All I can say is that I'm glad I'm not a business owner in CO, WA, OR or CA and whatever other states have legalized pot.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/b...ng-workers-who-can-pass-a-drug-test.html

I hear this complaint repeatedly from business-owning friends. They have plenty of jobs to offer but prospective employees cannot leave the dope alone.

I was talking to a Home Depot employee the other day when it was obvious that the checkout aisles were very short-handed. He said the whole store has a constant struggle to find workers who can pass a drug test.

RS

Alcohol is a "drug" they don't test for which causes more problems than weed.

If it's legal they shouldn't be testing for it anyway

At my brother's place of employment they can and do test for blood alcohol level, not just weed et al.

There are still those pesky Federal laws making MJ illegal. In addition to that, there are all manner of workplace safety laws (and liabilities) in play. If you had a clue, you'd already know that.

The local Volvo[heavy truck] plant has stacks of partially filled out applications.
As soon as the prospective employee's get to the piss test section, they just set pen down and walk away.

This is not by any means a new phenomenon, has been going on for years and years. I was a USAF recruiter in the 1970's and we had the same problem.

Every random "drug" test I've had to take included alcohol as well.

Yep. I know several folks who have moved up the seniority ladder after a lay-off because a few dumbasses in front of them showed back up afterward and popped hot on the piss tests for alcohol, pot, or various other drugs.

Considering how poor the job prospects are in that region, and that the Volvo plant starts kids (yes, kids at 18-19 years old) out at better than $18/hour, you'd think they'd get a clue.

I take great satisfaction in having been instrumental in the ejection of pot heads in the Navy in the early 80s. It is still around today, but thanks to aggressive testing and education, it has been greatly reduced. We also screened for alcohol whilst on duty only. Today as a contractor, we randomly check for all of the above.

You've been corrected about your assertion that alcohol isn't tested for, so I'll just leave it at that.

But your last assertion is (also) plain ignorant. This isn't about what you do at home. It's about your state at work. Doesn't matter if it's legal, you shouldn't purposely be impaired at work. However, you can't test for that with pot and some other drugs. Your either a user or you are not. Nobody is going to be fool enough to trust you when you say you only use at home... because you can't prove it.

It's really a testament to how screwed up things are that people are able to turn down jobs because they don't want to quit using drugs. Those people should be starving.

Never done a drug test that didn't include alcohol....

The problem here is that the test for alcohol determines if you are right now under the influence via exhailed CO2. The Cannibus test can show if you have taken within the past month and may not be in any way under the influence. That's like me drinking a beer last weekend and the test on Friday shows a positive. Hardly a just result in my opinion.

Actually the problem is the idiots who don't understand that. It is pretty simple, if you work for a place that drug tests then don't use drugs or come to work drunk if you want to keep your job.

If you are the man paying the bills are you going to take some flunkies word for it that they aren't getting high at lunch?

Tell me about it!

the "problems" with MJ:

a) it can be detected by testing for a lot longer than alcohol can, greatly blurring the distinction between being under the influence at work and having the equivalent of a drink or two at dinner.

b) it's actually legal to consume MJ in quite a few places now


the distinction between saying "you can't ever drink when off duty" and "you can't ever smoke pot when off duty" is blurry and the testing is too crude to allow you to make the call as an employer.

We're pretty small - two 30-employee companies and we've gone back and forth on this ad nauseum. I don't have an answer because even in Utah filling out a staff that doesn't ever toke is impractical

Uh...you really think they would have passed a drug test if it was still illegal? You're delusional.

Obviously not. Heck, even the article was about GA. But the floodgates are open in legalizing states. It will be MUCH worse there. I've met plenty of people in my time who told me they wouldn't smoke pot simply because it was illegal.

Simple as that, why is that so hard to understand?

It should always be the employers choice. That's the way America used to be until lieberals started ruining it.

Snyper is ill concerned about the employers choice.

He has zero problem with Charlotte mandating bathroom gender identity on private businesses. I see no reason why he would have a problem with mandating minimum acceptable BAC or THC levels as well.

