I personally think drug testing is bogus.  In my field it is commonplace but that doesn't make it right.  I know a lot of people who do not use drugs and are completely inept in almost everything they do.  I also know a lot of people that use drugs and can hold down a job, a family and going back to school.  I can understand the saliva tests that indicate if the individual has been using drugs that day say if there were an accident or if someone was acting funny.  Pretty soon they will be doing mental health screenings and anyone who is deemed depressed will not be hired based on the productivity or potential lack there of.

I won't piss in a jar.  You peckerheads have gone too far.

-Mojo Nixon.

How is smoking MJ--the one drug they can consistently detect--prevent one from doing routine clerical stuff?

The tests are arbitrary and invasive.

Thanks for stickin' it to the man, Bob.

They didn't test my urine at school when I was earning a 3.92 grade point average and a technical degree.  If I wasn't lazy, stupid, or unreliable then; what the hell makes them think I am any different now?  I have a really good  job and they only test upon suspicion that a person is not sober while at work, but it really is a brainless policy to test upon hiring.

I support you based on principle.  To me, if alcohol is legal, MJ ought to be.

That said, my experience is that most of big corporate America is insisting on this testing these days.  Aside from your individual protest, I'm not sure how to push back on a larger scale.  

Guess I am glad I don't live in the US...hadn't heard of this one before.

Being paranoid, what is to prevent the company from testing the sample once given for all kinds of other "undesirable" stuff - e.g. check if a woman is pregnant, or if the person has some medical conditions?

It seems to me way too easy to test for other stuff sort of BTW.  

yaykes....

drug test proposals at a former company:

"I'll pee in a cup if you'll hold it."

I totally agree with your reasoning, except for when it comes to the military or labor intensive jobs.

While I have issue with invasion of privacy of most workers, if you have responsibility for others lives then you need to be drug tested.  I don't want my children's bus driver high.  I don't want my pilot high, I don't want the guy running a dangerous machine on an assembly line high.  Now random drug testing does not ensure that your pilot won't snort up or drink on your particular flight, but it is a deterrent.  

I also agree with piss testing in the military.  I was in the Marines and got piss tested 5 times one year while I was on active duty.  It kept me clean.  It didn't keep everyone clean, there are ways around it, and ways to find out when a test is imminent if you're a popular guy in headquarters company of a regiment.  But it has improved the military.  Old Sergeants Major and First Sergeants talk about how awful it was in the 80's with the rampant drug problem throughout the military.  With constant fear being pushed about the USSR, our fighting men were not at the ready during that era.

While I am not overly fond of this practice. There maybe a number of reasons they do it that are beyond their control. Insurance reasons. Their health or liability insurance carrier may require it as a condition of underwriting (not unusual). Security, since I don't know, nor do I need to know who your potential employer was, there may be security reasons for random drug tests.

In some cases I am more than happy to know there are random drug tests, Airline pilots, train operators, heavy equipment operators etc etc.

So while it is certainly your choice to say no and good for you. You may have wanted to ask the question as to why?

I'm with you.  I've never had to pee in the cup and I don't think I would have if they had asked me (unless I was desperate for the job).

fed ex saves lives, by requiring random drug testing.  Addicts get sober to work there.   Airline pilots  also get tested, and all truck drivers, which is why there are finally openings in that field.

They test for marijuana too, but the important one is methamphetamine, that's a real killer and it's devastating the working class.  It's also polluting our small town water sources and leading to lots of crime. There is virtually no bank robber who isn't on meth or heroin and it's usually meth.

The big new drug is oxy and it's killing our college students.  All those opiates are tested for at fed ex.

So, no problem, you won't get tested but a lot of prospective employees will and some will be damn glad to work with coworkers who they know aren't loaded.  

What you don't maybe know is that if someone got hired and then tested positive for a substance, they'd be offered treatment,  drug treating is a covered benefit at fed ex.  

Some of the biggest stoners I know are top notch surgeons.

Their is this misconception by people who should know better about those who use drugs.

It's ok to think that people who drink won't do that on the job but recreational drug users are fiends who put peoples lives at risk.

Maybe they should test for beer in your piss.

Why the double standard? It's ridiculous.

I say kudos to you Bob for sticking up to the hypocrisy of the man.

Stop now, before it's too late.  You don't want to end up like THIS POOR SOUL.

Not even pot. I don't pretend for one second to be a saint or a goody-two-shoes...it's just not my thing. To each his own I say.

However, I do take several prescription drugs and a urine test would reveal all of them, telling my employer far more than he needs to know about me.

I have worked steadily in the same job for nearly twenty years without any serious problems, and will continue to do so. My medical condition doesn't concern them nor should it. A urine test would be a gross invasion of medical privacy and, I believe, should constitute a HIPAA violation.

There really be a piss test for stupid instead.

and get the job. There are plenty of qualified applicants for just about every job in economic times like this.

I have managed to go 30 years without wee-weeing for the man. I'm concerned about a lot: medical privacy, false positives, and just the obvious "we got you by the balls" leverage for which such tests can (and routinely are) put to use. I also find the idea stomach-churning disgusting, and unnecessary--even the hair tests.

When it comes to illegal "drugs" I've been no saint, but I've also had YEARS where I was completely "clean" (kinda like now). Doesn't matter a bit. I WON'T FUCKING DO IT! And I've honesty felt like punching those clueless who have dared to suggest it must be due to having drugs in my system. I know that's excessive: they're usually young and don't know any better.

I understand that this type of groupthink is all too common these days. But, even taking into account those who certainly ARE doing drugs, it's a dumb conclusion.

There are numerous ways to "beat" the tests. I've known countless people who have done exactly that. Some of them were great employees. Some of them were, well, there. The point being, in few if any instances did the tests keep the "druggies" out, and in no instance was this failure to catch them any predictor of how chemically enhanced they would show up at work, or how safely, efficiently or accurately they would perform their tasks.

The one group of people such tests are sure to catch are people like Bob and me. People who just say "NO!" Who just won't do it.

Private contracts, the more Libertarian might say? Tell that to the Arizona State Legislature, which has made legally impossible to sue employees anytime refusal to take a test was the cause of not hiring or firing an employee.

In 1972, Dr. George Lundberg, a future editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, presciently labeled the nascent practice "chemical McCarthyism." Fifteen years later, he reaffirmed his view that it was "still chemical McCarthyism."

And he was right.