Drug Tests

[Flyndaran]

...
If you don't like a company's policy, get a job someplace else. Period. End of story.

You must live in a nice world in which the masses are able to change jobs so easily. I live in this world where many people are stuck just to keep from getting tossed on the streets.

...If I were hiring, I'd take the person who tested clean over the person who didn't. Mostly because I don't know the applicants personally. So how can I tell if they are an occasional recreational user or a current addict? If they are breaking one law, how do I know that other laws aren't being broken? As an employer, I wouldn't want to deal with that liability, either!

That's the slippery slope / gateway drug garbage.
I may not want employees working high, but demanding their urine is forced self-incrimination in fact if not in modern law.

[DesignFox]

I would just like to state how amused I am by this thread.

Yes, everyone in this world wants everything they do to be perfectly fine with everyone else around them and to hell with them and how they are being affected!

Frankly, I'm getting sick of it. Once in awhile, you have to just suck it up, put your big boy/girl pants/panties on and admit that maybe, just maybe, what is right for YOU isn't right for the others around you.

I have no issue with work places requiring drug testing. As it is, most places threaten to do random testing and never actually go through with it. They just expect you to follow the handbook, or god forbid, not break the LAW, and not do freakin' drugs.

If you don't like a company's policy, get a job someplace else. Period. End of story.

If I were hiring, I'd take the person who tested clean over the person who didn't. Mostly because I don't know the applicants personally. So how can I tell if they are an occasional recreational user or a current addict? If they are breaking one law, how do I know that other laws aren't being broken? As an employer, I wouldn't want to deal with that liability, either!

[Pedersen]

I actually checked out that wikipedia link:

"To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one has not reasonably ascertained to be true with the intention that it be taken for the truth"

Haha.

And now we are stuck in a war of semantics. Perhaps another link will help you to see that you are, in fact, lying, regardless of how much you want to admit it.

define:statement. In particular, this definition leaps off the page at me:

a nonverbal message; "a Cadillac makes a statement about who you are"; "his tantrums are a statement of his need for attention"

So, you can state something without ever uttering a word. Knowing you, other examples will need to be made in order to show this definitively. Otherwise, we'll be treated to yet another display of interesting illogic. So, other examples where a statement is made without uttering a word:

• The Supreme Court declines to hear a case without comment. The statement made is that this case either is not important enough to warrant their attention, does not have any new constitutional arguments to be resolved, or that they agree with all rulings made on the case to date.
• A parent ignores a child's tantrum. The statement made is either that the child has thrown too many tantrums and the parent is trying to find a new way to get them to stop, or that the tantrum is not worth the time, or that the parent doesn't care.
• In an online forum, a post is made that 100% validates an argument. All other posters ignore the post. The statement made by the posters is either that there is nothing to add, or that they wish the poster would go away.

I know, it's only three such examples, but I'm sure we can make several more without too much effort. Shall I continue, or will you at least finally admit that, without saying a word, it is possible to make a statement?

And, if you make that admission, will you finally admit that it is possible for someone to lie without uttering a word, since they have managed to make a statement, and a statement can be a lie?

To address the birth control argument (clever, that one!), you're leaving out a major factor. If one were to just assume their spouse were on birth control, and it turns out she wasn't, that's not a lie. That's just the husband being a fucking idiot. If, however, the wife says "I am on birth control." and then she's not, that is in fact a lie.

Apparently, it was far too clever for you. Let me re-quote it:

Another way of putting it: If your significant other were to stop taking birth control and not tell you, then when you found out, you would feel as if you were lied to. It's the same thing: A lie (in this case, a lie of omission). The consequences are different, the specifics of the matter are different, but the classification is the same.

I left out a step, I will admit. It was implied that the significant other had stated the use of birth control in the past, and simply stopped without consultation. No verbal communication about the stoppage took place. Have we yet crossed the line into a lie? Or is it still that the person who didn't know is just a "fucking idiot"?

