0
Airman1270

Why can't I get a job without being insulted?

Recommended Posts

Yes, alcohol and nicotine are drugs... and though I shouldn't have to explain the difference, I will.

First, I can not think of any company which allows you to "Drink on the job" not even bartenders... I am sure there is one out there that you will try to use to counter me, but what is one out of millions...
Second, there are many companies banning smoking (nicotine) due to lost time while smoking plus the health affects and lost time due to illness... So there is a move in that direction.

You conveniently are getting away from the fact that pot is illegal, but I will ignor that for just a minute.
So, caffine is a drug too.... It seems to increase productivity. Nicotines stimulating effects last minutes at best ...

"The short-term effects of marijuana can include problems with memory and learning; distorted perception; difficulty in thinking and problem solving; loss of coordination; and increased heart rate. Research findings for long-term marijuana use indicate some changes in the brain similar to those seen after long-term use of other major drugs of abuse. For example, cannabinoid (THC or synthetic forms of THC) withdrawal in chronically exposed animals leads to an increase in the activation of the stress-response system(6) and changes in the activity of nerve cells containing dopamine(7). Dopamine neurons are involved in the regulation of motivation and reward, and are directly or indirectly affected by all drugs of abuse."

So, pot efffects output ... as simple as that.

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't want an alcoholic to work for either. But please tell me how I can test someones urine and conclude they are an alcoholic.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

And the award for the most irrelevant comment of the day goes to..... Justin.

Try to stay on topic.



It is on topic. My point being that as long as what I do outside of work doesn't affect my work, why should my employer need to know about it.? (For the record, my employer does random drug testing, and I don't do drugs. I don't agree with it, but I'm not going to let it get in the way of me having a decent job)


Quote


BTW - They do put Goveners and GPS system in company vehicle for this exact reason. My Brother-In-Law drives and 18 wheeler for Dunkin Donuts and, his truck can NOT travel faster than 70mph...



We'll, if I was driving a car that wasn't mine, I suppose I'd have to go by the rules of the person/company that owned it. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



BTW- I would like to see a study which showed this. Average number of sick days taken per year by people who smoke pot vs. people who do not smoke pot. I would bet money there is a corrilation!!!!

Chris



I know FAR more people PERSONALLY who have called in sick due to hangover than because they smoked pot the night before.

You tell one guy to go out and get hammered to the point of blacking out and another to go and get so blazed he cannot stand. We will see who is more likely to make it to work the next morning.

But then alcohol is socially acceptable so it stays legal.

Whatever, you want to buy into the rhetoric, you go ahead.

Drug testing would not test for weed that has been smoked that at work. Since MJ stays in your system longer, a positive would certainly NOT be indicative of worktime smoking.
Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Research clearly demonstrates that marijuana has potential to cause problems in daily life or make a person’s existing problems worse. Because marijuana compromises the ability to learn and remember information, the more a person uses marijuana the more he or she is likely to fall behind in accumulating intellectual, job, or social skills. Moreover, research has shown that marijuana’s adverse impact on memory and learning can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off(22, 23).


here are your references:
1 NSDUH (formerly known as the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse) is an annual survey conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Copies of the latest survey are available from the National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information at 1-800-729-6686.

2 These data are from the 2003 Monitoring the Future Survey, funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, and conducted by the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research. The survey has tracked 12th-graders’ illicit drug use and related attitudes since 1975; in 1991, 8th- and 10th-graders were added to the study. The latest data are online at www.drugabuse.gov.

3 These data are from the 2003 Monitoring the Future Survey.

4 These data are from the annual Drug Abuse Warning Network, funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, DHHS. The survey provides information about emergency department visits that are induced by or related to the use of an illicit drug or the nonmedical use of a legal drug. The latest data (2002) are available at 1-800-729-6686 or online at www.samhsa.gov.

5 Herkenham M, Lynn A, Little MD, Johnson MR, et al: Cannabinoid receptor localization in the brain. Proc Natl Acad Sci, USA 87:1932-1936, 1990.

6 Rodriguez de Fonseca F, et al: Activation of cortocotropin-releasing factor in the limbic system during cannabinoid withdrawal. Science 276(5321):2050-2064, 1997.