In my experience in the O&G industry it mattered not where I was working, we always had pretty healthy failure rates, the worse being in Alberta.

I sure wish it wasn't so difficult to get the Alaska State Troopers to acknowledge that their proxy arrests and jail-guarding by known frequent users of dope might not be in the best interests of the State.

Even back into the mid 90's I ran a business and did the hiring. It was a drug test company and I was right up front with people. I'd like to hire you. Can you pass a pizz test? If you need some time, let me know and I'll work with you. Understand that if you fail the test you will NEVER get a chance to work for this company.

Even with that understanding it was tough to find someone that was not in denial about their drug usage. It was tough to find someone who could pass the test. The risk companies face makes it not worth it if they have to be around any kind of machinery to hire someone who can't pass a pizz test. F**K them. Apparently they don't want a job bad enough.

Even tho I've had a rash of fellow forum members telling me that I am wrong and legalization has had ZERO effect on this town... that it was bad enough before legalization, for drug use...

Winco was opening a supermarket here in town... the problem they had in opening, is they couldn't find perspective employees that could pass the drug test....

They delayed their opening over 2 months, and I'm sure that cost them a few bucks... finally they did open, due to the fact to quit losing money with the store sitting idle, they started paying their employees in other parts of the state, LOT OF MONEY just to come here for 2 weeks and work... plus of course paid for meals and hotels also...

been open since Feb and they are still bringing in workers from other parts of the state...

liberalism has turned this country, into a nation full of idiots....

It got so bad here in the Permian Basin that when a guy showed up and wanted a truck driving job, I'd have him fill out the application and have him give me $50. If he passed the pee test I'd give him $75 back.

Wrong again.

BTDT.

I will try to keep this short.I was the old guy that screamed at the idiots on commercial construction sites.Part of my job was to keep workers from getting hurt by being stupid.Construction sites are a busy place.I sure that at least 20% of workers are high on something.You see people making a lot of trips to their truck and see if they are getting a quick shot from a brown paper bag.They get one warning.I know they have kids that gotta eat.So do the kids of the other guy that might get hurt because of one person that needed a drink.Go into a port a let and it smells like pot.This list goes on and on.Keeping drugs including alcohol out of the work place is f@#%ing hard.

The shop my Dad works in just laid off 60% of their force after they had a random drug test.

The worst part was they gave them a second chance, 6weeks suspension and come back and retest, pass and you have your job back. Morons came back and pissed hot again knowing they were going to be tested.

This all in an area of the country that isn't exactly overrun with good employment opportunities like the one they gave up.

I as a 29 year old father and husband just cannot fathom not being able to give up a habit to take care of my family.

Always love the idiot sitting in a JJon smelling chit, toking for 5 minutes, coming out all smiley F'faced, trying to enlighten me on how gifted they are on the jobsite.

Kent

Problem is that most non-drug users who aren't idiots are gainfully employed and rewarded in such a way they aren't looking for entry level work.

Amazon can't keep people in their Fulfillment Centers, most can't pass the random drug testing. I've seen a helluva lot of turnover in my five years there.

I find it hard to accept that drug use is so widespread.

I just really want to retire and not have to deal with this crap anymore...

There is no way I'd ever fail, unless setup, and the place I"m dumb enough to still be at, I wouldn't put it past them...

Hard to fathom how far down this country has come.

This.

All of it.

It is my understanding that in Atlanta minor drug arrests in your past are acceptable for being able to apply for a police officer job.

53% support of full legalization

49% of the population has smoked it at least once.

something like 30 million working age peeps have done so in the last month

In the Wal-Mart, Durango, Co., a lady ahead of me in line was chewing ass on the ass't mgr for not having more registers open and the lines were long. He asked her if she'd seen the "Now Hiring" signs posted on all the doors and she said yes. He then told her to find him someone, anyone that could pass a drug test and he'd hire them, pronto.

Two weeks later the signs were still up and the lines were still long.

