djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 2, 2015 23:01:31 GMT -5
Good story- a company I worked for got bought and they brought out mobile drug testing bus (this was a car dealership) and what happened was expected- they fired the people that tested positive EXCEPT the service writers and salesmen that were the top of the line- they let them into 'rehab'. We are talking cocaine. But they were the top performers. It was tolerated. We also has an advisor that visibly shaked- yet his numbers were so high no one said shit. Guess my point is nobody is going to fire anyone that is good at their job you know the story about Lincoln, right? i tell it often enough. it is rumored that one of the top officers under Grant complained to Lincoln that Grant was drunk as a skunk on the job. Lincoln is purported to have replied "find out what brand of bourbon he is drinking, and distribute it to the other Generals". i heard Chomsky recently say that the drug war is fundamentally racist. i can see why he said that.
|
|
pappyjohn99
Familiar Member
The driveway needs a little work.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 1:01:13 GMT -5
Posts: 928
|
Post by pappyjohn99 on Jan 3, 2015 3:31:34 GMT -5
Perhaps some of the posters here will educate me. I suspect that testing may be a reflection of insurance rates that are imposed on companies. What i mean is- if a company is posted as a drug free environment, and is known for random testing, it will recieve a lower rate for liability insurance. Is this a fact, or something that I just imagined?
|
|
Shooby
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2013 0:32:36 GMT -5
Posts: 14,782
Mini-Profile Name Color: 1cf04f
|
Post by Shooby on Jan 3, 2015 8:54:38 GMT -5
Seems like kind of a raw deal in Colorado. If you are some bum on the govt dole, then puff away! If you are responsible citizen wishing to keep your job, then no pot for you!
|
|
resolution
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:09:56 GMT -5
Posts: 6,999
Mini-Profile Name Color: 305b2b
|
Post by resolution on Jan 3, 2015 9:09:56 GMT -5
My employer only tests employees if two members of management observe that they are impaired. So you can bet that we never test our best performers, but people on performance plans that start acting oddly get tested. We will dismiss immediately for MJ, including medical MJ (legal in my state).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 0:16:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2015 19:03:17 GMT -5
The law should have been passed with a "non-Federal employees must be impaired while at work to use it as a reason to fire" clause in it somewhere.
If it's going to be legal for personal use, make it legal for personal use... for every person it applies to.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jan 3, 2015 19:16:52 GMT -5
The law should have been passed with a "non-Federal employees must be impaired while at work to use it as a reason to fire" clause in it somewhere. If it's going to be legal for personal use, make it legal for personal use... for every person it applies to. Probably wouldn't have passed. I can't imagine any business owner would vote for something that limits their ability to fire someone and places the responsibility on them to prove impairment. And non-federal includes a lot of people that I would still prefer were not potheads. I don't want a hospital to have to prove impairment of a surgeon before letting them go. Same with a police officer.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 5, 2024 0:16:59 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2015 20:02:51 GMT -5
The law should have been passed with a "non-Federal employees must be impaired while at work to use it as a reason to fire" clause in it somewhere. If it's going to be legal for personal use, make it legal for personal use... for every person it applies to. Probably wouldn't have passed. I can't imagine any business owner would vote for something that limits their ability to fire someone and places the responsibility on them to prove impairment. And non-federal includes a lot of people that I would still prefer were not potheads. I don't want a hospital to have to prove impairment of a surgeon before letting them go. Same with a police officer. Oh they wouldn't have to use impairment as a reason, as long as they weren't using "THC detected during Drug Test"... They could still use "bad with customers", "late to work", "needed to bathe more", "wore inappropriate clothing" or any other non-pot use reasons they always had available... or no reason at all (if it's , as I like to call it, a "right to fire" state). Just "failing a drug test on Friday, because they had a joint at the barbecue last Saturday and the THC was still detectable" wouldn't be allowed.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 3, 2015 22:33:43 GMT -5
Perhaps some of the posters here will educate me. I suspect that testing may be a reflection of insurance rates that are imposed on companies. What i mean is- if a company is posted as a drug free environment, and is known for random testing, it will recieve a lower rate for liability insurance. Is this a fact, or something that I just imagined? i don't have a clue, but i can tell you this: if this were really a big deal for insurance companies, they would INSIST on random drug testing, and they don't.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 3, 2015 22:35:31 GMT -5
Seems like kind of a raw deal in Colorado. If you are some bum on the govt dole, then puff away! If you are responsible citizen wishing to keep your job, then no pot for you! i don't think it is quite that simple. drug testing is allowed for federal employees- just not RANDOM drug testing. if you are suspected of using drugs, or you get into an accident, testing is required for certain professions, regardless of whether you are in the private or public sector.
