1y ago

The fact that drug tests are normalized for jobs is fucking insane

and no one irl even has the decency to agree with me because it's so fucking drilled into the culture that these fucking BuNsInNesSes have a Right to do this because it's a bSUsniEss. like oh yeah they have an office building so they definitely get to analyze my piss because they say they want to. sick fucking freaks.

preaching to the choir a bit on lemmy (or i would hope so at least) but still

246 comments

My company does not do drug tests and never has. Someone asked the owner why and he said 'Id lose a lot of good people'
- Sounds like you work for a good company, at least with respect to drug testing.
  
  They're good people who take good care of me.
- I worked for one place like that. I worked in another place, in the same industry, where they decided to drug test all their employees one day. They lost everyone from 3rd shift, and everyone from 2nd shift except my supervisor and myself.
  After that, they rapidly started to lose customers...
  
  Did they really expect 3rd shift people to be clean lol
- My current job and a different job I had, didn't drug test people. Current job has a few stoners at the upper levels so they just don't test people. The other company was very small, was mostly developers, and had a high bar for getting an interview, so they knew that also going "also you have to be clean" wasn't a good idea to do to developers especially after recreational pot became legal.
  Honestly I've seen a lot less dev jobs do drug testing since it whittles down too many otherwise perfectly competent employees.
- I work in consulting so we often have to follow the rules that our clients impose on us. I once did IT work for a large utility company, who tested all of their employees since they have people operating heavy machinery and working in dangerous situations. One of the people that failed the test was the Client Engagement Lead (the highest ranked person on our project). Fortunately the client realized that IT workers don't need to be held to the same standards as someone operating dangerous equipment and allowed them to retake the test.
  Most recently, one of our clients thought we were drug testing our consultants but then realized we weren't. So they told us we'd have to all get tested, even though many of us had been working for them for years. They, smartly, gave us a 3 week notice of when the testing would be.

That's an American thing.
- This. In Canada, most drug testing is considered a violation of rights and freedoms because your employer should not have a say in how you live your life. There are exceptions for high risk jobs where an impaired worker could cause death by negligence.
  
  Bingo. If my boss asked for my piss I’d go straight to HR. Americans put up with so much insane stuff when it comes to work.
  
  I can understand the high risk jobs one and think that’s fair. In the town I grew up in some factories would do drug test as a way to fire people with cause instead of having layoffs. A few were more seasonal work, so once seasons changed and demand dropped then more drug testing started.
- It’s also an insurance thing. Drug testing programs are expensive, but the insurance companies incentivize it with huge discounts. It turns out that people who don’t do drugs are less accident prone and are usually a bit healthier too. This explains why US hospitals frequently test for tobacco use. It has nothing to do with the legality of use. This is why even with weed getting legalized many companies will still test for it.
  
  People who do drugs are less accident prone?
  
  And insurance is also the reason that you will have to pee for workman's comp claims regardless of whether or not your company has a testing policy.
  
  Thry test for tobacco use at hospitals?
  You mean they test patients? Or employees?
  As a smoker I’ve never heard of this. Also it’s legal so why not just admit to it?
  
  It's also a getting federal money thing. Lots of grants or federal funds provided require drug tests, or having been tested.
  
  I would love to see the correlation between alcoholism and accidents. Bet that crowd is way more accident prone.
- I guess, only the Us of America even.

Thanks Reagan. Fun fact, in the mid 80's Reagan's administration did a big study to show how effective drug testing in the workplace was, and how much it raised productivity. When they got the results back, it found productivity had dropped, and workplace safety hadn't changed. The results said the program was a complete failure. They tried to bury the report and not release it. Rolling Stone magazine sued the government to get a copy, since it was made with public money, and won. They were the only media outlet to publish the results.
- Happen to have a link? That sounds interesting but my Google fu is weak today and couldn't find it.
  
  I think this was it, but I'm not sure. Google has decided it would rather be an adservice than a search engine.
  https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/why-drug-testing-bad-idea
  The rest of the studies I have found say that drug-testing is simply ineffective and bad for morale.
  