7 Diana M, Melis M, Muntoni AL, et al: Mesolimbic dopaminergic decline after cannabinoid withdrawal. Proc Natl Acad Sci 95:10269-10273, 1998.

8 Mittleman MA, Lewis RA, Maclure M, et al: Triggering myocardial infarction by marijuana. Circulation 103:2805-2809, 2001.

9 Polen MR, Sidney S, Tekawa IS, et al: Health care use by frequent marijuana smokers who do not smoke tobacco. West J Med 158:596-601, 1993.

10 Tashkin DP: Pulmonary complications of smoked substance abuse. West J Med 152:525-530, 1990.

11 Zhang ZF, Morgenstern H, Spitz MR, et al: Marijuana use and increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention 6:1071-1078, 1999.

12 Ibid ref 10.

13 Sridhar KS, Raub WA, Weatherby, NL Jr, et al: Possible role of marijuana smoking as a carcinogen in the development of lung cancer at a young age. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 26(3):285-288, 1994.

14 Hoffman D, Brunnemann KD, Gori GB, et al: On the carcinogenicity of marijuana smoke. In: VC Runeckles, ed, Recent Advances in Phytochemistry. New York. Plenum, 1975.

15 Cohen S: Adverse effects of marijuana: selected issues. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 362:119-124, 1981.

16 Adams IB, Martin BR: Cannabis: pharmacology and toxicology in animals and humans. Addiction 91:1585-1614, 1996.

17 Klein TW, Newton C, Friedman H: Resistance to Legionella pneumophila suppressed by the marijuana component, tetrahydrocannabinol. J Infectious Disease 169:1177-1179, 1994.

18 Zhu L, Stolina M, Sharma S, et al: Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol inhibits antitumor immunity by a CB2 receptor-mediated, cytokine-dependent pathway. J Immunology, 2000, pp. 373-380.

19 Brook JS, et al: The effect of early marijuana use on later anxiety and depressive symptoms. NYS Psychologist, January 2001, pp. 35-39.

20 Green BE, Ritter C: Marijuana use and depression. J Health Soc Behav 41(1):40-49, 2000.

21 Brook JS, Cohen P, Brook DW: Longitudinal study of co-occurring psychiatric disorders and substance use. J Acad Child and Adolescent Psych 37:322-330, 1998.

22 Pope HG, Yurgelun-Todd D: The residual cognitive effects of heavy marijuana use in college students. JAMA 272(7):521-527, 1996.

23 Block RI, Ghoneim MM: Effects of chronic marijuana use on human cognition. Psychopharmacology 100(1-2):219-228, 1993.

24 Lynskey M, Hall W: The effects of adolescent cannabis use on educational attainment: a review. Addiction 95(11):1621-1630, 2000.

25 Kandel DB, Davies M: High school students who use crack and other drugs. Arch Gen Psychiatry 53(1):71-80, 1996.

26 Rob M, Reynolds I, Finlayson PF: Adolescent marijuana use: risk factors and implications. Aust NZ J Psychiatry 24(1):45-56, 1990.

27 Brook JS, Balka EB, Whiteman M: The risks for late adolescence of early adolescent marijuana use. Am J Public Health 89(10):1549-1554, 1999.

28 Ibid ref 22.

29 Pope, Gruber, Hudson, et al: Neuropsychological performance in long-term cannabis users. Archives of General Psychiatry.

30 Lehman WE, Simpson DD: Employee substance abuse and on-the-job behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology 77(3):309-321, 1992.

31 Gruber, AJ, Pope HG, Hudson HI, Yurgelun-Todd D: Attributes of long-term heavy cannabis users: A case control study. Psychological Medicine 33:1415-1422, 2003.

32 Lester, BM; Dreher, M: Effects of marijuana use during pregnancy on newborn cry. Child Development 60:764-771, 1989.

33 Fried, PA: The Ottawa prenatal prospective study (OPPS): methodological issues and findings—it’s easy to throw the baby out with the bath water. Life Sciences 56:2159-2168, 1995.

34 Fried, PA: Prenatal exposure to marihuana and tobacco during infancy, early and middle childhood: effects and an attempt at synthesis. Arch Toxicol Supp 17:233-60, 1995.

