What's the point of testing for THC?

[Progmetty]

Before getting accepted into the job, what's the fundamental rational behind it?
I've always thought the point was to figure out whether or not you have it in you to break the law, I thought companies just don't wanna have employees who don't mind doing something illegal. To some degree I can understand and respect that.
I'm now getting the impression that it's not about that, it's about your modified behavior that results from getting high, this can neither understand nor respect. In my mind this means we have found a cure for laziness, just don't smoke pot, we will all turn into work loving ants, bees will rave about how organized and functional humans are once we stop smoking pot.
Of course assuming all the lazy humans who smoke pot actually smoked at or right before going to work. Let me not assume that, let me assume they're thinking the modified behavior comes from being a smoker in general, smoking recreationally on weekends or even every night, are you less efficient at work the next day than the dumb fuck with the alcohol hang over?
/rant

[ReaPsTA]

Completely self-serving point:

The human brain starts seriously reaching its final stages of development somewhere around the age of 25-30, depending on who you ask.  So, being 24, I've started to notice that a lot of people around my age are in the final stages of their personalities becoming fully adult.  I know one guy who's engaged to his fiance, and they basically live an "adult" life of trying to buy a house and working 8 hour per day jobs.  They still do "childish" things, I guess, but it's the wrong way to think about it.  You're basically seeing where they will end up.

You can always tell at this point who is seriously into pot, alcohol, or some other kind of drug because you can tell their brain is just not at the same stage as those who are becoming adults.  The drug is stunting their mental development.  The pot headz uzually talk like thisssss mannnnnn......  They look burnt out.  The people who drink too much are impulsive and lack a meaningful emotional center.

You wish you could tell hard drinkers and pot heads in high school "Dude, if you don't stop this, you literally won't be able to become an adult."  But then you would just be the man, trying to stomp out their good times.

An employer screening for THC use is basically saying "who among these job applicants is a child masquerading as a man?"

[Ben_Jamin]

A way to know we're responsible...

[Adami]

I've been drug tested a few times, never bothered me since I never use drugs.


However I have a cousin to who smokes a TON of pot. He recently applied for a job with Verizon or something. They told him to not smoke for a little while before taking his drug test so he can come off clean and then can resume smoking pot.


Something tells me this practice isn't very rare either.

[Progmetty]

You can always tell at this point who is seriously into pot, alcohol, or some other kind of drug because you can tell their brain is just not at the same stage as those who are becoming adults.  The drug is stunting their mental development.  The pot headz uzually talk like thisssss mannnnnn......  They look burnt out.  The people who drink too much are impulsive and lack a meaningful emotional center.

Interesting take although so many examples contradict it, I'm sure it's valid for other examples too but that's where I differ, I think it's what you make of it, smoking two or three times every day gives a result closer to the picture you paint and smoking weekly or occasionally is a completely different story from what I've seen in many examples. By the way both versions are equally as "unacceptable" in the eyes of the companies who do the 3 month detection hair follicle test.

An employer screening for THC use is basically saying "who among these job applicants is a child masquerading as a man?"

That means it's the company wanting to see if you're responsible. Okay, I'll take that.

[Progmetty]

A way to know we're responsible...

Like Reap's opinion, is it more than an opinion? is it explained in writing somewhere?

I've been drug tested a few times, never bothered me since I never use drugs.


However I have a cousin to who smokes a TON of pot. He recently applied for a job with Verizon or something. They told him to not smoke for a little while before taking his drug test so he can come off clean and then can resume smoking pot.


Something tells me this practice isn't very rare either.

You mean the practice of telling the candidate they need to stop so they can pass the test, kinda like a tip off, or the practice of testing in general?

[ReaPsTA]

You can always tell at this point who is seriously into pot, alcohol, or some other kind of drug because you can tell their brain is just not at the same stage as those who are becoming adults.  The drug is stunting their mental development.  The pot headz uzually talk like thisssss mannnnnn......  They look burnt out.  The people who drink too much are impulsive and lack a meaningful emotional center.

Interesting take although so many examples contradict it, I'm sure it's valid for other examples too but that's where I differ, I think it's what you make of it, smoking two or three times every day gives a result closer to the picture you paint and smoking weekly or occasionally is a completely different story from what I've seen in many examples. By the way both versions are equally as "unacceptable" in the eyes of the companies who do the 3 month detection hair follicle test.

There's always counter-examples.  But I think a higher percentage of people who smoke/drink/whatever are emotionally damaged from doing so than we'd like to admit.  I'm not saying everyone who likes to go to the bar needs to appear on a Dr. Drew show.  Just that you can't consume mind-altering substances designed to sublimate higher thought and not experience consequences from doing so.

An employer screening for THC use is basically saying "who among these job applicants is a child masquerading as a man?"

That means it's the company wanting to see if you're responsible. Okay, I'll take that.