  Source ChatGPT Web Scan:
  The claim about the Reagan administration conducting a study in the mid-1980s to demonstrate the effectiveness of workplace drug testing, and then trying to bury its negative results, is not supported by the available historical records.
  The Reagan administration's drug policies in the 1980s, particularly under the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988, focused primarily on increasing penalties for drug possession, creating minimum sentences for drug-related offenses, and addressing the crack cocaine epidemic. These policies were criticized for creating a racial and class imbalance in drug-related punishments and for being ineffective in addressing the systemic causes of drug abuse [❞] [❞] [❞] [❞].
  Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign, which began in the early 1980s, aimed to spread awareness of the dangers of drug use, especially among youth. However, this campaign was criticized for oversimplifying the solution to drug abuse and for being largely ineffective in preventing adolescent drug use [❞].
  There is no information available in the sources reviewed about a specific study on workplace drug testing being conducted and its results being suppressed by the Reagan administration, nor about Rolling Stone magazine suing the government for its release. The focus of the Reagan administration's drug policies seemed more oriented towards legislative measures and public awareness campaigns rather than workplace drug testing studies.
- Except in military environments (which I think correlate to environments where heavy equipment is in use). https://prhome.defense.gov/Portals/52/Documents/RFM/Readiness/DDRP/docs/72208/DoD%20Drug%20Policy%20History.pdf

I run a manufacturing business; you oversimplify.
Quite coincidentally my HR person came to me just an hour ago and told me that two people have complained of a coworker smoking on breaks and at lunch and being high on the job.
He drives a heavy forklift. Am I to ignore the situation? If I do I expose my employees to danger and my small business to lawsuits.
How are the employees that reported it supposed to react if I say "Whatever, that's his business."
To a large extent businesses have their hands tied by the rules and laws of society.
- But what you are saying is probable cause. I think the OP complains about random testing without any justification.
  In your example, even if you were not legally entitled to carry out a drug test, you could simply call the police and let them do the check.
  
  Random drops are how you catch functionals before they fuck up and cost business.
  Not really, the person could refuse and the cops can't do anything unless it's operated in public which most forklifts are not.
  
  Random tests could be fairer and avoid discrimination or prejudicial testing.
- Do you test your forklift drivers with breathalyzers too?
  I guarantee you more of them are drinking before they go to work than getting high on break.
  
  My business doesn't test at all because I don't care what my employees do when they're not a work. I have no desire to get involved in their personal lives.
  But just as with weed, If an employee told me that another employee was drinking on breaks and at lunch my hands are tied. I can't ignore it.
- Many of the drug tests don't check for drugs currently in your system. Many of them are akin to checking your liver levels to see if you've had alcohol at all in the past week.
  Also, what a massive straw man.
  
  Sure…but it’s not on him. Realistically, there’s:
  The insurance company that has the restriction (required by law)
  Lawmakers that make the law putting anyone under the influence responsible for any accidents, and by extension the company for letting it happen (if they knew)
  I wouldn’t necessarily blame this guy, but our elected officials. If anyone’s to blame, it’s mostly Republicans (and Democrats in the early 90s) for pushing these laws so hard.

You know it's all bullshit because they don't/can't test for alcohol dependence, which is way more devastating to a person's productivity than cannabis.
- I have never been given a breathalyzer at work, either for pre-employment or post-accident.
  I do vividly recall being drug tested for hitting a support column with a forklift. I passed. The next day, someone else hit the same post. He smelled like a bar mat. No test for him.
- My job breathalyzed me in addition to the piss test. I asked the attendant about the breathalyzer test, and she said that it's common for people to fail it.
  
  I recently learned that in NZ they will give you a breathalyzer test if you've done something such as have a vehicular collision or been speeding at something like 140 km/h in a 100 km/h zone. Even if you're a cop on highway patrol duty; you get in a crash, another cop has to administer the test.

Hard drugs also don't show up on a drug test nearly as long as weed does, so you're really only stopping people who smoked in the last month, while others are doing whatever.
- And add to that the fact that a test for THC isn't able to tell if someone is high right then. The tests only check for the metabolites of THC, not THC itself.

Damn, América really is crazy. I wouldn't accept such tests and I've never even tried drugs.
- Depends what your job was. If you're my 747 pilot I would be outraged if you refused a drugs test when asked.
  There's a time and a place for regulated drugs tests.
  
  Here is one guy who should've been drug tested before doing any work. "Several of his friends recalled him going to work after a night of doing drugs, with one of them saying he would never allow Duntsch to operate on him."
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Duntsch

You should see how they do it in the service industry. No tests to get the job, but if you're ever hurt at work and entitled to workman's comp they give you a test and if you've smoked weed anytime in the last month the presumption is that you were high at work and not only do they not have to pay you for your injury but they just flat-out fire you.
- The worker's comp drug tests are such a disgusting example of late stage capitalism.
  Imagine that you made a lot of money and lived comfortably off of the hard work of others. Then when one of those others got hurt while making money for you, you go out of your way to make sure you don't have to help them cover the medical costs. Also, you take their only source of income away from them so they couldn't even cover it themselves if they wanted to.
  I can't imagine being that heartless, and its literally just standard pretty much everywhere in the US. It is very saddening.
  
