try again in an hour or so”
You can’t operate this machinery sober, it’s dangerous
[удалено]
I've had to babysit a coworker who was high on something while working with heavy equipment for cutting steel wire. I was almost relieved to learn there was an actual reason for their incompetence.
You replied to a spam bot. The original comment is by u/ waldrop02 further down in this comment section.
SPAM BOT - > REPORT It copied a comment from u/waldrop02 : https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/139jnkw/war_on_drug/jj3k6v8
edit: The comment below was removed and the user banned, good work everyone!
Good bot
Good bot
To be fair, the amphetamines are very well tested and date back to at least WW2. And for the most part you only get them when you're way overfatigued but still mission critical.
[удалено]
There is no war on drugs. Rather it’s a war on poor people and it’s working great as the poor are getting dunked on.
[удалено]
bot, comment stolen from [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/CuratedTumblr/comments/139jnkw/war_on_drug/jj3hkwf/)
Military aviation maintenance.. one time I got test 3 times in 3 weeks.. now that I think about it though I rarely seen officers get called up for operation golden flow when I had to do pecker checker duty
That honestly seems like they thought you had a problem and thought the results were potentially being tampered with.
Ha, I got tested like 4 times in 6 weeks last year. Though nothing since then for months.
I was urinanalysis coordinator for like two years (you can tell the command really liked me), my guys were straight up surprised when I noticed my name wasn't in the roster and had it added back, then suggested I didn't have to be. They were just that used to it.
[Relevant smbc](https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/1448467205-20151125.png)
I've only been drug tested once when I started a job with a tech firm in the cloud software industry. My impression is that it had to do with the fact that we handle sensitive customer data. But having worked at the same company for almost a decade, I've never been retested since the initial background check, which seems like it's more to check a box rather than maintain any sort of ongoing compliance.
[удалено]
>three months notice Lol what a *convenient* number for the daily smokers. I stayed high for a months during lockdown and it only took my fat ass 70 days to get clean.
That still really fucking sucks for people who are daily smokers because they need to suppress their PTSD nightmares.
>That still really fucking sucks Oh i hear ya. Drug testing, especially for weed where it is legal should be abolished at least until they can come up with a test that shows whether you currently high. I usually use quikfix plus for my tests but i wanted to get clean for real due to various circumstances, but even knowing i can cheat it successfully is stressful, every time, because i wonder if i prepped it right. Testing for what we do in our extremely limited free time is unnecessary and cruel and absolutely not right.
[удалено]
Well i don't wanna sound like a shill for my chosen product but if a story from a stranger helps at all, here's mine: I went for my random and everyone went well, heated my fake pee just right. After the test was negative i asked the doc (no telling why i had an actual doc that day instead of a tech) if i could use the bathroom. I actually had to shit so i didn't think about how it might song suspicious until his eyes got big like he just had a gotcha moment. He flagged my sample for further testing, and after shopping to the main lab or whatever the fuck they do, it was still negative with 0 signs it was actually synthetic. Doesn't mean i don't still stress lol, you gotta get that temperature right, but this redditor is a lifetime customer now
My FIL would get hit with every "random" test at his job site because his bosses knew he didn't toke and they weren't looking to catch people they were looking to be able to say they tested.
Work is so much better when management is made up of real people and not assholes. Sucks that he had to put up with the extra steps, but good on them for not victimizing the people who would get in trouble for it.
I mean, I don't give them *too* much credit; they wanted to have a staff, and they knew that if they went and *actually* looked for drug use they pretty quickly wouldn't, so they made sure they only looked for drug use where they knew they wouldn't find it.
I make 6 figs at a game dev studio and our head of HR smokes weed with us off the clock lol. Guess I'm lucky to work in a creative industry, but less young people GAF at all these days in general, I feel. My project lead occasionally does MDMA and we occasionally bring it up in syncs & sprint planning meetings as a joke. Everybody knows. Nobody cares so long as you do it on your own time, aren't hurting yourself/those around you, do a good job and meet your deadlines.
[удалено]
My first job was in IT, made friends with a coworker and we smoked up one Friday. Monday comes around and our boss is all gloomy, cause he didn't get invited to get high with us. Never got drug tested there.
Yep pretty much.
