Drug Tests

I have had a workmate of mine ask me about drug-testing and how long it takes certain substances to be 'flushed' out your system. She has a medical to attend before she starts a job at The Advertiser and is rather concerned because part of this is a drug test. The test is next Tuesday and the last time she smoked weed was three weeks ago. She's been drinking shitloads of water and doing heaps of exercise to try and flush any traces out the system. Does anyone know how long weed stays in your system (or any drug for that matter) and any tricks to try and help get it out of your system?

Just keep in mind weed is an oil, drinking water shouldnt do much as it THC gathers in fat deposits, but by the same token excercise will help a lot.  Most other drugs dont store in your body as they are water soluble, hence get flushed/consumed faster.  My work has random tests, i stopped weed 6 months ago and havent been tested yet, booo. 

What justification do any media organisations have for demanding drug testing of job applicants or employees?

It's not like they're flying expensive machinery or generally in a position to put anyone at risk.

I was under the belief that any employer could give a drugs test at any time. And the Advertiser's stance on 'cannabis' is pretty non-forgiving, so this news doesn't suprise me.

For real? What the fuck. News to me (not that I've ever followed this area of law) - but that would surprise me. Anyone in the definite know with regards to these issues?

I can understand it in areas where you might be doing something like flying an aircraft, driving a vehicle all day, operating machinery, or some shit like that... But for office jobs?

Edit: A quick Google tells me employers are perfectly allowed to require drug testing as a condition of employment. I wonder how often they turn people away because some people might have a problem with this type of invasion of their privacy (whether they are taking any drugs or not is another matter IMO).

Not sure if it works but i've heard drinking gatorade only a couple of days ahead of the test gets rid of it good. As well as cutting off mid-stream of a piss test to get rid of all the nasty shit first, as the cleaner product comes out last. Don't ask me how I know this, I think i read it on a weed forum once.

spose its cause drug use can reduce people's productivity, the employer has no way of telling whether someone's potential use will compromise their work! be it in front of a comp or labouring. where it all falls down, obviously, is that drinking alcohol is prob ten times more rampant and detrimental to workers' health!

but them's the rules taking drugs IS illegal after all!

Yes I can understand it, but I am in an ever-decreasing sized group of people who are very security and privacy conscious.

Firstly, I think it's disgusting that this can be made a mandatory requirement for employees. Where is the trust between people? It's gone out the window, obviously...

Secondly, this is a completely one-way invasion of privacy. Considering the way the labour market looks right now if I was a job seeker I'd be looking elsewhere if a potential employer wanted me to do these types of tests before they'd employ me. I don't do any drugs and barely drink any alcohol, but as far as I am concerned they don't have any right to test and store medical information about me if I don't want them to.

Thirdly, and this relates back to my first point: If employers can't trust employees to turn up to work sober and not under the influence of drugs, why should employees trust employers to store their private medical records? I work in IT and security of data is a low priority for way too many organisations. I simply would not trust anybody bar my GP with the type of information some employers seem to be after.

My points are in regards to positions where drug testing should not be necessary. I can draw some pretty clear lines between the types of occupations where it's acceptable to require these types of tests and those where it isn't. There aren't many jobs in the media where I see it as appropriate/justifiable.


Yes, and that is another issue altogether.

For all we know the position could be in the printing press located at Mile End I reckon? Or some other part of the process involving machinery, where on the job drug use could be a safety hazard...most film and music reviewers must be on drugs anyways, ever read a review by Stan James!? 

Yes it could be and that's why I said "there aren't many jobs in the media"... Considering the proportion of jobs doing what you've brought up it's not that likely that the job Keyser is discussing is one of those though. That's for him to confirm though, if he wants...

Yeah I agree with your second point though.

Yeah I tend to believe that what you do after work and on the weekends is your own business, so long as it is not bringing itself into your work life. The main concern for your employer should be if you can do your job competently.

Would an employer discriminate against an insomniac or clinically depressed individual on the basis that it might effect the quality of their work? (I don't actually know this, but just as a parallel).

hmm, i dont see how random drug tests are an invasion of privacy, re: the way u are saying that medical information is stored?? it sure as hell isnt!

i think that people should do what they want to on the weekends, but noone can definitely say that the drugs dont have some effect midweek. thats a big call!

two separate issues imo!

