|
Is it a bad argument to advocate corporate drug testing because they don't want to hire someone who uses illegal drugs and, in their opinion, is very likely to make other poor life choices and risks? I don't agree with it but it seems like they should be allowed to if they want, no one is forcing them to take a drug test.
hayden. fucked around with this message at 03:00 on May 28, 2014 |
# ? May 28, 2014 02:55 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 05:38 |
|
hayden. posted:I'm not suggesting every drug user is irresponsible and makes bad choices, but it's overwhelmingly the case. Less so for marijuana, but as a company it seems like you have to make a stance against all or none otherwise you'd appear to be saying pot is okay (which you might, but in something as sensitive as hiring it's a bad idea to say publicly). You realize you are calling the vast majority of the population irresponsible people who make bad choices, right? Which, sure, I mean, that's true. But if companies limited themselves to people who didn't make bad choices or who avoided drugs completely, they are probably gonna have a bad time finding decent employees. Those who avoid drugs tend to have their problems too. So you do what most do, and accept the employees who use drugs but don't let it impact their work, or for whom the impact is minimal.
|
# ? May 28, 2014 03:00 |
|
You quoted before my edit because I wanted to make it clear that isn't my opinion, but the opinion many managers I've met have had. I think the reality is that yes, the majority of people try an illegal drug some point in their life, but the vast majority are not going to fail a drug test at any given time, especially during a time when they're looking for a job. When you have a huge pool of talent to choose from, have three good candidates, and one of them failed - why not go for the other two? Again, just asking the question, not my opinion.
|
# ? May 28, 2014 03:02 |
|
hayden. posted:You quoted before my edit because I wanted to make it clear that isn't my opinion, but the opinion many managers I've met have had. The problem is that weed, which is the least harmful illegal drug, is also the one that sticks around in your system for the longest. So sure, if you can't stay off smack for a week so you can get clean enough to pass a test you probably won't be a productive employee. But it can take months for weed to clear your system if you're a regular smoker, and if you suddenly find yourself out of work and need to start job hunting unexpectedly that can be a real problem, and it really won't say anything about how good a worker you'll be.
|
# ? May 28, 2014 03:07 |
hayden. posted:You quoted before my edit because I wanted to make it clear that isn't my opinion, but the opinion many managers I've met have had. Because that doesn't involve much critical thought on the part of the individual doing the hiring? I guess if you've got two perfectly equal candidates and a drug test is all that separates them, you could use that as a rationale, but what's the underlying reasoning? Failing a drug test alone doesn't necessarily mean anything. Would that same employer discriminate on the basis of tobacco or alcohol consumption? Why or why not? What is it that a drug test tells an employer about a potential employee? You mention responsibility as a potential issue, but aren't there other ways to make those evaluations? As someone who is a drug user and has a pretty solid academic record, if a potential employer tells me that he can tell I'm irresponsible or immoral or whatever because I can't pass a drug test, I'll probably kindly invite said employer to go gently caress himself. And like the above poster noted, a lot of the drugs that are more associated with negative stuff clear out of your system faster, so in reality, a drug test tells you very, very little about a person. If someone is hopelessly addicted and irresponsible, you'll probably be able to figure that out without a drug test. E: The real question is this: What does a drug test tell you about someone? I'd argue that it doesn't tell you much at all.
|
|
# ? May 28, 2014 03:26 |
|
hayden. posted:Is it a bad argument to advocate corporate drug testing because they don't want to hire someone who uses illegal drugs and, in their opinion, is very likely to make other poor life choices and risks? I don't agree with it but it seems like they should be allowed to if they want, no one is forcing them to take a drug test. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_L6luWXsZ1gC&lpg=PA86&vq=drug%20testing&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2350080 Why is it wrong to test employees for STIs? If they test positive for HIV or syphilis doesn't this indicate they are likely to make other poor choices? KingEup fucked around with this message at 03:59 on May 28, 2014 |
# ? May 28, 2014 03:54 |
|
Inspector Hound posted:A few pages back there was a poster who got turned down for a budtender job at a dispensary for not smoking, but that's seems like an obvious one. That would be me. But I am starting a job with that company as a trimmer on June 2. I was told that non-canabis users are not unheard of in the business and there are plenty of them that are just there for a job, which is how I see it. I've worked at gas stations before and sold cigarettes and chew but the desire to use it myself never came up and I expect that it'll be the same with cannabis.
|
# ? May 28, 2014 04:44 |
|
hayden. posted:Is it a bad argument to advocate corporate drug testing because they don't want to hire someone who uses illegal drugs and, in their opinion, is very likely to make other poor life choices and risks? I don't agree with it but it seems like they should be allowed to if they want, no one is forcing them to take a drug test. I'm pretty sure corporations test for drug use because the federal government doesn't like drug users, not because Poor Choice A will always lead to Poor Choice B. So yes, it's a bad argument.