  This is the intersection of two elements of our culture:
  everyone must always do everything they can to make as much money as possible regardless of the consequences
  if someone uses drugs, they're not a person anymore and it's okay to hurt them as much as is within your power
  
  This sounds like a talking point for the right about the "extreme" left. I don't own a business but I also don't expect them to foot the bill if I come to work drunk and it sounds pretty ridiculous to say they should. Saying addicts should get jobs and not worry about the consequences of coming to work under the influence is ridiculous. I'm all for helping people when they're ready for help but giving them a pass for being reckless is too far.
- Trying to think of someone who works in the service industry that doesn't smoke weed...
  Yeah, they're never paying comp.
  
  That's exactly the point.
- Never get between a grift industry and it's profits.

It really depends on the position and what they're testing for. Do you really want a heavy machinery operator to be a cokehead or heroin addict? There is a real risk of them killing someone. Testing someone in a job like IT for smoking weed? That's a different story.
Also a lot of the time they only test you post-hiring if you fucked up somehow.
It can definitely be used against people (usually the disenfranchised) though to prevent them being hired or to get them fired.
- The place I work will fire you on the spot if you test positive for marijuana. Marijuana is legal in this state. If I smoke on the weekend, and then test positive on Wednesday, I lose my job.
  However, if I get ripple-dee-doo-dah shit-faced Tuesday night, come in on Wednesday miserably hung over, I'll pass that piss test. And still be more impaired than I would be from that joint I had Saturday night.
  
  As a long time stoner, I agree that we are targeted more than nonusers simply because THC hangs out in the body a lot longer than other drugs. It would take me months to piss clean just so I could get a job at something like Family Dollar. It doesn't matter if I was a drunk or did an 8 ball of coke a few days ago because that wouldn't show up in a drug test.
  
  Just because a drug is legal doesn't mean it shouldn't be tested for in scenarios where that is applicable. Many jobs do in fact test for alcohol.
  I wouldn't want my bus driver under the influence of anything (preferably not even sleep deprivation), but honestly couldn't give less of a shit if the cashier was high out of their mind, so long as they do their job. Some jobs are more gray area. For instance, a chef or fast food worker fucking up could mean someone dying from anaphylactic shock.
- Ya if a worker fucking up can directly result in someone dying, I'm not opposed to testing for hard drugs. They also only stay in your system for a few days so if someone can't pass that, then you can probably find a better fit
- I said this elsewhere in the thread- unless you are also giving random breathalyzers, this is a ridiculous and hypocritical policy because lots of people drink before going to work. And they'd be drunk right then and there, not at some unspecified point before the test was taken.
- Many desk jobs would probably be reasonable to have testing on as well. People don't realize how critical software is today. That same piece of heavy machinery has a cpu with thousands of lines of code sitting between the operator and the actual machinery.
  
  Wow you are exactly what he is complaining about. It's not like the guy is coding live and each keystroke goes directly to the machine. What risk is it to people if a couple years ago one of the guys typing keys that would later get tested like crazy was high?
  
  I work in IT and about half the workforce smokes weed. I worked at a high frequency stock trading firm in NYC that made hundreds of millions of dollars per year and tons of the developers were high during work hours. We had quarterly open bar parties where the CEO himself would openly smoke weed.
  Being high on THC doesn't have the same effect on someone that is drunk, all coked up, or doped up on opiates. Smoking weed tends to open up people's creative sides and it reduces stress and anxiety when something isn't working the way you want it to. The same can't be said for the others because they impair your ability to focus, your vision, and decision making.
  Also as someone else said, there are only a few positions where being high as hell can seriously impact the company. Most of the time the stuff you do doesn't have that much of an impact on the company in general.

Imagine thinking "my employees are performing great but maybe I should check their pee to be sure"
- That's the thing though. It's never that. It's more like
  Sure my employees are doing fine, but maybe I can squeeze some more profit out of them if I make sure they aren't enjoying themselves whatsoever
  
  It's our insurance gives us cheaper rates if we drug test, and we can fire you if you get hurt on the job and happened to smoke a joint last weekend.
  
  It's more like "These fucking insurance crooks will drop my company if I don't drug test my employees even though it's a waste of time and money and an invasion of privacy."
  
  Why does it have to be the employees doing great or fine?
  Some of my employees aren't performing well or are assholes, but I don't have enough grounds to fire them yet.
  Not that a drug test would be the best way to solve that... but it seems like a plausible thought process.

They can't do this in Europe unless it's actually dangerous for the job, medical professional, operating heavy industrial machinery, cop etc. It's just because the US has no worker rights laws.
You don't want someone who is still high driving a train, but it's probably fine if all I need to do is off work.
- I've also never heard anyone get tested more than once and you can take the test when you want. If you can't produce clean piss once in your life, then you might have a problem.
- Those are generally the same industries performing the drug tests in the US, too. They only test if they're required to by OSHA, DOT, or insurance due to the nature of the work (i.e. "safety sensitive" roles). I've never done a drug test for an office job or basic labor; but I get regularly tested for my DOT related job.
  