I know this is a little off topic... but what about employers that require you to fill in a sheet with your medical history for the last 5 or so years?

Is this allowed?

I applied for a job last year at a FLORIST and they wanted to know whether I'd had surgery, what medical conditions I had, etc etc. I didn't want to fill it in as I didn't want to give them my incredibly personal information, which I thought they really had no business knowing anyways. BTW this was before I'd even had an interview, this had to be filled out prior to a group interview. I, stupidly, filled it out even though I didn't want to because I really wanted the job. They also put a little disclaimer at the end saying that if you didn't complete the form truthfully and you then got sick or hurt at work, you wouldn't be able to claim compensation if you did not disclose a condition, etc on the form prior to being employed.

I've always wondered what happened to that application since. Would they have to destroy it?

On topic, I've never had to take a drug test for a job and I don't know if I'd feel comfortable doing so, even though I don't use recreational drugs anymore.


Definitely agreed on the first point.

I'm interested to know if you disclose to an employer that you suffer from some kind of mental illness if they could reject you for a job on this basis? I guess if someone did say - oh I'm clinically depressed - they'd never find out if that was the reason they didn't get the job, because the employer can just say, we have chosen the best person for the job and sorry it wasn't you.

jobs = stress but also money and career prospects

being a druggy = much more fun...

ditch the interview and just get stoned 

I'm pretty sure you don't have to fill that in unless you believe it will possibly interfere with your work. e.g. If you have some kind of pollen allergy you would have to tell them. For completely unrelated things e.g. Abortion (just picked an out there example) you would not legally have to tell them. Don't quote me on all that though because I'm not 100%.

Precisely. Competently and safely - hence why drug testing should only be allowed in some areas of employment.


They shouldn't. Whether it happens or not is another matter... I suspect it does, but probably less often than in the past.


Wait so you're saying you don't see how it is an invasion of privacy but you think people should do what they want on weekends? Don't you see your own contradiction there? If a drug test can tell what you are doing on the weekends (whether that be drugs related or not does not matter) then that is an invasion of privacy because suddenly your weekend activities are known (to some extent) by your employer.

You're right that no one can definitely say that some drugs don't have some effect midweek. But no one can definitely say that some drugs do either, can they?

OK let's say drug test results are not "stored" in the usual sense of the word (ie. filed on paper or in a computer system) the employer still sees the result at some stage.


I don't know. I have been working for myself for a while now so have not encountered any of these types of things. But let's just say if I was asked this question and felt that it was not relevant to the job at all I would tell them to shove it. If that ruled me out as a candidate then so be it. There are plenty of jobs in the economy now so there's no reason to pass on details if you don't want to.


That's going way too far IMO. They count on people like you (don't take this the wrong way) who are perhaps a bit too eager to get the job to just hand over this information. I suspect many people regret it down the track. Edit: If it was relating to pollen allergies specifically that would be all right but asking about all medical conditions and surgery surely isn't related to whether you can handle working with flowers...


I don't know the legislation in this area. I'd hope it says that it has to be destroyed. Whether organisations are competent enough to do so is another matter (see my comments re: IT security/data security in general)...

Legally an employer would be making a big mistake if they turned an applicant down with the reason being "clinical depression". They'll just not pick you for the job and make up another reason though... That way they don't get in trouble. I bet it happens all the time.

Ural. Get it from the pharmacy. It will get rid of any stray traces in your urinary tract.


What I have done in the past is just drink fuckloads of water so you're pissing all the time, making it diluted, but 30 mins before your test have a Berocca to turn your pee yellow.


Having said that, after three weeks most people should be okay, even moderately heavy smokers. Depending on the type of test they do that is. If they do the hard core mega expensive long proper test, there is no way to get out of it, but I HIGHLY  doubt it.

No offence taken. I really do regret giving them that much detail, as I walked out before the group interview when I heard the interviewers bitching about the group that had just walked out, before my group was due to go in. I didn't really want to work with a bunch of cows.

Yeah, the questions they were asking were totally unrelated to the job. There were HEAPS of applicants there, I'd estimate over 80 just on that evening alone... perhaps they were discarding applicants based on health issues to whittle down the numbers?

i still think it's bullshit!!! using the "oh it effects performance at work" is such a cop out. soon you are not gonna be able to have a drink during the week cos (depending on amount) it effects how you work the next morning. smoking weed at night rarely effects how you feel the next morning.