I wish I didn't write that.  I don't really actually know why.  That's my take looking at it from the perspective of the companies that do the tests.  More than likely, at least some of the companies that drug test simply have an irrational fear of that evil marijuana thing that hippies smoke.

[senecadawg2]

I've been drug tested a few times, never bothered me since I never use drugs.


However I have a cousin to who smokes a TON of pot. He recently applied for a job with Verizon or something. They told him to not smoke for a little while before taking his drug test so he can come off clean and then can resume smoking pot.


Something tells me this practice isn't very rare either.

You mean the practice of telling the candidate they need to stop so they can pass the test, kinda like a tip off, or the practice of testing in general?

I think he was referring to the tip off, which I agree probably is surprisingly common. If you are a good, responsible worker, there should be no problems regarding what you do on your off time.

[Chino]

Businesses don't want to run the risk of having an employee the customers love, and then end up in the newspaper for being arrested on drug charges. It can reflect poorly on the company.

[rumborak]

The only person I know of who got fired because of an addiction .... had an online gambling addiction. Can't test for that.

[Adami]

The only person I know of who got fired because of an addiction .... had an online gambling addiction. Can't test for that.

Wanna bet?

[El Barto]

I was never one of them, but there are plenty of people who love going to work stoned.  I can see why people might not want stoners at their workplace.  I don't think this is a very good argument for testing, personally, but I suspect it's the basic premise.  Frankly, if you can't deduce that a person is stoned without shipping some of his pubes off to a lab in New Mexico, then there's probably not a problem with the quality of his work. 

Another consideration is that with some places where insurance is a big issue, it might be mandated.  A bus company, for example, is going to have high enough liability anyway.  Their insurance carrier can reasonably want to insure that dopers aren't driving the busses or changing the brake pads.  That's probably a little misguided as well, but I understand how people might think that way.

[Chino]

The only person I know of who got fired because of an addiction .... had an online gambling addiction. Can't test for that.

Wanna bet?

 

[Orbert]

I was never one of them, but there are plenty of people who love going to work stoned.  I can see why people might not want stoners at their workplace.  I don't think this is a very good argument for testing, personally, but I suspect it's the basic premise.  Frankly, if you can't deduce that a person is stoned without shipping some of his pubes off to a lab in New Mexico, then there's probably not a problem with the quality of his work. 

Another consideration is that with some places where insurance is a big issue, it might be mandated.  A bus company, for example, is going to have high enough liability anyway.  Their insurance carrier can reasonably want to insure that dopers aren't driving the busses or changing the brake pads.  That's probably a little misguided as well, but I understand how people might think that way.

I did it for years when I worked the kitchens, made it to head cook in every restaurant I worked.  Prior to that, I gigged and of course was usually stoned or drunk, but that doesn't count because musicians usually are and the audience was wasted, too.  But afterwards, I worked as a programmer for 10 years and was high most of the time.  I built entire systems and headed up projects.

Today I make six figures doing the same thing, stone cold sober, but I'm pretty sure that spending most of the past 35 years stoned hasn't exactly stopped me from being a responsible adult.  Drug testing is bullshit.

[Dr. DTVT]

El Barton hit it...liability.  By making you "pass" a drug test, a company gives itself plausible deniability if you fuck up because you are high.  It allows them to say, "We didn't know he was a user, he passed a test on this day." In your line of work Metty, I'm guessing that it can be very dangerous even when things are done properly, and increase exponentially when mistakes are made, so they are trying to screen people.  You can't tell if some smokes pot responsibly or not; so they just see who does and who doesn't. 

[El Barto]

Which is all the more screwed up since they'll then use the stoner aspect as a scapegoat.  Yeah, our procedures are pretty suspect, and we haven't kept up our equipment for the last 12 years, and the DVD we provide for training was produced in Yugoslavia, but he tested positive for cannabis, so it's entirely his fault the lab exploded!

[Progmetty]

Liability does makes sense as well, in that twisted phony way.
DTVT and Barto your posts made me think it's possible that the drug testing mandate will continue even if national legalization took place for recreational Marijuana, if being illegal had little to nothing to do with it in the first place.
Which could also mean that the legalization would be meaningless -at least for the responsible recreational adult users- unless it's accompanied by an act that forbids mandatory testing, that's probably fictional.

[El Barto]

That's actually one of the dicey parts about medicinal MJ.  If it's medicine, you can't discriminate against people who use it.  People start hearing about school bus drivers who're have prescription cards and freak the hell out.  When Cali was flirting with decriminalization a year or two ago, one of the provisions was that employers could bar employees from partaking. 

Personally, I'd view it the same as cough syrup or any other pharmaceutical.  If it effects your ability to work in any way, then it's the boss's right to send you on your way.  If it doesn't effect your work, then it's none of his business.  With that said, I still stand by an employer's right to allow or not allow anybody he wants to work for him, regardless of what I think of his reasoning. 