  Meanwhile I've been tested in order to work at Walmart and Jiffy Lube when I was younger.

In Canada (and I think in most of the world) it's illegal to randomly test employees unless you have reasonable cause.
Testing of an individual employee may be allowed in specific cases where there is reasonable cause to believe the employee is impaired by drugs or alcohol while on duty or is unable to work safely due to impairment from alcohol or drugs.
- Pre-hire and pre-site-access are both still legal though

My biggest fear is failing one when I haven't taken anything. I never have, but I know people who have. I've also known people who have passed after getting totally blitzed the night before. They are wildly inaccurate, aside from being an invasion of privacy.
- I read, when you eat stuff with poppy seeds, some tests are false positive, because the plants are closely related.
  
  Not closely related, Opium is made from the same plant as poppy seeds, the plant is aptly named the opium poppy. (This is the cash crop of afghanistan, which supplies 80% of the worlds opiate demand as of 2021, down from 90% in 2011, but currently in the rise again.) Old info see comment below
  The seeds dont have opiates in them, but the fluid in the seed pod (or something like that) does so the seeds are typically contaminated with opiates.
  https://www.unodc.org/documents/crop-monitoring/Afghanistan/Opium_cultivation_Afghanistan_2022.pdf
  
  opiates.

It's especially frustrating as someone who needs cannabis for severe anxiety, because it's anxiety inducing in itself to have to hide it and that pretty much cancels out the benefits for me- it's something we absolutely need to destigmatize at work especially.
- Please try therapy. Anxiety is curable with therapy, whereas meds or cannabis are temporary symptom relief, but the symptoms will always come back as soon as you're sober.
  
  Lmfao. Anxiety is curable with therapy is not a rule. Some anxiety is curable with therapy, but not all of it.
  
  And just like that, the entire American medical system, as well as kittnpunk's mental health, began to heal!

I am so glad my new job doesn't test unless if there is an industrial accident or in very specific dangerous positions where it is warranted. Handbook basically says don't show up to work fucked up. What you do on your own time is your business.
It is a huge breach of privacy, especially when you have to start disclosing legally prescribed medications that they test for. Why a company has a right to my body, my medical history, or any other private information is nuts.
The fact that there is a system, run by Equifax of course, where employers can choose to hand your work history, paystubs, and other information to and then other companies can then pay to get access to is also nuts. You can request to have it frozen, but who the hell even knows to do this? It is messed up.
https://employees.theworknumber.com/employee-data-freeze
- OSHA and Workers Comp require a test to be done if it's a workplace accident.
  
  Exactly. We do industrial automation. I did the field life at my last job spending months at construction sites building these giant warehouses with conveyor and automation. New job is more focused on robotics, but plenty of conveyor too. It is a fun field and I highly encourage Software Engineers/Developers/etc to look more into doing Controls Engineering and work in this industry. It sounds boring on paper a lot of the time, but I have never been happier.

Like ok maybe drug testing someone who is driving/flying a bunch of people around…I kinda get it. Safety of the public etc.
But drug testing at an office job? Come fucking on. That’s political face. Nothing more.
- Do companies really drug test office workers? I'm in the US, work in an office and have never been drug tested by any company I've worked for in the last 10 years
  
  They are moving away from it. As they should. Most alcoholics and drug addicts are people that have the money to do so. Meaning they already work somewhere and haven't been tested in ages. At least in my observation. There are the homeless with those issues, but I don't think they are the ones applying to most jobs that are being talked about here.
- But CEOs have a lot of responsibility. That's why they deserve the high salaries. We can't have them coming into work and dropping the stock price by making huge mistakes that effect all of the employees and stock- holders. So, yeah, drug testing.
  
  Yes but that drug testing is to ensure that they keep their cocaine levels high enough. It draws concern if it gets to low and god forbid they gain perspective instead of acting like a drug addict looking for coins in the couch cushions.

You know teachers are never drug tested in the US.
- Neither should they be unless there is a suspected problem.
  
  I think the point is you can teach a class of students completely blazed off your ass, but if you want to get a temp job, they make you piss in a cup every two weeks.
- I would have to be high AF to take on that much responsibility for such little pay.