Maybe they were just a bunch of florist fags who liked to bitch about people?

Just throwing it out there....





Also, no matter how many drugs you take, I find it highly unlikely that you are going to severely hurt yourself in an office, which is what these questions tend to be asked for. Working in a factory/kitchen/driving a car on the other hand...

+1 for Ural.

Strife's mate Troy took a bunch of these before a test for a promotion he was aiming for and aced the test. From memory he drank a shitload of water as well, just like you prescribe Dr. Kurko...Ask him next time you see him Chris!

u guys are thinking purely from the employees point of view...u realise.. just an idea, but say you were an employer, or responsible for a fair number of workers. now, worksafe and other oh&s guidelines, enforced by penalties, fines, and even jail, i would assume could stress you out completely!  if an incident was to happen at work...who would be responsible? ultimately, you. death? you'd be liable, or whatever might happen, cause of the current laws around work safety.

doing checks on medical histories, and drug tests, is not something which is meant to penalise everyone, but inadvertently it does. i am sure enough employers got screwed around by people who did not disclose medical histories, or had serious drug problems. it only takes one death at the workplace cause someone was high, to gear opinion towards abolishing drug use entirely from the workplace..by making people take tests.

anyways, gotta think of it from a few diff perspectives i think.

what i said before oli, about weekend habits..well, u should think a bit past what i say, i wasnt contradicting myself on purpose. what my intention was, to point out that the drug tests shouldnt be sensitive..they should only apply to the last few days.

gosh, have a freakout about privacy peoples!!

Well most of us are young and therefore more likely to be in the employees shoes, so it makes sense for us to be looking at it from that perspective. I think everyone sees that there are jobs where it makes sense to require drug tests. I just think that employers should not be given the right to go overboard with the testing.

Anna if the drug tests only applied to the last few days I doubt this thread would have been started in the first place... Since it seems to be about someone who wants to be sure that they have no traces of dope in their system from their last smoke 3 weeks ago.

And yes, you should freak out more about privacy. Every entity that has access to or has seen your medical details (or whatever else you consider private) is just another possible place where it can be accessed maliciously or otherwise fall into the wrong hands.

Like I said earlier if I was asked and didn't feel it should be necessary I'd either turn around and find something else or ask to see the employers record.

I agree with Oli 100%. And I've met him.

Anna, you say that ultimately, you're liable if you're an employer and something happens while an employee of yours is under the influence. You are not. You're liable if you show negligence. Failing to give every person employed by you a drug test all the time is not negligence. By your logic every employer I've ever had is negligent by not giving me a drug test.

 

i just think that its ok to question drug tests, but there is a time n a place for em. i agree with u guys! but i am sure that employers feel they need to do it, cause if they dont they will be seen as liable for someone driving a company car whilst drunk, or running someone down with a forklift etc. i KNOW most jobs need some sorta test, that a simple office job really shouldnt require a drug test! dont worry, i aint crazy

now, as for the privacy stuff and medical history... i think we passed the point LONG AGO where we could have had a choice to accept or reject the collection of information by governments, companies etc. i am scared to, as to the power of the information if it were to fall in the wrong hands, but knowing this sorta stuff means MONEY to companies, either by selling it or producing technology with which to collect it... so as much as we will try to resist it, it will be harder and harder to stay out of the privacy loop. only by being some dropout hippy or mega hacker could u avoid it! i am a bit of a cyberpunk-inspired nihilist in that regard, or what of thinking. because we've accepted SO MUCH technology which requires some sort of information exchange (eftpos, internet accounts, medical insurance, hell even medical technologies) it will be difficult to resist any more invasion.

RESISTANCE IS FUTILE!

PS Leezee.. I am sure that employers go overboard to ensure they NEVER have to be filling in incident forms, to prove they AREN'T negligent!

i've worked with companies who's slogan is basically...SAFETY IS NO ACCIDENT! True! Including government agencies like CSIRO!

Live off the grid dude!   

The thresholds on these tests tend to be pretty high ie. they are trying to find out if you are an abuser, not just a user.

Oh god, that totally made me LOL, what with the imagery and everything.

Teeeeeeeeeeeeehehehehehe

u'd totally do it, if u were in a stabby mood

after three weeks they'll be fine i reckon.
 
exercise would be the best cure for it i believe though.