|
# ? May 28, 2014 07:19 |
|
KingEup posted:http://books.google.com.au/books?id=_L6luWXsZ1gC&lpg=PA86&vq=drug%20testing&pg=PA4#v=onepage&q&f=false First off, gently caress you. You don't know how they got HIV or some other infection. It could have been from a bad needle or contamination accident outside of their control (or hey, maybe they were raped and got an STI that way!). Then you say the solution is to make it harder for them to get a job. That is not a solution. Teriyaki Koinku fucked around with this message at 16:40 on May 28, 2014 |
# ? May 28, 2014 16:37 |
|
TheRamblingSoul posted:First off, gently caress you. I think that was his point.
|
# ? May 28, 2014 16:41 |
|
TheRamblingSoul posted:First off, gently caress you. you've saved the day again from this dreadful wrongthinker
|
# ? May 28, 2014 16:53 |
|
"First off, gently caress you" is a very valid and poignant way to begin a rebuttal in debate.
|
# ? May 28, 2014 17:06 |
TheRamblingSoul posted:You don't know how they got HIV or some other infection. It could have been from a bad needle or contamination accident outside of their control This can happen with drug tests too fyi The real reason that "drug tests" (the ones that scan for everything) are pointless is because using weed while not at work has a terrible correlation with being a poo poo employee, much like off-hours alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine consumption. I'd love to see some data that suggests otherwise. down with slavery fucked around with this message at 17:10 on May 28, 2014 |
|
# ? May 28, 2014 17:08 |
|
hayden. posted:You quoted before my edit because I wanted to make it clear that isn't my opinion, but the opinion many managers I've met have had. Opinions managers have are frequently lovely, which is why there are a bunch of laws about things they're not allowed to consider before making hiring/firing decisions. Many think that women are worse workers because they may choose to bear or care for pesky kids, others might think that minority employees are less competent or bad for business. Yet others would just arbitrarily exclude anyone who might need a disability accommodated because it's too much trouble. The idea that managers make only pragmatic decisions based on business reasons is hopeful but counterfactual. Perhaps worse, sometimes business decisions that are accurate because people generally can have terrible opinions (let's say a business-owner in the South not hiring minorities for customer-facing positions) can result in bad societal outcomes (making it harder for minorities to find work), so disallowing a manager's opinion on certain matters can be a valid policy tool. So what it comes back to is whether employees should have a right to privacy regarding their personal drug use. If you agree with that, it doesn't matter what opinions managers may or may not have.
|
# ? May 28, 2014 17:15 |
Mr. Nice! posted:"First off, gently caress you" is a very valid and poignant way to begin a rebuttal in debate. Sometimes it really is the most appropriate response.
|
|
# ? May 28, 2014 17:22 |
|
I concur. I believe the first to use it in formal debate was when Lincoln delivered his first rebuttal to Stephen Douglas.
|
# ? May 28, 2014 17:39 |
|
TheRamblingSoul posted:First off, gently caress you. Yeah, look man, I was actually trying to make the point that screening for illegal drug use is a bad idea. I had thought with those two links I included it would have been pretty clear.
|
# ? May 28, 2014 22:15 |
|
A glimpse at the sordid underworld of legal marijuana: http://www.vox.com/2014/5/27/5740568/colorados-director-of-pot-enforcement-thinks-legalization-is-goingDirector of Enforcement, Colorado Department of Revenue posted:From our standpoint, the biggest challenge has been the timelines that were built into Amendment 64. They're pretty aggressive for us in terms of having to put all the regulations and the requirements in place. One example is last year we had to have rules adopted by July 1, and the legislative process didn't conclude until the end of May, which left us about 30 days to put together the regulations for retail marijuana. Seriously though this article helps refocus me from "What is Washington's deal" to "Oh it was just Colorado being incredibly quick" instead.
|
# ? May 29, 2014 01:01 |
Ulf posted:A glimpse at the sordid underworld of legal marijuana: http://www.vox.com/2014/5/27/5740568/colorados-director-of-pot-enforcement-thinks-legalization-is-going It's not just Colorado being quick, it's Colorado being smart, I think. People saw they had to move quickly, and instead of using their institutional powers to slow things down or whatever, they asked "How can we cope with what we've been given?" Honestly, adopting emergency rules and then revising them seems pretty brilliant and I love the approach. Make some broad, sensible strokes first, then revise later, and continue revising as the situation develops.
|
|
# ? May 29, 2014 01:27 |
|
LuciferMorningstar posted:Make some broad, sensible strokes first, then revise later, and continue revising as the situation develops. I believe that's called governing, and I'm told there are still legislative and executive departments in some places in the world that do it on occasion.
|
# ? May 29, 2014 04:09 |
KernelSlanders posted:I believe that's called governing, and I'm told there are still legislative and executive departments in some places in the world that do it on occasion. If only it were consistent...
|
|
# ? May 29, 2014 04:19 |
|
LuciferMorningstar posted:If only it were consistent... If only the participants had everyone's good in mind rather than just that of special interests, even if those interests are legitimate.