[cramx3]

I think its more of a liability thing. THC is fairly easy to mask or get out of your system if you have enough time before your drug test (assuming piss test). A lot of people who have jobs that require drug tests do drugs themselves. If a company is serious about not hiring drug users then they do hair tests.

[Dark Castle]

Funny that this topic is here today.  I had to take a piss test earlier in the day for my new job at Kohls.  Didn't enjoy it, due to the nurses standing right outside the bathroom door...

[Scheavo]

Completely self-serving point:

The human brain starts seriously reaching its final stages of development somewhere around the age of 25-30, depending on who you ask.  So, being 24, I've started to notice that a lot of people around my age are in the final stages of their personalities becoming fully adult.  I know one guy who's engaged to his fiance, and they basically live an "adult" life of trying to buy a house and working 8 hour per day jobs.  They still do "childish" things, I guess, but it's the wrong way to think about it.  You're basically seeing where they will end up.

You can always tell at this point who is seriously into pot, alcohol, or some other kind of drug because you can tell their brain is just not at the same stage as those who are becoming adults.  The drug is stunting their mental development.  The pot headz uzually talk like thisssss mannnnnn......  They look burnt out.  The people who drink too much are impulsive and lack a meaningful emotional center.

You wish you could tell hard drinkers and pot heads in high school "Dude, if you don't stop this, you literally won't be able to become an adult."  But then you would just be the man, trying to stomp out their good times.

An employer screening for THC use is basically saying "who among these job applicants is a child masquerading as a man?"

This reasoning uses far too much of the post facto fallacy, and ignores why people start smoking or drinking heavily in the first place.

---

So, sorta funny story... up here in Missoula, Montana, at least, barely anyone drugs tests, and especially not some of the people you might think would drug test. And the reason is pretty clear: there basically wouldn't be fucking anyone they could hire. Hell, I know people using heavy construction equipment who never got tested, never will get tested, and knows that just about everyone they work with smokes.

Which is completely different than New Mexico, where  quite a few jobs test, even though most people down there smoke... they just cheat or get it out of their system quickly.

Which is all the more screwed up since they'll then use the stoner aspect as a scapegoat.  Yeah, our procedures are pretty suspect, and we haven't kept up our equipment for the last 12 years, and the DVD we provide for training was produced in Yugoslavia, but he tested positive for cannabis, so it's entirely his fault the lab exploded!

Isn't there some rather bullshit studies that say you're impaired from operating a vehicle for up to 72 hours after smoking?

[lonestar]

The liability thing is behind most drug testing, but to be honest, alcohol is responsible for the majority of drug related fuck ups. Shit, I have passed tons of piss test, but still drank like a fucking fish before, during, and hoo boy after work for over twenty years.  All other drugs combined don't come close to alcohol's impact in the workplace. (I could never cook stoned anyways, made me too stupid)

[ReaPsTA]

Completely self-serving point:

The human brain starts seriously reaching its final stages of development somewhere around the age of 25-30, depending on who you ask.  So, being 24, I've started to notice that a lot of people around my age are in the final stages of their personalities becoming fully adult.  I know one guy who's engaged to his fiance, and they basically live an "adult" life of trying to buy a house and working 8 hour per day jobs.  They still do "childish" things, I guess, but it's the wrong way to think about it.  You're basically seeing where they will end up.

You can always tell at this point who is seriously into pot, alcohol, or some other kind of drug because you can tell their brain is just not at the same stage as those who are becoming adults.  The drug is stunting their mental development.  The pot headz uzually talk like thisssss mannnnnn......  They look burnt out.  The people who drink too much are impulsive and lack a meaningful emotional center.

You wish you could tell hard drinkers and pot heads in high school "Dude, if you don't stop this, you literally won't be able to become an adult."  But then you would just be the man, trying to stomp out their good times.

An employer screening for THC use is basically saying "who among these job applicants is a child masquerading as a man?"

This reasoning uses far too much of the post facto fallacy, and ignores why people start smoking or drinking heavily in the first place.

Hm?  I don't understand.

[El Barto]

Isn't there some rather bullshit studies that say you're impaired from operating a vehicle for up to 72 hours after smoking?

The only studies I'm familiar with show that you're actually a decent enough driver up until the point you're just completely baked out of your skull.  Everybody uses the same test and methodology, but the US reports the findings much differently than the rest of the world. 