I know of one that smoked it but said he didn't inhale any. True story.

according to the all knowing Wiki, there are about 100 million peeps between 20-45 YO , so 30% of them ave lit up in the past month (minimum - 30% copped to it)

But it's not addictive!

What do these places pay?

If you want to hire non pot smokers, you have to offer a non pot smoker wage.

Damn shame , An American worker has to pass a drug test to get hired. A fuggin illegal messican don't have to pass a drug test or even a legal to work in the USA test.

Mike

Hell,....you can't hire prison labor for minimum wage these days.

,..bust your ass unloading trucks for 3 hours and somebody hands you a 20 dollar bill. After taxes you got enough left over to buy two hamburgers and a milkshake.

,...and people are hollerin' about, "Ya just cain't get good help these days!"

I'd be ridin' the grub line too.

Far from true. Working offshore oil patch, we tested regularly and after all of the education and the fact that "You will be tested" was harped on, we still lost over 20% of those "well paid workers". One in five is bad odds to draw to.

Some who saw the test coming immediately stated "they had a problem and needed help", so couldn't fire them. Most who went through rehab and were later tested failed and were dismissed.

Money and salary ain't the issue at all.

It might help if drug tests would tell if MJ users are high or not.

I have had several pot smokers under me that were good help, unless they got high, then they were worthless and should have been fired.

If they smoked it yesterday, or a few days ago, no problem.
On the job? About worse than nothing.

Oh this is fun...

You think you have it tough. I drove truck to Canada and back for over six years. It was pretty easy in the summer, less so in the winter but still good money and no competition for my job. It seems finding someone who can pass a alcohol and drug test with testing any time and any day by the company, any LEO, and DOT was hard but when you add no felony record and no child support there were damned few who could qualify.

Stick somebody on an offshore oil rig for months on end,..and you expect them not to get a buzz?

A man can only sit there watching Andy Griffith reruns for so long,...then something's got to give.

You don't want 'em to get a buzz,...you better keep a helicopter train running between the place and a whorehouse.

The monotony will be broken one way or the other.

Like the monotony you spew? Pass me the doobie!

Ain't nobody twistin' your puckered up old fuggin' arm to read it,...so piss off.

Bristoe, What's wrong with alcohol during off-duty hours?

Nor yours to reply. Pissonya.

I'm not here to say.

But I've had enough experience with employers who want people to do backflips for nothing.

Pay your people or shut da fug up is all I've got to say about it.

Labor is like everything else,....you get what ya pay for.

You old guys sure your prostates will cooperate when all the "piss on ya" talk comes to action?

Barry this same question (and it's a good one) was asked by most all who failed their drug test as they were working (mostly) one week offshore and one week at home, some were 2/2.

Figured what they did on their offtime was their business. But,,,it wasn't just theirs, by the rules. Federal rules are actually more lax than most company rules.

We lost some really talented, hard working folks via drug tests.

Toot, are they not allowed to drink at all, at any time while aboard a rig?

If you're on a rig and something goes down you can go from off duty to on in an instant. BAC better be zero.

Makes sense.

Not at all. Personnel has to declare all medicines including Nyquil, etc. We had multiple random checks at the offshore locations.

The only person I saw beat his drug test failure had a valid concern over the 'chain of custody documentation' of his piss sample. The medic was fired for that lapse and he passed his subsequent test having had time to dry out.

Most recreational users clearly think they are doing no wrong while on their personal time. It's a Catch 22 of sorts.

ALL of them should pass drug/alcohol random tests after/if passing the first hiring test....ALL of them.

Nuts

This is true. Our drivers are paid by a % of the load, and when we found one who qualified (during the boom) he stood to easily make over $100,000 net. Not so much lately though.

Its one reason I no longer drink at all while at home because I"m fire/ems 24/7 on call....even though chief doesn't care if we've had a beer or three and get paged. He is a fool.

It's one of those things that's just become entirely ubiquitous in our society.

Personally I haven't smoked pot since college, but I've come to believe that it's legit medicinal potential is largely untapped.

