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.
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.
Though simplistic; these points are more in ball park of what I think the main motives behind the testing are, a deliberately misguided and generalized image of the recreational smoker. One that unfortunately the smoker himself embraces as a comedic entertaining take and has further embedded it in the pop culture. While sometimes it's enjoyably funny indeed, I think it plays a role as damaging as the illegality itself in the minds of non-smokers, especially the older generation (aka most current CEO's). We're all Tommy Chong and Otto in their mind.
I said deliberately misguided but that's an uncertain opinion, I know there must be a bunch of big shot corporations that will lose money over the legalization and would want nothing more than to keep the bad image the only image, unless all that talk about Hymp and the products it can be used to manufacture is exaggerated.
But the question was why test in the first place? Being high at work is definitely a problem, just as being drunk at work would be.
Then why aren't these companies testing as far as 3 month back to see if I had a drink at any point? Frankly my point is that I wouldn't be half as bugged if the drinker and the smoker were treated exactly the same in every aspect, the injustice and the hypocrisy of it is what ticks me, I'm not even asking for it to be seen as it is, that the smoker is heavens less dangerous than the drinker, I'm just asking you to see them as the same threat if you're gonna hold that standard.
So the best they can do is see if you've indulged any time in the last 30 days. If I got high two weeks ago, it has absolutely nothing to do with my work today and is furthermore none of their business.
Exactamondo. And even worse, cause even if you've been a very infrequent occasional indulger the hair test goes 90 days back! Three freakin month! You can get fired or not hired cause you got high at some point in the last three month. I'd put a sock in it and suck it up if it was just two weeks, that's how far I'm willing to submit to the system, but this intolerable IMO.
What I think is going to be interesting is if it ever becomes legal, then what? Will they stop testing for it? And if not, would they still not hire people who test positive? How would they rationalize not hiring someone because of a positive urine test for a substance that was perfectly legal?
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.
^ I had the same thought and concern earlier, in my head I see the legalization working only if the test gets banned, just for THC not all drugs, as crazy as it sounds I want the demand for the THC test to be treated like a demand to know your sexual orientation before you get hired, a bluntly prejudice act. If it's not illegal to fuck guys then you have no business asking me if I do and if it's not illegal to smoke pot then you have no business testing me for it. Again, I know it's a fictional "out there" thought for the right leaning society.
I wonder how they handle this in Amsterdam?
I was just thinking that, maybe TheVoxyn would give us an insight.