|
|
pappyjohn99
Familiar Member
The driveway needs a little work.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 1:01:13 GMT -5
Posts: 928
|
Post by pappyjohn99 on Jan 4, 2015 1:11:42 GMT -5
Thanks dj.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 4, 2015 1:12:45 GMT -5
yr welcome. and with that, i am calling it quits for today. night everyone.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 4, 2015 10:00:39 GMT -5
Yep. And the feds can still climb out from under a rock and bust your ass, too.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 5, 2015 13:36:21 GMT -5
Perhaps some of the posters here will educate me. I suspect that testing may be a reflection of insurance rates that are imposed on companies. What i mean is- if a company is posted as a drug free environment, and is known for random testing, it will recieve a lower rate for liability insurance. Is this a fact, or something that I just imagined? Alcohol is a drug. Does a "drug-free environment" include prohibitions against having a martini after work or a beer while watching football?
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Jan 5, 2015 14:26:08 GMT -5
The drug alcohol leaves your system a lot faster than the drug TCH. the drug cocaine does just about as fast as the drug alcohol. So the alcohol in the martini after work and the beer watching the game will be out of your system by the time you report for work the next day. The THC from the one or three hits off that joint on Christmas will still come up on test given on Jan 5.
If you are a heavy hitter alcohol user or drink at work, you would have alcohol in your blood and you would be violating the "drug free workplace" scenario.
We will need specific levels(like they have now for alcohol) set up for pot. Pot stays in your system(not effecting you) longer than alcohol, coke, herion, meth, mesc, shrooms, acid
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 5, 2015 15:06:31 GMT -5
The drug alcohol leaves your system a lot faster than the drug TCH. the drug cocaine does just about as fast as the drug alcohol. So the alcohol in the martini after work and the beer watching the game will be out of your system by the time you report for work the next day. The THC from the one or three hits off that joint on Christmas will still come up on test given on Jan 5. If you are a heavy hitter alcohol user or drink at work, you would have alcohol in your blood and you would be violating the "drug free workplace" scenario. We will need specific levels(like they have now for alcohol) set up for pot. Pot stays in your system(not effecting you) longer than alcohol, coke, herion, meth, mesc, shrooms, acid I know all that. How is it fair? If I toke up at a New Years eve Party, I can get fired two weeks later. The guy who drinks a six-pack the night before going to work gets off Scott-free.
|
|
Abby Normal
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 12:31:49 GMT -5
Posts: 3,501
|
Post by Abby Normal on Jan 5, 2015 18:40:51 GMT -5
We have a facility in Washington who recently passed MJ. We regularly test for drugs and alcohol. Pre-employment, random, cause, suspicion.