We get enough throughput here from "legal" states that a decent sample of my clients have cleared up some pretty intractable medical problems in their own pets by self-medicating them with edibles.

ditto reports on online vet-only forums.

It's only going to become more commonly used and the drug tests need to go from +/- to mg/dl just like BAC while on duty , otherwise the whole system is going to collapse...

all plants on the face of the Earth should be banned until we humans learn how to deal with the impacts of plant-derived and ingested chemicals.

we humans aren't perfect. so, what should we do to fix the "problem?"

eradicate all the plant producing chemicals could and should be step one.

we're all playing games, and we know it.

but it could be fixed, if fixing it was a desirable outcome.

most humans seem to want to live inside their belief system, no matter where the objective truth system is. but, what to do?

Maybe I'm missing out not smoking anything. I'll never know though unless its medical.

And for that, a REAL medical issue, I've no problem at all.

I"d be willign to bet most medical reasons are far from real. If not most, then at least a significant amount simply want to get high.

you have to piss to get a job at home depot but you can sit on your ass in free public housing, eating free food, talking on a free phone and head down to the grocery to get your free steaks with ebt card and do it all stoned out of your mind. ya, makes sense.

Same here. Plus, if you were involved in any workplace mishap, you were tested for everything, including any prescription drugs.

Ed

Thank LBJ.

There you have it. I've been preaching the same for years. If you can't quantify it, you can't proscribe it.

Much like the old "obscenity laws", when the Federal Judge (memory fails me on his name) who said; "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it." His judgement didn't last for long. Too vague.

Ed

the potential problem with that though, it that a cancer patient might need 1,000 mg just to get out of bed in the morning , an amount that would have an occasional recreational user flopping around on the floor like a fish for 6 hours.

WA & CO are having a devil of a time deciding on an enforceable blood concentration limit for driving.

It'll end up being some arbitrary limit, but there does need to be one!

But they don't.

Further more HR uses drug tests as a tool that has nothing to do with drug use.

I've seen people hired even after failing a drug test because the company "needed the help".

I have also seen drug tests increase prior to a lay off , if an employee is fired for a positive drug test then the company wouldn't have to pay whatever benefits they might get from being laid off.

Then too , sometimes it's used just to knock a man back down the ladder. Take a 10-15 year man that's making a decent wage & has earned 2-3 weeks vacation a year & pop has ass on a drug test. Hire the guy back in 60-90 days at less pay & vacation.

Mike

I would agree. The mis-use of prescription drugs is waaaay out of control, so why wouldn't mj be the same? That's why they call it a Dr."practicing" medicine, in some cases anyway.

My wife used to work in retail and she turned away more than half the people who she interviewed because they could not pass the drug test. These were not just Virginia residents. The potential employees were from Virginia, Maryland, and West Virginia.

Pot seems to be more of a generational thing. In high school and college very few people I knew, and I would have known them, smoked pot but we all drank like crazy. Now it seems like pot is a lot more commonly used than booze.

Even as an east coast, west coast thing, pot seems a lot more common place in the West, booze a lot more in the East. I visited some friends in LA a few years back and pot was like cocktail hour out there. People thought there was something wrong with you in you weren't into it.

I know a manager of a custom boat trailer business that couldn't find any drug-free welders...they ended up scrapping the plan for a drug free workplace.

Part of the problem, aside from using drugs in the first place, is that pot stays in your system for quite a long time. You could fail a drug test even it you smoked a month ago. Booze doesn't stay very long. Kind of tough to get fired when you might not have touched it for a month or more. That's a far cry from showing up drunk or high to work.

The whole drug testing thing is ridiculous if you ask me, and I've never even touched the stuff.

If you are qualified for the job, and don't show up to work drunk or stoned, what difference dose it make if you choose to partake in your own personal time?

If a clean drug test had been a prerequisite for attending high school, my graduating class would have shrunk by three quarters.

