Current Events > Drug screenings are outdated, ineffective and borderline discriminatory

(+) Yeah! (+)

- They do a terrible job of screening out anything that isn't marijuana, which, of all the potential drugs that can be tested for, is the least likely to affect workplace performance long-term. Everything else only stays in your system for 3 days tops, meaning you can snort a whole line of cocaine on Saturday, and piss clean by the following Tuesday, if not Monday.

- Drug screens ONLY test for the presence of illegal drugs in the system and not for the actual effects. Things like impaired/altered senses, forgetfulness, and difficulty with problem-solving don't just exist with drug usage. They can also occur with prescription drugs, hangovers and plain sleep deprivation. You wouldn't want your truck driver to drive stoned, but you also wouldn't want him to drive running off of only 2 hours of sleep either.

- Drug screens provide absolutely no context on usage habits. Everybody consumes differently. Once a week, every night after work, before, during and after work, only on special occasions. The net cast by drug screenings is so massive that a lot of inaccurate conclusions can be (and often are) drawn about a particular candidate's hirability.

- Drug screenings discriminate against poor/middle-class drug users. While obviously anybody can consume any drug, cocaine is the drug of preference among the rich, while marijuana, the most common, easily accessible, easiest to produce and cheapest illegal drug tends to be the drug of choice among everyone else. Marijuana is up to 10 times more likely to cause a positive test result than cocaine is.


---

Agreed. Also, the whole idea of drug screenings was invented by some rich politician just looking to make some money off them IIRC.

---

For the most part, I agree, but Ive never particularly understood how hard it is to just not do it if your job is that strict about it.

Lol
---

nemu posted...

For the most part, I agree, but Ive never particularly understood how hard it is to just not do it if your job is that strict about it.

Some people will quit smoking for a month in preparation for a drug test and still fail.

---

I mean, I think employers have a right to not want to hire or retain anyone who partakes in drug use. While I do consider cocaine, PCP, etc, to be harder drugs, I'm not a fan of people who act like marijuana is a necessity.

I'm not a fan of recreational drugs in general. I see no reason to discriminate for marijuana and not alcohol though.

---

Lyrica posted...

I mean, I think employers have a right to not want to hire or retain anyone who partakes in drug use. While I do consider cocaine, PCP, etc, to be harder drugs, I'm not a fan of people who act like marijuana is a necessity.

But where it becomes a grey area is that employers are now impeding upon what you choose to do in your personal life.

What employers need to do instead is screen for the conditions that actually make an employee worse at their job, not just assuming somebody is a worse employee because there's traces of marijuana from weeks ago.

---

Your first point is wrong
Benzos and methadone stay in your system for way longer than 3 days.

Also, while I don't like drug screens, I'm not gonna advocate for a law that mandates a private company to be required to NOT screen employees for drugs. That is the company's choice.

If the argument is "my company has no business getting involved in what I do when I'm not on the clock" then you gotta also say that people that people shouldn't lose their job for being doxxed or saying something stupid asf on their social media account. You cant have it one way just because it conveniences you.


---

Lyrica posted...

I mean, I think employers have a right to not want to hire or retain anyone who partakes in drug use. While I do consider cocaine, PCP, etc, to be harder drugs, I'm not a fan of people who act like marijuana is a necessity.

Its one thing to test whether someone is on something atm and whether they might have taken something in the past month (depending on the drug/test).

If there was a test for marijuana that tested whether the person was still stoned atm, then thats fine. Dont want workers on something at work. But who cares if they did something over the weekend, come into work Monday sober, yet still fail. Just dumb.
---

If you applied to a job knowing about drug screenings, yet still smoked, you're dumb and I don't want you.

If anything, I advocate for better tests, not less testing.

---

Fully agreed TC

I think it's a disgusting invasion of privacy, especially if your job performance isn't suffering
---

It's straight up racist. This is another thing that needs to change under BLM. Along with legalizing weed in general.

BIPOC are definitely affected the most with both and the screening itself is useless.

---

yemmy posted...

Your first point is wrong
Benzos and methadone stay in your system for way longer than 3 days.

Also, while I don't like drug screens, I'm not gonna advocate for a law that mandates a private company to be required to NOT screen employees for drugs. That is the company's choice.

If the argument is "my company has no business getting involved in what I do when I'm not on the clock" then you gotta also say that people that people shouldn't lose their job for being doxxed or saying something stupid asf on their social media account. You cant have it one way just because it conveniences you.

I think most of the people who get fired over racist things on social media are only fired because they went viral. Once someone's gone viral, that's kind of a different ballgame, imo.

There's a difference between smoking a joint with your friends on a weekend vs having your face nationally broadcast screaming about a black dude who's going to assault you in a park.

---

MutantJohn posted...

