Drug Tests

[the_std]

I fully support the recreational and medical use of marijuana. That said, I also say it is the company's right to perform drug tests on any employment candidates they choose. It's unfortunate, because I know that pot smoking does not equal incompetent loser (I know many pot smokers who lead completely normal, functioning lives...you would never know they smoked unless they told you). But businesses cannot afford to take that chance.

This is exactly how I feel as well. I don't demonize pot, I enjoy it on occasion and have many friends who do as well, all people who lead completely normal lives. But if a company wants to do piss tests, that's their call.

It seems that drug tests are more common in the States than they are here in Canada. I've had many jobs, including one for the federal government and another one for a prestigious university, and I've never once been asked to take a drug test. Hm, nor a credit check for that manner. Does anyone else notice this?

[LeChatNoir]

I fully support the recreational and medical use of marijuana. That said, I also say it is the company's right to perform drug tests on any employment candidates they choose. It's unfortunate, because I know that pot smoking does not equal incompetent loser (I know many pot smokers who lead completely normal, functioning lives...you would never know they smoked unless they told you). But businesses cannot afford to take that chance.

I have a friend who applied for a job, and he smokes regularly. He ended up buying a package of "fake" urine. I couldn't believe it when he actually passed and got the job.

[Pedersen]

I didn't become a different person in the last 12 hours just because they suddenly found out I smoke.

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.

Like it or not, seizure laws exist in this country that would allow the feds to seize the company's property if they made the claim that you were dealing on the job.

You've hidden from them something that you know some people have issues with on the grounds that you don't have issues with it. You've shattered your own trustworthy image by committing a lie of omission.

Congratulations.

[the_std]

I just think my work should speak for itself. I impressed them at both interviews, so obviously they didn't know just by looking at me that I smoke weed. I'm well spoken, intelligent, logical and in general have a good head on my shoulders (most of the time). I also had the same job for six years wherre I advanced to assistant manager and was the interim manager for a while. I have a good record and a lot of good experience. What should pot have to do with that? I didn't become a different person in the last 12 hours just because they suddenly found out I smoke.

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.

[DrFaroohk]

"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!"

I just think my work should speak for itself. I impressed them at both interviews, so obviously they didn't know just by looking at me that I smoke weed. I'm well spoken, intelligent, logical and in general have a good head on my shoulders (most of the time). I also had the same job for six years wherre I advanced to assistant manager and was the interim manager for a while. I have a good record and a lot of good experience. What should pot have to do with that? I didn't become a different person in the last 12 hours just because they suddenly found out I smoke.

[Pedersen]

I take issue with drug tests because they are such blatantly against the 5th amendment. I know the supreme court said they aren't, but come on, how is taking your bodily fluids not making you incriminate yourself?

Wow... easiest question ever asked on Fratching, I think. Of course, being ridiculously easy doesn't reduce the number of factors in the answer. How is it not making you incriminate yourself?

1. Who's filing the charges? If the consequences are "We're not going to hire you", you're not incriminating yourself. Incriminating yourself means that you say or do something that aids the state in prosecuting you. You are giving a urine sample to a company, not the state, and the company is actually incapable of starting the criminal proceedings against you. Therefore, no prosecution, and therefore no self-incrimination.

2. The full name for the document containing the 5th Amendment is "The Constitution of the United States of America", not "The Constitution of Joe's Diner". It limits the government, not the people, and not the companies.

3. You have the option of declining. You have the option of finding a company that does not engage in practices you find questionable. The company is stating that, as one of their conditions of employment, you must have a clean drug test, along with other conditions, such as punctuality, cleanliness, cooperation with coworkers, not sleeping on the job, etc. If any condition is too onerous for you, then you know you are at the wrong company and should simply decline.

Your next paragraph, though, is extremely amusing next to the first paragraph you wrote:

As to medical marijuana use in particular states, it is still against federal law. That alone means that feds can and have bust state legal pot sales and use. I wouldn't want to hire someone that is breaking federal law and could be jailed at any time.

In other words, as a company owner, you would not want to hire a user of an illegal substance, but (based on your first paragraph, quoted above) you would actively prevent other company owners from being able to determine whether or not someone is a user of illegal substances.

The self-contradiction amuses me greatly. Thank you for the laugh.

Do this or we will not hire you so you can feed your family sounds like duress and not legal.

So, if you apply for a job, you should get it, regardless? That's a great way to fix the economy, I guess. Since refusal to hire someone is causing duress to the person you've denied, every applicant must be hired. Of course, the fact that companies can't afford that is relevant.

Oh, wait, you didn't mean it that way. You only meant that refusal to hire a user of an illegal substance is duress. Wait, that doesn't make sense either. I've got many candidates for a given position, I need to choose someone. Why should I not refuse to hire someone who is using an illegal substance?

Furthermore, duress involves a credible threat of harm to the person being coerced. Your harm in this case amounts to "We won't give you this job." While that can be harmful, it is not harm in the legal sense. Nor is it even a credible threat of harm. The penalty is something that nearly everybody in the country faces at one time or another: Sorry, we found someone else that is a better match for the job. In this case, that someone else wasn't shown to be using illegal substances and lying to us about it.