35 Ibid ref 33.

36 Ibid ref 34.

37 Cornelius MD, Taylor PM, Geva D, et al: Prenatal tobacco and marijuana use among adolescents: effects on offspring gestational age, growth, and morphology. Pediatrics 95:738-743, 1995.

38 Kouri EM, Pope HG, Lukas SE: Changes in aggressive behavior during withdrawal from long-term marijuana use. Psychopharmacology 143:302-308, 1999.

39 Haney M, Ward AS, Comer SD, et al: Abstinence symptoms following smoked marijuana in humans. Psychopharmacology 141:395-404, 1999.

40 Lyons MJ, et al: Addiction 92(4):409-417, 1997.

41 These data from the Treatment Episode Data Set (TEDS) 1992-2000: National Admissions to Substance Abuse Treatment Services, November 2001, funded by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration, DHHS. The latest data are available at 1-800-729-6686 or online at www.samhsa.gov.

42 Stephens RS, Roffman RA, Curtin L: Comparison of extended versus brief treatments for marijuana use. J Consult Clin Psychol 68(5):898-908, 2000.

43 Budney AJ, Higgins ST, Radonovich KJ, et al: Adding voucher-based incentives to coping skills and motivational enhancement improves outcomes during treatment for marijuana dependence. J Consult Clin Psychol 68(6):1051-1061, 2000.


Students who smoke marijuana get lower grades and are less likely to graduate from high school, compared with their non-smoking peers(24, 25, 26, 27). A study of 129 college students found that, for heavy users of marijuana (those who smoked the drug at least 27 of the preceding 30 days), critical skills related to attention, memory, and learning were significantly impaired even after they had not used the drug for at least 24 hours(28). The heavy marijuana users in the study had more trouble sustaining and shifting their attention and in registering, organizing, and using information than did the study participants who had used marijuana no more than 3 of the previous 30 days. As a result, someone who smokes marijuana every day may be functioning at a reduced intellectual level all of the time.

More recently, the same researchers showed that the ability of a group of long-term heavy marijuana users to recall words from a list remained impaired for a week after quitting, but returned to normal within 4 weeks(29). Thus, it is possible that some cognitive abilities may be restored in individuals who quit smoking marijuana, even after long-term heavy use.

Workers who smoke marijuana are more likely than their coworkers to have problems on the job. Several studies associate workers’ marijuana smoking with increased absences, tardiness, accidents, workers’ compensation claims, and job turnover. A study of municipal workers found that those who used marijuana on or off the job reported more “withdrawal behaviors”—such as leaving work without permission, daydreaming, spending work time on personal matters, and shirking tasks—that adversely affect productivity and morale(30). In another study, marijuana users reported that use of the drug impaired several important measures of life achievement including cognitive abilities, career status, social life, and physical and mental health(31).



-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can think what you want, but let us do a hypothetical for a minute....

John drinks 3 beers evernight before he goes to bed.
Steve smokes a joint every night before he goes to bed.

Research clearly shows the mental abilities of the pot smoker are affected much more greatly than the drinker.
The pot smoker is likely to have less motivation, drive, memory and learning ability over the long run.

That is what the research says... Is that Gospel? No.
Is that true of most pot smokers? Yes (Most).

Therefore, given the choice as an employer, i would RATHER higher someone who does not do drugs than someone that does... Don't like that? Go work somewhere else :-)

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

And the award for the most irrelevant comment of the day goes to..... Justin.

Try to stay on topic.

BTW - They do put Goveners [sic] and GPS system [sic] in company vehicle [sic] for this exact reason. My Brother-In-Law drives and [sic] 18 wheeler for Dunkin Donuts and, his truck can NOT travel faster than 70mph...



Actually, Justin is very much on topic, as long as he is talking about his private vehicle, not used for company business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



That is what the research says... Is that Gospel? No.
Is that true of most pot smokers? Yes (Most).



Sure it is what research says. The research done by those who want to see it kept illegal. The facts are slanted how they want. And there is research that says the opposite. Nice of you to pick the side you want though.

And that second statement. What a bunch of crap. Seriously, if you think that, you really don't know many people that smoke. The majority I know are hard working people who know when to and when not to

I guess we should tell the UK, Cananda, Holland, etc that their workers are all lazy because they have decriminalized marijuana. :S

And I am done. This argument goes round and round. You buy into the message the drug war is selling and I am not going to be changing your mind.
Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The pot smoker is likely to have less motivation, drive, memory and learning ability over the long run.



