Random drug testing.

[open mind]

the topic was brought up in another thread and i realized it could make for a decent debate.

i say it should be illegal in most instances. i'd go into my reasoning but i think this article covers most of the bases.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/emp02.htm

[saysmydoctor]

I think it's utter bullshit that I had to submit to such a test just to work as a gas station attendant, essentially.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

The article makes alot of good points. If you use drugs for recreational purposes, the smart thing to do is to not go into work under the influence. If your boss or co-workers can visibly notice any intoxication and it negatively impacts your duties, then you deserve to be punished/fired.

[caveBEAR]

Random testing (especially urine testing for marijuana) is bullshit. Blood testing in the event of impaired and suspected drug use at work is perfectly acceptable.

[Theseventhson]

Random testing (especially urine testing for marijuana) is bullshit. Blood testing in the event of impaired and suspected drug use at work is perfectly acceptable.

Pretty much this.

[SmokieB.High]

For a lot of company's (The one I work for included) do this for insurance purposes. Both the people in the field and in the corporate office get periodically tested (I'm on the in's so I avoid this with convienient vacations).

The idea is that less people get hurt when thier not under the influence of anything.

Also, if this is practiced at your place of emplyment they pay less insurance preniums

[Neo Cassady]

Random testing (especially urine testing for marijuana) is bullshit. Blood testing in the event of impaired and suspected drug use at work is perfectly acceptable.

This. The way I see it, it shouldn't matter to my employer what I do on my own time, as long as it doesn't affect my work performance (e.g., I drink, but I don't show up to work drunk).

[Mitch]

Random testing (especially urine testing for marijuana) is bullshit. Blood testing in the event of impaired and suspected drug use at work is perfectly acceptable.

This.

[cuzimlefthanded]

Question: If an individual has a medical marijuana card, can he still be fired for having drug traces in his urine? Is he exempt from termination on the basis of possessing the card? Or is the decision ultimately an arbitrary one?

[spiffa0]

Question: If an individual has a medical marijuana card, can he still be fired for having drug traces in his urine? Is he exempt from termination on the basis of possessing the card? Or is the decision ultimately an arbitrary one?

On CNN today: http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/06/29/medical.marijuana.walmart.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T2

In short, yes he can be fired.

[bung]

I look at this in two ways: If that's their requirement for working there, then too bad. However, if you insist on regulating my behavior 24-hours a day, you better be paying me for 24-hour shifts.

[caveBEAR]

Well it seems like this;

However, if you insist on regulating my behavior 24-hours a day, you better be paying me for 24-hour shifts.

would negate this;

I look at this in two ways: If that's their requirement for working there, then too bad.

seeing as next to no employer is going to be paying someone these '24 hour shifts'.

[Two Headed Girl]

I mean, if the stuff didn't stay in your system for so long it'd be different. I can understand an employer not wanting you to show up for a shift fucked up.However, considering they say THC can be in your blood for up to a week it seems completely arbitrary because you could have smoked earlier that day and show up fine.

[caveBEAR]

I mean, if the stuff didn't stay in your system for so long it'd be different. I can understand an employer not wanting you to show up for a shift fucked up.However, considering they say THC can be in your blood for up to a week it seems completely arbitrary because you could have smoked earlier that day and show up fine.

THC can stay in your system (at least for a urine test) for over a month.

[bung]

Well it seems like this;



would negate this;



seeing as next to no employer is going to be paying someone these '24 hour shifts'.

Exactly! That's my point--don't drug test me, regulating my off shift behavior, unless you're prepared to pay me for those other 16 hours of the day.

[Two Headed Girl]

THC can stay in your system (at least for a urine test) for over a month. i thought hair was a month, piss test was a week. i could be/ probably am wrong though.

[caveBEAR]

Exactly! That's my point--don't drug test me, regulating my off shift behavior, unless you're prepared to pay me for those other 16 hours of the day.

OK... I wasn't making the 'if...than' connection, I thought you were making an 'if...or'. I agree with your point though. I think if someone was paying me repeated 24 hour shifts I'd gladly give up weed. :shrug:

i thought hair was a month, piss test was a week. i could be/ probably am wrong though.

When I got this recent job at a hotel, I had to take a pre-employment piss test. I tested myself at home over 3 weeks since my last smoke, and I still popped positive. I was able to shake off their HR department for 1 1/2 weeks, but at 4 weeks since my last puff I still came up positive on an at home test. When I finally had to get in there to take the piss test (I was shooting up some red flags at this point, ha ha ha) I got one of those 'clean your system out' drinks, and took a ton of aspirin. I passed, but whether I had tricked the test or was actually finally clean is beyond me.

tl;dr - People with low metabolisms can have weed in their systems over a month later.

[Two Headed Girl]

OK... I wasn't making the 'if...than' connection, I thought you were making an 'if...or'. I agree with your point though. I think if someone was paying me repeated 24 hour shifts I'd gladly give up weed. :shrug:



When I got this recent job at a hotel, I had to take a pre-employment piss test. I tested myself at home over 3 weeks since my last smoke, and I still popped positive. I was able to shake off their HR department for 1 1/2 weeks, but at 4 weeks since my last puff I still came up positive on an at home test. When I finally had to get in there to take the piss test (I was shooting up some red flags at this point, ha ha ha) I got one of those 'clean your system out' drinks, and took a ton of aspirin. I passed, but whether I had tricked the test or was actually finally clean is beyond me.

tl;dr - People with low metabolisms can have weed in their systems over a month later.

Yeah buddy just had to take one for his first job out of college and he was like "they're gonna pay me 45k a year to sit a desk and do nothing but I mean I don't think I want to work there if they're gonna drop random drug tests on me." He's a moron, but anyways he smoked like 4 days before the test drank a shit load of cranberry juice and ran a lot and passed. He also has an ridiculous metabolism though. He's like 6'1" and weighs probably 170 lbs and eats Taco Bell 9 times a week.

[majinsharingan]

I can see why random testing exists. Do I think it should? Depends. If you're working at a gas station, no not really needed. If you're working for Microsoft. Yeah, I'd say they have a pretty good reason for wanting to make sure you aren't going to come into work under the influence of anything.

[bung]

I can see why random testing exists. Do I think it should? Depends. If you're working at a gas station, no not really needed. If you're working for Microsoft. Yeah, I'd say they have a pretty good reason for wanting to make sure you aren't going to come into work under the influence of anything.

It seems strange, then, that they wouldn't be concerned about testing for alcohol, when I could just as easily come to work drunk as I could high.

[majinsharingan]

It seems strange, then, that they wouldn't be concerned about testing for alcohol, when I could just as easily come to work drunk as I could high.

I'm not speaking for you but the people I know are much better at hiding that they are high than hiding that they're drunk. And also society tends to look down on people doing illegal drugs more than people who drink. Don't know why.

[zion the lion]

Random testing (especially urine testing for marijuana) is bullshit. Blood testing in the event of impaired and suspected drug use at work is perfectly acceptable.

Why would you rather give blood than urine?

[majinsharingan]

I'm guessing either he doesn't like being told what to do or he doesn't want to get fired. Ironically either of those answers results in him eventually getting fired.

[bung]

I'm not speaking for you but the people I know are much better at hiding that they are high than hiding that they're drunk. And also society tends to look down on people doing illegal drugs more than people who drink. Don't know why.

I agree. I just feel it's unjustified to treat alcohol differently.

Why would you rather give blood than urine?

I don't think he would necessarily rather, just that blood testing can show if you are currently under the influence of something, whereas all a urine test can show is if you've used a certain drug in a past amount of time.

[majinsharingan]

I agree. I just feel it's unjustified to treat alcohol differently.


I agree.

[caveBEAR]

Why would you rather give blood than urine?

THC doesn't show in the bloodstream for anywhere near as long as it appears in your urine. A blood test is much better at proving if an employee came to work high, as opposed to proving an employee has merely smoked weed before, even on their own time.

[zion the lion]

I agree. I just feel it's unjustified to treat alcohol differently.



I don't think he would necessarily rather, just that blood testing can show if you are currently under the influence of something, whereas all a urine test can show is if you've used a certain drug in a past amount of time.

You're not supposed to be doing the drugs in the first place...so it doesnt totally matter.

THC doesn't show in the bloodstream for anywhere near as long as it appears in your urine. A blood test is much better at proving if an employee came to work high, as opposed to proving an employee has merely smoked weed before, even on their own time.

Since the drugs are illegal, as your boss, I dont think I'd give a fuck. I wouldnt want someone working for me who was doing something they could get arrested for and that could reflect poorly on myself.

[caveBEAR]

Since the drugs are illegal, as your boss, I dont think I'd give a fuck. I wouldnt want someone working for me who was doing something they could get arrested for and that could reflect poorly on myself.