It's actually quite fascinating.  The Aussies took 5 groups of people and had them drive a closed course.  The MJ simulant group as a control.  The .08 BAC group.  A group who smoked 1 joint each. A group who smoked 2 joints each.  A group who each smoked 3 joints each in one hour (which is something that only 14 year olds would ever do).  The super-duper stoned group did about as well as the .08 BAC guys.  The results they came up with were that even the lightly buzzed group had a hard time maintaining their lane control.  This is the part the US reports on, and if there is a study that cites 72 hours, it's related to this phenomenon.  The other part of the findings that the rest of the world reports on says that even though the stoners show some slight impairment, they more than adequately compensate for it.  They drive more slowly and more attentively because they know their perception isn't 100%. 

This has certainly been my experience, and it's applicable in many different regards aside from driving.  Grass causes me to make stupid mistakes sometimes, but it also causes me to be extra cautious and to double/triple check my work all the time (hence my dislike for working stoned).  And, as with all things, it varies by the user.  People always say "would you want your surgeon operating on you after getting high!!!"  I'd say it depends on the surgeon and how he handles his grass, but yeah, maybe. 

[kirksnosehair]

You can always tell at this point who is seriously into pot, alcohol, or some other kind of drug because you can tell their brain is just not at the same stage as those who are becoming adults.  The drug is stunting their mental development.  The pot headz uzually talk like thisssss mannnnnn......  They look burnt out.  The people who drink too much are impulsive and lack a meaningful emotional center.

You are absolutely dead wrong about this.  You couldn't possibly be more misinformed.  I know dozens and dozens of people who smoke marijuana on a regular (daily) basis and I am 100% unequivocally positive that you would not know this about them if you met them. 


What you're describing here is a caricature that is not based on anything even remotely close to reality.

[kirksnosehair]

You can always tell at this point who is seriously into pot, alcohol, or some other kind of drug because you can tell their brain is just not at the same stage as those who are becoming adults.  The drug is stunting their mental development.  The pot headz uzually talk like thisssss mannnnnn......  They look burnt out.  The people who drink too much are impulsive and lack a meaningful emotional center.

You are absolutely dead wrong about this.  You couldn't possibly be more misinformed.  I know dozens and dozens of people who smoke marijuana on a regular (daily) basis and I am 100% unequivocally positive that you would not know this about them if you met them. 


What you're describing here is a caricature that is not based on anything even remotely close to reality.

As an example, and I won't name names, but one of the most successful and well known criminal defense attorneys in Boston (and a customer of mine who also happens to be a friend as well) has been smoking weed daily for about 40 years.  He's a published author, has a highly successful and respected law practice, is rich beyond belief due to his excellent professional life and I think most people would be absolutely stunned to find out he's a daily user of weed.

[kirksnosehair]

To answer the OP, I think the point of testing for it is due to the unfortunate stigma that society associates with people who use marijuana.  Most employers would prefer not to hire someone who uses it due not just to liability but also to the concept that if they use marijuana what else might they be using?

[Orbert]

Nosehair is correct.  I was trying to hint at that with my post, but I guess it just sounded too much like bragging, but it's not like everybody who smokes has a certain, obvious look of permanent confusion on their face.  When you're sober, you're sober, and sharp as God made you.  And some folks can be completely baked and still function at a higher level than the average person.  You can't tell.

[Sir GuitarCozmo]

also to the concept that if they use marijuana what else might they be using?

Is it possible that (Metty alluded to this idea) employers may also think "If they use marijuana, where is the line between laws they see as okay to break and ones they don't think are okay to break?"  It seems plausible, but I have no clue.

[El Barto]

also to the concept that if they use marijuana what else might they be using?

Is it possible that (Metty alluded to this idea) employers may also think "If they use marijuana, where is the line between laws they see as okay to break and ones they don't think are okay to break?"  It seems plausible, but I have no clue.

That's a reasonable point.  It's not uncommon for companies to run criminal background checks and even [bullshit] polygraphs.  Some people just don't want criminals working for them (except illegal aliens, of course). 

[kirksnosehair]

Yeah, I'd agree with that too.  Here at my company they only test you if you are going to work on jobs that require it.  Doesn't matter to me any more since I quit smoking it a few years ago.  But the way they do it here (because our company is run by a very liberal, forward-thinking and just all around nice guy) is they tell you at least a month in advance if you're going to be urine tested.

[Chino]

Some employers just don't know anything about weed. The guy who owns my company ranks it just as bad and harmful as meth, heroin, and cocaine.

[lonestar]

My place test upon hiring and for accidents that require a hospital visit.

[CrimsonSunrise]

From a safety standpoint, I'm glad my company tests.  I work in a very dangerous environment (Oil Refinery), last thing I want is someone fucked up.  Whether it's booze, pot, whatever.  We test upon hiring, randomly, and anytime someone has any type of motor vehicle accident in the yard you instantly get tested and sent home till the results come back.  That's my opinion, the companies are thinking liability for sure, plus overall safety of workers, the community, and the environment.  (I hope)

[lonestar]

It's a similar thing at my work,  five guys in a very confined space with shitloads of knives and hot oil flying around.