I think most of the people who get fired over racist things on social media are only fired because they went viral. Once someone's gone viral, that's kind of a different ballgame, imo.

There's a difference between smoking a joint with your friends on a weekend vs having your face nationally broadcast screaming about a black dude who's going to assault you in a park.

Let me backpedal a bit on my original statement. I don't think random drug screens should be a thing. If a company wants to piss test before hiring, or if they drug test a guy because of suspicion (come in smelling like weed, acting crazy asf, whatever) that should be fair game.

I think you have the right to privacy and you should be able to smoke weed in your own house off of the clock, but I also think if you can't quit smoking weed for a month to get a job that you want then you lack the self discipline that I, as an employer, would expect out of an employee.

Of course the job matters too. I could give a fuck if the guy working at Best Buy or Walmart is high on pot or not. A forklift operator or something, no bueno.

---

While I agree with TC on principle, I do also believe that business owners have the right to know whether the person they are hiring have hard drugs in their system. Not really something you would bring up in an interview and addicts make really bad employees.

The states don't seem to have any problem drug-testing criminals even if their charge doesn't pertain to drugs, which is more disturbing than private businesses testing.

---

nemu posted...

For the most part, I agree, but Ive never particularly understood how hard it is to just not do it if your job is that strict about it.

I guess the overall issue is if youre part of an industry that explicitly relies on drug screenings. So, basically, you can never indulge in drugs like marijuana at the risk of testing positive, since everyone in your industry is testing. So then it morphs into a career thing, which is very different than a one-job-at-a-time kinda deal. And theyre a consistent thing, not just at the beginning of a job.

And also, hair tests are a thing. And those can go back 3 months on basically any recreational drug, including something like cocaine, which is tough to catch in urine after a couple days. The only reason theyre not mandatory is because they cost quite a bit more. But theyre used.

---

Employers have the right to reduce liability.

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

They do a terrible job...

Who?

---

If your job requires you to be clean then you've got to be clean. If you don't like it then find another job. Simple as that really.

archedsoul posted...

It's straight up racist. This is another thing that needs to change under BLM. Along with legalizing weed in general.

BIPOC are definitely affected the most with both and the screening itself is useless.

Except for the fact you will lose out on a job regardless of race if you fail a drug test. Unless you're saying only black people do drugs. Which comes off as racist in itself.


---

jmikla posted...

Who?

Take home drug tests.

Labs are very accurate. If he's complaining that pot is fat soluble, therefore compounds in your system for up to like 2 months, and coke, meth, heroin only stay in your system for 3 days because they are water soluble then I mean I don't like that either but I cant change science.

---

Work in fast food, most of them don't do drug screens, problem solved, next.

People arguing over whether they should be allowed are missing the point imo. If my employer wants me to go to a tarot reading as part of my hiring process to see if I'll be compatible with the office. okay, but it's still dumb and not effective.

---

Balrog0 posted...

People arguing over whether they should be allowed are missing the point imo. If my employer wants me to go to a tarot reading as part of my hiring process to see if I'll be compatible with the office. okay, but it's still dumb and not effective.

Exactly my point.

If a private business decides to drug test, then nobody should really be able to tell them otherwise. But they're wasting their money on something that is largely ineffective within the hiring process. Even if somebody DOES quit long enough to pass a drug test, they'll just go right back to using anyway.

The point being that somebody who fails isn't necessarily an addict and somebody who passes isn't necessarily clean.

It is also worth noting that the ONLY reason drug tests are so commonplace is because of tradition, not because of any real practical benefit. It's just become accepted within the U.S. that drug tests are a natural part of the hiring process, and most companies simply don't question why they're needed.

---

Methhead topic

---

I'd rather hire a weed smoker than an alcoholic. He'll call out more due to hangovers.

---

Lol @ calling it racist. My opinion is: I don't do drugs so I don't give a fuck. They obviously aren't the most effective way to find out if someone is doing drugs but, well, so? If you fail then you were still in fact doing drugs so...yeah. Don't do drugs? Or don't apply for jobs that care if you do drugs?

Drug testing is the only thing that has ever held me back. I'm a fantastic worker, but I indulge in something that is now 100% legal that, simply put, makes me an even better worker and person. There hasn't been a single job that I wasn't the #1 employee at, and that isn't me flexing or being vain, I LIKE to keep going and working. If that means helping you do your stuff as well, then I'm 100% okay with that. Give me shit to do

But high paying jobs will never get the benefit of me because I do something legal, but they will hire people calling in sick because they drank too much the night before.

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

snort a whole line of cocaine

a whole line!?!!? wow that's a lot



---

DaveRose316 posted...

Except for the fact you will lose out on a job regardless of race if you fail a drug test. Unless you're saying only black people do drugs. Which comes off as racist in itself.