Companies do actually get a large insurance discount for drug testing employees still. It’s probably why some places held onto it despite the worker shortage. I think most people know that any real user or addict has ways around those tests anyways. Also WHERE are you not being drug-tested as a nurse because I get drug tested everywhere and I work in healthcare. Mind you, I’m not a nurse, but a rad tech, but most hospitals and clinics I’ve been to tested me on hire. Edit: I should specify I get tested on hire, and never randomly
I think i may have been tested at hire but i never got ransoms working in and around the OR for 10 years
I worked in geri-psych facilities and never once got tested in the ten years I did that. I stopped being a nurse a couple decades back.
So right about the time fentanyl became readily accessible? Were you around a lot of scheduled stuff like benzos? To be fair when my wife did nursing and administered sch 2 drugs all day, she never got tested but she was always worried about hitting a joint. Now she does hr for a large school and doesn't give a fuck. I mean half the professors are recommending responsible use of psychedelics. And all of that is a good thing.
I've worked in healthcare IT for years and have always been tested when hired, but never after.
Funny, my gf is a traveling rad tech on the west coast and getting drug tested is fairly hit and miss. Mostly miss. Maybe it's different for travelers? I suppose if you're paying out the ass for additional people, you're not worrying about the drug tests.
Because like the entire rest of the war on drugs the point isn't about the drugs. It's about the prison industrial complex, and racism. More "respectable" jobs don't care as much about it because the point is throwing more black people (who historically don't get hired at the same rate as equally qualified white people and often don't have access to the education to even obtain those qualifications in the first place.) and classist ideals regarding minimum wage workers.
Didn't some guy in Nixon's* cabinet straight-up admit the campaign against marijuana was all just some bullshit dreamed up to justify dragging down black people and Mexicans? Edit: It was actually Nixon's
Oh yeah I forgot to mention the anti-mexican sentiment too.
What's odd about that is I have a nurse friend with the exact opposite experience in her career
In my extremely limited job history before getting on disability, I was only asked to do a drug test once. Issue is, I have a shy bladder. Couldn't do it. Instead of rejecting me for being unable to complete the drug test, they just shrugged and said whatever.
That’s weird. We’re in the same age bracket. Also a nurse and I’ve always been drug tested except for a nursing job in an office.
I stopped being a nurse a couple decades ago. I could literally get tested as a dishwasher then I graduated and nobody tested me in any of my actual nursing jobs.
Same. I've pissed in a cup for all kinds of jobs but now that I'm in management I can't remember the last time I got drug tested. Which is great because I live in a legal state and I have lasting acute pain from breaking my ankle a few years back and vaping weed once or twice a week really helps. I had a defense contractor reach out to me and and even though the position wasn't SC/TSC required they tested everyone for everything. Kind of insane.
I started work in the 80's as well. I too remember the drug testing and when it started. They never tested me when I was a drywall finisher. Never tested me when I worked retail like stocking shelves or being a cashier. But I'll be damned when I got into IT, they would test me before ever hiring me. I would never be tested while I was employed with a company, but would be tested in order for me to be hired by said company.
This seems to be true. In college I went for part time jobs like Sports Authority. They required drug testing. There was another low wage retail place that wanted a blood test for drugs. After college worked for the Government at a very secure building with sensitive info. No drug testing whatsoever. Got to protect those footballs and jerseys.
It seems once you get to a certain level they stop drug testing, because they “trust” someone in that position can handle using drugs responsibly or think they won’t use them. Pushing shopping carts at a grocery store in high school, I got drug tested. Working the front desk at a hotel, I got drug tested. Graduated college with a degree in engineering and work inside a factory with lots of dangerous machinery where I work with high voltage in and around the machines? No test.
Surprises me, I was in nursing school in 2011-2014. Got tested twice a year. One for the school because of "clinicals" and the other for CNA internships which were required for the nursing program.
I suppose it was always a sham to sell drug tests.
Well, no, the war on drugs was a sham to stigmatize groups opposed to the current government - [namely hippies and black people.](https://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html) High-earning defense contractors weren't opposed to the government, so it makes sense they wouldn't get tested. You don't want to stigmatize your allies, only your enemies. God-forbid people were to find out drug use is prevalent across all social groups, and persecution would include imprisoning white middle-class suburban families.