If it's just a urine test 3 weeks is enough to be clean of weed. Because as pointed out it is stored in fat deposits. Beyond that a hair sample will detect up to 3 months of use depending on haircuts! Other drugs like amphetamines etc are well gone with in a week and don't store in the body like weed.
Drinking cranberry juice is meant to clean urine up quickly but you can get blockers(or at least used to) from hydro stores. Like a sickly honey substance that cleans urine up more rapidly.

On the issue of employers requiring drug tests or medical history, Oli is bang on! It is of no business of your employer how you choose to spend your free time wether that be Drunk in a pub or loaded on charlie! If it effects your work then the issue should be your errors at work not the clinical reason for them. Depression, hangover or come down all the same shit even low/high blood pressure effects people from time to time. Saying that though, I know of people who have been fired for both medical conditions and drug issues!

This whole drug test thing is fucked up. I'm unemployed at the moment and i have applied for around 30 jobs in that time. I haven't applied for around 5 jobs which i  believe i would have a great chance of getting because they've asked for a drug test. I have a cert 3 in production engineering and cant get a job in any factory in Adelaide because they all want a drug test before they employee you even on a casual basis. My problem is I like to have a smoke but no where near as much as i used to but still what i do in my own time on the weekends is no ones business but my own. Still the threat of having this information on your record for any amount of time is totally fucked. Apparently depending on where you have the test done you can have your fail result shared between every employment agency in the city which i cant afford to do.

And some will just say you know you should just stop smoking while you try and find a job. But if its so important for an employer to know my business i don't want to be their employee.

And on another note/rant, i've been going to the gym lately and losing some weight. Ive found that as i've been burning fat my cravings for weed have gone up. Not sure if its because the weed is stored in my fat cells but its fucked up.

I know of a person who wasn't hired on the grounds that (while he passed the drug test) he confessed to the occassional line because he thought it was going to come up in the test.

Yes, I was fired from my last job because I had to take a week off to have surgery. It's pretty disgusting really.

Surely drug tests are rather pointless anyways, what with people cleaning out their systems prior to the test?

Lexy I'd say you would have had grounds to challenge that.

Funny that you mention how pointless they are since people will "clean out their system" beforehand but then Melvin Smiley's post before yours says how he knows of someone who confessed to drug use even though they passed the test... So obviously they aren't pointless since some people will confess out of honesty since they (perhaps wrongly) assume that the drug test is always going to be accurate.

Also, Benzaah's comments about how this data is stored and shared amongst employment agencies really worries me. Nice way to fuck up somebody's employment opportunities for a good length of time.

 But if somebody is a heavy user/addict then that is exactlythe point. They aren't going to be able to clean up for the test.

 

i am all for testing before you get the job, that is fair. it's the random testing that pisses me off.

I totally agree with companies not having the right to know ones private business and what you do out of the workplace is none of their business, however I sorta do think if someone is serious enough about finding a good job and going through the whole recruitment process and they want to have a successful career- they kinda should lay off of the stuff for a while. Even for a short while, until they land the job

Just an opinion but smoking da green isnt exactly the most motivational thing someone can do to get a job. And if laying off of it is what your job requires.... and you wanna work in that field.... then i guess it goes with the requirements.


If people dont like the requirements, I guess they should look elsewhere'

Harsh but its true in todays competitive society


yeh i agree with that- I think that people should be given a fair chance
I mean that stuff is totally personal- I can understand someone signing off an agreement for testing info to be held with the organisation they work with... but not for medical info to be held on a huge database which any employer can access. thats just wrong and a complete breech of privacy

I kinda reckon that if people wish to start a new job, sometimes its nice to be given the opportunity to start fresh. Thats the whole point of changing jobs... for a life change or new opportunity

just tell your friend to do the ol' britney spears thing:

Nope, I was employed as a casual.

Yes, but I don't think many people would confess to drug use prior to getting the results.


I didn't think of that. Good point.

Sounds like pretty much exactly what I have read over the years. If you are going to drink a shitload of cranberry juice though, eat a steak or similar afterwards as it will turn your piss back to a normal, believable "I haven't spent the last 48 hours sucking down vitamin water to clear my bladder" colour as well.