:ok:

[bung]

lol at zion

[zion the lion]

lol at zion

Dear Tommy, and the guy above you who's name I actually dont know,

Put yourself in the place of a cutthroat business person, not the manager of a head shop for 3 minutes. Pretend you're the owner of a nice hair salon in a slightly conservative (but rich) area, and news gets out that one of your hair people gets arrested for possession of heroin and meth.

How do you think you clients would react to that? Really? And how do you think their opinions of you would be?



Sincerely, Ashley (aka zion the lion)

p.s. as the cutthroat business bitch I am, I'd be testing and firing the fuck out of you if you guys came up positive for anything at my hair salon.

[bung]

Dear Tommy, and the guy above you who's name I actually dont know,

Put yourself in the place of a cutthroat business person, not the manager of a head shop for 3 minutes. Pretend you're the owner of a nice hair salon in a slightly conservative (but rich) area, and news gets out that one of your hair people gets arrested for possession of heroin and meth.

How do you think you clients would react to that? Really? And how do you think their opinions of you would be?



Sincerely, Ashley (aka zion the lion)

p.s. as the cutthroat business bitch I am, I'd be testing and firing the fuck out of you if you guys came up positive for anything at my hair salon.

Well I hope you're paying me for those hours I'm not in the salon, since outside of the work environment you're still continuing to regulate my behavior.

[Scrandon]

Also, if this is practiced at your place of emplyment they pay less insurance preniums

This is an interesting angle that nobody has addressed yet. If the company is paying health insurance for you, and they can keep their premiums lower by testing for drugs, I think they most certainly should and have the right to test for drug use at any time.

This is obviously from the logic that those on drugs are more likely to get into accidents and also suffer health issues as a result of using drugs.

The issue really becomes whether or not the employee is using drugs at all, not just coming to work under the influence.

[Scrandon]

Dear Tommy, and the guy above you who's name I actually dont know,

Put yourself in the place of a cutthroat business person, not the manager of a head shop for 3 minutes. Pretend you're the owner of a nice hair salon in a slightly conservative (but rich) area, and news gets out that one of your hair people gets arrested for possession of heroin and meth.

How do you think you clients would react to that? Really? And how do you think their opinions of you would be?



Sincerely, Ashley (aka zion the lion)

p.s. as the cutthroat business bitch I am, I'd be testing and firing the fuck out of you if you guys came up positive for anything at my hair salon.

I hope you're forced to work with divas.

[zion the lion]

Well I hope you're paying me for those hours I'm not in the salon, since outside of the work environment you're still continuing to regulate my behavior.

Listen, its okay for schools to regulate your behavior until you get home, so if I feel like getting a whip and using that on you to control you even after I fire you then I think thats okay.

[Scrandon]

Go away.

[zion the lion]

I hope you're forced to work with divas.

Uh, why?

[Scrandon]

Uh, why?

No reason. :rolleyes:

[zion the lion]

No reason. :rolleyes:

Well you seem like a diva enough with the whole "go away" bullshit but okie dokie. And in a perfect world I wont have to work (which means I wont have to deal with having to firing you stoners) I'll be doing my favorite thing in the world, taking care of people, by being a stay at home mom.

[Scrandon]

Well you seem like a diva enough with the whole "go away" bullshit but okie dokie. And in a perfect world I wont have to work (which means I wont have to deal with having to firing you stoners) I'll be doing my favorite thing in the world, taking care of people, by being a stay at home mom.

I said go away because it's a lot nicer than this:

After 9,000 posts of COMPLETE SOCIOPATHIC BULLSHIT, I have come to the conclusion that you have something seriously wrong with you. You will argue with anyone about anything.

You have problems.
Leave us alone.
We're sick of it, we're tired.
You are getting boring.
Now go away.

Also, I hope you get your wish and become a stay at home mom, for maybe you will be happy for once and become a somewhat agreeable person.

[zion the lion]

I said go away because it's a lot nicer than this:

After 9,000 posts of COMPLETE SOCIOPATHIC BULLSHIT, I have come to the conclusion that you have something seriously wrong with you. You will argue with anyone about anything.

You have problems.
Leave us alone.
We're sick of it, we're tired.
You are getting boring.
Now go away.

Also, I hope you get your wish and become a stay at home mom, for maybe you will be happy for once and become a somewhat agreeable person.

Well, I dont see how anything I've ever said is anywhere near "sociopathic" quite frankly, but wow 9k. You're right thought, because people are looking for arguments on the internet, I'm just giving them what they're looking for.

I'm already an agreeable person, I dont know how children would change my happiness level but okie dokie.

[Scrandon]

Well, I dont see how anything I've ever said is anywhere near "sociopathic" quite frankly, but wow 9k. You're right thought, because people are looking for arguments on the internet, I'm just giving them what they're looking for.

You are the only person who argues with everyone over anything. The fact that you cannot find common ground with anybody on any topic would suggest that you are a sociopath.

I'm already an agreeable person, I dont know how children would change my happiness level but okie dokie.

Because you said this:

Well you seem like a diva enough with the whole "go away" bullshit but okie dokie. And in a perfect world I wont have to work (which means I wont have to deal with having to firing you stoners) I'll be doing my favorite thing in the world, taking care of people, by being a stay at home mom.

Was I taking it a step too far to assume you would be happy in a perfect world? Or do you just not even realize what you are typing?

[zion the lion]

You are the only person who argues with everyone over anything. The fact that you cannot find common ground with anybody on any topic would suggest that you are a sociopath.



Because you said this:



Was I taking it a step too far to assume you would be happy in a perfect world? Or do you just not even realize what you are typing?

I dont think you know everything that goes on that makes someone a sociopath. I actually know sociopaths (two of them), and I know for a fact that I am not one. If you want to talk about mental health and look at the full spectrum, I'm actually the exact opposite.

Me saying "okie dokie" was my way of avoiding any type of argument, actually.

But by saying things like "or do you just not even realize what you are typing" it seems to me like you're looking for an argument in which case I've got a "headache" (if you know what I mean)...I was trying to point out the fact that from what I've seen, usually children dont make people happier, especially when those people were unhappy in the first place.

[Scrandon]

I dont think you know everything that goes on that makes someone a sociopath. I actually know sociopaths (two of them), and I know for a fact that I am not one. If you want to talk about mental health and look at the full spectrum, I'm actually the exact opposite.

Me saying "okie dokie" was my way of avoiding any type of argument, actually.

But by saying things like "or do you just not even realize what you are typing" it seems to me like you're looking for an argument in which case I've got a "headache" (if you know what I mean)...I was trying to point out the fact that from what I've seen, usually children dont make people happier, especially when those people were unhappy in the first place.

I'm going to go ahead and throw 'compulsive liar' out there to add to your long list of mental illness as you back yourself into the proverbial corner.

The sad thing is that I want this to be mildly amusing but I have just become so damn blasé.

[zion the lion]

I'm going to go ahead and throw 'compulsive liar' out there to add to your long list of mental illness as you back yourself into the proverbial corner.

The sad thing is that I want this to be mildly amusing but I have just become so damn blasé.

I dont know when I backed myself into this corner, but seeing as how you dont know anything about mental illnesses if I was a sociopath, I'd already be a compulsive liar. Its funny because I could just as easily call you a compulsive liar, that's what anonymity does for ya.

Honestly none of this is half as amusing as what I was doing before you started your little name calling festival but I hope you're having fun with it.

[Scrandon]

I dont know when I backed myself into this corner, but seeing as how you dont know anything about mental illnesses if I was a sociopath, I'd already be a compulsive liar. Its funny because I could just as easily call you a compulsive liar, that's what anonymity does for ya.

Your post was filled with off-topic garbage in an attempt to distract me from the fact that you are crazy.

Honestly none of this is half as amusing as what I was doing before you started your little name calling festival but I hope you're having fun with it.

I JUST said this was not fun. I'm done, and if it's really been as horrible for you as you say, then let it die.

[Scrandon]

Anyway, back to the topic at hand that was buried in zion's garbage.

This is an interesting angle that nobody has addressed yet. If the company is paying health insurance for you, and they can keep their premiums lower by testing for drugs, I think they most certainly should and have the right to test for drug use at any time.

This is obviously from the logic that those on drugs are more likely to get into accidents and also suffer health issues as a result of using drugs.

The issue really becomes whether or not the employee is using drugs at all, not just coming to work under the influence.

Does anyone disagree with this?

[x togepi x]

This is an interesting angle that nobody has addressed yet. If the company is paying health insurance for you, and they can keep their premiums lower by testing for drugs, I think they most certainly should and have the right to test for drug use at any time.

This is obviously from the logic that those on drugs are more likely to get into accidents and also suffer health issues as a result of using drugs.

The issue really becomes whether or not the employee is using drugs at all, not just coming to work under the influence.

This is BS.

Since the company is paying health insurance does that mean they have the right to tell you not to speed in your car or drink alcohol or eat terrible food? Should companies mandate all their workers become straight edge raw food vegans?

If I have a dangerous hobby, like sky diving, does a company have the right to keep me from doing that?