And why should I not be able to confirm that they are not doing so? I'd rather have people I can trust to be honest with me. And people who use illegal substances have every reason in the world to lie to me, a total stranger. I have no way of knowing their habits, or the risks those habits present to my company, without getting a third party that I can trust to verify what they are telling me.

Physical evidence are those things, but you normally need a court order to obtain them, but not for your urine.

You need a court order to obtain such evidence when the holder of the evidence refuses to provide it, and yes urine is on that list. If you refuse to provide it, then I refuse to provide a paycheck. Sounds like a simple transaction to me.

I still don't like the erosion of our rights. Only the second amendment seems to be getting stronger.

I don't like the erosion of our rights, either, but you are attacking the wrong thing. The fundamental issue comes from corporate personhood (in particular, read the sections on Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Corporation). If you want to attack the issue of corporate rights vs human rights, start there.

While you're at it, I'd also work on gaining greater understanding of the legalities of the Constitution. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, not by any stretch, but even I know enough to know who that document limits.

[BroomJockey]

If that were true, then no one would have a problem with not being hired because of race or religion.

Strawman. Not in any way equivalent. One is a choice to participate in something illegal. Race and religion are not illegal. Further to that, even if it wasn't illegal, pot can and does have deleterious effects on a person's work. Race and religion do not have a direct impact on someone's work, though religion can prompt tricky circumstances in extreme cases.

Do this or we will not hire you so you can feed your family sounds like duress and not legal.

So you'd rather take away the rights of the companies to hire the people they feel can do the job best? Thus possibly impacting the ability of the company to function, if they get stuck with a really bad crop, shutting down, and dumping everyone out on to unemployment?

Remember, a company is made up of persons, and they have rights too. You can't take theirs away just because you want a job.

[Flyndaran]

Except that there is more than one job in the world, and you are not in any way entitled to employment with any one company.

If that were true, then no one would have a problem with not being hired because of race or religion.

[the_std]

Do this or we will not hire you so you can feed your family sounds like duress and not legal.

Except that there is more than one job in the world, and you are not in any way entitled to employment with any one company.

[Flyndaran]

Self-incrimination only applies to spoken or written testimony, otherwise it's classified as physical evidence, similar to fingerprints or a DNA sample. Further, it's to a private entity, the 5th amendment only applies to criminal investigations.

Do this or we will not hire you so you can feed your family sounds like duress and not legal. Physical evidence are those things, but you normally need a court order to obtain them, but not for your urine.
I still don't like the erosion of our rights. Only the second amendment seems to be getting stronger.

[BroomJockey]

I take issue with drug tests because they are such blatantly against the 5th amendment. I know the supreme court said they aren't, but come on, how is taking your bodily fluids not making you incriminate yourself?

Self-incrimination only applies to spoken or written testimony, otherwise it's classified as physical evidence, similar to fingerprints or a DNA sample. Further, it's to a private entity, the 5th amendment only applies to criminal investigations.

[tropicsgoddess]

The drug tests aren't a problem to me for employment. My big problem is the credit check.

Same here. But medicinal pot or not, if you take any prescription meds, especially narcotics or opiates you should bring in the prescription with you for your drug test as a way to CYA if it comes out positive. As for pot, it stays in your system for a while whether you do the pee test or the hair test. IIRC somebody told me that it stays in your hair for about 90 days (pot).

[Flyndaran]

I wish that silly myth that pot kills brain cells would just die. The only risk from smoking pot is lung cancer.

I take issue with drug tests because they are such blatantly against the 5th amendment. I know the supreme court said they aren't, but come on, how is taking your bodily fluids not making you incriminate yourself?

As to medical marijuana use in particular states, it is still against federal law. That alone means that feds can and have bust state legal pot sales and use. I wouldn't want to hire someone that is breaking federal law and could be jailed at any time.

[BroomJockey]

Back to the OP, I don't get why pot became automatically "bad". There can be legitimate medical uses. What if an applicant, who was prescribed medical marijuana (in a state where this is legal) was denied a job due to the test results?

Because it's illegal. That's why it's "bad." If you don't think it has any bad effects, good for you, but it's still illegal, and going against the law has consequences, bad law or not. There's a lot of things that have legitimate medical uses. Heroin is used in hospitals as a pain killer for terminally ill patients. If a person could prove that it was medically prescribed, then they might have a chance at convincing the company to hire them regardless, but they'd probably be best off disclosing that up front.

[Dreamstalker]

If you have a bad credit score then you must be bad with money and susceptible to bribery.

In their reasoning.

I'm sure especially now, hundreds if not thousands of otherwise qualified, motivated people are passed over because of a bad credit score that's not their fault (behind on bills due to being laid off, etc). That pisses me off

Back to the OP, I don't get why pot became automatically "bad". There can be legitimate medical uses. What if an applicant, who was prescribed medical marijuana (in a state where this is legal) was denied a job due to the test results?

The "gateway drug" designation IMO is utter crap. I did pot occasionally in college (the campus nurse just wanted to make sure I was being safe; my dad gave me "the talk", make sure I was being safe about it and said to not let our fundie aunt and uncle find out). Have I ever had the desire to try anything harder? No. Have I become "addicted"? No. It depends on the person.