I completely agree.
Many years ago I applied for a McJob at Worst Buy. They had mandatory drug testing even (especially?) for the lowest level job I was applying for.
I couldn't pee when I went to the medical place for the test. Not sure I recall correctly but I think I went back a second time and drank a lot of water and was full of piss so I could do it. They never got back to me. No idea why. I guess they picked up the nicotine and didn't want to hire a cigarette smoker.
When I think about this now I'm pretty horrified that I even did the pee test. It would be exceptional circumstances for me to do this for anything employment related now. I'm very clean now but it is none of their fucking business. It does surprise me that it is legal.
- I think I went back a second time and drank a lot of water and was full of piss so I could do it. They never got back to me. No idea why.
  Maybe the sample was too dilute, so they thought you were trying to hide something?
  
  It is possible. I would think they'd want me to come back and re-test. But I'll never know.

The main thing is, as long as you don't show up to work blitzed I don't see how anyone should give a shit. Whatever you do at home is your business, provided you leave it at home.
That's the policy at my business. IDGAF if you spend all of your off hours at the bottom of a bottle or on top of cloud nine, just don't bring it to work.
Additional problems include: If there is a workplace accident and someone gets injured, both OSHA and insurance companies immediately come knocking to try to do drug tests on everyone involved purely as an attempt to shift blame and deny claims. We don't have any heavy equipment here or anything so I'm not too worried about that, but there are businesses in America that would get fucked in a situation like that so they're kind of forced to enact drug bans even if management doesn't want to on a personal level.
- If you're driving a bus I don't want you even "buzzed" in the slightest
  
  Which is a problem that pre-employment drug testing does not correct in any way, shape or form.

I agree, but some jobs I can see why, like if you're an air traffic controller, operate heavy machinery, etc. Government jobs and Government contractors ($100k+ contracts) also require them but that's a government job...

You're right, but also it's to get cheaper business insurance. Because businesses that don't test have to pay more to insure themselves. If you own a business, you have to buy insurance for the business to ensure that if your business gets sued, it's the business that takes the hit, not you personally.
- Ding ding ding.
  Everything boils down to cost and money eventually

I worked for a US company in the past and in my contract there was a phrase that I'm going to paraphrase. "Can be sent to unannounced drug tests (US only)"
This isn't a worldwide issue.

The fact any employee feels like it has the right to what I go after work is insane. This means drugs testing, second jobs, only-fans/ porn or anything similar.
- My company has a clause in my contract that says the if I were to develop any software or invent any products while working for the company even if all development work was on my own time, they have rights to it.
  I'm positive that that wouldn't actually stand up in court, but it's in the document. It's also in the contract that I can't have a second job which again I don't think they can actually mandate.
  
  Yeah. I know when I worked in research I had something similar about anything created with company property. I know they sued someone who left and tried to sell a version of something they created at work and won.
  But I know there was specific language about what was owned when working at your free time
  
  Then why you sign and bitch later? Don't sign it if you don't want it.

Always thought they were ridiculous and intrusive. So long as you show up sober and do your job properly who the fuck cares what you do in your off time? I'm the director for a nonprofit. I'm a huge stoner and my boss (executive director) was a hippie back in the day lol. I love hearing her wild drug stories from the 70's and 80's lmao. I'm also pretty open with my employees about the fact that I smoke weed. Turns out most of them do too! I always come well dressed, usually in a suit with a clean haircut, so I love seeing their faces when I tell them I'm a pot head lmao
Anyway, my employees are all very hard workers and I can tell they enjoy working here. The fuck would I ruin that by drug testing?
- What really blows my mind is that some employers in the US test for nicotine usage now and can deny you a job, or fire you for using a perfectly legal, non mentally impairing substance.
  I applied to work for Discover and they told me about their policy. I told them to pound sand.
  
  That's usually about health insurance. Keeps their premiums down if they offer health as a benefit. Doesn't make it right, but it is not a morality thing on the firm's part.

It's stupid because most jobs are so fucking dull and easy, being on drugs is the only way to get any stimulation at them.

All it does is punish addicts trying to get back on their feet. For anyone else, you can just get a drink to clear you out the day before or just pretend that your prescription medications are causing a false positive.

It's an insurance thing. Gotts have business insurance. Can't get that unless you can show that at least pretend to not have drug users working there. A drug test is the best way to show that effort.

Does this community work like r/unpopularopinion where you're supposed to upvote if you disagree and downvote otherwise? I agree, but I'm not sure which action to take.
- I upvote if the opinion is genuinely unpopular, regardless of whether or not I agree, and taking into account that agreement in this subreddit does not mean agreement in life.
  There are a lot of things that are popular on lemmy, or even just online, that are deeply unpopular opinions, and I think those should get upvotes here.
  
  "Subreddit". Fix your bad habit lol
- Was that actually in the rules for that subreddit?
  Because I certainly never noticed it being treated that way.
  