There's still no lying involved in the drug test. Once again I never made the statement to them that I don't do drugs. I also didn't try to beat the test. If I were lying, I would have brought in someone else's urine and substituted it out. That would be a direct lie, because I signed a form saying "This urine is mine". I never signed a form at the job stating I didn't do drugs. I merely agreed to take a test for drugs. Maybe it's a thin distinction, but it's still entirely relevent, no matter how some people's "mental gymnastics" like to call out other people's behavior to make themselves feel better.

If you're going to go with "thin distinctions", then you really shouldn't change around what other people have said. I did not say that you were trying to beat the test. I said you were hoping you would be flagged as a false negative. Maybe it's a thin distinction, but it's still entirely relevant (hmm... that sounds familiar, I wonder where I heard it before?).

The company's non-verbalized question is "Do you use performance or judgement impairing substances?"

Since they have need to make sure of the veracity of your non-verbalized answer, they require drug tests results being submitted.

Your non-verbalized answer is "No, I do not." Your drug test results will contradict your answer, showing you to have lied about it.

And now I eagerly await the twists that will come to show me how wrong I am. Maybe they'll actually happen this time, instead of just flinging poo at the walls and hoping it sticks. Or at least that no one notices the gaps in it.

Secondly, check the company's policies. If you sign any form of employment contract, I'll guarantee you that you'll see a drug policy... being nil.

I'd forgotten about that bit, Slyt, thank you. Even if, by some miracle, you and DrFaroohk manage to convince me he's not lying by failing to disclose before the drug test, he will be lying as soon as he starts employment. The company maintains a drug free workplace (as evidenced by their drug screening). Once an employee starts work, the non-verbal statement on the part of the company is "We expect all employees to remain drug free", and the non-verbal statement on the part of the employee is "Yes, I am in compliance with all company policies." By lighting up, DrFaroohk will be lying in his non-verbal statement.

After all, I don't see people on here arguing that we should be allowed to go around rat-arsed driving massive forklifts on the road while waving fully loaded shotguns...

You're right. Waving them around is just not right. They should be discharged while going around rat-arsed driving massive forklifts on the road. Much more entertaining that way

[Nyoibo]

After all, I don't see people on here arguing that we should be allowed to go around rat-arsed driving massive forklifts on the road while waving fully loaded shotguns...

Only on weekends.

[Slytovhand]

Ah... at least I'm amused

Firstly, not disclosing prior to giving a drug test is not (unless there has been some sort of form signed to indicate such) a lie. It is, though, foolish! As has been pointed out. Telling your potential employers up front "Yes, I occasionally smoke a joint because it settles me occasionally, but I have never, and will never, do any drugs during or before my work time as I am aware of the possible influence it can have on my work abilities". Might work too... hell of a lot better of getting you a job than saying nothing, doing the test, and then having to explain it. Companies like employees who take responsibility... and initiative!


Secondly, check the company's policies. If you sign any form of employment contract, I'll guarantee you that you'll see a drug policy... being nil.

Thirdly, so.. you smoke occasionally. It's illegal. You get busted by the cops and get a conviction.... and let's just say you get a bad judge who gives you jail time... why should the company be out an employee for that period?? Not when they can simply hire someone who won't be that risk?

I love (well, no, hate actually) how people will try to justify anything that they do personally to make it alright - and in doing so, make everyone else who is against it wrong.. as against take full responsibility for their actions and the consequences for them. The world does not owe anyone a living! The world does not have to twist itself around so that everyone's little fetishes and desires get accommodated. If you want to do something, then fine! But don't go crying cos the world has a different set of standards. After all, I don't see people on here arguing that we should be allowed to go around rat-arsed driving massive forklifts on the road while waving fully loaded shotguns...

[DrFaroohk]

I actually checked out that wikipedia link:

"To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one has not reasonably ascertained to be true with the intention that it be taken for the truth"

Haha.

