FC Community
Discussion Boards => Off-Topic => Topic started by: Mizzkizz7 on August 24, 2018, 12:20:26 pm
-
Normally every controlled substance is included in a employment drug test. Since weed is becoming more acceptable today, should it be excluded? Most states have already legalized while others haven't.
-
No I don't think it should be excluded from drug testing, because when you use marijuana you are still impaired which could affect your working situation.
-
I agree with Cathy37: Safety first!
-
No business wants a high employee in the work place.
-
I second all of the above
-
I don't think most business want employees who are stoned. Or impaired. I know I wouldn't. In fact I want let them come into the food bank when they are drunk or impaired. They won't listen to rules and you can't hardly deal with them, Clearly posted on the door. And we can refuse service to them at any given time.
-
It should be excluded period it in my opinion marijuana is a natural substance created by God for the use of our bodies just my opinion.
-
Absolutely not, all drugs should be part of the drug screening.
-
I know i am not perfect....but i say NO to drugs!
Exception to the rules....when given by a caring DR to help his patients and they are absolutely needed.
-
No, it should not be excluded. It is still a drug and you are still impaired while using it. I would not want my employees using it.
-
No, it shouldn't be excluded. Drugs ruin lives.
-
No, because it makes you "high" and I don't want to mingle with people who are " high" or under the influence of weed. That's exactly what would happen on a wide scale if it's excluded.
-
Normally every controlled substance is included in a employment drug test. Since weed is becoming more acceptable today, should it be excluded? Most states have already legalized while others haven't.
No it should not be excluded. Yes it should be counted. Pot alters the way you think and your actions. It isn't more acceptable any more than anything else. Just among certain people I guess. And I don't think MOST states have legalized it. A few have. But not MOST.
We had a guy once that smoked a joint while at lunch and when he came back he was so stupid and slow he couldn't even figure out which end of the hammer to use.
-
I don't think it should be excluded. Alcohol is legal. That doesn't mean you can show up to work drunk and/or drink on the job.
-
I don't think there is any need to drug test(for employment) someone who is stoned or reeks of pot, next applicant. An existing employee you would need to for proof to fire. I had to Google this pot remains detectable for 5-8 day after the 1st use, and for 11-18 days if used a couple times a week. I don't think it would be any different than somebody getting drunk on Fri and/Sat night, just alcohol doesn't leave residue for weeks. So maybe instead of test or no test, maybe certain level say a trace amount would be ok.
-
Eventually it's going to be legal, so why not? People use it for medicinal reasons and have scripts for it, so why bother wasting tax payers money to get tested for this drug. The test will pick up others anyway.
-
it should be part of the test since it can be dangerous to work high
-
no business need someone who is stoned. for most jobs a person who is stoned its not good, it hurts the business if something happens to that person or business
-
It think weed definitely should be included in an employment drug test. it affects everyone differentlyand when you use it you are impaired. The only possible exception would be medical weed. But also depends onthe job. anyone driving ,caring for someone etc should be a user of and drug including weed. :rose: :rainbow: :peace: :wave:
-
Normally every controlled substance is included in a employment drug test. Since weed is becoming more acceptable today, should it be excluded? Most states have already legalized while others haven't.
It's still a federal crime.
-
Absolutely Not!!!!!!!!! There is no reasonable argument (in my opinion) to remove this from employment drug testing. The arguments made by some that it is legal in many states or that it is a natural substance that God created for us to use are not very convincing (in my opinion, but others may disagree).
Legal or not, God given or not, it is still a dangerous mind altering drug which affects productivity. If an employer has two equally qualified and capable job applicants (one who smokes marijuana and one who doesn't) - I think he/she has the right to know and select the non-user and I do not believe that is discrimination in any way.
-
All drugs should be included in the testing. Alcohol is legal too, but you do not want drunk employees.
-
I do not use marijuana, but I think that it should depend on the job. If someone is working at a store, then it should be excluded, but if someone is a doctor or has a job where they need to be alert and focused all the time, yeah, they need to be tested.
-
I think it should cause it’s being legal in many cities. Long as you are not using at work
-
Safety first and always be 100% in good shape.
-
I don't think it should be excluded. Alcohol is legal. That doesn't mean you can show up to work drunk and/or drink on the job.