Should a company mandate that their workers stay out of unsafe neighborhoods and cities?

Draw a line here that isn't completely arbitrary and we'll talk. Just because a company is paying for health insurance (which in most cases, isn't even going to be that great) doesn't mean they have the right to control recreational activities you do that do not effect the workplace.

[Scrandon]

This is BS.

Since the company is paying health insurance does that mean they have the right to tell you not to speed in your car or drink alcohol or eat terrible food? Should companies mandate all their workers become straight edge raw food vegans?

If I have a dangerous hobby, like sky diving, does a company have the right to keep me from doing that?

Should a company mandate that their workers stay out of unsafe neighborhoods and cities?

Draw a line here that isn't completely arbitrary and we'll talk. Just because a company is paying for health insurance (which in most cases, isn't even going to be that great) doesn't mean they have the right to control recreational activities you do that do not effect the workplace.

I mean, is the law an arbitrary line to you? A company should not have to pay for damages that occur to you when you do something that you know to be both dangerous and illegal.

[Scrandon]

Clearly the employees would expect their employer to operate within the law, and I think the employer should be able to expect the same from its employees.

[x togepi x]

I mean, is the law an arbitrary line to you? A company should not have to pay for damages that occur to you when you do something that you know to be both dangerous and illegal.

When alcohol is illegal but pot isn't, yes, the law is quite an arbitrary line. Unlike what your learned in DARE, all drug use isn't dangerous. There are many substances one can do, within moderation, safely. Hell, most of my pot smoking friends are a whole lot healthier than most people.

but, like I said, speeding is breaking the law. Do you advocate companies putting sensors in all their workers cars to see if they're driving over the speed limit?

Companies don't provide health insurance to be nice people. They do it because if you're not working, they have to cover your spot. It's purely out of self interest for them. Because of this, they don't have the right to tell me what to do when I'm not working. If people aren't coming into work fucked up or buying drugs on the clock, it shouldn't be an issue.

[Scrandon]

When alcohol is illegal but pot isn't, yes, the law is quite an arbitrary line. Unlike what your learned in DARE, all drug use isn't dangerous.

I never said any of this, all I said is that illegal drug use has negative health consequences.
There are many substances one can do, within moderation, safely. Hell, most of my pot smoking friends are a whole lot healthier than most people.

Their lungs aren't.
but, like I said, speeding is breaking the law. Do you advocate companies putting sensors in all their workers cars to see if they're driving over the speed limit?

Companies don't provide health insurance to be nice people. They do it because if you're not working, they have to cover your spot. It's purely out of self interest for them. Because of this, they don't have the right to tell me what to do when I'm not working. If people aren't coming into work fucked up or buying drugs on the clock, it shouldn't be an issue.

That's nice, but still irrelevant to the argument.

[x togepi x]

I never said any of this, all I said is that illegal drug use has negative health consequences.

You asked if the law was arbitrary and I pointed out how it is.

Unless you're willing to ban everything that's bad for your health, you don't have a leg to stand on here.

Their lungs aren't.

Would you advocate companies banning their employees from smoking and forcing their employees to work out?


That's nice, but still irrelevant to the argument.

It's highly relevant. The fact that companies are merely providing health insurance to look out for their interests shows that they have absolutely no right to legislate personal behavior that doesn't effect the workplace. Should you give up personal autonomy for a paycheck and meager benefits?

[Scrandon]

You asked if the law was arbitrary and I pointed out how it is.

Unless you're willing to ban everything that's bad for your health, you don't have a leg to stand on here.
I'm assuming you know how easy it is to paint something as being morally arbitrary. Good work. However, a business should not be forced by the law to take care of someone who is breaking that same law.
Would you advocate companies banning their employees from smoking and forcing their employees to work out?
Going to continue my streak of ignoring every single one of your damn rhetoricals.
It's highly relevant. The fact that companies are merely providing health insurance to look out for their interests shows that they have absolutely no right to legislate personal behavior that doesn't effect the workplace.
It effects the workplace in that it is an unfair cost to the business.
Should you give up personal autonomy for a paycheck and meager benefits?
Oh look another one!

[x togepi x]

I'm assuming you know how easy it is to paint something as being morally arbitrary. Good work. However, a business should not be forced by the law to take care of someone who is breaking that same law.

They're not being forced by the law to provide insurance. Plenty of companies don't. Welcome to the world of the minimum wage worker. Insurance is a benefit. If a company offers it, that's great, but why do they have the right to control human behavior?

Going to continue my streak of ignoring every single one of your damn rhetoricals.

Good. you should. it just keeps proving that you don't actually care about safety, you care about the stigma against drug use. Your argument doesn't hold any water unless you address them. The hypotheticals point out the inherent fallacy in your argument. You're not addressing matters of safety, you're only addressing them in a highly specific case and throwing safety out the window when it doesn't fit within your view. You can't make an argument like that.

if people are doing things that aren't safe or are unhealthy, your line of thinking justifies stopping them from doing so.

It effects the workplace in that it is an unfair cost to the business.

So does a whole hell of a lot of other things that people do that you don't seem to have a problem with. Why do you care about this one thing and ignore the rest?

and it doesn't effect the workplace by being an "unfair cost" in every single instance. It's completely possible to have negligible health effects from doing some drugs. Hell, some illegal drugs can lead to positive health effects ie: all the people who smoke pot to deal with mental illnesses, which left unchecked, could hurt the company WAY more than their minimal drug use does.

[open mind]

You're not supposed to be doing the drugs in the first place...so it doesnt totally matter.



Since the drugs are illegal, as your boss, I dont think I'd give a fuck. I wouldnt want someone working for me who was doing something they could get arrested for and that could reflect poorly on myself.

who are you to tell me what i as an adult should and should not be doing to my own body on my own time?

using the "because it's illegal" argument is, as illustrated throughout history, complete crap.

please stay away from the politics forum.....you bring nothing of value to it.

[Scrandon]

Good. you should. it just keeps proving that you don't actually care about safety, you care about the stigma against drug use. Your argument doesn't hold any water unless you address them. The hypotheticals point out the inherent fallacy in your argument. You're not addressing matters of safety, you're only addressing them in a highly specific case and throwing safety out the window when it doesn't fit within your view. You can't make an argument like that.


If a company offers insurance and then an employee faces health issues, obviously it would be illegal for the company to drop the worker in order to save money. Therefore, the business is being held accountable by the law. In order for this situation to be fair, both parties should have to play by the rules. An employer cannot operate outside the bounds of the law to save money, and an employee should not operate outside the bounds of the law in any way that would cost the business.

You can call it a moral responsibility if you would like. Both sides have a moral responsibility to operate within the law so as to not screw the other party over.

Now why should a business not force someone to eat healthy, exercise, and not smoke or drink? Because these are all legal. If a business decides to offer insurance, they are taking on that burden with the assumption that a fair amount of their employees participate in at least one, if not all four of these unhealthy activities. It is an expected cost, and it is completely fair. However, when a business assumes that it's employees operate within the law, and they do not, it opens up a completely new category of unforeseen costs.

I'm not trying to be some cost-management analyst for some business and recommending that they force their employees to live a certain lifestyle. I'm just pointing out that when health insurance is offered, there is essentially a contract between business and employee in which the employee has an obligation not to bring on negative health consequences as a result of illegal drug use.

[caveBEAR]

Just throwing this out there...most businesses insurance policies, and especially workman's comp, are negated if you test positive for drugs when you have an accident.

[x togepi x]

If a company offers insurance and then an employee faces health issues, obviously it would be illegal for the company to drop the worker in order to save money. Therefore, the business is being held accountable by the law. In order for this situation to be fair, both parties should have to play by the rules. An employer cannot operate outside the bounds of the law to save money, and an employee should not operate outside the bounds of the law in any way that would cost the business.

Can you read?

Employers are not forced by law to give their employees insurance plans. If the employee would have health issues, the insurance company would be dealing with that shit. Personal autonomy trumps cost issues.

You can call it a moral responsibility if you would like. Both sides have a moral responsibility to operate within the law so as to not screw the other party over.

You've never shown that there's a moral responsibility to follow unjust laws. You're just assuming that because it's illegal, one ought to do it. You also ignore my hypotheticals about breaking the law by driving like a maniac, which could lead to similar health problems. Why does that moral responsibility only exist when its dealing with drugs? That's pointlessly arbitrary.

Either you have a moral responsibility to follow the law 100% of the time, or you admit that there are cases where it's not a moral responsibility. The problem is that, if you admit there are cases where it's not a moral responsibility, you've never shown why people have a moral obligation to follow drug laws but that it's okay to skirt this responsibility elsewhere.

Now why should a business not force someone to eat healthy, exercise, and not smoke or drink? Because these are all legal.

So what? If we're looking at this by the issue of cost, the cost of fat lazy smokers is a lot heavier on insurance companies than people who smoke pot.