 The only problem I have with the process is who would get access to a positive result. It should be highly confidential, probably even destroyed immediately really. If it is getting shared around without your consent that is not on, but in reality I would think that it is improbable given the strictness of todays privacy laws (and the fines that go along with breaking them).

 Other than that I think an employer has every right to do random testing as long as everyone is aware of it beforehand. You can make your own choices based on that information. They are the ones paying your wages and want maximum return on that investment. Rightly or wrongly, people seen to be 'on drugs' have a stigma attached to them - read the comments on any story about drugs on the Advertiser website. Many people believe anyone 'on drugs' is a criminal/thief.

I would be surprised if many people on here could honestly say they haven't had sickies after 2 days of partying or rocked up to work on a wednesday still feeling like crap from staying awake too long (yes to both for me). IMO employers are entitled to try and protect themselves from those types of issues if they wish to do so. Just like you are free to do what you want in your time, they are entitled to want the best from you when you are on their time.

 Lexy were you casual at that job? There is a difference between being fired and being told you are no longer required as a casual is all.

 Edit- yeah I just read that you were. Obviously that sucks but that's what casual employment means. They can pretty much get rid of you anytime. If you haven't been there long they aren't going to do you any favours unfotunately. They need to cover their own needs
 

 

The medical companies arent examining Colour or vitamin B content though, they are looking for traces of certain chemicals.

If they want to look for vitamin traces they will do that through a different test

They are only going to have findings on chemical traces. The companies arent going to give the extra info or findings. They only give results on what they are requested to find. Its pretty much a yes/no kinda result, i would say like an aids test (positive or negative)

Kinda like

THC- No
Amphetamines- No

etc etc

Not:

Vitamin B- Yes
Dark colour- yes

"Oh me god, they have ultra amounts of Vitamin B in their system!!! this must mean they have been flushing, quick, write that finding down we must report on it!"
 

Do ya get what im kinda saying?

completely agree.

Did they actually say that you no longer had the job because you had surgery do or did they just say they didn't need you and you implied it was because you had needed to take some time off for medical reasons?


The problem is that they probably put clauses into the documents (in the fine text) that many people don't read allowing them to basically do what they want with the data. Precisely because so many people are so eager to get the job they sign it off without thinking twice about the long term implications of giving access to that data to third parties (or just storing it in general).

Then there's the issue of competence with regards to storage of data. This is where it comes back to people with no idea what they are doing managing the systems which store this type of data... You can have strict laws but if there are security breaches because people are stupid then the laws don't matter...  


The thing that many people who are looking for jobs need to remember is that this whole "competitive society" thing is not a one sided competition. That is, it's not just employees competing for jobs. If you look at the state of the economy right now the competition is in fact the completely opposite way around. In many industries the competition is between employers for the employees. Unfortunately this isn't something most people consider, or their views become a bit distorted after "missing out" on a few jobs.


Yes that's a pretty big issue here in Adelaide where we really don't have a balanced media scenario to discuss these things.

could an employer not hire someone cos they are a smoker given that it effects how they perform at work?

not hiring someone on the grounds that the may at some stage in their life take drugs is IMO the same as not hiring a fat person! more likely to take sickies, have health issues and struggle to achieve a maximum out put. Or a smoker for the same reason and while we're on it I guess that would mean I could choose not to hire women(not my opinion just making a point) as they may get pregnant or be more likely to have days of limited performance!

I know it's not integral, I'm just saying it looks a bit better. The steak helps the system clear anyways, so why not kill two birds with one stone. Remember they hire professional pharmacologists for this work, if you are joining a workplace that threatens future random tests don't give them any reason, paranoid or otherwise, to question the validity of the first one.

Yes I understand that completely. (However I kinda meant for people who are working in factory type work).

The Generation Y attitude of "if you arent going to meet my conditions, I am going elsewhere" only applies as jobs are abundant at the moment. However the economy may shift so this type of mind set is not the best attitude to have permanently. But yes, I am guilty of this too. For example, the other day I said to one of the senior officers at my work "I hate working in the city! Fuck paying for parking! If they want me to work in the city, I will just go elsewhere! I want to go back to working in Keswick, anywhere but the city!"