And people may not know this but alcohol is part of a standard drug test. Or at least it was the last place I worked. If it showed up you didn't get a job.
-
I don't think there is any need to drug test(for employment) someone who is stoned or reeks of pot, next applicant. An existing employee you would need to for proof to fire. I had to Google this pot remains detectable for 5-8 day after the 1st use, and for 11-18 days if used a couple times a week. I don't think it would be any different than somebody getting drunk on Fri and/Sat night, just alcohol doesn't leave residue for weeks. So maybe instead of test or no test, maybe certain level say a trace amount would be ok.
The only proof you need is if they fail the drug test. As a business owner I have a right to say I do not want druggies working for me.
Not sure where you googled but pot can show up in a urine test for 30 days. And in a hair test for 90 days.
-
Eventually it's going to be legal, so why not? People use it for medicinal reasons and have scripts for it, so why bother wasting tax payers money to get tested for this drug. The test will pick up others anyway.
Tax payer money does not pay for drug testing. Either the employer pays for it or they make the potential employee pay for it. And no it won't eventually be legal. It is some places and the states where it is legal they have already realized making it legal was a mistake.
-
It think weed definitely should be included in an employment drug test. it affects everyone differentlyand when you use it you are impaired. The only possible exception would be medical weed. But also depends onthe job. anyone driving ,caring for someone etc should be a user of and drug including weed. :rose: :rainbow: :peace: :wave:
Medial "weed" should NOT be an exception. Even the pain killers that people take can effect you getting a job. An employer does not have to allow people who are doped up to be working for them. THEY are responsible. If I have someone working for me and they are doped out of their mind (even on pills given by a doctor) and they do something foolish and cause somebody to get hurt then I as the employer am responsible and have to pay for the damages.
-
Absolutely Not!!!!!!!!! There is no reasonable argument (in my opinion) to remove this from employment drug testing. The arguments made by some that it is legal in many states or that it is a natural substance that God created for us to use are not very convincing (in my opinion, but others may disagree).
Legal or not, God given or not, it is still a dangerous mind altering drug which affects productivity. If an employer has two equally qualified and capable job applicants (one who smokes marijuana and one who doesn't) - I think he/she has the right to know and select the non-user and I do not believe that is discrimination in any way.
Morphine comes from a plant as well. smh.
And I totally agree with you. I would not want any person who uses drugs to work for me or with me on any job.
-
I do not use marijuana, but I think that it should depend on the job. If someone is working at a store, then it should be excluded, but if someone is a doctor or has a job where they need to be alert and focused all the time, yeah, they need to be tested.
Why should it be excluded if somebody works in a store? SO they are so stupid they can't figure out that $1.00 minus a quarter equals 75 cents? You need to be alert in a store as well as any where else. You also need to be able to focus. I certainly do not want to go in to a store to buy a cola or pay for gas and have to explain to the stone head behind the counter why they are there or how to work the card machine.
-
INCLUDED! Hands down. IMO If someone needs marijuana than they either shouldn't be working or don't need to be working. I understand there are medical dispensaries available now & that's fine. But for a patient to work while using there drug of choice that has side effects that could potentially danger themselves or others, effect production which effects other associates and naturally customers. I also understand patients still have a need for a steady income. I also know that there is a hefty price to pay for medication (Including weed) But that is not each corporations responsibility to absorb the risk of accidents or loss.
-
no because certain jobs shouldn't be done if you are high on pot
-
No it should be in the testing
-
no because certain jobs shouldn't be done if you are high on pot
No job can be done correctly if you are high on pot. Or anything else.
-
I don't know where you got your information but as far as I know 8 or 9 states have legalized it. I don't know how you could exclude it from testing if it's illegal in that state. And every company certainly has the right to test for it even if it is legal in their state.
-
Yes, it should be tested like any other drug.
Public safety matters! I’m
-
Companies should still do drug testing on potential employees, but if they have a medical condition they should tell them before getting employed.
-
No, it should not be excluded. As other posters have commented, it's still a drug and you can still be impaired by using it. In fact, in states where it is legal, one state has been complaining that there have been more accidents due to marijuana impairment than before it was legal. I still believe it leads to stronger drugs because sooner or later, the body will become immune to the affects and will need something stronger for the highs.