To address the birth control argument (clever, that one!), you're leaving out a major factor. If one were to just assume their spouse were on birth control, and it turns out she wasn't, that's not a lie. That's just the husband being a fucking idiot. If, however, the wife says "I am on birth control." and then she's not, that is in fact a lie.

There's still no lying involved in the drug test. Once again I never made the statement to them that I don't do drugs. I also didn't try to beat the test. If I were lying, I would have brought in someone else's urine and substituted it out. That would be a direct lie, because I signed a form saying "This urine is mine". I never signed a form at the job stating I didn't do drugs. I merely agreed to take a test for drugs. Maybe it's a thin distinction, but it's still entirely relevent, no matter how some people's "mental gymnastics" like to call out other people's behavior to make themselves feel better.

[Flyndaran]

I have. It's why I refuse to let my friends hang around when they're stoned.

Eh, I never said that it didn't happen. I just wonder how common it really is when ingesting uncut marijuana.

[BroomJockey]

none that suffered that "likely" side effect.

I have. It's why I refuse to let my friends hang around when they're stoned.

[Flyndaran]

x is mixed with one of two items-Meth or Heroin.

I took it once- didn't want to do anything but lie under a fuzzy blanket petting a cat for 6 hours-that wouldn't do much for social anxiety.

And pot well there's the paranoia side effect for one.....

Again, guilt by association. I've met many that have used pot, but none that suffered that "likely" side effect.

[Pedersen]

What exactly did I lie about? I must have missed that. Not once did anyone say "DO YOU SMOKE POT?" And not once did I say "NO I DO NOT SMOKE POT."

Actually, they very much asked whether or not you smoke pot. In fact, they asked about more than just pot. They asked "Do you use any substances at any time that could impair your performance or your judgment?" They asked this question in the form of asking you to take a drug test.

Had you volunteered that information, it is entirely possible that they would have still hired you. After all, you had managed to present a professional and trustworthy image to that point. Admission of that fact before it being revealed to your prospective employer would have gone a long way towards improving that image.

As it was, you have committed a lie: You have chosen not to tell them verbally about this illegal habit of yours, and hope that you would not be found out by the drug test. When that information comes out by way of drug test results, your previously trustworthy image is destroyed.

Another way of putting it: If your significant other were to stop taking birth control and not tell you, then when you found out, you would feel as if you were lied to. It's the same thing: A lie (in this case, a lie of omission). The consequences are different, the specifics of the matter are different, but the classification is the same.

Here's where someone is going to say: "DEERRRR! YOU DIDN'T VOLUNTEER THE INFORMATION DEEERRRR SO IT'S THE SAME AS LYING!"

I think you'll find that I've shown you did lie in answer to their question, but in case you haven't seen it yet, I'll spell it out as explicitly as possible for you:

They asked you take a drug test as a way of asking you "Do you partake in any performance or judgment impairing substances?" By failing to tell them verbally, you are attempting to lie to them (by taking the test and hoping that your positive results get flagged as a false negative).

Therefore, you are lying. And hoping you will not be caught.

"DEEEEER!! BUT MY RETARDIPEDIA WEBSITE SAYS LYING IS BLAH BLAH BLAH DEEEEERR!"

I'll help you out then, by giving you the link you were stating someone would give. After all, I wouldn't want to make you any more of a liar than you already are. And so, the Retardipedia website link.

Sorry, still wrong. I didn't lie to anyone about anything.

I'm impressed. The mental gymnastics involved here are mighty damned good, and should be on the Olympics team, I think. However, that level of mental gymnastics doesn't quite deserve to be on the podium. You might take 5th place with them, though.

[Nyoibo]

You know what popped into my head reading this thread of "It's not fair, I smoke pot so I can't get a job"?

[Jim Carey] "STOP BREAKING THE LAW ASSHOLE!" [/Jim Carey]

You engage in an illegal activity, if you don't want to deal with the repurcusions, well then I wonder what you could do.