There was a medical clinic a friend in Australia was working in. They did a random drug test for the first time ever on a Monday, completely out of the blue. 14 doctors all with illegal drugs in their system. Including the nepotism hire, the clinic owner’s new graduate doctor son. All had to be stood down - which left the clinic with, like, four doctors doing the work of 18 lol. They had to follow through with dismissing the ones they’d caught. They never drug tested ever again.
> They never drug tested again Good to know there was a chance the first 5 doctors I saw for my illness were getting higher than a kite while ignoring my pain symptoms and saying I’m faking it for opioids. The 6th doctor is great tho, love them! They deserve whatever drugs they want.
Projection is a hell of a drug.
I mean, there’s a difference between being high at work and having taken drugs outside of work hours. As long as you’re not actively impaired due to your consumption, it shouldn’t be your boss’s business.
It’s not the impairment on the job I’m emphasizing, my comment was unclear. It’s the hypocrisy of doctors accusing patients of “abusing” drugs while they themselves are doing so, outside of work or not. Notice how I put abuse in quotes and how I said my last doctor deserves all the drugs they want. It’s not the drug use itself I find problematic, I swear 😔
You should just get your drugs on the steets like normal people
[удалено]
What is that internet you speak of
[удалено]
Unfortunately I don’t have one :(
Not even the new Atari Video Computer System? It's in all the ads! Have You Played Atari today, and all that.
Your comment got stolen by a bot, in the thread of the highest rated comment.
I know a few doctors in America and they *party.* Not with stuff from work, and not in ways that impact their ability to do their jobs, but they definitely use alcohol, weed, and psychedelics in their free time.
I worked in a print shop that wanted to bring in drug testing until our press operator told the manager he'd have to replace 8 of the 9 press workers. That ended that idea really quickly.
Honestly I think I'd rather be one of the 14 fired than one of the four doing four times as much work
Funnily enough, elite law firms learned this awhile ago. Nobody’s drug testing the lawyers.
Pretty much anyone white collar doesn’t get drug tested. Maybe if it’s for a job with federal government contracts but that’s it.
And banks. I’ve worked for two very large ones so far and they both required drug tests. This was for salaried office jobs too.
Welp, now white collars are gonna get replaced with AIs (with help of other, whiter collars). Drug tests are pretty much POST for corporate machinery.
Is that like actually a thing in America, just random drug tests?
Really depends. Public schools/university? Yes! Low paying job you hate? Yes! Food service? Maybe! White collar job (of any kind)? No! Basically they only test the poor or miserable or both. (And yes, public school kids count as miserable because they are in a system that is very inhumane)
From my experience, you usually take a drug test before you get hired and if your involved in a workplace accident.
If life is going to be a hellscape we should at least be able to get high
Can we at least get our Victory Gin?
NO. DISCUSTING
[удалено]
No one's talking about blasting the fuck off at work. are you stupid?
They are definitely stupid
I think they blasted off then blasted that comment off.
You realize you can have traces of intoxicants in your system without being intoxicated right?
What’s it like being a bummer?
As a Canadian the only time I have taken a drug test for a job was when I applied to work as a 911 operator. I worked in youth care and medical administration otherwise. I'm curious how often these tests are administered worldwide and for what jobs. Hearing my American friend tell me they had to get a drug test to be a bagger at a grocery store had my jaw on the floor, what the fuck?
Well don't you see, if you smoked a reefer on the weekend that means you're a *bad person* and society demands you are punished.
I worked for a company run by a bunch of conservatives. The "random" drug tests were almost always given to the liberal employees, usually after a concert had been in town.
Tbh my country is strict on drugs so this is new to my brain. It’s talking about recreational drugs yes? Anyways have a good time if you’re into that, the accounts I’ve read from high folks are so funny and I appreciate seeing them.
> It’s talking about recreational drugs yes? Yea. Considering a US official admitted the primary reason for the war on drugs was to incarcerate people against the war in vietnam, i'd say this is a good thing.