 

i wouldn't think they could discrimate against smokers since it's still legal.  but i guess it may depend on whether they're a non smoking workplace, where you can't smoke withing 100m or whatever of the buildings, or on the property at all.

it could get pretty ridiculous tho... next thing they won't hire obese people coz they can barely lift they're little finger etc etc./

hmm, its all very generalised isnt it! in the smokers case tho, they usually take WAYY more 'breaks' to have a fag than non smokers...

Um, I kinda think the risk of hiring a stoner in a factory where your arm can get ripped off in some machinery is not equivalent to hiring a fat person or a woman who can get preggers

Are you trying to say that not hiring a stoner could be considered is discrimination? as thats what i am kinda reading? 


I agree! they take soo many breaks at my work.... ten mins here, tens mins there... whereas if I am late for work i get told off.

really irritating

yeah but that would also depend on whehter you worked in a smokefree workplace!

our work isn't smoke free, and i have 2 cigarette breaks a day, because i'm entitled to 2 10minute breaks during the day, my award states that, the non-smokes are entitled to that too, they just stay at their desks coz they have nothing to do in that break.  me on the otherhand would be taking every chance i got to get away from the desk even if i wasn't a smoker!

I had one day off because I was on extremely stong painkillers and I was working with sharp knives and really hot stuff, told them I didn't want to possibly hurt myself - that was ok - and I found someone to cover my shift that day. I left half way through another shift because I was in a great deal of pain, only because another girl said she would cover it for me. I got a letter from the hospital that same week and so I informed that I would be having surgery and would need a week off. Everyone seemed ok with that and my shifts were covered for the week of surgery, no dramas.

Then the week before I have surgery, I get an SMS one morning as I'm getting ready for work, saying that due to said medical problem, I was too unreliable and to not bother coming back, basically.

Unfortunately, I spoke with the Workplace Ombudsman about it and yeah, being casual means I couldn't do anything about it.


Not necessarily. I've only ever gone out for a cigarette in the designated break times which apply for ALL workers (non-smokers go out for coffee or whatever). I've never just walked out whenever I feel like it for a cigarette.

Not hiring a stoner and not hiring a fatso are similar in that they are less likely to achieve maximum output in your factory. More likely to take sick days on account of decreased health levels and both less likely to have a general positive and productive attitude.

I'm sure plenty of workplaces discriminate on appearance already, it just goes unspoken.

isn't that where the workplace itself should step in and create a policy of some sort with designated break times or something like that.

i'd have my ass kicked if i went out for a cigarette willy nilly!

edit - all this talk about smoking!  think it's about time i went out for one!!   

I don't doubt it!

i think if it's a safety thing then drug testing is fair enough but if it's about standard of work then it's such a load of shit. as said in this thread there are heaps of things that effect peoples performance at work, drug use is one of them but to what extent? it's such a load of shit that in your own time, you can't do whatever you want to do, even if it is breaking the law, that's your business (and the cops if you get caught). i hate how australia is becoming such a controlling country, people should have the right to do what they want in their own time. if drug use effects someone's performance at work then do what has happen in the past, FIRE THEM for being unproductive. surely you would want someone working for you that is good at their job and works well, if they dabble in a party lifestyle but still perform to the companies standards then whats the issue?

I'd say most of us on here would totally agree with that.
There's rumours going about at my workplace atm that they are bringing in a drug testing policy... should be interesting.
Might start looking at what else is out there.

Very good point!

Fire the bastards if they arent working to the maximum capability

However on the flip side, I think in the recruitment process- hiring, training and firing is not as cost effective compared to not hiring at all. HR companies say that it  costs companies shitloads when people leave and you have to get a new person on board

The test should only test for that day. that way it tells your employer that on the day/time when they requested your presence you were not under the effect of an illicit substance hence assuming you can maintain that standard for a week etc. The same for random tests and alco tests.
testing for longer suggests they want to know what type of person you are thus enabling them to stereotype you and your behaviour.

 Why do you think most workplaces have a medical? To weed out those that are likely to be off sick maybe??

 Smoke breaks - different issue as they are legal. Needs to be policed/enforced by employer. Comes back to performance.

 
 Comes back to the stigma. Drugs are illegal, that's what a lot pf people are missing here. It costs employers TIME and MONEY to train people, so they are trying to minimise exposure to people who may have lower productivity. It's not a foolproof system of course.

 

 

yep thanks stryke, thats exactly how i see it. just the way it is for the majority of employers!!! there ARE lots of companies and people that see past the drugs stigma and media hype...it might take some time to find them, but there IS a choice in the matter, and you can choose to NOT work for people who enforce this sorta stuff..if u feel so strongly!

