You mean like the freedom to not hire someone who engages in illegal and potentially performance affecting behavior? Or the freedom to make another person act in a manner which benefits you, to their detriment?
Printable View
The one thing that hasn't been mentioned is the usual method for testing for dilution is looking at your creatine levels. You can jack those up a little bit by getting a supplement.
That, and lots of water = pass. I'm sure cranberry doesn't hurt either.
Go into the test eating a poppyseed muffin....
THC is stored in the fatty part of the brain. You can't just "sweat it out". lol
There's a reason it stays in your body for 30 days.
Also, drinking water doesn't work because it "flushes you out", it just dilutes the thc traces in your urine so much that it is undetectable.
I don't. I think drug testing should only be applied in ways that identify actual risk to the employer or public, and do not invade the privacy of the employee in their off hours unless that invasion is for good reason.
Or in other words, I think random blood testing for pilots, truck drivers, forklift operators are all good ideas, while I think checking to see if the guy in plumbing at Home Depot smokes some ganj with a joke of a test is utterly retarded. If the drug testing has a valid purpose, we should do it in a way that can't be easily defrauded.
It gets a bit more complicated because insurance is involved. How do you argue that insurers/employers shouldn't deny coverage/jobs to individuals engaging in high risk behavior? It isn't settled just how much right your employer has to invade your privacy. Can they tell you not to smoke cigarettes? Some have. Why should I, as an employee, have to subsidize the healthcare of other employees with a cancer-stick habit who increase our group plan rates?
I don't know a single Silicon Valley software or hardware engineering firm that tests for drugs, except the defense contractors that are federally required to.
As far as the pro-corporate testing argument, since when do corporations get a license to be law enforcement agents? If a corporation said "We send private corporate security to search the houses of all prospective hires for contraband", that would be unquestionably illegal and everyone would be up in arms. A piss test is no different.
Personally, I have always refused to take any job that involves a piss test.
Me too, Spats.
I did once. Arrived to find the place full of hardcore stoners. I found it mildly amusing that the test was that useless. If we are going to test (and I think we should test people in certain jobs) we should probably not just waste a bunch of money obscuring the truth.
I played that game for a long time. It's basically cost me 10 years toward retirement and I get to go to work and be supervised by people who started in my field years after I did.
If you're lucky enough to work it out that's awesome, for the rest of us... :nonono2::nonono2::nonono2:
I tell you. one of these years enough will be enough and I will leave this messed up country and never come back.
meh. It all depends on the job. I'm pretty happy that I am somewhat confident that the guy I'm walking past 5,000 feet underground operating a 12 foot wide machine in a 14 foot wide area isn't tripping fucking balls.
If the tests actually detected impairment, that might be a valid concern. However, they do not, so piss testing makes you no safer.
All a piss test tells you is whether someone smoked pot in the last several weeks. Cocaine, heroin, etc. are all out of your system in a day or two, and psychedelics and alcohol aren't tested for at all.
What would actually make workers safer is ditching all the piss tests, but making them take an impairment test each morning before operating heavy machinery, like those "Simon Says" ignition interlocks that get put on drunk drivers' cars. It doesn't matter why you're impaired: whether you're tired from no sleep, hung over, stoned, drunk, or tripping, if you can't operate the interlock, you shouldn't be operating the machinery. For that matter, you shouldn't have driven to work.
Hmm, so, drug test are :
1- An obvious infringement of one's liberties but for very specific dangerous jobs. (from a moral stand point anyway, if not according to US contract law)
2- Easily fooled or contourned.
This is brilliant.
They should give IQ test instead.
"Dilution is the solution to your pollution"
~Dr. Robert Czarney
Head Chemist
Navy Drug Lab, San Diego
May 2003
Some of these companies test people because they have a moral stance on the issue. That's their right even though I don't agree with it. Most companies test to protect their investment in an employee. An employee that has a risk of health problems, addiction/mental health problems, or unproductivity is a bad risk. The company has the right to choose. I think some people get so upset about this because it puts them in a situation where their belief that they don't have a problem is challenged openly. I think that if drugs or alcohol affects your lifestyle negatively then you have a problem. If you're called out on that and it pisses you off then I guess you are having some cognitive dissonance about your issue. I hope this guy passes his drug test because it sounds like he is a victim of circumstance.
If I had to give regular Urine Samples I'd be sure to eat a shitton of Asparagus beforehand.