If a business decides to offer insurance, they are taking on that burden with the assumption that a fair amount of their employees participate in at least one, if not all four of these unhealthy activities. It is an expected cost, and it is completely fair. However, when a business assumes that it's employees operate within the law, and they do not, it opens up a completely new category of unforeseen costs.

This assumption might have worked in the past, but a lot of people do drugs now. In fact, I'm not entirely sure you could ever make this assumption about your employees. Drug use has always be entwined with workplaces and in many cases, has gone completely ignored.

Here's the problem with your analysis on cost: you're assuming that people's unhealthy activities fit within these nice and neat categories but, by ignoring my hypotheticals about speeding and skydiving, you show that your justification for drug testing doesn't come from protecting company interests or the costs of providing insurance but rather the arbitrary distaste you have for people doing drugs.

I'm not trying to be some cost-management analyst for some business and recommending that they force their employees to live a certain lifestyle. I'm just pointing out that when health insurance is offered, there is essentially a contract between business and employee in which the employee has an obligation not to bring on negative health consequences as a result of illegal drug use.

Why not force people to live a certain lifestyle? If you're all about costs and limiting employee rights, it would make sense to make that a requirement. Surely you don't have a hang up on the legality of drug use since I've shown you don't care about other illegal activities employees do.

The insurance contract, as you state it, is unfair. A paycheck should not dictate what one does on their own time. Your assumptions on illegal drug use are completely out of line with reality and you seem to care little about people's rights to live however they want.

[zion the lion]

who are you to tell me what i as an adult should and should not be doing to my own body on my own time?

using the "because it's illegal" argument is, as illustrated throughout history, complete crap.

please stay away from the politics forum.....you bring nothing of value to it.

...Who are you to tell me I cant steal a baby on my own time? Thats what this whole thing reminds me of in a way.

By the way I'm not necessarily telling you what you can and cannot do on your own time but if I'm running a company and I think certain illegal activities would reflect poorly on me and my business then I feel I should have the right to either not hire you or fire you if what you do gets in the way at any time.

[x togepi x]

...Who are you to tell me I cant steal a baby on my own time? Thats what this whole thing reminds me of in a way.

By the way I'm not necessarily telling you what you can and cannot do on your own time but if I'm running a company and I think certain illegal activities would reflect poorly on me and my business then I feel I should have the right to either not hire you or fire you if what you do gets in the way at any time.

If you can't see the difference between a victimless crime and stealing a baby, you have a problem.

[zion the lion]

If you can't see the difference between a victimless crime and stealing a baby, you have a problem.

1. I see the difference...stealing a baby was the first thing that popped in my head.
2. you cant tell me drugs are a "victimless crime". Between drug wars, the dumb asses who do drugs with their kids and end up screwing them up, the addicts who put drugs ahead of their children, the people who do drugs while pregnant, and all the families who end up with nothing because their kids steal everything to support their habit and just end up homeless...there are plenty of victims.

[Machu505]

1. I see the difference...stealing a baby was the first thing that popped in my head.
2. you cant tell me drugs are a "victimless crime". Between drug wars, the dumb asses who do drugs with their kids and end up screwing them up, the addicts who put drugs ahead of their children, the people who do drugs while pregnant, and all the families who end up with nothing because their kids steal everything to support their habit and just end up homeless...there are plenty of victims.

Drug wars exist due to prohibition, not the drugs themselves. And every single other example given can also happen with alcohol abuse, which is perfectly legal.

[zion the lion]

Drug wars exist due to prohibition, not the drugs themselves. And every single other example given can also happen with alcohol abuse, which is perfectly legal.

It still creates victims.

And meth and heroin and sure alcohol...

I'd fire someone who was constantly drunk just as quick as I would someone who was constantly using meth.

[Scrandon]

This assumption might have worked in the past, but a lot of people do drugs now. In fact, I'm not entirely sure you could ever make this assumption about your employees. Drug use has always be entwined with workplaces and in many cases, has gone completely ignored.

Here's the problem with your analysis on cost: you're assuming that people's unhealthy activities fit within these nice and neat categories but, by ignoring my hypotheticals about speeding and skydiving, you show that your justification for drug testing doesn't come from protecting company interests or the costs of providing insurance but rather the arbitrary distaste you have for people doing drugs.

1. Your rhetoric and oversimplifications of my argument are becoming quite annoying my friend.

2. I did not ignore your hypotheticals, the response was right here:

Now why should a business not force someone to eat healthy, exercise, and not smoke or drink? Because these are all legal. If a business decides to offer insurance, they are taking on that burden with the assumption that a fair amount of their employees participate in at least one, if not all four of these unhealthy activities. It is an expected cost, and it is completely fair. However, when a business assumes that it's employees operate within the law, and they do not, it opens up a completely new category of unforeseen costs.

3. In a response to my post you say, "a lot of people do drugs now" as if that has any bearing whatsoever on the argument. Yes, people tend to assume that most of society is operating within the bounds of the law.

4. I do not have an arbitrary distaste towards drug use, stop assuming crap that would make your argument easier.

[x togepi x]

1. I see the difference...stealing a baby was the first thing that popped in my head.
2. you cant tell me drugs are a "victimless crime". Between drug wars, the dumb asses who do drugs with their kids and end up screwing them up, the addicts who put drugs ahead of their children, the people who do drugs while pregnant, and all the families who end up with nothing because their kids steal everything to support their habit and just end up homeless...there are plenty of victims.

Prohibition causes all of the problems with the drug war

The problem with your piss poor logic is you're unwilling to draw a distinction between responsible drug users and full blown addicts. Of course addicts are bad. That doesn't mean we should punish people who are responsible about it. They don't fuck up their families lives

It still creates victims.

And meth and heroin and sure alcohol...

I'd fire someone who was constantly drunk just as quick as I would someone who was constantly using meth.

Nobody is talking about people doing drugs on the job. We're talking about people who do it on their own time. Just like you wouldn't fire someone who has a beer after work, you shouldn't fire someone who smokes a bowl afterwards. It doesn't effect job performance.

[x togepi x]

1. Your rhetoric and oversimplifications of my argument are becoming quite annoying my friend.

Show me how i'm oversimplifying.

2. I did not ignore your hypotheticals, the response was right here:

You're ignoring them since you didn't respond to the speeding/driving recklessly one (which shoots your argument about legality down) or the one about engaging in dangerous hobbies like skydiving (which i'm fairly certain insurance companies don't assume everyone does).

3. In a response to my post you say, "a lot of people do drugs now" as if that has any bearing whatsoever on the argument. Yes, people tend to assume that most of society is operating within the bounds of the law.

My response was that historically, drug use has been a part of society so it isn't like the poor poor insurance companies don't have a way of dealing with it. In fact, as pointed out later, they can just drop you for illegal drug use. So this all becomes a moot point from the insurance stand point. If i get addicted to heroin and have to go to the hospital, the insurance company isn't going to pick this up.

This makes everything you're saying about insurance irrelevant.

4. I do not have an arbitrary distaste towards drug use, stop assuming crap that would make your argument easier.

That's not an assumption. You arguments rest on the arbitrary line of legality and safety but, when those standards are applied to other areas, you won't make the same decision.

but i'm going to add a fifth: you haven't at all responded to my personal autonomy position, that, people have rights to what they do on their own time (within reason) and your job doesn't have the right to legislate that. Even if all of your bs about insurance is true, autonomy trumps it.

[zion the lion]

Prohibition causes all of the problems with the drug war

The problem with your piss poor logic is you're unwilling to draw a distinction between responsible drug users and full blown addicts. Of course addicts are bad. That doesn't mean we should punish people who are responsible about it. They don't fuck up their families lives



Nobody is talking about people doing drugs on the job. We're talking about people who do it on their own time. Just like you wouldn't fire someone who has a beer after work, you shouldn't fire someone who smokes a bowl afterwards. It doesn't effect job performance.

You tired to say it was a victimless crime...I'm pointing out that there are victims. I am willing to draw a distinction between "responsible" and full blown addicts. But as long as it is illegal you're still making victims so dont act like you're not.

[Scrandon]

My response was that historically, drug use has been a part of society so it isn't like the poor poor insurance companies don't have a way of dealing with it. In fact, as pointed out later, they can just drop you for illegal drug use. So this all becomes a moot point from the insurance stand point. If i get addicted to heroin and have to go to the hospital, the insurance company isn't going to pick this up.

This makes everything you're saying about insurance irrelevant.


Two long term effects of marijuana that an insurance company could not prove to be directly related to drug usage:

Other Health Effects

Research indicates that THC impairs the body's immune system from fighting disease, which can cause a wide variety of health problems. One study found that marijuana actually inhibited the disease-preventing actions of key immune cells. Another study found that THC increased the risk of developing bacterial infections and tumors.

Effects of Exposure During Pregnancy

Several studies have found that children born to mothers who used marijuana during pregnancy exhibit some problems with neurological development.
Source (http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm)

These would both lead to higher costs to the company paying for insurance and they could not test if the employee was using drugs because it is a long term effect and the person could have stopped months before.

