11/28/2007 11:50:24 AM

Quote :

"nd i haven't done any other stuff since last friday, and its an in and out chemical so i feel ok about it. "

he's practically admitting he did cocaine on friday..... god, i thought you people were sharp, guess not

11/28/2007 11:54:33 AM

Alright then how is this any more reprehensible than someone who eats a few too many cheeseburgers or drinks coffee regularly? I mean I understand your philosophical reasons for why it's not for you, but it doesn't seem like something you can really hold against someone. And if it's not really worse than drinking coffee or smoking cigarettes, then why is it not valid to argue against testing for it? If work performance is not already questioned, why would someone's unhealthy consumption be the business of your employer?

The only issue left is the legality and if that were the primary concern then perhaps employees should present their iPods for inspection too. Afterall, if your employees don't respect the recording artists' intellectual property rights how can you be sure they're respecting yours?

Anyways I agree that it's usually best to seek stimulation through action than through consumption, but it's a silly thing to be potentially fired for. I would complain too if I was worried that my company and government's paternalistic policy with racist origins might get me fired.

[Edited on November 28, 2007 at 11:57 AM. Reason : ]

11/28/2007 11:56:28 AM

^
exactly



unfortunately, some people don't distinguish between personal and public morality

11/28/2007 11:59:08 AM

I don't think he takes issues with the morality. This seems more like a philosophical issue for him.

11/28/2007 12:00:59 PM

peer pressure is a motherfucker

11/28/2007 12:03:51 PM

continue the circle jerk elsewhere.....

11/28/2007 12:05:03 PM

The legality isn't the issue. Look, you KNOW drugs are illegal. If you choose to use them, you choose to deal with the consequences. You can argue for days about why or why not pot will always be illegal, but it doesn't change the facts.

If your company has a drug testing policy and you knowingly use drugs, then you are doing something wrong in the eyes of that company and you can be reprimanded for it. If you don't like that, go work for another company that doesn't have random drug testing or don't use drugs. It's a free country, they can make those decisions just as well as you can.

And no, I don't follow every law. When I got caught for speeding, I took my ticket, paid my fine, and got over it. I didn't act like a little bitch, complain about how unfair speed limits are. If you want to change the system, get involved in politics, not cry about it on tww.

Jeepin, you have a sweet little job it sounds like, I hope you get through this. Also, Zxappeal won this thread long ago.

11/28/2007 12:05:30 PM

Quote :

"Alright then how is this any more reprehensible than someone who eats a few too many cheeseburgers or drinks coffee regularly? "

i think you are making a slippery-slope argument. and yes, it is more of a philosophical issue for me, since i could care less whether a company tests for drugs or not (probably selfish on my part, since i don't use them and thus would never be affected).

11/28/2007 12:08:35 PM

Quote :

"If your company has a drug testing policy and you knowingly use drugs, then you are doing something wrong in the eyes of that company and you can be reprimanded for it............It's a free country, they can make those decisions just as well as you can"

except no, often they can't

as has been pointed out

if the company is of a certain size, the feds bullshit war on drugs policies MANDATE that they test

so, every large company is doing the government's business, not simply their own private business

the companies don't necessarily view drug use as wrong, but rather unjust laws are tying their hands

Quote :

" don't think he takes issues with the morality. This seems more like a philosophical issue for him"

Quote :

"unfortunately, some people don't distinguish between personal and public morality philosophy"

^ya see?

he just admitted that he doesn't care about things that don't affect him

and yet, sadly, he probably votes

11/28/2007 12:12:56 PM

Not that I do any drugs or anything, but I was fairly surprised when I started work here at NASA that I wasn't required to do any type of drug test.

11/28/2007 12:13:07 PM

i'm fucking money in this thread

11/28/2007 12:13:22 PM

11/28/2007 12:14:20 PM

Quote :

"so did you pass or fail the test?"

don't know, took it at 9:30 this morning before this thread reached 5 pages

11/28/2007 12:19:07 PM

Quote :

"Alright then how is this any more reprehensible than someone who eats a few too many cheeseburgers or drinks coffee regularly?"

uhh...as far as i know, cheeseburgers and coffee are legal, and they don't really alter your mind, with the exception of the caffeine.

also note to self: do not hire 392

11/28/2007 12:30:39 PM

Quote :

"and yet, sadly, he probably votes"

no one has time to sit down and decide what their particular stance is on EVERY single issue in this country. that is why we elect politicians to do this for us. you pick a guy/girl based on a few very important issues/moral fiber that resonates with your own, and place TRUST in them to apply that same logic to the thousands of other issues they deal with for a living

11/28/2007 12:33:24 PM

Quote :

"uhh...as far as i know, cheeseburgers and coffee are legal, and they don't really alter your mind, with the exception of the caffeine."

Already addressed legality (several times) and food does have a profound affect on brain chemistry- particularly high fat and high sugar foods. While the affect isn't as immediate as most psychoactive drugs and requires some metabolism first, there are also many drugs that get some or all of their affect from what the body metabolizes them into as opposed to what they are before consumption.

There are reasons for the cliche of a depressed person consuming a bowl full of icecream. Carbohydrates (the simpler the faster this happens) in particular increase serotonin levels in the brain.

[Edited on November 28, 2007 at 12:40 PM. Reason : ]

11/28/2007 12:38:02 PM

HOLY CARP

11/28/2007 12:39:21 PM

Actually, what was pointed out was that if a business contracts with or receives grants from the federal government, drug testing is mandated. Not all large businesses.