  I'm not going to load up R*ddit just to double-check, but yeah, I'm pretty sure that's how it was supposed to work.
- I upvote if I think it's a valuable, earnest, or funny/clever statement. I only downvote if it is completely irrelevant or rudely disruptive for discussion.
  I think it's good to think twice before downvoting. If it's a point of view that you despise or behavior that you can't stand, it might be better for the public to see how that is handled in a forum (through words). Why try to push it away from sight when you could instead demonstrate to other viewers how to help a dummy out?
  However you choose to vote and how often, don't stress about it too much
  
  I was asking because posts (not comments, just posts) in r/unpopularopinion had special, non-standard rules. The idea was to upvote posts you didn't like so that the most unpopular opinions were the ones that got the most visibility/discussion.

The last job I worked at said they reserved the right to drug test at any time. Thankfully they never did, because I use cannabis to treat pain for a rare nerve disorder and I would be in pretty serious pain all the time if I didn't. But I was basically ready to stand up to them and say, "I'm not taking the test. I use cannabis. It's legal one state over, which is where I buy it. I don't get high when I'm working. If you want to fire me for it, have fun finding a new employee."

As drug use is nomalizing, I can understand that companies normalize drug tests, too. Even as a normal person I prefer jobs that require a certain level of precision or which could be dangerous when mistakes are made to be performed by people who are neither drunk nor high.
- That implies that drug use in general would severly negatively impact your work performance.
  And thats simply not the case. John smoking a joint before dinner and partying on MDMA one Saturday in a month, will not make him a worse employee than Jim, who takes no illegalized drugs, but is consistently sleep deprived and over caffeinated.
  Drug tests don't test for current intoxication. They test for drug consumption in the past few days, or in the case of weed, past few weeks. So even for heavy machinery or other typical cases where current intoxication is not acceptable, they test for the wrong thing. Finally it is extremely inconsistent. If you have a opiod prescription, you are allowed to drive cars, while the medication is working if the impairment isn't too strong . But it impairs you in the same way like recreational opiod use would. So the same impairment is perfectly acceptable in one case, and a reason for losing your licencse and possible criminal charges in the other.
- I don’t see how that follows. The point is a drug test is a personal invasion so there needs to be a good reason. Operating heavy machinery is a good reason. Where lives are at stake is a good reason. Where it can have an outsized financial or other impact may be a good reason.
  However, for most people, I don’t see why it’s not just a matter of good job performance or not. Sure, companies may want to drug test everyone to keep them in line, but that’s not sufficient reason
- Same. I was a cook in a casino restaurant (bear with me), and when I applied for the job the head chef asked me "can you pass a drug test?" I said "oh yeah, I don't do any dr-", he interrupts me to say "I didn't ask if you do any drugs, I asked if you can pass a drug test. Yes or no?"
  Well, turns out 2 line cooks had heroin problems, the head chef, sous chef, and morning lead chef were functioning alcoholics, one general manager was coked out of his fucking mind 24/7 until the last few days before payday, the other was taking about 3x as much xanax as anyone should, and the wait staff smoked approximately as much as Snoop Dogg.
  Needless to say, that place was the definition of a runaway clusterfuck. Much of their problems were caused by the rampant drug use amongst the employees that could have been prevented if they were a little more thorough with the drug tests, rather than literally giving me the pee cup to take home and bring back later.
  
  Welcome to the service industry. The dish washer usually has the best hook up.
  
  Everyone out here pretending like this scenario isn't a problem.

I'm in NZ, but generally if you work on an industrial site, pre-work checks are normal along with "reasonable cause testing" and random checks are becoming more popular.
For office work, I don't know anyone that is tested.
Having worked on various industrial sites for over 15 years, I have only been randomly tested once, I have had two pre-employment checks done.
I don't see it as a big deal here, the reasonable cause testing is done to ensure who is safe, we have nationalized insurance here so there is no denial of claims or anything similar. You will almost certainly be fired if you are under the influence and cause an accident.
- The problem is if you smoked weed two weeks before the test it will be positive. If you're a regular smoker it can take months to piss clean. The tests don't show if you're currently under the influence.

Depends on the job. I don't know that I want my kids teacher on meth, or an airline pilot on speed or whatever. Working in education and the aviation industry (and military) are the only times I've been required to take a drug test. Don't know why it would be mandatory for certain industries. Like. Is my food not going to make it to the table from the kitchen because the waiter smoked a joint before his shift?
- This is pretty much how it is in the US. If an employee's drug use is a potential serious liability, most insurance companies require drug testing for them to insure you (generally, I can't imagine companies want to drug test because it is actually quite expensive). Like in the construction industry, a lot of companies drug test because you really shouldn't have someone on drugs operating heavy machinery and you sure as shit won't get insured if you dont. I can't speak to the companies that do it regardless of liability concerns but I work in an engineering position for a large company and no one is drug tested. In fact, no company I have worked for has drug tested.
  