|
# ? May 29, 2014 06:17 |
|
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/30/house-votes-halt-federal-meddling-medical-marijuan/ House votes to end Medical Marijuana prosecutions by the federal government.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 15:34 |
|
AYC posted:http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/30/house-votes-halt-federal-meddling-medical-marijuan/ I kept saying "Which house?" over and over again in my head trying to figure out what state this was about and then I realized it was federal. That's a pretty big step in the right direction, right? And the house of all places. Don't these things usually languish and die in committee?
|
# ? May 30, 2014 16:15 |
|
Mirthless posted:I kept saying "Which house?" over and over again in my head trying to figure out what state this was about and then I realized it was federal. That's a pretty big step in the right direction, right? This could potentially be one of those lame duck session bills that the Senate passes as it would possibly effect them in the 2014 race.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 16:21 |
|
Mirthless posted:I kept saying "Which house?" over and over again in my head trying to figure out what state this was about and then I realized it was federal. That's a pretty big step in the right direction, right? That this is coming out of the house with bipartisan support is absolutely huge. I'm honestly amazed.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 16:29 |
|
Frabba posted:That this is coming out of the house with bipartisan support is absolutely huge. I'm honestly amazed. On to the Senate where ideas go to die. Didn't the House just vote with overwhelming bipartisan support to reign in the NSA? I don't think either bill is going anywhere, but I'm nonetheless hopeful.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 16:37 |
|
Well Harry Reid is on record supporting MMJ while he also supports the NSA, so I think this has better prospects. That said most national politicians still have awful opinions on the drug war and I'm pretty drat surprised even this tiny step happened.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 16:46 |
If it got through the House then it'll get through the Senate. The optics of federally prosecuting MMJ patients/growers have always been terrible, I don't see Obama or Reid willingly putting the Democrats in a bear trap of "well, we Republicans tried to stop Obama but he just won't leave those poor sick folks alone!"
|
|
# ? May 30, 2014 17:08 |
|
Yeah it has the potential to make a difference. But assuming, charitably, that it does pass and get signed into law, wouldn't the DEA be able to take it to court on federal supremacy grounds? Any of our legal eagles know about precedent with regard to a law demanding non enforcement?
|
# ? May 30, 2014 18:12 |
|
Prosopagnosiac posted:Yeah it has the potential to make a difference. But assuming, charitably, that it does pass and get signed into law, wouldn't the DEA be able to take it to court on federal supremacy grounds? Any of our legal eagles know about precedent with regard to a law demanding non enforcement? I think it would be pretty dumb for a federal agency to take the federal government to federal court over a federal agency overstepping or understepping it's bounds of enforcement. I also think that it would be pretty visibly dumb to everyone involved if that happened. Like, career-ending stupid. I don't see it happening. Mirthless fucked around with this message at 18:20 on May 30, 2014 |
# ? May 30, 2014 18:13 |
|
Prosopagnosiac posted:Yeah it has the potential to make a difference. But assuming, charitably, that it does pass and get signed into law, wouldn't the DEA be able to take it to court on federal supremacy grounds? Any of our legal eagles know about precedent with regard to a law demanding non enforcement? Here is the law: quote:Sec. 701. None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States of Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana. The way it's worded is clearly as a funding bill and as such is constitutional. (the DEA is part of the DOJ)
|
# ? May 30, 2014 18:16 |
|
computer parts posted:Here is the law: Why were we(CT) not included
|
# ? May 30, 2014 18:51 |
|
Amused to Death posted:Why were we(CT) not included MN was left out too as our MMJ law went into effect yesterday, although it's so incredibly watered down and restrictive that we probably wouldn't have been a target of the DEA anyways.
|
# ? May 30, 2014 19:29 |
|
MaxxBot posted:MN was left out too as our MMJ law went into effect yesterday, although it's so incredibly watered down and restrictive that we probably wouldn't have been a target of the DEA anyways. MI is also missing from the list. What a weird bill.
|
# ? May 31, 2014 09:25 |
|
Delaware was left out, too, but our situation is kind of hosed up.
|
# ? May 31, 2014 09:44 |
|
Speaking of Delaware..quote:Delawareans could legally possess up to an ounce of marijuana for "personal use" under new legislation backed by Democratic lawmakers in both chambers of the General Assembly. Probably won't happen.
|
# ? May 31, 2014 09:52 |
|
AZ would seem to be missing, too. We have a functioning MMJ program up and running, too, for several years now.
|
# ? May 31, 2014 15:38 |
|
Beaters posted:AZ would seem to be missing, too. We have a functioning MMJ program up and running, too, for several years now. Well I got that from Wikipedia and it's apparently been submitted 7 times so it's possible they changed the wording slightly.
|
# ? May 31, 2014 16:01 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 05:38 |
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/us/after-5-months-of-sales-colorado-sees-the-downside-of-a-legal-high.htmlquote:“I think, by any measure, the experience of Colorado has not been a good one unless you’re in the marijuana business,” said Kevin A. Sabet, executive director of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, which opposes legalization. “We’ve seen lives damaged. We’ve seen deaths directly attributed to marijuana legalization. We’ve seen marijuana slipping through Colorado’s borders. We’ve seen marijuana getting into the hands of kids.”
|
|
# ? Jun 2, 2014 02:04 |