Because there's no reliable way to tell if you are currently stoned or were only stoned on your personal time. In the case of work accidents, the assumption can only be that the person causing the accident is under the influence if they test positive.

It amazes me that the argument for weed is "alcohol is as bad or worse". I've got a news flash for all you bong brothers out there - you can't keep a job if you're drunk either!

If you want to work - don't smoke weed. Of what benefit is it to you other than recreation? If you want to work, don't show up drunk.

Since when did it become too much to ask employees, or perspective employees to be clean and sober? That is not a high bar to aspire to.

Employer check list

- read
- write
- do basic math
-legal resident
- clean and sober


That is not a prohibitive list is you are not a worthless dumbass.

Fundamentals of Lebesgue measure and integration, Lp spaces, intro functional analysis and the like. Keep it basic.

When I was hiring guys for my oilfield service company, a majority of applicants never made it to the part of the process where a drug test would be required. A check of their driving record often revealed at least one, usual several DUI's. I'd say at least 80 percent of applicants were this way. And a majority of those were between the ages of 18 and 21.

I am looking for a drug free employee right now. Been looking for weeks. No takers.

Yep, let's not worry about that employee running the forklift or boom truck or running on the road, booze is legal so it's okay.

That's because good old Americans will hire him.

If MJ is testing positive in the body for weeks after smoking it, doesn't it also continue to have at least some effect from still being there?

IOW, isn't one still "under the influence" if the substance is still testing positive in the bloodstream?

That would be my guess.

Hair samples can show MJ in your body with traces even months afterwards.

These drug tests the companies do on employees or potential ones, are not really for catching the guy that took a few hits off a joint at a party a couple weeks ago.

They are designed to locate and identify those individuals that make drug use a habit on a regular basis. Those are the ones that cause problems for the company, and are greater liability risks.

It's about liability and insurance rates.

Bingo.

That, plus the undeniable urge people in a position of power have to control others.

There's a raft of bad info on this thread but there's no point in correcting it. Times will change, but a generation is literally going to have to age it's way out of those positions of power first.

Whatever, burning man...

I've known several who would test positve every day of their life going back decades since they first tried marijuana.

Some wound up stuck in low paying, dead end jobs because they couldn't ever give up marijuana long enough to pass a entry drug test for good job. The only kind of employment they could get is at places that didn't do entry or random drug testing until an employee injures themselves or someone else or damage or destroys employer's property.

From being around those I've known and/or worked with that were regular marijuana users, it sure does appear that marijuana is at least as addictive as nicotine, and probably alcohol, too. I've known some that quit tobacco cold turkey but not pot.

Said they quit smoking cigarettes mainly so they could better afford marijuana. Some believed too that they could get a better "buzz" from less pot if they quit smoking tobacco.

Potter Stewart IIRC

I work for Wal-Mart and we have a hard time getting folks through the drug screenings too.

Yeah, some of us over-penetrated, I guess. grins.

Most major companies now are going for the hair sample and most will let you slide on that if the pizz sample is clear and below any thresh holds but if in the hair sample, that's a hard marker against you and you'll be randomly tested at their will.

As another pointed out, the hair samples go waaaay back in time.

And some wonder why some shave their heads...

Trying to find a commercial truck driver who is fit enough to do some work as needed, has a decent driving record, can pass a drug test, and can get into Canada (i.e. no criminal record, not DUI's) is almost impossible.

The guys that meet those qualifications aren't stupid enough to drive a truck.... or you have to pay them well. I'm paying a 25 year old guy about 55K a year to drive a truck about 3/4 time.

I think he may be the last one of his race....

I work for a gun company and we have no drug testing but Wal-Mart does ? That's hilarious !

Better go get a Brazilian wax, too, buddy. Any hair will do.

The hair tests absolutely terrify a lot of applicants because it can go so far back.

Reliability: not so much, but it is VERY good at scaring users away during the application process.

Hair samples can get you executed in Louisiana, Dutch.

But he's right...in a way. Possessing any amount of weed, anywhere in the United States, is a crime. Just because some people are careless about what that might bring, doesn't mean employers can afford to be.