  Some private companies do regardless if the owners are religious. Otherwise it's mostly big corporations, government, gov adjacent, or dangerous ie driving, construction, that kind of thing.
  We need a better weed test though. It's bad if someone is high while operating, but 2+weeks detectability is unacceptable.

I work in a manufacturing facility, so very much a safety sensitive environment.
We are required to be drug tested as part of a pre-employment screening and potentially after incidents. The cool thing is it is part of our collective bargaining agreement that they are not allowed to screen for THC with a urine sample because of how invasive it is.
Mouth swabs are more expensive, but also only screen for THC within 24 hours. I'm sure that number is up for debate as well, but it is a far cry from the 6-8 weeks you can potentially test positive for with a urine screening.

Place I work explicitly told me they don't drug test. They understood what you do on your time is your business. So long as you don't come to work under the influence of anything.

IIRC, many industries still get tax breaks and financial incentives for doing so.
- Tax breaks for violating rights and privacy just make the situation worse.

America is a sick joke
- The world is a sick joke
  
  And our broken humanity is to blame.
- Not an American exclusive

It’s only legal if it’s required for your profession (like in aviation), it might threaten life or mean death (for instance a taxi driver), there are big non-lethal risks connected to the employee’s work (no idea on this one)
As it’s a medial procedure so it has extra rules regarding that and the shielding of medical records from the employer.
The company also have to discuss this with the workers show stewards before they choose to do testing, and other forms of action needs to be taken and be ineffective before you can move on to testing.

It's largely a cash cow industry that exists to absolve employers of liability. It takes on a different form in cases of legitimate safety concerns.
It's not unlike the DEI industry in that way, because while there's legitimate notions behind it, the form it takes in this coercive context is more about what benefits the employer. If your employee's supposed personal resentments are the cause of all the problems with nepotism and favoritism etc... if employees are more focused on their own differences and the employer can claim a moral high ground...

As long as company pays for it and time spent, its okay.
Wonder if drug tests are actual testing on which can shatter one's mind lol.

Not all jobs drug test in the USA, if you get onboarded for a job that does eventually test, refuse, and if they have an issue with it, decide if it's worth your time to fight them over it or walk away and start the slow job hunt grind again. You don't have to work for a company that tests, that is ultimately a choice you make. A common issue however with finding jobs that don't drug test is that you're going to be footing your bills for all standard healthcare plan costs and such. No biggie if you value your urine privacy!
- What a bootlicker comment. "You don't need to be drug tested if you don't want to, just be prepared to leave most jobs on the spot losing any job stability and never have health insurance. No big deal" How's the leather taste?
  
  My last job didn't test, the one prior didn't, and my current one doesn't. Job stability is as stable as being able to get hired, and I pay for health insurance like everyone else. My Jordan's are like yours, so neither of us wear leather.

Sure, it doesn't matter what I do on their time. But, if my time starts affecting company time, then it becomes a problem. It'd be a pretty bad look if I showed up to work wasted.
For the record, while my job doesn't involve particularly heavy machinery, it does involve moving heavy loads, and it's public-facing.

I would think it would be considered a HIPAA violation, though I'm sure "Safety" is given as a reason for why it's allowed. And it's possible there are some privacy protections given if you fail a drug test, but I'm sure it's pretty obvious what happened to anybody involved with the hiring ("They interviewed great, but for some reason after they took the drug test we're not able to hire them on. Huh, I wonder what happened.")
- It’s most often insurance that dictates when a company needs to drug test for “safety” reasons, also whether it is a government job.

Lots of jobs where I'd really like people to be drug tested though... Heart surgeon? Teacher? Taxi driver? Basically any operator on machinery?
Come to think of it, do you want the administrative guy who handles your salaries to be stoned out of his ass?
I honestly agree, when you work, you gotta be sober, period. What you do in your free time is your thing but asking a little bit of responsibility and not arriving off your cracker at work really isn't that crazy.
If you don't like your job, get another job
- when you work, you gotta be sober, period. What you do in your free time is your thing
  if drug tests in any way proved that you were high at work I'd be in favor of them, but the fact is that they don't. The drugs that actually cause problems (coke, dope/fetty, amphetamines) are out of your system before they can realistically be tested for and drug tests for other things like marijuana only prove that you've used within the last month or so. The fact is you can't support drug testing at work and allowing people to do what they want on their own time. The two are mutually incompatible due to the nature of our current testing.
  
  https://www.marijuanamoment.net/federal-transportation-agency-finalizes-new-marijuana-testing-policies-to-reduce-false-positives/ Little progress
  