I could go into several other illegal drugs, but that would just be too easy. I figured I'd start with the 'least harmless' drug.

Also, I was never arguing from the side of the insurance companies. I was arguing from the side of a business that is forced to pay higher premiums if their employees are not drug tested, but nice job bringing in stigmatized rhetoric to try to help your case.

[bung]

Research indicates that THC impairs the body's immune system from fighting disease, which can cause a wide variety of health problems. One study found that marijuana actually inhibited the disease-preventing actions of key immune cells. Another study found that THC increased the risk of developing bacterial infections and tumors.

This is worthless information unless we know a.) the rate at which the body's immune system successfully fights disease and bacteria, and b.) the percentage in which THC inhibits the immune system from successfully fighting disease and bacteria.

If my body can fight off 99.5% of disease/bacteria, and THC lowers it to 99.3%, it wouldn't really matter a whole helluva lot, would it?

[x togepi x]

You tired to say it was a victimless crime...I'm pointing out that there are victims. I am willing to draw a distinction between "responsible" and full blown addicts. But as long as it is illegal you're still making victims so dont act like you're not.

How is me buying pot from my friend who grows it himself creating victims?

[Scrandon]

This is worthless information unless we know a.) the rate at which the body's immune system successfully fights disease and bacteria, and b.) the percentage in which THC inhibits the immune system from successfully fighting disease and bacteria.

If my body can fight off 99.5% of disease/bacteria, and THC lowers it to 99.3%, it wouldn't really matter a whole helluva lot, would it?

First of all, it has been proven to be statistically significant.

The only thing that's relevant is the fact that the drug can cause long term health stress which the company cannot simply test for consequently drop the employee from their insurance.

[x togepi x]

Two long term effects of marijuana that an insurance company could not prove to be directly related to drug usage:

Source (http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm)

These would both lead to higher costs to the company paying for insurance and they could not test if the employee was using drugs because it is a long term effect and the person could have stopped months before.

So random drug testing is pointless since you just admitted it can't really act as a shield for long term effects.

The amount of money paying for healthcare costs stemming from people's terrible lifestyles dwarfs the negligible increase of premiums coming from the limited amount of pot smokers. This isn't about cost at all, otherwise we'd see more companies telling their employees they can't smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol.

Also, I was never arguing from the side of the insurance companies. I was arguing from the side of a business that is forced to pay higher premiums if their employees are not drug tested, but nice job bringing in stigmatized rhetoric to try to help your case.

Who cares if the business has higher premiums? This doesn't trump employee rights.

[bung]

First of all, it has been proven to be statistically significant.

Do you know what the phrase statistically significant means? No, you don't. But I do. It means that the results were unlikely to have occurred by chance. It does not specify a given rate or amount of change.

Nice try, though.

[zion the lion]

How is me buying pot from my friend who grows it himself creating victims?

Good for you, you buy it from your friend who grows it. When he goes to jail and gets raped up the ass his family is going to be a little bit disappointed, maybe when he has kids and his kids get put in foster care while he's in jail then there will be victims.


Quite frankly not everybody buys from some super nice guy with no family ties who grows it himself, some people buy it from people who have kids, and when those people go to jail those kids (especially if they're younger) end up a little bit disappointed. And if they dont have kids theres a reason they're dealing in the first place (they need money...maybe for their family) in which case their family ends up screwed. There are still victims, stop acting like there arent.

[paper halo]

It's already been pointed out that prohibition is the cause of those problems...

[Scrandon]

So random drug testing is pointless since you just admitted it can't really act as a shield for long term effects.
If I come down with a disease which needs medical treatment, and I know that my employer will submit me to a drug test, I'm going to wait until the drug is out of my system before making the claim. If I am submitted to random drug tests, I will think twice about how much I want to smoke vs. how much I want to have health insurance. Is this not obvious?
The amount of money paying for healthcare costs stemming from people's terrible lifestyles dwarfs the negligible increase of premiums coming from the limited amount of pot smokers. This isn't about cost at all, otherwise we'd see more companies telling their employees they can't smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol.
I never said that this was the single most important issue that must be addressed and will cut down insurance costs dramatically. I know alcohol and smoking are more ubiquitous problems, but alas, they are legal.
Who cares if the business has higher premiums? This doesn't trump employee rights.
Reality check: You do not have the right to use illegal drugs.

[Scrandon]

Do you know what the phrase statistically significant means? No, you don't. But I do. It means that the results were unlikely to have occurred by chance. It does not specify a given rate or amount of change.

Nice try, though.

No shit. Way to delete the meat of my post and nitpick a definition.

The point was that there are long term negative health effects of illegal drugs. If you didn't like the article I cited, and wanted one with more specific numbers, feel free to check it out for yourself.

[zion the lion]

It's already been pointed out that prohibition is the cause of those problems...

And? I've said that because of that, this isnt a "victimless" crime...in fact, because of that, it is a crime in the first place.

[paper halo]

And? I've said that because of that, this isnt a "victimless" crime...in fact, because of that, it is a crime in the first place.

What? In fact, nevermind, you're too stupid for words.

[Machu505]

Zion, I believe in you. I don't find you annoying, and in previous parts of this thread, the things you were saying were reasonable. But now you're not even making sense.

[bung]

No shit. Way to delete the meat of my post and nitpick a definition.

That definition is vital to the entire science of statistics and all that it encompasses. It was the most important part of your post, so it needed to be cleared up.

The point was that there are long term negative health effects of illegal drugs.

Agreed, but when specifically talking about negative health effects, it must be limited to one drug at a time, because they all have varying degrees of health effects. To focus on marijuana, it has a slew of positive long-term health effects, as well. In fact, my family physician told me that it's worse for a person to eat fast-food once a week than it is to smoke marijuana once a week.

[Scrandon]

That definition is vital to the entire science of statistics and all that it encompasses. It was the most important part of your post, so it needed to be cleared up.



Agreed, but when specifically talking about negative health effects, it must be limited to one drug at a time, because they all have varying degrees of health effects. To focus on marijuana, it has a slew of positive long-term health effects, as well. In fact, my family physician told me that it's worse for a person to eat fast-food once a week than it is to smoke marijuana once a week.

You just tried to invalidate my article based on it's lack of specific data, and now you just throw out the assertion that marijuana has a slew of positive health effects with no evidence at all?

In reference to your fast food comparison, nobody ever said that marijuana was the most dangerous thing in the world so I don't know why you think that finding something more unhealthy than it somehow invalidates my argument.

[bung]

You just tried to invalidate my article based on it's lack of specific data, and now you just throw out the assertion that marijuana has a slew of positive health effects with no evidence at all?

Well I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to dig up primary sources and scientific studies to prove things I already know to be true, if you apparently aren't going to do the same.

In reference to your fast food comparison, nobody ever said that marijuana was the most dangerous thing in the world so I don't know why you think that finding something more unhealthy than it somehow invalidates my argument.

Because if fast-food is more dangerous than marijuana, then wouldn't it be logical to prevent employees from eating it? The same way you're advocating to prevent employees from smoking marijuana?

[Scrandon]

Well I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to dig up primary sources and scientific studies to prove things I already know to be true, if you apparently aren't going to do the same.
I linked as much evidence as was necessary to prove my point.
Because if fast-food is more dangerous than marijuana, then wouldn't it be logical to prevent employees from eating it? The same way you're advocating to prevent employees from smoking marijuana?
I've been through this.

[majinsharingan]

Agreed, but when specifically talking about negative health effects, it must be limited to one drug at a time, because they all have varying degrees of health effects. To focus on marijuana, it has a slew of positive long-term health effects, as well. In fact, my family physician told me that it's worse for a person to eat fast-food once a week than it is to smoke marijuana once a week.

Really? Name all the positive long-term health effects. I'm asking both out of skepticism and curiosity.

And that's not saying much at all if you know anything about fast food.

[Scrandon]

Really? Name all the positive long-term health effects. I'm asking both out of skepticism and curiosity.

And that's not saying much at all if you know anything about fast food.

There are none. Only some slightly beneficial short-term effects such as stimulated appetite for those who need it and lower blood pressure.

When someone refuses to provide evidence when asked, despite it being incredibly easy, it's usually not a good sign for them.

[bung]

I linked as much evidence as was necessary to prove my point.

Uh, no you didn't. The article was missing the exact information necessary to prove your point.

I've been through this.

Not adequately, but OK.

_________________________________

Of course, one of the exact studies I wanted to show isn't available in full-print online, but there's this, the meat of their findings:

Scientists are reporting discovery of a previously unknown molecular mechanism in which the active ingredient in marijuana may slow the progression of Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Kim D. Janda and colleagues at Scripps Research Institute used laboratory experiments to show that delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) inhibits amyloid fibril formation and preserves brain levels of the key neurotransmitter acetylcholine.