[the_std]

I love it when people don't bother to read any of the other posts in the thread. If they did, they would have seen:

Maybe YOU should NEVER EVER get a job now. OBVIOUSLY, YOU DON'T READ EVERYTHING! Maybe you might burn the building down because you didn't read some vital bit of instruction! DEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

Hey, guess what, I never said anything about you breaking other laws. It doesn't matter if you break any other laws, because you already broke one, and it's a pretty darn big one in the eyes of most companies. You smoking pot = liability for them. Plain and simple. I did read your other posts and simply wasn't addressing that point. Please don't condescend to me.

[BroomJockey]

DEEEEEEEEEEER!

First, CHILL.

Second, lies of omission ARE still lies. Do whatever mental gymnastics you want, that's how it is.

Third, a company can connect whatever it damn well feels like, and if they're of the opinion that an employee who smokes pot is at greater risk of committing other illegalities, or is a lesser employee, or whatever value they want to attach to it, that's their right. You're the one going to them and saying "I would like to trade you my time and effort, and in return, I would like the amount of money you feel my labour is worth." Whatever strings they attach to it, you need to abide by, or they're fully entitled to not accept your offer of labour for money. The government has stipulated certain strings are illegal to attach, but beyond that, if they decided to say that every employee had to wear periwinkle on the second Tuesday of each month, and you had to learn Farsi in order to conduct internal communications, they're allowed to do so. If you have a problem with that, fine a company that doesn't put that string on the job.

[DrFaroohk]

It's not about the person you are, it's about the fact that you choose to break the law. Plain and simple. You know it's against the law and you still do it. That alone is enough reason for most companies not to hire you for liability purposes, let alone the myriad other reasons it might bring up.

I love it when people don't bother to read any of the other posts in the thread. If they did, they would have seen:

"Oh, well if he smokes pot, who knows what other laws he'll break!?!?!?!"

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. They might as well say "Well, he got a traffic ticket! He CLEARLY BROKE THE LAW! HE MIGHT BE A MURDERER AND A RAPIST!"

Maybe YOU should NEVER EVER get a job now. OBVIOUSLY, YOU DON'T READ EVERYTHING! Maybe you might burn the building down because you didn't read some vital bit of instruction! DEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

Yeah so seriously, the point I'm getting at is that you can't connect things like that. Smoking weed before bed in the privacy of my own home has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not I'm going to embezzle corporate funds and murder everyone at work.

Actually, you did. You went from being someone who has an excellent record, good appearance, projecting an image of trustworthiness to being someone who lied about an issue that could cause problems for the company.

What exactly did I lie about? I must have missed that. Not once did anyone say "DO YOU SMOKE POT?" And not once did I say "NO I DO NOT SMOKE POT."

Here's where someone is going to say: "DEERRRR! YOU DIDN'T VOLUNTEER THE INFORMATION DEEERRRR SO IT'S THE SAME AS LYING!"

Which still isn't lying. Lying is TELLING AN UNTRUTH. I feel sorry for everyone who just got smacked down there. But its true. I can't make pot legal any quicker than you can fabricate the word lie out of whatever you want.

Here's where someone says:

"DEEEEER!! BUT MY RETARDIPEDIA WEBSITE SAYS LYING IS BLAH BLAH BLAH DEEEEERR!"

Sorry, still wrong. I didn't lie to anyone about anything. I just didn't volunteer every little detail about my life. I didn't tell them about the wicked gas pains I had from being nervous, either. I guess that makes me a liar too!


DEEEEEEEEEEER!

[BlaqueKatt]

Most of that site was guilt by association and not science. So it's similar in structure to X, so it must have X's properties?

x is mixed with one of two items-Meth or Heroin.

I took it once- didn't want to do anything but lie under a fuzzy blanket petting a cat for 6 hours-that wouldn't do much for social anxiety.

And pot well there's the paranoia side effect for one.....