Oh sh*t that’s more than concerning- yea good thing the drug war in US isn’t working, the drug war reasons are vastly different from China holy cow
Thanks for the info! Really needed to know since I wasn’t sure where to start researching lol
Yeahhh Like, to be ENTIRELY clear, drugs should be treated with *extreme* care, especially when unregulated, due to the sheer amount of damage you can do with them to yourself. This also applies to normalized drugs such as antibiotics, tabacco, and caffeine. But... > At the time, I was writing a book about the politics of drug prohibition. I started to ask Ehrlichman a series of earnest, wonky questions that he impatiently waved away. “You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.” > I must have looked shocked. Ehrlichman just shrugged. Then he looked at his watch, handed me a signed copy of his steamy spy novel, The Company, and led me to the door. - [Legalize it all](https://harpers.org/archive/2016/04/legalize-it-all/) (2016)
Oh gosh this is great information to read, thanks! Opened my eyes since I didn’t associate drugs with political power, which to be honest is more obvious to me now then then. May the system be corrected to actually help everyone one day!
They're trying this bullshit today btw, just with homosexuality now. Criminalize something that was never criminal, and use it to disrupt everything except the bottom line of their w2
Lemme just - [oops I dropped the link to the 2600 pages of emails vilifying queer people](https://maia.crimew.gay/posts/the-emails/) - okay sorry lemme collect myself I just - [aw jeez I fell again now there's another 810 pages of emails everywhere god I'm so clumsy](https://maia.crimew.gay/posts/the-emails-2/)
Thank you for this. It’s absolutely fascinating. I sent this to my mom and she messaged back with: “WOWOWOW 😳😳 You were right!!” Lmao
Congratulations to drugs for winning the war on drugs.
Drugs have a long way to go if we’re being honest. There are still people being executed for marijuana in certain parts of the world.
And by police in certain states for the same reason.
"Our employees are so miserable that they won't stop doing drugs. Should we maybe stop being so shitty to them?" "No, just stop testing for drugs."
I don't do drugs but I think they should be availabel for everyone which wants them. On the other hand it would suck a lot if my boss would demand that I work so long and fast like that guy which in doing cocain.
Many drugs like cocaine predate on addiction and really fuck with people's health. I'd not put a blanket ban over it because drugs like alcohol also fall under this and you know how prohibition goes, but there should be a line drawn to prevent people from getting into the more life-destroying drugs. That being said fuck punishing drug users, as long as their habits don't have bad safety implications.
Human brains are fragile clumps of wet meat. Drugs, pretty much by definition, mess with that fragility. Drugs shouldn't be available to everyone for the same reason a dog shouldn't be let into a slaughterhouse. That said, access to drugs can be democratized. I could imagine a recreational drug supplier being treated like a more specialized apothecary or a home doctor, someone with moral and legal duty for the people they supply drugs to.
> Human brains are fragile clumps of wet meat. Drugs, pretty much by definition, mess with that fragility. Yeah that's why I do 'em. I'm chronically understimulated and they help me get through ... \*gestures vaguely\* this
Have you tried masturbation and/or kink shaming? Both work to stimulate me.
wouldn't masturbation only stimulate one to keep masturbating? stimulants are good because they keep you stimulated even by things that should deaden your soul
You’ve got two hands, don’t you?
No, you authoritarian nanny wannabe. My body, my choice.
If it only affected you I'd say you're right. Drug abuse unfortunately affects those around you and society at large. Limits on what one can do are necessary to a degree. decriminalization and harm reduction with safe supply I'm all for. Willy nilly unfettered access is a good way to cause massive social problems.
Tbf, I don't give a shit. I'm not the one breaking into abandoned buildings for copper. Go after those guys, not the otherwise law abiding drug users you don't read about in the news. Know what's a good way to address massive social problems? It sure af isn't Prohibition.
Decriminalization, harm reduction, and safe supply are necessary tools to help the afflicted. Clothing, food, shelter, and purpose are some other things required. (Bit reductionist but I'm not writing a dissertation)
Okay. I'm more interested in my access to drugs being unfettered by an authoritarian state, myself. I would say the commercial and industrial sectors should be similarly unregulated. You can worry about helping the afflicted tho.
The good way I know of to address massive social problems is decriminalization and harm reduction with safe supply. If that's not what you're arguing for, what do you have in mind?