One neuropathological characteristic of AD is the formation of amyloid plaques in areas of the brain responsible for cognition and memory function. Molecules that prevent -amyloid peptide (A) aggregation, and thus plaque formation, are candidates for drug research. Since AD impairs the cholinergic neurotransmitter system, molecules that interact with it are also AD drug candidates. Existing medications
for AD, including donepezil and tacrine, relieve AD symptoms by inhibiting acetylcholinesterase (AChE), which breaks down acetylcholine. THC does so by inhibiting a different site on acetylcholinesterase from the existing medications and at lower concentrations, Janda’s group reports. Their experiments show that THC also prevents formation of the amyloid plaques that are a hallmark of AD and its damage
to the brain. In addition to affecting acetylcholine levels, AChE plays a role in Alzheimer’s disease by serving as a chemical chaperone, accelerating the formation of amyloid fibrils and forming stable complexes with Ab at the region denoted as the peripheral anionic binding site (PAS). If nonpolar THC binds to the PAS region of AChE, it could retard the formation of the fibrils.

Janda’s team began by modeling THC binding to AChE in silico. The results predicted that the fused ring system of THC and the indole sidechain of a tryptophan residue of AChE would bind, with additional interactions between THC and AChE backbone carbonyls. Encouraged by the modeling results, scientists conducted a steady-state kinetic analysis that revealed that TCH competitively inhibits AChE, with a Ki = 10.2 M. A thioflavin T-based fluorometric assay was used to stain putative A fibrils to measure the ability of THC to prevent A aggregation. THC completely blocked the promotion of A aggregation by AChE. In this role it performed even better than propidium, one of the best known aggregation inhibitors.

“Our results provide a mechanism whereby the THC molecule can directly impact Alzheimer’s disease pathology,” the team states. They also note that THC may provide a “drug lead”—a model for developing new and more effective medications with more targeted effects on AD. The researchers explain that such compounds “may provide an improved therapeutic for Alzheimer’s disease, augmenting acetylcholine levels by preventing neurotransmitter degradation and reeducating amyloid beta aggregation, thereby simultaneously treating both the symptoms and progression of Alzheimer’s disease.”

More information:
1. Eubanks, Lisa M.; Rogers, Claude J.; Beuscher, Albert E.,
IV; Koob, George F.; Olson, Arthur J.; Dickerson, Tobin J.; Janda,
Kim D. A Molecular Link between the Active Component of Marijuana
and Alzheimer’s Disease Pathology. Mol. Pharm. 2006, 3,
773–777.

2. Professor Janda’s research is described at http://
www.scripps.edu/chem/janda/ (accessed Nov 2006).
3. Information on Alzheimer’s disease, research, and advocacy
can be found at http://www.alz.org/ (accessed Nov 2006).

But this other one is in full--abstract:

Based on structured interviews with 104 experienced users in Toronto, Canada, this article examines the perceived costs and benefits of cannabis consumption. A pretested questionnaire that was developed by Cohen and Sas ( 1998 ) in the Netherlands, and later translated for use in the U.S. and Germany as part of a three-city cross-national comparative study [(Reinarman et al . ( 2000 ). Is availability destiny? Drug use prevalence and discontinuance in Amsterdam, San Francisco and Bremen. Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on the Reduction of Drug-Related Harm, St. Helier, Jersey, Channel Islands, April 9-13, 2000; Cohen and Kaal ( 2001 ). The Irrelevance of Drug Policy: Patterns and Careers of Experienced Cannabis Use in the Populations of Amsterdam, San Francisco and Bremen. Centre for Drug Research, University of Amsterdam)] guided data collection on a range of drug effects, including measures of dependence inspired by DSM-IV criteria. The findings support a rational choice view of cannabis use insofar as reported advantages outweigh negative use outcomes. Top reasons for use pertain to relaxation and enhancement of recreational activities followed by coping with stress and anxiety. The frequency of respiratory and throat problems attributed to using cannabis underscores the perceived risk of pulmonary damage due to long-term heavy use. Whereas concerns about use levels nonetheless overshadowed other dependency indicators, including concern for personal health, however, no association was found between amounts nor frequency of use and the number of DSM-IV items reported by respondents. Users acknowledged and accepted the potential for dependence, adapting use levels accordingly when seen as problematic.


Full study. (http://www.zshare.net/download/77840185e09c41ae/)

[bung]

When someone refuses to provide evidence when asked, despite it being incredibly easy, it's usually not a good sign for them.

It's actually somewhat time consuming to log into my school's database, search for the study I want, format it correctly, make it available for download, etc.

You did none of that.

[bung]

Well I'll be darned. An hour later and not a peep from Scrandon, even though he's online.

[GuitarR0cker1]

Businesses who randomly drug test are throwing their money down the drain. Drug users aren't necessarily going to be terrible employees with low productivity, and they should be judged on their merits, not on their lifestyle outside of work. If they are terrible workers because of their drug use then they should be fired or punished because they are terrible workers.

I don't see how businesses have anything to gain by randomly drug testing employees unless they wanted to change their image as a business or if they wanted to lower the amount of money spent on health insurance.

[Scrandon]

Well I'll be darned. An hour later and not a peep from Scrandon, even though he's online.

This has become such a tangent to my original argument that I really don't even want to continue further down this path.

[bung]

This has become such a tangent to my original argument that I really don't even want to continue further down this path.

That's because I just made you look like silly boob, using 'dat dang sciency thingamajig.

There are none. Only some slightly beneficial short-term effects such as stimulated appetite for those who need it and lower blood pressure.

Yeah, try not going off of folk knowledge next time you argue a point.

[Scrandon]

That's because I just made you look like silly boob, using 'dat dang sciency thingamajig.



Yeah, try not going off of folk knowledge next time you argue a point.

Or multiple articles that contradicted your study. I'm not going to get into which side is right, because neither of us have any insight to that.

[bung]

Yeah, whatever. Continue your existence in a bubble of ignorance. No point in providing the proof you asked for if you've simply decided to reject it before I even had a chance to post it.

[Scrandon]

Yeah, whatever. Continue your existence in a bubble of ignorance. No point in providing the proof you asked for if you've simply decided to reject it before I even had a chance to post it.

There is contradicting evidence that is not a figment of my imagination, that's why it's an issue open for debate.

[pandemicpreston]

I didn't read the whole thread, but I do have to say that random drug testing is bull.

At my school, it's an excuse to skip over the football team that so obviously does drugs, and test the innocent kiddies. XD but seriously. it's the truth, and it's bullshitt.

[bung]

There is contradicting evidence that is not a figment of my imagination, that's why it's an issue open for debate.

You specifically stated, definitively, that marijuana has no long-term benefits whatsoever. I proved that is 100% wrong. After you saw that I did that, and saw that you were wrong, you immediately shut up like a helpless clam.

Case closed.

[Scrandon]

You specifically stated, definitively, that marijuana has no long-term benefits whatsoever. I proved that is 100% wrong. After you saw that I did that, and saw that you were wrong, you immediately shut up like a helpless clam.

Case closed.

You fucking wish. For the millionth time, I really could not care less about this tangent that you have dragged me on. I was having a much more interesting debate with another user and you come in with this nonsense as the weed expert.

Again, do not respond, this is not a marijuana thread, I do not care what you have to say about weed.

[bung]

You fucking wish. For the millionth time, I really could not care less about this tangent that you have dragged me on. I was having a much more interesting debate with another user and you come in with this nonsense as the weed expert.

It's such a pity that you don't see how those studies directly influence the nature of this debate.

this is not a marijuana thread, I do not care what you have to say about weed.

Considering that marijuana is the most common reason people fail drug tests, I would again say that it bares directly on this debate.

Again, do not respond

This is an open forum. If you don't want people to comment on your posts and make comments of their own, then you really don't get what this whole thing is for. If you do not wish to reply to my posts alone, you may put my on ignore.

[Scrandon]

It's such a pity that you don't see how those studies directly influence the nature of this debate.



Considering that marijuana is the most common reason people fail drug tests, I would again say that it bares directly on this debate.



This is an open forum. If you don't want people to comment on your posts and make comments of their own, then you really don't get what this whole thing is for. If you do not wish to reply to my posts alone, you may put my on ignore.

The overwhelming majority of health consequences from chronic use of marijuana are negative.

You said there were a 'slew' of positive long term effects, you proved one.

Again this has nothing to do with the debate, I am not participating in a argument as to why the drug should or should not be legal.
In the point I was trying to prove, I was taking it as a given that it is illegal, since that is the case.

[bung]

The overwhelming majority of health consequences from chronic use of marijuana are negative.

Now it's your turn to back that up with a peer-reviewed study.

You said there were a 'slew' of positive long term effects, you proved one.

I showed two, actually. I figured it would be a start. I can't spend all day being your teacher.

The first study showed that THC can essentially prevent Alzheimer's better than one of the best drugs currently available. I don't think you know just how profound a finding that is. That's one, a physical health benefit.