-
No I think it should no longer be included. If somebody came to work stoned, the high would probably last a relatively short amount of time anyways provided the person wasn't somehow sneaking drags while working. It should be barred in certain types of jobs though like working dangerous machinery or driving or something like that where a stoned person could possibly get hurt or hurt someone else.
-
I think any and all drugs should be included in employment drug tests. No, I don't think marijuana should be excluded from employment drug tests.
-
INCLUDED! Hands down. IMO If someone needs marijuana than they either shouldn't be working or don't need to be working. I understand there are medical dispensaries available now & that's fine. But for a patient to work while using there drug of choice that has side effects that could potentially danger themselves or others, effect production which effects other associates and naturally customers. I also understand patients still have a need for a steady income. I also know that there is a hefty price to pay for medication (Including weed) But that is not each corporations responsibility to absorb the risk of accidents or loss.
Nobody needs pot.
-
No, it should not be excluded. As other posters have commented, it's still a drug and you can still be impaired by using it. In fact, in states where it is legal, one state has been complaining that there have been more accidents due to marijuana impairment than before it was legal. I still believe it leads to stronger drugs because sooner or later, the body will become immune to the affects and will need something stronger for the highs.
Most drug addicts will tell you that they got started using drugs by smoking pot.
-
No I think it should no longer be included. If somebody came to work stoned, the high would probably last a relatively short amount of time anyways provided the person wasn't somehow sneaking drags while working. It should be barred in certain types of jobs though like working dangerous machinery or driving or something like that where a stoned person could possibly get hurt or hurt someone else.
So it is okay to come to work doped out of your mind as long as it doesn't last very long?
If someone gets hurt on the job the employer has to pay the medical expenses. As a business owner I should not have to pay because somebody is doped up.
It doesn't matter what they job is. Even a cashier. If you are doped up you are too stupid to count change. We have had guys who smoked pot at lunch and they come back and are so slow and stupid they can't even figure out how to push a broom and they seem to think it is funny.
Personally, I do not want to be around anybody who has been using drugs. PERIOD!
-
not really
-
No I don't think it should be excluded from drug testing, because when you use marijuana you are still impaired which could affect your working situation.
I agree. It could affect job performance and the employer has the right to be aware of anything that might affect someone's ability to do their job and possibly protect the safety of others. Just because the practice is becoming more socially acceptable, doesn't mean that employers should be required to ignore it (especially if the substance is illegal in the state where the job is).
-
Yes, it should be excluded. If you live in a state where marijuana is legal then it would invade privacy to include this in a prescreening. We don't test for alcohol or prescription drugs. Both of which are far more impairing that marijuana. Bottom line, employers hire employees for their level of talent, commitment, and longevity. Because someone smokes marijuana (could be medical) does not make them a bad employee. Just as someone who drinks a beer or two at night, or takes sleeping pills, etc. is not either.
We would live in a very narrow world if we tested people on every stimulant or relaxant they put in their bodies. Worry about how someone performs at work. Nothing else. The rest is not your or their business. :star:
-
No, I don't want to get (RIP) just cause some person was high off his horse and did not pay attention.
-
It's going to be interesting once it becomes legal in Canada next month which is where I live (never smoked it, don't intend to.)
-
No, not until it's legal nation-wide, and there's a standardized system for its strength and potency as with alcohol. Sometimes there's other drugs added into the pot that the smoker may not even realize there, too. The social standarizations have to be in place, too.
-
My simple answer is yes, I think it should be excluded. I'm not a fan of drug testing for employment. If someone does drugs or drinks to excess it will eventually catch up to them in their performance. Especially since it's legal in some states but I would imagine those states no longer test for pot.
-
No, someones life could depend on the job applicant
-
Yes, it should be excluded. If you live in a state where marijuana is legal then it would invade privacy to include this in a prescreening.
We would live in a very narrow world if we tested people on every stimulant or relaxant they put in their bodies. Worry about how someone performs at work. Nothing else. The rest is not your or their business.
I had to read this through twice to make sure I read correctly and then I highlighted two of the comments. Without intending to offend, I find these two thoughts to be a bit ridiculous.
First, the fact that a mind altering drug (which may also affect job performance and efficiency) is legal in a particular jurisdiction does not automatically make it an invasion of privacy to screen for it.