Compared to what? Would you rather have a pot smoking Einstein or a straight edge Corky working for you?

As an employer, I'd rather have the best qualified candidate who does the best job. Sure, the pot smoker may not work to his full potential, but he still could be a better worker than someone who doesn't. I'd rather judge people on their performance rather than the chemical composition of their blood.

But I do agree that it's the employers call. I just don't agree with your reasons on why they should want to do it.

Oh...and I like how you want a blood test to see if people are "drinking on the job" but then claim that smoking pot when not on the job is bad. At least keep your standards in balance. If you want to stop people who smoke pot on occasion from working for you, you should also stop people who drink occassionally. If you only want to stop people from drinking on the job, you should only stop people from smoking pot on the job. Why the two different standards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's funny... I used to be a pot head. II talked just like many people here are right now. It is a conspiracy yada yada yada......

Believe what you want.
Hell, they should legalize pot and tax the SHIT out of it... I agree with you. One joint - $20.00 US.

I look at the people I used to hang around with.... the ones who still smoke. Yes, they are functioning members of society, but I would argue not nearly as focuseed and motivated as the non pot smokers... I believe the research, but the truth is, I don't really need the research as proof... I simply just need to look at the people doing it....
All the proof I'll ever need.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In regards to ethics:

You view the problem with this as an ethical issue. Mainly, you are concerned with the "slippery slope" of where the information and data sought should end. Well, what about the ethics of asking for a Social Security Number, Green Card or the like? Would you want your employer to know that you are an immigrant? Yet, this is something that must be done.

As an attorney, I have sme degree of concerns about "ethics." This is because sometimes "ethics" do not fall into my admittedly trained mindset of established codes of conduct.

But what you are arguing seems to be ethics theory in conduct mixed with some nihilism. It's a different approach to ethics than some of us are approaching. It doesn't mean it's wrong, it's just that this approach to ethics is inconsistent with my experiences.

Would you want your employer knowing yoru GPA in college? What abotu what classes you took? That's a step down the slippery slope. But, employers like the folks with high GPAs because it is easier for them to justify hires of people who performed well in school. But, this also presents a slippery slope.

The ethics of a society may demand that employers do this. Economic factors base into every society. You direct those who are talented at things towards those things that they are talented. how does society accomplish this without looking further into the characteristics and qualities of the individual?

A pure nihilist would object to this cattempted haracterization. The nihilist would say that society has no business in the affairs of the individual. So, a balance must be maintained. This balance is best obtained by employers seeking this information and by the potential employees having no duty to disclose it. The choice and options are therefore available to the employee.

Hell, the prospective employee could start his/her own business. Shortly thereafter, the ethics must change or else the business might not be there much longer.

Trust me. I've thought like you thought. I've been there, done that. Ethics are a matter of perspective. The wolf and the sheep look at things differently. If the wolf uses the sheep's values, the wolf is destined to die. If the sheep uses the wolf's values, well, who know's what will happen to the sheep.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

So don't work for them then. No one is making anyone else work for a company with these rules. and no one should make a company compromise their standards.



. Anybody who reads my post, and reads it carefully, and understands what I'm saying and why (even if they disagree with me) will realize that you completely miss my point.



That's a whole lot of qualifiers. But I did read it carefully, pretty sure I understand it, and do get your point. But I disagree with you.

You're basically advocating a freedom from interference or intrusion into things that you should be able to decide on your own. And I agree with that. But you don't take it far enough. You seem to be advocating that restrictions are place on businesses as to how they can screen employees. That would be YOU interfering with THEM.

Employment is an agreement between you and your employer. No one is forced to work for anyone else. Should the gov't be allowed to drug test citizens? Emphatically no. Should the gov't or others be allowed to tell employers what their standards should be? Emphatically no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Also, credit is your reputation for financial responsibility, which can tend to show your responsibility level for other things. Do you manage your responsibiliies and tasks? All of them? I've had problems with my credit, and I'm working at fixing it. But, it can show some problems.



To expound on this, it's not just some concocted HR mumbo jumbo, there is actual science that shows people's risk taking is fairly uniform between finances & other aspects of their lives. So someone with a terribly poor credit history is in fact likely to be someone who may put the business at risk--including other current employees who could lose their jobs if the business goes belly up.