The second study is in direct contradiction to your (unfounded) statement that "The overwhelming majority of health consequences from chronic use of marijuana are negative," as the conclusion of the study was that "reported advantages outweigh negative use outcomes," even when taking into account the negative effects it has on health.

"Drug use benefits are weighed against its untoward consequences and, all things being equal, presumably weigh in favor of continued use."

In other words, if a person wants to smoke marijuana, all things considered, it is better to allow them to do so at their leisure than force them to quit. This consensus takes physical, mental, and behavioral health all into account. It's not a detriment to overall health and, in fact, if they quit using marijuana specifically for a job they would probably be worse off. That's another, and this one was an overall cost-benefit analysis. You fail to recognize that other aspects of health exist besides physical.

Again this has nothing to do with the debate, I am not participating in a argument as to why the drug should or should not be legal.
In the point I was trying to prove, I was taking it as a given that it is illegal, since that is the case.

I'm not arguing over whether it should be legal. I'm actually granting you its continued illegality for the sake of argument. That being said, an employer would be irrational not to employ someone due to marijuana use, because, taking mental, physical, and behavioral health into account, they would not pose a significant risk to the employer.

[x togepi x]

If I come down with a disease which needs medical treatment, and I know that my employer will submit me to a drug test, I'm going to wait until the drug is out of my system before making the claim. If I am submitted to random drug tests, I will think twice about how much I want to smoke vs. how much I want to have health insurance. Is this not obvious?

It's really obvious but what you're missing is how they're completely ineffective.

1) Some people risk not getting randomly tested since tests cost money.

2) This is key: Random drug tests don't lower insurance costs at all because they don't check the damage that's been done before having the job. People can just stop smoking pot to get a job and still raise your insurance premiums because they used to smoke.

3) From a business standpoint, you can lose a lot of key employees to random drug testing which could end up hurting your business more than higher insurance premiums do. For example: my roommate is a network administrator. one time he got really drunk and smoked a bunch of weed. the next day he got a drug test and failed. they were faced with a dilemma: they could fire him and follow their company policy or they could let it slide because he was working for less money than he should and hiring a new network administrator would cost the company way more money.

That's just one example. Plenty of intelligent skillful people do drugs. Random drug testing can potentially keep them from working for you. Just because you smoke pot doesn't mean you can't be an asset.

I never said that this was the single most important issue that must be addressed and will cut down insurance costs dramatically. I know alcohol and smoking are more ubiquitous problems, but alas, they are legal.

This why I'm saying drawing the line at legality is arbitrary. If you look at health and costs, you wouldn't be drawing the line there.

Reality check: You do not have the right to use illegal drugs.

Reality check: rights and what the government says are rights don't always match up.

But by autonomy, I'm not actually referring solely to the right to do drugs. I'm referring to the right to choose to live however they want within reason. You do have the right to choose to break the law (and accepting the consequences for doing so, this is the bulk of what justifies state power), that's what falls under the rubric of personal responsibility. By taking away one's autonomy in this way, you're saying that business interest trumps the rights of the individual.

I'd point out how you probably don't think that but then you'd whine about hypotheticals again.

[x togepi x]

Good for you, you buy it from your friend who grows it. When he goes to jail and gets raped up the ass his family is going to be a little bit disappointed, maybe when he has kids and his kids get put in foster care while he's in jail then there will be victims.

This is a great argument you made since it points out that all of the victimization comes from the government's policies and not smoking itself.

Quite frankly not everybody buys from some super nice guy with no family ties who grows it himself, some people buy it from people who have kids, and when those people go to jail those kids (especially if they're younger) end up a little bit disappointed. And if they dont have kids theres a reason they're dealing in the first place (they need money...maybe for their family) in which case their family ends up screwed. There are still victims, stop acting like there arent.

You hurt people more from buying almost anything at a supermarket than you do from buying pot.

Seriously, pick a product and I'll show you how it victimizes people. It's how capitalism works. If you want to take 'victimless crime' to the logical extreme then I feel like I should put your spending habits up to scrutiny.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

This is a great argument you made since it points out that all of the victimization comes from the government's policies and not smoking itself.



You hurt people more from buying almost anything at a supermarket than you do from buying pot.

Seriously, pick a product and I'll show you how it victimizes people. It's how capitalism works. If you want to take 'victimless crime' to the logical extreme then I feel like I should put your spending habits up to scrutiny.

I like to add jalepeno peppers to alot of my meals. How does that victimize people? (genuinely curious)

[Cheesus]

This is a great argument you made since it points out that all of the victimization comes from the government's policies and not smoking itself.


lol, beautiful.

[x togepi x]

I like to add jalepeno peppers to alot of my meals. How does that victimize people? (genuinely curious)

who grew them?

Basically the point I was trying to make there is that a large amount of products we buy come from companies that are owned by other bigger companies that do terrible things to people. Obviously if you bought those peppers fair trade or something, it wouldn't be victimizing but if you were to buy them at Walmart, chances are some shady shit went down to bring them to the store. Like a lot of bigger companies use immigrant labor to pick plants but don't pay those workers livable wages.

In some cases the bad effects are minimal in other cases, we see people getting murdered or some sort of slavery/sweat shops.

It would be great if the drug trade was fair trade just like it'd be great if groceries weren't built on the same sort of exploitation but to act like one is bad while obviously partaking in the other is dumb to me. hence my conception of victimless crime.

[Scrandon]

It's really obvious but what you're missing is how they're completely ineffective.

1) Some people risk not getting randomly tested since tests cost money.

2) This is key: Random drug tests don't lower insurance costs at all because they don't check the damage that's been done before having the job. People can just stop smoking pot to get a job and still raise your insurance premiums because they used to smoke.
Sure, people who smoked previously will cost the company more, but that doesn't mean they should just let them continue to smoke and further exacerbate their health conditions.

3) From a business standpoint, you can lose a lot of key employees to random drug testing which could end up hurting your business more than higher insurance premiums do. For example: my roommate is a network administrator. one time he got really drunk and smoked a bunch of weed. the next day he got a drug test and failed. they were faced with a dilemma: they could fire him and follow their company policy or they could let it slide because he was working for less money than he should and hiring a new network administrator would cost the company way more money.
I'm guessing they fired your friend. Do you ever stop to think that the company policy that is put in place by the greedy capitalists is put there to maximize profits? Therefore, your whole theory about it actually costing more money to fire the employee is not true. They are better off firing him and saving on insurance payments and not being faced with the possibility of fines.
That's just one example. Plenty of intelligent skillful people do drugs. Random drug testing can potentially keep them from working for you. Just because you smoke pot doesn't mean you can't be an asset.
I never said someone who uses drugs couldn't be an asset, but 99.99% of the time the company can find another worker who is just as valuable and doesn't abuse illegal drugs.
This why I'm saying drawing the line at legality is arbitrary. If you look at health and costs, you wouldn't be drawing the line there.

Reality check: rights and what the government says are rights don't always match up.

But by autonomy, I'm not actually referring solely to the right to do drugs. I'm referring to the right to choose to live however they want within reason. You do have the right to choose to break the law (and accepting the consequences for doing so, this is the bulk of what justifies state power), that's what falls under the rubric of personal responsibility. By taking away one's autonomy in this way, you're saying that business interest trumps the rights of the individual.
Again, personal opinion about what rights are inherent so your statement is not definitive.
I'd point out how you probably don't think that but then you'd whine about hypotheticals again.
You know me so well, don't you?

[caveBEAR]

I never said someone who uses drugs couldn't be an asset, but 99.99% of the time the company can find another worker who is just as valuable and doesn't abuse illegal drugs.

I worked in a pizzeria. Myself, the cook, and one of the drivers were (hands down) the best and most efficient workers in the place. We were also the only ones who smoked marijuana on the regular. I know we could be your .01%, but just throwing it out there.

[Scrandon]

I worked in a pizzeria. Myself, the cook, and one of the drivers were (hands down) the best and most efficient workers in the place. We were also the only ones who smoked marijuana on the regular. I know we could be your .01%, but just throwing it out there.

That's fair, but saying that marijuana use and job performance are not correlated is to say that they can be replaced.

[zion the lion]

This is a great argument you made since it points out that all of the victimization comes from the government's policies and not smoking itself.



You hurt people more from buying almost anything at a supermarket than you do from buying pot.

Seriously, pick a product and I'll show you how it victimizes people. It's how capitalism works. If you want to take 'victimless crime' to the logical extreme then I feel like I should put your spending habits up to scrutiny.

You're still contributing to a drug war, to people getting arrested and their children growing up with out real role models or in foster care and all of that shit. And this thread was about random drug testing not just about pot so I'm talking about all drugs.

[caveBEAR]

That's fair, but saying that marijuana use and job performance are not correlated is to say that they can be replaced.

I guess. I look at it more as if it's not going to affect one's work performance, it shouldn't even be an issue, but I do see where your point is coming from.