I mean, the War on Drugs was a roundabout way of perpetuating systematic racism without being too overt about it, so he's not far off.

But the issue is the type of drug. No, black people aren't the only people that do drugs, but we tend to stay away from shit like meth, heroin and cocaine, which doesn't last long in the system.

---

Yes, the War of Drugs was racist, tbh. Fuck you, Regan.

---

Grischnak posted...

Lol @ calling it racist. My opinion is: I don't do drugs so I don't give a fuck. They obviously aren't the most effective way to find out if someone is doing drugs but, well, so? If you fail then you were still in fact doing drugs so...yeah. Don't do drugs? Or don't apply for jobs that care if you do drugs?

What else does your job or potential employer get to dictate that you can or cannot do in your own spare time?

---

Or just dont do drugs

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

But the issue is the type of drug. No, black people aren't the only people that do drugs, but we tend to stay away from shit like meth, heroin and cocaine, which doesn't last long in the system.

While it's true that white people are more likely to do meth/heroin/cocaine, your logic falls apart because white people are just as likely to smoke weed. So even assuming weed is all they care about catching, the drug tests still effect white people as much as black people. So kind of hard to argue racism. Just saying.

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

What else does your job or potential employer get to dictate that you can or cannot do in your own spare time?

Lol. Do you live in the fucking 50s or something? Post some wrongthink on Twitter or Facebook in 2020. See what happens at your job.

Grischnak posted...

Lol. Do you live in the fucking 50s or something? Post some wrongthink on Twitter or Facebook in 2020. See what happens at your job.

Smoking a joint in private =/= going on a racist rant on social media that makes your employer look bad

---

Lyrica posted...

I mean, I think employers have a right to not want to hire or retain anyone who partakes in drug use. While I do consider cocaine, PCP, etc, to be harder drugs, I'm not a fan of people who act like marijuana is a necessity.

I'd say an employer has no right to dictate how you spend your free time.

---

yemmy posted...

Your first point is wrong
Benzos and methadone stay in your system for way longer than 3 days.

Also, while I don't like drug screens, I'm not gonna advocate for a law that mandates a private company to be required to NOT screen employees for drugs. That is the company's choice.

If the argument is "my company has no business getting involved in what I do when I'm not on the clock" then you gotta also say that people that people shouldn't lose their job for being doxxed or saying something stupid asf on their social media account. You cant have it one way just because it conveniences you.

They shouldn't be, unless they are using a company account.

---

It's also really telling that some people are equating a recreational substance to publicized blatant racism.

---

You'd be surprised how many senior managers in any business field have some sort of substance habit

---

ITT drug addicts whining they cant come to work high.

Boohoo

---

archedsoul posted...

It's straight up racist. This is another thing that needs to change under BLM. Along with legalizing weed in general.

BIPOC are definitely affected the most with both and the screening itself is useless.

Racist? Everyone gets tested at my job. And trust me plenty of white people smoke weed. I mean hippies where literally the stereotype for potheads for a long time.

---

Bad_Mojo posted...

I indulge in something that is now 100% legal

Whether it's legal or not is irrelevant. No business wants employees high or drunk at work. Legalisation isn't the removal of responsibility.

Cinderforge posted...

Whether it's legal or not is irrelevant. No business wants employees high or drunk at work. Legalisation isn't the removal of responsibility.

So then why do these same employers not care about alcohol then?

---

mooreandrew58 posted...

Racist? Everyone gets tested at my job. And trust me plenty of white people smoke weed. I mean hippies where literally the stereotype for potheads for a long time.

Yah. The discriminatory part of the topic and the post your responding to have me confused. The rest looks good, but those are just silly.

---

I wonder how many of this weed naysayers drink alcohol?

Imagine the uproar if companies started denying jobs to people who drink...

---

richisdisturbed posted...

I wonder how many of this weed naysayers drink alcohol?

Imagine the uproar if companies started denying jobs to people who drink...

Yup.

Imagine if every employer made you do a lie detector test asking if you had been drunk at all within the past 30 days and made hiring decisions based on that.

People would find that absolutely ridiculous.

---

So what do we do then?

---

RchHomieQuanChi posted...

Yup.

Imagine if every employer made you do a lie detector test asking if you had been drunk at all within the past 30 days and made hiring decisions based on that.

People would find that absolutely ridiculous.

.dont need a lie detector test. Blood test will do the trick.

---

Grischnak posted...

Lol @ calling it racist. My opinion is: I don't do drugs so I don't give a fuck. They obviously aren't the most effective way to find out if someone is doing drugs but, well, so? If you fail then you were still in fact doing drugs so...yeah. Don't do drugs? Or don't apply for jobs that care if you do drugs?

it is racist because it has a disproportionately large effect on poor people, and people of colour are proportionately more likely to be poor

---