What is being worked on there is changing testing procedures to detect the level of THC. We are adjusting our internal policy to match what the police are using for DUI's. Not necessarily. If you are a one time user, the THC won't show up. It takes a while to build up- so it shows up in the more routine users.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jan 5, 2015 18:55:36 GMT -5
We have a facility in Washington who recently passed MJ. We regularly test for drugs and alcohol. Pre-employment, random, cause, suspicion. What is being worked on there is changing testing procedures to detect the level of THC. We are adjusting our internal policy to match what the police are using for DUI's. Not necessarily. If you are a one time user, the THC won't show up. It takes a while to build up- so it shows up in the more routine users. So what? As long as I show up at work straight and sober, what business is it of anybody's what I do after work or on weekends? Is anyone going to have a hissy fit if an employee has wine with dinner every night?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,142
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 5, 2015 22:26:31 GMT -5
Perhaps some of the posters here will educate me. I suspect that testing may be a reflection of insurance rates that are imposed on companies. What i mean is- if a company is posted as a drug free environment, and is known for random testing, it will recieve a lower rate for liability insurance. Is this a fact, or something that I just imagined? Alcohol is a drug. Does a "drug-free environment" include prohibitions against having a martini after work or a beer while watching football? and here is where the whole argument runs off the rails. alcohol results in more deaths, more injuries, more chronic illness, etc than...what? EVERY illegal drug combined? it has to be close to that. the stupidity of a set of drug laws that legalizes the most addictive, harmful substances that we have out there, and makes the most benign ones Class 1 narcotics (with a few notable exceptions) is so absurd that even a kindergartner would recognize it.
|
|
ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ
Community Leader
♡ ♡ BᏋՆᎥᏋᏉᏋ ♡ ♡
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:51 GMT -5
Posts: 43,130
Location: Inside POM's Head
Favorite Drink: Chilled White Zin
|
Post by ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ on Jan 5, 2015 23:17:01 GMT -5
And what about execs who go for their "two martini" lunches and then return to work? It was/is common practice here in the oil industry (still is in many corporations). Execs/management hob-nobbing over cocktails and prime-rib during lunch hour(s) to hash out a contract/deal.
Then going to the club for happy hour after office-hours.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 5, 2015 23:20:25 GMT -5
The drug alcohol leaves your system a lot faster than the drug TCH. the drug cocaine does just about as fast as the drug alcohol. So the alcohol in the martini after work and the beer watching the game will be out of your system by the time you report for work the next day. The THC from the one or three hits off that joint on Christmas will still come up on test given on Jan 5. If you are a heavy hitter alcohol user or drink at work, you would have alcohol in your blood and you would be violating the "drug free workplace" scenario. We will need specific levels(like they have now for alcohol) set up for pot. Pot stays in your system(not effecting you) longer than alcohol, coke, herion, meth, mesc, shrooms, acid This is a prime example of why the hall-monitor class is nutso against pot. It can't be quantified like blood alcohol. It's kind of like why there are a lot of speeding tickets but few for failure to signal a lane change. It's almost impossible to determine if someone is high based on THC levels.
|
|
Abby Normal
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 12:31:49 GMT -5
Posts: 3,501
|
Post by Abby Normal on Jan 6, 2015 11:39:06 GMT -5
The drug alcohol leaves your system a lot faster than the drug TCH. the drug cocaine does just about as fast as the drug alcohol. So the alcohol in the martini after work and the beer watching the game will be out of your system by the time you report for work the next day. The THC from the one or three hits off that joint on Christmas will still come up on test given on Jan 5. If you are a heavy hitter alcohol user or drink at work, you would have alcohol in your blood and you would be violating the "drug free workplace" scenario. We will need specific levels(like they have now for alcohol) set up for pot. Pot stays in your system(not effecting you) longer than alcohol, coke, herion, meth, mesc, shrooms, acid This is a prime example of why the hall-monitor class is nutso against pot. It can't be quantified like blood alcohol. It's kind of like why there are a lot of speeding tickets but few for failure to signal a lane change. It's almost impossible to determine if someone is high based on THC levels. Again, not true. You just have to pay for a different test that tests the levels. Most employers currently test only positive and negative because it's cheaper. With the new laws going into effect they will have to upgrade to the more expensive tests. We test levels. We are a manufacturing facility with very dangerous equipment. We have shifts that run on weekends. Do we care what you had a drink with dinner? No. Do we care that you were out at the bar drinking until 2 am and showed up for a 5:00 shift? Yes. Do we care that you lit up on Friday night and don't work until Monday? no. Do we care that you lit up on your lunch break or before you came to work? Yes. We are looking into switching to a saliva test for MJ. It will test positive if they have smoked in the last 4 hours. We'd then take that off the urine panel, and just use the urine panel for the other substances. It will cost us a lot more, but it's something we have to do.
|
|