[samsara]

I agree that it shouldnt be a big deal unless its affecting the work.

[open mind]

You're still contributing to a drug war, to people getting arrested and their children growing up with out real role models or in foster care and all of that shit. And this thread was about random drug testing not just about pot so I'm talking about all drugs.

do you know about circular reasoning and why it's not taken seriously?

[LaraIrene]

thanks for sharing

Drug Rehab (http://www.soberrecovery.com)

[x togepi x]

You're still contributing to a drug war, to people getting arrested and their children growing up with out real role models or in foster care and all of that shit. And this thread was about random drug testing not just about pot so I'm talking about all drugs.

You're still ignoring the fact that if you take this logic to its extreme, then it should be applied to things you do. The problem you're talking about isn't with drugs, it's with the current system.

I don't care about kids growing up without real role models because those people probably shouldn't be doing drugs in the first place, but, like I said before, not everyone who does drugs is a full blown addict who's going to have kids and go to jail forever. even my friends who've been busted for drugs before didn't really go to jail, they just got tons of probation and fines.

so like i said, victimless crime.

[x togepi x]

Sure, people who smoked previously will cost the company more, but that doesn't mean they should just let them continue to smoke and further exacerbate their health conditions.

The premiums are already going to be higher, so drug testing isn't effective, especially when they let people destroy their health in all sorts of different ways. I know, this sounds like a broken record, but your position is ridiculous.

I'm guessing they fired your friend. Do you ever stop to think that the company policy that is put in place by the greedy capitalists is put there to maximize profits? Therefore, your whole theory about it actually costing more money to fire the employee is not true. They are better off firing him and saving on insurance payments and not being faced with the possibility of fines.

Actually he kept his job since firing him would cost the business more money. You seem to think that businesses always follow the rules, but if firing the employee effects the company's bottom line, there's a chance that you'll see them keep their job and just get a warning.

But you're also forgetting about the punitive effect random drug testing can have on people who don't use drugs. Sometimes managers use a random drug test as a way to shame employees they feel are out of line

I never said someone who uses drugs couldn't be an asset, but 99.99% of the time the company can find another worker who is just as valuable and doesn't abuse illegal drugs.

This is a completely unverifiable claim. it would be like me responding by saying "sure, they'll just be a fat ass who's an alcoholic."

Again, personal opinion about what rights are inherent so your statement is not definitive.

I can easily use this line to respond to everything you've ever said. Just saying "well, that's just your opinion man" doesn't at all respond to the argument. but here's some analysis anyway.

Part of what separates liberal democracy from other forms of government is the emphasis on personal autonomy and choice. Our system is based upon the flawed assumptions of the social contract. A key element of the social contract is the right to disobey the government/overthrow it, if you feel that it is being unjust as long as you are willing to accept that backing out of the social contract will have consequences, like going to jail etc. The ability to disobey the government has a strong tradition as civil disobedience throughout american history and there's all sorts of examples such as the civil rights movement. While it would be stupid to say smoking weed is JUST LIKE fighting segregation, since drug prohibition is based on racist and classist logic, there is a strong element of civil disobedience in opposing the drug war, even if your average pot head is completely unaware or apathetic to it.

[KingsCrossing]

Now it's your turn to back that up with a peer-reviewed study.

I showed two, actually. I figured it would be a start. I can't spend all day being your teacher.

The first study showed that THC can essentially prevent Alzheimer's better than one of the best drugs currently available. I don't think you know just how profound a finding that is. That's one, a physical health benefit.

The second study is in direct contradiction to your (unfounded) statement that "The overwhelming majority of health consequences from chronic use of marijuana are negative," as the conclusion of the study was that "reported advantages outweigh negative use outcomes," even when taking into account the negative effects it has on health.

"Drug use benefits are weighed against its untoward consequences and, all things being equal, presumably weigh in favor of continued use."

In other words, if a person wants to smoke marijuana, all things considered, it is better to allow them to do so at their leisure than force them to quit. This consensus takes physical, mental, and behavioral health all into account. It's not a detriment to overall health and, in fact, if they quit using marijuana specifically for a job they would probably be worse off. That's another, and this one was an overall cost-benefit analysis. You fail to recognize that other aspects of health exist besides physical.

I'm not arguing over whether it should be legal. I'm actually granting you its continued illegality for the sake of argument. That being said, an employer would be irrational not to employ someone due to marijuana use, because, taking mental, physical, and behavioral health into account, they would not pose a significant risk to the employer.

Cannabis use is detrimental to an individual's psychological well-being and mental health, especially with regards to long term and early usage.

Longitudinal studies have shown the earlier one begins cannabis usage (ie: 15 y/o, 18 y/o) is directly correlated to an increased risk of later psychosis, including, but not limited to, depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia - in fact, those who used cannabis by age 15 were four times as likely to have a diagnosis of schizophreniform disorder at age 26 than controls (Arsenault et al., 2002). Other studies have shown a sixfold increase in later schizophrenia in individual's who engaged in cannabis use at age 18 (Andreasson et al., 1987; Strang et al., 2000). With regards to addiction, it has been shown the youngest cannabis users may be at most risk because their cannabis use becomes longstanding (Fergusson et al., 1997). Specifically, all of the aforementioned studies controlled for childhood psychotic symptoms prior to cannabis use.

It would be ignorant and simply incorrect to believe that cannabis has no negative effects on an individual's mental health.

[<*)))><]

I worked in a pizzeria. Myself, the cook, and one of the drivers were (hands down) the best and most efficient workers in the place. We were also the only ones who smoked marijuana on the regular. I know we could be your .01%, but just throwing it out there.
Do you smoke while you are on the job?

[bung]

Cannabis use is detrimental to an individual's psychological well-being and mental health, especially with regards to long term and early usage.

Longitudinal studies have shown the earlier one begins cannabis usage (ie: 15 y/o, 18 y/o) is directly correlated to an increased risk of later psychosis, including, but not limited to, depression, anxiety, and schizophrenia - in fact, those who used cannabis by age 15 were four times as likely to have a diagnosis of schizophreniform disorder at age 26 than controls (Arsenault et al., 2002). Other studies have shown a sixfold increase in later schizophrenia in individual's who engaged in cannabis use at age 18 (Andreasson et al., 1987; Strang et al., 2000). With regards to addiction, it has been shown the youngest cannabis users may be at most risk because their cannabis use becomes longstanding (Fergusson et al., 1997). Specifically, all of the aforementioned studies controlled for childhood psychotic symptoms prior to cannabis use.

It would be ignorant and simply incorrect to believe that cannabis has no negative effects on an individual's mental health.

I'm not arguing that. I'm also very skeptical of correlational studies linking cannabis and mental health problems. Rather, I think it's far more likely that those already with underlying mental health problems seek out cannabis as a means of self-medication, hence resulting in the correlation.

Also, childhood psychotic symptoms can be controlled for and this would still be the result, as a large percentage of mental health problems do not truly manifest (as in, they do not become recognizable under DSM-IV standards) until late adolescence or early adulthood.

My personal belief, just to make it known, is that no one should smoke marijuana until they're at least 18. I would put that as the legal cutoff, if it were to become legal. Ideally, cannabis probably shouldn't be used until a person is at least 21.

[caveBEAR]

Do you smoke while you are on the job?

Don't work there anymore, but we were allowed to go on smoke breaks, and there was no one who didn't know what we were doing out there. It was more a 'don't ask, don't tell' since we always got our shit done. Especially since we tended to work 10+ hour days.

[ericman1989]

this is entertaining....

[caveBEAR]

this is entertaining....

Great input! :ok:

[samsara]

http://www.myspace.com/ericman1989

I feel creepy.

[ericman1989]

umm. that is creepy...

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

http://en.ce.cn/entertainment/movie/200803/06/W020080306399052372464.jpg

[samsara]

I also found a phone #...

[<*)))><]

Don't work there anymore, but we were allowed to go on smoke breaks, and there was no one who didn't know what we were doing out there. It was more a 'don't ask, don't tell' since we always got our shit done. Especially since we tended to work 10+ hour days.
I was just asking because at my job just about everyone smokes but the employees who smoke on the job, don't do anything.

[caveBEAR]

I was just asking because at my job just about everyone smokes but the employees who smoke on the job, don't do anything.

Some people can handle their high, others are couch stoners. Takes all kinds to make the world go round.

[Wake Up]

Some people can handle their high, others are couch stoners. Takes all kinds to make the world go round.

I've always interested in why people choose to get high. If you don't mind me asking, why do you smoke weed?

[caveBEAR]

I've always interested in why people choose to get high. If you don't mind me asking, why do you smoke weed?

Because I like being high? Isn't really much more to it than that.

[Love As Arson]

Random drug tests seem contradictory. Many companies push their works to the limit and stress them out to the point of creating health issues (both physical and psychological), but then want to castigate the methods they use to deal with that stress.