Why is it anyone elses business? Studies have proven time and time again that drug testing is useless for determining preformance.
I agree mostly. The purpose of drug testing other than pre employment, is so that when someone gets hurt on the job and comes up dirty the company is not liable and can fire the person. Maybe they should test people for being tired or perhaps overworked and stressed too that way they could get out of even more Workman's comp cases. I think you should be tested with a Breathalyzer to see if you are drunk but not drug tested. That is bullshit. If you are drunk on the job you should loose your job, and you really shouldn't be getting high at work. But there is no test to see when you got high only that you had gotten high at some point within the last month or so. It is also a means to divide and conquer the populace. But lets not get into that.
Hey - welcome to the twenty-first century! We are in the age of the new prohibition. You are EVIL if you take drugs - don't you know that? EVIL!!!! FP
I absolutely agree with you! There has been no proven compelling reason for across the board drug testing, no cost savings, no better productivity, nothing. It is just a phallacy that the drug testing labs continue to propagate across our society. Not to mention that there is no test to find out about current use of marijuana. The THC stays in your blood (fat cells I think) for up to a month so what are they testing for? That you ran into a college buddy and managed to score a joint and then smoked it a month ago? Come on! On the other side of the coin, I've needed a job and went through drug testing 3 times. I have not used heavy drugs for many, many years, but used to be a regular pot smoker and I managed to pass all 3 of them. Also, I know that the residue from drugs such as cocaine, heroin and meth only stay in your system a few days, so if you fail because you are snorting on the way to your test, the the test has worked, because it proves you are stupid! And finally, I have always been an outstanding employee that rarely, if ever, calls in sick, works twice as hard as others and I am professional in every way I represent my employer. Kinda blows the theory that drug users cost the company money, doesn't it?
i can see from both sides. FOR: it makes sense that an employer would not want to hire someone who is an alcoholic, becasue if they get drunk off their *** one night, and have to be at work at 8am the next day, how will they perform? if they even come to work? AGAINST: why is it their business? they dont have to assume that just because a person does drugs that they are not a hard worker or that they are unreliable. i was about to try drugs for the first time, and the day before i got a call from target saying that i was hired, and needed to take a drug test. i had put in my application almost a month ago so i figured they didnt want me, so i said to hell with it and was gonna do it. but i didnt and i got hired. i dont think it should be mandatory, only if there is a suspicion of it, or if like you said, you are operating machinery or something.
No, it's not an indication of performance but it is of liability. As a business owner, I see employees who use drugs have more frequent absences, illnesses and tardiness. Also, those who may come to work under the influence are a safety risk to other employees and a detriment to productivity. I have fired more than a few people who were not tested before applying for work, but were subject to tests because of their on the job behavior and performance. If these people were not hired in the first place, it would have saved the company a lot of money in administrative and productivity expense.