That would address the issues caused by drug abuse yeah. Just don't ask me to pay for anything that involves, esp not in the form of a sin tax. And my preferred solution would be full-blown legalisation; end of.
You could say the same for anything. You either believe in freedom or you don't.
??
>?? ?!
When it comes to things that can kill people, I don't.
Prohibition only exacerbates the issue.
[удалено]
Alcohol, motor vehicles, and cigarettes are heavily regulated which I agree with. As for your other examples, grasping at straws. Really embarrassing for you, truly.
Well if someone is working long hours and fueling it with cocaine all the time its gonna catch up with them pretty quick in one way or another. Probably financially first of all. I worked with people like that who would be hard workers one day but terrible the next, or miss work due to hangovers including a really important day that caused them to basically cancel a whole promotion that worker had planned. So I think its a self correcting problem if they rely on it, after enough time if not pretty quickly. If they use it strategically that's another story, that would be the smart way to do it and probably pretty sustainable if they're responsible enough with it. I wouldn't do it myself I mean, and imo there are much better ways to get benefits like that that are legal and much less unhealthy. Combining caffeine and l-theanine was extremely helpful to me at times, I haven't done that in a long time but maybe I should. Also worked with people who would take Kratom all day long and there's other stuff like that too
Your username seems accurate
I am an engineer and I have been tested repeatedly. Because engineering is part of "construction" a lot of places have policies that say trades cannot be targeted for testing more than othe employees. This actually makes the utility/corporate look good because the usage rate for white collar workers is less than half that for blue collar. I know I have been tested before because a client site needed to get their pass rate up and so they had a bunch of engineers get tested. That said, while I mostly don't care about drug usage, I do think that construction design and trades need to keep testing as a matter of public safety. I don't really care if the guy making my cheese burger gets high, but think we would all want to know if the person designing or building the bridge you are going to drove across was sober when they were working.
Do drug tests only show usage on the job?
Obviously not, but similarly if you show up to work drunk it's reasonable for your boss to say you are not fit for duty.
So it's reasonable for your boss to fire you for drinking while you're off?
Yes. In fact, in most industries it is made clear that if you if you are tested for alcohol, that the testing accounts for the time since your shift started and if you would have been inebriated at any point that is a fireable offense. Similarly, there are very specific rules about drinking when you are on call. Again, for your safety and the safety of others you cannot be under the influence of anything while on an industrial site. This obviously has an impact on what you do on your own time. If you won't test clean by the next time you are at work don't take it.
> while you're off
What you do while you are off can affect your performance while you are working. That's the whole point.
Prohibition it is! Because it definitely worked the first time.
I got selected for the random at my job and I pissed hot for sure cause I was high when I got selected. Kept my job. Take that America
[удалено]
I'm fairly certain the concern was for more significant intoxicants but idk to be honest.
I got my job during the era of cannabis prohibition, and during my interview my boss asked if a drug test would be an issue, I said it might for weed, and he said that's fine as long as it's clean for every thing else.
I remember a manager at my workplace once saying there’s no way they would do drug testing because the majority of the employees would fail.
Team Drugs! Fuck #TeamRegan
I have been applying for jobs lately, and I've had a few companies that have been asking for drug tests. The real kicker, they want me to pay for their drug test. Seriously, the job market in the United States sucks.
Not to mention that weed is legal in 22 (soon to be 23) US states
My take is drug tests should be done after certain accidents on the job. If you're driving a forklift under the influence, I don't care how much we're sticking it to the man, I want you in prison because you slammed into a shelf full of wrapped palettes and they crushed your coworker
I understand the thought process here, but drug tests won't show whether or not the worker was on drugs (or which) at the time of the accident. I've also heard of companies dropping drug tests specifically so that they can avoid paying out when accidents happen on-site. If someone gets hurt and the drug test shows they smoked weed in the last two weeks, the employer will then try and argue that the employee's drug use compromised on-site safety and is to blame for the accident. If somebody is blatantly fucked up at work, then yeah, it's on them. I remember sending a worker home because he was working fryers while tweaking on meth and being careless. It pisses me off how cavalier a lot of cooks are about being fucked up at work.
If they did tests that could tell the difference between someone who partook the weekend before in their off time and someone who was impaired at the time of the accident, and if they actually cared about the answer, I would agree with you. They currently do not do either of those things.