If you had a clue you'd know the levels that show up in a test don't mean you're high.

I'd rather hire someone who smokes a joint once in a while than a drunk.

"Workplace safety" is a BS excuse

You can test positive for Pot from second hand smoke.

I could have done it, in fact I did it. Port Townsend, WA to Kelowna, BC. Did that run for around five years with a hand full of trips it Calgary. Class A with doubles and triples, hazmat, tanker, and combined over weight over length. Never a DUI, no child support, no felonies and no moving violations in last 30 years.

I know you did, Scott, but you're not exactly "average", now, are you?

This "war on drugs" thing is costing this country far more than we realize. It really is Prohibition, part Deux.

The problem with urine tests and hair tests, when it comes to cannabis, is that these don't actually have much, if anything, to do with the question of whether an employee is currently affected by the drug. By the time THC or metabolites show up in urine or hair the intoxicating effect is likely to have long abated. The cannabis metabolites in urine for example don't show up until some time after consumption, but may continue to show up, and give rise to a non-negative result, many days after last use, so what you are testing for is whether the person was, at some time in the past, using or exposed to cannabis (bearing in mind that even sidestream smoke can result in a non-negative).

Now if what you want to assess is whether a person has habits you don't approve of, or which may be detrimental to performance, you'd really need to do a series of tests, comparing results over time.

If on the other hand you want a test as to whether they've very recently smoked cannabis, there's oral swab tests - I'm surprised they haven't been mentioned yet. They aren't perfect, but by their nature they test very recent use, and are therefore likely to be a better proxy for the "currently affected by" question.

I'd probly smoke it but I can't figure out how to get the box open.

90 days at least is what I hear. I tried it a couple times back in the late 70's. I was never one that could stand intentionally inhaling smoke of any kind. And all I really got out of it was the munchies.

Russian, Mexican, and some dot Indian factions have been working hard to fill the niche.

Boogles my mind how many people need drugs to get by. I know but for the grace of God there go I. But really?!?!?! THAT many people doped up, all the time? Is it any wonder we are headed down the crapper?

[quote=hatari]It amazes me that the argument for weed is "alcohol is as bad or worse". I've got a news flash for all you bong brothers out there - you can't keep a job if you're drunk either!

If you want to work - don't smoke weed. Of what benefit is it to you other than recreation? If you want to work, don't show up drunk.

Since when did it become too much to ask employees, or perspective employees to be clean and sober? That is not a high bar to aspire to.

Employer check list

- read
- write
- do basic math
-legal resident
- clean and sober


That is not a prohibitive list is you are not a worthless dumbass.

Well said

I think Scott is pretty average for his generation. I think I have one friend that smokes but it is like a couple beers over the weekend type and I think he has laid off over the last 10 years. He is otherwise straight arrow guy that works in the tech industry servicing and maintaining things like spectrometers at places like Cal Tech and research hospitals and labs. He is not what you would think of as a "stoner" by any stretch of the imagination.

Simply fuggin amazing.

You're wrong about that.

In this state only the dregs of employers will hire someone who fails a drug test.

And increasingly you won't get hired if you've ever had a DUI. DUIs stay on your record forever now.

And if your arms or neck are covered with visible tattoos you won't get hired in a position where customers can see you.

So, if you drive drunk, smoke pot, or have tattoos, congratulations. Your lifetime income just went down. You've given yourself a negative raise.

Personally I think drug tests should be mandatory before getting food stamps, unemployment compensation, or welfare.

I concur on all points, thanks for saving me the painful typing.


mike r

My experience mentioned above. Next to Australia, Canada was the most difficult country to get a project to move forward. Just one example of many as to why...

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busine...t+ruling+random+drug/11930800/story.html

Totally agree. That's the conditions, and agreement I had with an employer of almost 30 years and we got along just fine.

Fuggin' classic.

I don't give a schidt what you do on your own time, if you show up drunk or high, you better work your azz off.