Which is not to say that all people with bad credit have poor judgement, but the odds are good enough for many employers to play them. It's not fair to everybody.
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


if it's risk taking they're weeding out, there'd be a whole lot of unemployed skydivers



Actually I believe it's the other way around. Risk taking is correlated with wealth. Presumably people with bad credit take fewer risks / worse risks. It's not risk taking itself that puts a business in harm's way--generally small businesses face enormous risks in their day-to-day operation under any circumstance. The threat to a business is taking bad risks, eg, using the company car excessively for personal purposes, and / or failing to seize good ones, eg breaking rote procedures in order to retain customers.

How many people do you know who have maxed out their credit cards that are also investing in their 401k (a form of risk taking) vs taking vacations and buying useless crap with their take home pay?

edited for word choice
My advice is to do what your parents did; get a job, sir. The bums will always lose. Do you hear me, Lebowski?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know exactly what you're saying. Was just making a joke. :)
It's nice to not have any debt and be investing and buying useless crap and taking vacations. Coming back to topic.....you need a good job to do that, and that means making some compromises maybe when looking for a job. Yeah, it's insulting for someone to want you to prove you aren't a drug addict or criminal before they'll hire you. But the bottom line is, they don't want drug addict or ciminals working for them, and they do what they can to avoid it. Nothing wrong with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

But, Drugs are illegal. Pot is a drug.



Curious, I know youre religious bu i don't really know how you'd answer this, would you support a company's "rights" to not hire sexually active male homosexuals?

Anal sex is illegal (many states), sexually active gay men have anal sex.

Also, if you answer yes to that question what about heterosexual men who engage in anal sex with a woman? Should they also not be hired because it's illegal (most states)?
___________________________________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You can say what you want... you obviously do drugs, so to you it should be socially acceptable.



This is the precise reason people object to testing - anyone opposed to being watched peeing in a cup must be a doper.

It couldn't possibly be an objection to ignorant managers leaping to unfounded conclusions.

I sure hope they don't hold people unemployable because of bad credit due to an irresponsible ex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The only problem is, the tests are easy enough to fool and "hard drugs" like coke and heroin only stay in your system for a few days whereas pot- relatively harmless- stays in your system for weeks and you can test positive after having been around it without partaking. I'd rather hire someone who smoked a little weed on the weekends than someone with a serious coke habit who managed to stay clean for 2 days in order to fool a drug test.



A lot of places do testing on hair now, rather than blood/urine... they can tell if you "were in the same room" or if you lit up with everyone else... and they can also tell if harder stuff was taken...
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

No. If the drugs are not being used on premises and do not affect quality of work, I don't care what they do in their personal life.



And how will you know if it will affect their job performance?

Some drugs do, some don't. Some people it does, others it does not.

But it has been shown that in most cases people who use drugs (or have bad credit) are worse employees than those that do not.

Also for legal reasons companies have to CTA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Exactly. If enough quality candidates refuse to work for companies with such hiring criteria, they will have to either change the way they do business or settle for lower quality employees.



Nonsense. There will be enough quality canidates that will submit to them since they have nothing to hide.

You are tying to make it seem that only "bad" canidates submit to drug tests....That is a position you can not back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

No. If the drugs are not being used on premises and do not affect quality of work, I don't care what they do in their personal life.



And how will you know if it will affect their job performance?



Simple.

If I tell them, "get this done". and they do it to an acceptable level, then quality of work is just fine.

Call me crazy, but I think good project results would be a pretty decent indication of good performance.
Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If you want to stop people who smoke pot on occasion from working for you, you should also stop people who drink occassionally. If you only want to stop people from drinking on the job, you should only stop people from smoking pot on the job. Why the two different standards?



Now you can debate all day if beer is worse than pot. But that does not really matter.

If you hire an employee and he crashes your company van.

1. The kid drinks, but was not drunk.
2. The kid smokes pot and a drug test was done.

Which do you think will cause your company grief?

One is illegal, on is legal.

Also, you have a person who does not obey laws....This can also suggest that they do not follow rules. My company has rules and I would rather have a guy that followed rules working for me than someone who does not.

The company has the right. YOU have the right not to submit to it. But that does not change the companies right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0