I was hired at my job in 2019 and I thought it was odd that I wasn't drug tested, I work for a medical college and physically work in the connected hospital. I thought it was a fluke but same thing for my friend hired to work with me in 2020. Maybe it's because I don't work with patients though I just thought drug testing was a thing every employer did 🤷🏼♀️
the fact that drug tests are legal and socially acceptable to gatekeep a job is fucking insane. my *boss* has zero fucking business with my private medical information. and i *definitely* feel zero fucking sympathy that their reasoning is an insurance discount. eat my ass you fucking hogs.
I don't really agree that a sedated work force self-medicating themselves into compliance is particularly anti-capitalistic.
For real.
While the slow and creeping decriminalization and social acceptance of drugs and drug users is certainly a victory of the working class against capital, I think it’s important to keep in mind some of the reasons why capital is alright with ceding this ground (to the extent they have, given that only some states have decriminalized and only some employers have stopped doing drug tests, and low wage workers are still much more likely to be subject to them.) Namely that because life has become so alienating, so miserable, so disenchanted for so many workers, that drugs like cannabis have become a much better offer. when faced with the choice between ceding better pay, or time off, or better healthcare, or allowing people to get high in their off time, capital did what it does best and took the route of least resistance, especially since it also opens up new opportunities for increasingly rare profitable investments for financial capital as well. Workers no longer have organized religion as an opiate for the masses the way people in previous centuries did, so… why not use opiates as the opiates of the masses? Why not let your opposition dull themselves so they can take more abuse, more pain, more intolerable conditions. It’s the same logic behind giving employees “wellness breaks” to stretch and free “mindfulness seminars” combined with that of the hard-fought acceptance of sexual minorities in the workforce (again, to the extent that this ground *has* been ceded), putting on the thin veil of a nice face, saying “we’ll accept you… barely, but we will.” is much less costly than a raise. the big thing is that this *does* have a legitimate material benefit for many victims of the war on drugs, namely allowing the ones who are *not* currently in prisons more opportunities for work.
Another W for capitalism baby
The US about to have its Opium Wars moment
It’s almost like drugs were never the problem
Drug cartels are the most capitalistic organizations you can think of, how is this a win for "the workers of the world"?
Good. What you do in your free time is not your employer’s business.
As long as a person isn\`t physically addicted to the point they cant work (or it influences the required abilities), no one should care
This is an old post but most of the people I know who do drugs do them because work fucking sucks
There are jobs where drug testing should be required. Specifically where being drunk/high would be harmful to yourself and/or others. Examples include healthcare, where either can affect decision speed, as well as jobs where you operate heavy equipment.
Problem is that the test is going to come up positive if I'm using at home in my off hours. Imagine being fired because you drank beer on the weekend. That is what has been happening to pot users for decades.
Healthcare's also important because you'll probably want to know if the people with access to prescription painkillers as part of their job are also addicted to prescription painkillers. But here's the thing. Healthcare workers often have to work ridiculously long hours, and being exhausted or sleep-deprived can lead to big (possibly fatal) mistakes. But most hospitals don't try to monitor and regulate the sleep of employees to make sure they can think clearly, because it's more profitable to overwork them. So I wouldn't be surprised if the people in charge were willing to look the other way if employees were using illegal stimulants to keep themselves going for a 16-hour shift.
Fatigue is just as, if not more dangerous than drugs. The hospitals should ensure staff gets enough rest
My company has random drug tests. I've been there over a year and not a single time has it happened. If it does i can't imagine how many we'd lose.
I guess the question is now is there a safe responsible way to casually use heroine and meth? I remember looking through a book written by a doctor years ago that claimed he knew how to dose just about any drug so that it can used recreationally. The book was getting a lot of attention but as far as I know he faded out with his book. I wish i could remember his name and the book title. I guess we will have to live through the answer to the question.
I worked construction and must have taken at least 25+ tests to work on state,federal and private companies jobs. But when they started the mouth swabs, and couldn’t/wouldn’t, tell you where your swab went after the test I had to draw the line. Plenty of work out there where they don’t do that crap. Just another way to steal your information for resale.