  I can't say if drug tests work well or not, I don't know that. I don't care if anyone gets high in their free time either, I just don't want someone high on anything while working as with almost all jobs that will be a problem. Yes, weed is also a problem, just like alcohol too.
  I also think that if you so desperately need to be high that you have bigger issues.
  If, on the other hand, you need it literally and really just for medicinal reasons, pain control, whatever, then we can talk but still.within reason. You can't operate a car while high, for example, pain or no pain.
- obviously I care if someone is high and operating machinery. but I don't care if they were high on Saturday night and it's Monday morning now.
  As for the paychecks- who cares so long as they get it right? Can you somehow tell which money in your bank account is related to drugs and which isn't?
- I don't think you know how drug tests work
  
  I guess I don't but that is not my point. My point is that nobody should go to their job being high or drunk, whatever the job is.
- If you don't like your job, get another job
  Ugh, such a lazy, defeatist sentiment, and intellectually dishonest too. Like, do you practice what you preach here? If you come across a part of something you dislike, do you immediately stop using that thing wholesale? Or do you complain about it a bit, then try and think of ways it could be improved, and maybe go about trying to improve it?
  
  So what you're saying is that people should be allowed to get high on their jobs? Tell me about that next time you're flying and the captain is high off his cracker...
  It's not a defeatist or lazy argument either. If you don't like your jobz find a better job. It's called pragmatism.
  I'm not saying that certain companies arent extreme dicks with all this, I'm sure there are shitty companies out there. Go work for a different one.
  I'm not the one complaining doing nothing, and yes, I've left shitty jobs for better one. Yes, I've tried making things better. Yes, I got a CTO fired for a lost of reasons, one of them being that he couldn't keep his hands off the (male) employees. It got me fired too, which I rather expected, but I did it anyway. So no, I'm not the sit-on-my-ass-and-whine-about-it type, but I'd say that you are.
- Where would you draw the line? Health check up? Physical? Genetics testing? Hereditary analysis?
  
  That is a slippery slope argument, and a dumb one at it.
  We were talking about drug testing.
  Would you be okay with an airline pilot flying 400 people for 8 hours being high as a kite?
  Would you be okay with a McDonald's burger flipper being high as a kite? And before you answer remember that he handles food, and he works with hot surfaces and materials like boiling oil...

So what's the alternative? Have employees in an altered state attempting to do their jobs? Recreational drug users love to play the victim because they don't think their use negatively affects anyone, much in the same way a drunk driver thinks they can drive fine while drunk.
- not invade everyone's privacy because you're pretending there's some tremendous concern here. you're playing the victim right now acting like it's dangerous and offensive that a Recreational Drug User in an Altered State could commit the horrible crime of trying to hold down a job despite chemical dependency and people like you trying to make their lives harder at every turn
  
  Oh. So people who operate heavy equipment aren't at risk of causing harm if they're under the influence?
  Besides that, I didn't say I agreed with doing it. I asked for an alternative.
- Have employees in an altered state attempting to do their jobs?
  Yes. If you need lab analysis to figure out if they're doing drugs then I'm pretty sure they'll be fine getting their work done.
  
  I imagine the lab analysis is for proof that they're doing drugs. Could you imagine what it might be like without that proof?
  Either:
  A) you couldn't be fired while operating heavy machinery in an altered state
  Or
  B) you could be fired without proof of drug use.
  Both seem shitty to me.
  
  You drive better when you've had a couple?

Ah, yes, I want my plane pilots to be high as F
- That's not what being normalised means, and you know it.
  The post is clearly complaining about it being overused in all forms of jobs, like office workers or shop assistants. Drug testing is debatably justified for workers using heavy machinery and operating vehicles.
  The drug testing procedure in itself is invasive, and should only be required with very good reasoning.
  
  Im sorry, but no. OP is no talking about specific jobs. He is talking about all jobs in general.
  I agree that there are jobs were drug testing is not required.
- Why should I care if my plane pilot smoked a joint 3 weeks ago?
  One of the problems with drug testing is it flags people that are sober but consumed in the last month.
  It's as if you could lose your job because you had a beer in the last month, that's just dumb.

Your job is paying for your health insurance. I’m honestly surprised they don’t test for more. The American health care system is ridiculous.
- They gave me a minor physical before I could start work, since it requires some physical strength to perform. They also tested my hearing and vision. However, they are required to give a yearly hearing test by OSHA in order to ensure that hearing protection is adequate for the environment. They don't test for cannabis, since we live in a legal state. I can understand checking for things like opiates and meth since you could seriously injure or kill someone if you're not sober.
- It’s not paid and the US Supreme Court has ruled that it doesn’t have to be. Why should I perform labor that I am not being compensated for?

246 comments