Second, it seems to me that "how someone performs at work" is at the very heart of the need to test for this drug and it absolutely and positively IS the business of the person doing the testing by definition!!! They are hiring someone to work in their business so that employee's drug use IS their business!!!
-
Drug testing is problematic in the first place. It is an invasion of privacy.
What I smoke, drink, or do on my off time is nobodys' business.
-
I'm not sure how marijuana works, if there's a way to distinguish recreational pot smoking from medicinal oils or derivatives like that in the test, that is an important distinction to make. I used to write off pot smoking as bad all around, but I know a few people now who have used oils (or whatever they make out of it that doesn't get you high) and it has really helped their health problems.
-
No, it should not, drugs are drugs
-
Yes. It would affect your job, no matter what.
Affects your performance, your reliability in doing your job, and even how you interact with co-workers.
:rose:
-
yes it should
-
No i don't think it should be excluded. An employer should be able to know if his or her employees are impaired or not. Some thing with the police and jails they have a right to know
-
I don't think that it should be excluded employers have a right to know if the person that they are ready to hire as their employee is impaired or not
-
not until they can tell when you did it
-
Absolutely not, we must not allow drug addict in the workplace...
-
no because they don't tell you how long ago they did it
-
i think people who use it should just disclose it at the beginning to ;let them know if they test positive that would be why.
-
No, it should not be excluded. Possible employers have the right to know if someone smokes marijuana before hiring them. People who smoke a lot of weed do behave differently; I have seen this with several different people I have known through the years.
-
NO !!!! if your doing it,, stay home and don't drive or go to work and hurt someone else. its a drug !!!! leave it alone !!!
-
I think only if the employee has a medical condition which gives them a prescription for it, should that be excluded because, obviously if they are on it, it is going to show up, but if it's on their employee record there is no need for them to be tested for it.
-
I never heard of an incidence where pot killed or someone overdosed. I have heard pot has actually helped cured things or help with seizures. If I had the opportunity I would give the oil to my autistic/seizure daughter. I think it would help her medically.
-
Yes it should be excluded.
-
No, it should not be excluded. I mean really who wants some one whose main interest is getting high or worse.
-
yes because it is legal most everywhere now
-
Employment or no employment:
Drug testing is a matter of public safety.
-
I never heard of an incidence where pot killed or someone overdosed. I have heard pot has actually helped cured things or help with seizures. If I had the opportunity I would give the oil to my autistic/seizure daughter. I think it would help her medically.
Let me enlgihten you....I almost had a nervous breakdown smoking it in 1973.Fortunately i gained my senses with the help of a friend.Never touched it again.
A few yrs back a woman drove the wrong way on a parkway and killed herself,children in her car and the 2 occupantsof the car she drove into.Her autopsy revealed she had weed in her.
How many more incidents have happened we arent aware of?If you wanna blast your brains out at least be sensible enuff to lock yourself up alone and not in a workplace,society etc to jeopardize others.
-
Know. A person under the use of marijuana could harm their self or others in the workplace. Being under the use of drugs could also affect their work, which could lead to loss of customers.
-
I don't think it should be excluded. I also don't believe it should be a reason for not hiring someone, but all job applicants should sign a disclosure that if they have an accident they will be terminated if found positive on that test, just like it is now. Marijauna has many health benefits, including Rick Simpson oil, which can cure cancer.
-
I don't think it should be excluded. I also don't believe it should be a reason for not hiring someone, but all job applicants should sign a disclosure that if they have an accident they will be terminated if found positive on that test, just like it is now. Marijauna has many health benefits, including Rick Simpson oil, which can cure cancer.
If someone smokes it and they really want the job of course they will sign the disclosure and lie they dont or take their chances.Its like when u earn cash offa the books how many report it to the IRS?
-
If you have a medical marijuana card then businesses should let you slid if you are applying for a job. As long as you are not using on the job then you should be able to at home, no questions asked. :clover:
-
No thanks having a Dr. Stoned doing my operation, end up with some wild kind of sew job, And i think not have to get a a plane and the pilot is higher then the jet goes. This is a stupid topic. God makes allot of stuff like crazy mushrooms , pot has its place , but not where peoples lives are at stake.
-
I was reading yesterday that in states that have legal marijuana, the drug test isn't allowed. It isn't allowed for those who have medical marijuana cards, either.