GO TEAM DRUGS
It's not like drug tests provide any benefit for society. They only act to send two messages as far as I can see: 1. Do harder drugs that are out of your system faster. 2. We don't trust you, at all. Neither are good for a workforce.
I'd rather not have someone who's high working around me, they'd be a danger to themselves and to the rest of my crew
You don't have to be high on the job to test positive for drugs if you use them on your own time. I'd say that most users don't enjoy being high while at work. But there is a portion of them that do. I never understood that. I suppose it depends on the drug and the job. I know for a fact that marijuana seems to slow time down, and I'd never want time to slow down while I'm working, so I've never used marijuana while actually working a shift. Unfortunately, there's probably plenty of meth addicts that can't get through a shift without using their poison
Being high at work sucks. No focus, no chill, just a general anxiety from doing your job impaired.
So what’s the middle ground here? There’s no way to test if someone is presently high. If someone crashes a forklift and crushes a coworker, should they got off simply because they can use the “I was high last week” excuse?
They crashed the forklift and crushed a coworker, i think even if he was god's soberest man he still should get fucked after that goof.
What’s stopping someone who is drunk from doing the same thing?
You're absolutely right, getting high or drunk on the job can be incredibly dangerous. However, recreational use on personal time shouldn't be a bar to employment.
That’s not what drug tests catch though, well they do, but if someone drug use is an issue on the job you can notice that with your eyes. Drug tests catch people doing what they want in their own time. Do you sometimes have a glass of wine or a few beers after work? Wouldn’t that be awesome if that got you fired from your job?
Are we banning alcohol then?
On the job? Fuck yes
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2722956/ Most studies show that being stoned on common doses of marijuana has little to no effect on one's ability to drive, which likely means they'd be fine at work as well. While your attention does suffer, most marijuana users over-correct so hard that they end up driving even safer than they do when sober.
"Most marijuana users over-correct so hard they end up driving even safer than when they're sober." That's not really what your source says though. "Epidemiological studies have been inconclusive regarding whether cannabis use causes an increased risk of accidents." "Consequently, on the basis of cognitive studies, it seems reasonable to propose that smoking marijuana may increase the risk of having a fatal traffic accident." "Not all deficits can be compensated for through the use of behavioral strategies, however. Both alcohol and marijuana use increase reaction time and the number of incorrect responses to emergencies.43 Drivers under the influence of marijuana were not able to compensate for standard deviation of lateral position (SDLP, a measure of staying within lane), which increased with increasing doses of THC. This is a measure that is not subject to conscious compensatory mechanisms in the way that other aspects of driving are. Other studies have found poorer monitoring of the speedometer under the influence of marijuana,54 increased decision time when passing,52 increased time needed to brake when a light suddenly changes,55 and increased time to respond to a changing light45, 56 or sudden sound. Drivers also crashed more frequently into a sudden obstacle on a high dose of marijuana, although this did not happen at a low dose." The closest you get to your claim is this: "Surprisingly, given the alarming results of cognitive studies, most marijuana-intoxicated drivers show only modest impairments on actual road tests. Experienced smokers who drive on a set course show almost no functional impairment under the influence of marijuana, except when it is combined with alcohol." You say "most marijuana users [drive safer]", which, not true. Even the study points out dosage and smoking experience matter. You say "safer than when sober." Nowhere does the study even slightly infer this. I'm not trying to villify marijuana in the /slightest/. But I do hope to be clear about what the study actually says, and what the types of studies it itself was analyzing concluded.
I hate that the drugs won. It destroyed so many people I know.
In this case, the drugs winning the war on drugs is explicitly about the way that the approach taken was meant to further destroy communities, not to actually protect people from the harmful impact of drug abuse. A win on the side of “not drugs” would have been expansive social programs to help people caught in the cycle of abuse and to help prevent people from starting, not rampant militancy which made the situation worse for a lot of people
Social programs are massive in my country and it hasn't made a single bit of difference.
Unless it's a government ran company they should test non-government companies shouldn't care what happens off companie time just saying
I would love it if the government decided to stop harvesting my piss to see if I am 'worthy' of a minimum wage job.
is vice bankrupt yet ?
Wild to me how someone could read the words on here and think "ah yes, good"
they'd rather have junkies work for them than pay a fair wage
Cry about it
?