 I feel a bit like Funky J in this thread today playing devils advocate.

 I gotta say it feels good.

its fun huh!

Not all drugs are illegal. Ie. booze which is abused massively in the workforce and yet not too many folk are put on the breatho at work(not to mention hangover). Anti depressants, Tranqu's all fine at work?
Smokers is interesting I think cause although its legal it's becoming less commonly accepted to the point where we've banned it from certain areas but not every where. If you lie about not being a smoker on a job application and your boss catches you smoking on saturday night, can you get fired? 

time for a random old test

Maybe I should introduce a policy to this forum which says you will have to accept drug tests to be allowed to keep your account/keep posting!

fine by me! its probably the breath test that will get most people's knickers in a knot

Why do people assume that drug takers do less work or whatever?

The top three posters on this board and the three people who spend the most time on this board do not take drugs at all. Would it be fair to assume that THEY do the least work?

Oh yes, these people are: Khem, Lexy, Stryke, Trashy_Chica

Same reason people make lots of assumptions. Misunderstanding, social stigmas, media misrepresentation, etc...


Yes.

I dont think the issue is with less work its more the quality of the work and your abilty to deal with mental and physical challenges i your day.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who get more work done when they're runnning on fumes, the transport industry would halve without the chemical aides!

 I never argued that it was fair or correct.

 Just trying to provide some balance on what was an otherwise naively one-sided discussion.

 Comparison is not really valid anyway. AM is legal and doesn't have lasting effects when used away from work

 

i think it comes down to the fact that our drug-free minds are able to multi-task several things at once. what makes u think that we're not working at full productivity??

PS I also think its very unfair to say that anyone has labelled drug-users as inefficient workers! that wasnt the point, like stryke said we were providing a diff view on the topic

PPS if you think i am bad now, shoulda seen me posting on ra at my raving peak! haha. i blame THAT especially on the reason why i am 6 months overdue on handing this thesis in! damn you drugs! 

i smoke shitloads of weed and i've passed a drug test 3 weeks off and URAL is your friend copius amounts there of.

I have a yearly urine test and can have a random test at any time when on site (I work in industrial construction).  I haven't had any problems but that said I haven’t had anything in a long time.  A girl I was working with had sleeping tablets picked up in her test so they must have some level of accuracy as she forgot to tell them about it.  They didn’t particularly care about them – she simply had a test again in three days and it gave the all clear.

As for inaccurate drug testing – I recently tested positive TWICE to both cannabis and methamphetamine at one of those road side saliva drug testing stations.  I debated it and they wanted to send me to the RAH.  Luckily another cop gave his opinion that the second test was borderline and I was then free to go.  If they can just let people go like that those tests must be completely fucked.

You should be a HR rep!

 

URAL it works hey! had the same experience mate... we're all safe as fuck.. that is until they introduce hair follacle testing, they can take a strand of your hair and anything up to 90 days can be clinically examined... scary as! They can test for:

Cocaine (Cocaine & Benzoylecgonine), Marijuana, Opiates (Codeine, Morphine & 6-Monacteyl Morphine), Methamphetamine (Methamphetamine/Amphetamine & Ecstasy), and Phencyclidine (PCP). These five drug classes are mandated for testing by the Federal Government.
i found this (they sell cleansing shampoo as well)
http://www.ipassedmydrugtest.com/hair_drug_test_FAQ.asp

Stop complaining and start smoking then! 

its where your heart's at really...  its also about balance and moderation... can't run on adrenaline all your life, and you can't sit back all your life...
toll do them, most mining companies do them, roadside randoms etc...
its judgemental to think that a person who drinks heaps is gonna be as productive as someone who excersises heaps and all other comparisons like that only serve to alienate rather than intergrate...
most cats i know got it under control anyways... and is like what fluke, oli and melvin said in their posts...

Just a little update on the original situation... thanks for your help, guys... My friend got a doctor to administer a drug test after three weeks of sobriety and she came up clean. She wasn't a heavy smoker, maybe a cone a day if that. She went for the medical and they didn't even do a fucking drug test!!! Bloody scaremongers! She now fills the position she went for. Yay!

Congrats to your paranoid dope fiend friend!