11/28/2007 12:39:23 PM

Quote :

"except no, often they can't as has been pointed out if the company is of a certain size, the feds bullshit war on drugs policies MANDATE that they test so, every large company is doing the government's business, not simply their own private business the companies don't necessarily view drug use as wrong, but rather unjust laws are tying their hands"

Oh they can make those decisions perfectly well...it's part of the rules they must play by in order to do what they want to do. Just or unjust is not the question here. There is no right or wrong here. It's a very small, very insignificant privilege or lack thereof, this whole "recreational use and abuse of legal and illegal substances"...and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with what's required for you or the company you work for to succeed and prosper.

What's more, liability is a HUGE issue for businesses of all sizes and types. Work in a manufacturing or fabrication business for long enough, and you'll see some amazingly stupid shit. Physical injury, poor judgment calls, lives in jeopardy. Companies want to cut their liabilities, and it's perfectly understandable, because workmen's comp rates are going through the roof. Where do you draw the line? What is acceptable? It's much easier and cost-effective to prohibit all illicit substance abuse and prohibit intoxication in the workplace than to try to be selective and subjective. It's not really a question of morality...it's a question of economics, performance, and liability.

Would you want probable or potential stoners building containment or fuel-processing systems for nuclear industry? Would you want meth or heroin users handling your blood plasma or antibiotics? Would you want somebody drunk hooking up the airbags in YOUR new car?

If you're an employer, would you want an employee losing a hand in a hydraulic press or getting killed in a chipper or developing cancer from negligent behavior on the job because he or she was potentially intoxicated? Would you want to find out that the legal contract your employee had signed as a representative of your company left you vulnerable to millions in losses, all because that employee might have been under the influence of some substance? It's far from perfect, but it's a step that companies can take to help ensure their safety.

11/28/2007 12:45:38 PM

I think my place of employment should start drug testing.

11/28/2007 12:45:44 PM

If you test positive, I can't let you come fishing with us anymore. Capt. Jeff doesn't allow drug addicts offshore; we can't have you out there craving a blunt when we are getting ready to man the lifeboats.

11/28/2007 12:46:09 PM

^^haha

[Edited on November 28, 2007 at 12:46 PM. Reason : ,]

11/28/2007 12:46:17 PM

^^^^ Good points about liability, and I don't think people would see as much of a contradiction if they actually screened/tested for alcoholl abuse. I know some (like 2) nuclear engineers who are alcoholics and they're pretty good at hiding it most times.

[Edited on November 28, 2007 at 12:50 PM. Reason : ]

11/28/2007 12:50:25 PM

the gov't says certain drugs are illegal so you guys put those in a different category than ones that they say are legal.. it's all a crock of shit really. alcohol worse than marijuana?? haha, hardly. ever seen anybody die from marijuana, or lsd for that matter? doesn't happen. people die from alcohol poisoning all the time though and nobody cares because OH GUESS WHAT, THE GOV'T SAYS IT'S LEGAL!!!1!

11/28/2007 12:51:24 PM

at my company i've met quite a few people who have been very open about what substances they are using and our company has a west coast mentality anyway

so i have lived with no fear

i hope you keep your job

11/28/2007 12:58:40 PM

^^ usa #1

11/28/2007 12:59:37 PM

Quote :

"we can't have you out there craving a blunt when we are getting ready to man the lifeboats."

goddamnit i dont smoke pot!

11/28/2007 1:07:30 PM

Quote :

"you just can't make a blanket statement like "all who have used recreation drugs are weak-minded," fuck. FUCK the following: Jimmy Hendrix The Beatles Led Zeppelin Black Sabbath etc."

you really make yourself out to be a dumbass when you post stuff like this...he CAN make that blanket statement because it's your OPINION that those bands'/groups'/artists' music is even worth listening to...i, personally, don't like hendrix, zeppelin, or sabbath, and only one or two songs of the beatles'...so your "argument" holds no water because it is (once again) assuming that your opinion trumps his in terms of "truth"

that said, i like music that i have no doubt was influenced by drugs...and if the drugs wrote the music and lyrics and made the performance, then i should buy the drugs' CD instead of the artist's, don't you think?

realize that i'm pointing out your silly retorts, not embracing either of you...you act just as high-and-mighty and morally superior as he does, you just happen to have the agreement of more people...doesn't make you any more "right", though

Quote :

"Oh they can make those decisions perfectly well...it's part of the rules they must play by in order to do what they want to do. Just or unjust is not the question here. There is no right or wrong here. It's a very small, very insignificant privilege or lack thereof, this whole "recreational use and abuse of legal and illegal substances"...and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with what's required for you or the company you work for to succeed and prosper. What's more, liability is a HUGE issue for businesses of all sizes and types. Work in a manufacturing or fabrication business for long enough, and you'll see some amazingly stupid shit. Physical injury, poor judgment calls, lives in jeopardy. Companies want to cut their liabilities, and it's perfectly understandable, because workmen's comp rates are going through the roof. Where do you draw the line? What is acceptable? It's much easier and cost-effective to prohibit all illicit substance abuse and prohibit intoxication in the workplace than to try to be selective and subjective. It's not really a question of morality...it's a question of economics, performance, and liability. Would you want probable or potential stoners building containment or fuel-processing systems for nuclear industry? Would you want meth or heroin users handling your blood plasma or antibiotics? Would you want somebody drunk hooking up the airbags in YOUR new car? If you're an employer, would you want an employee losing a hand in a hydraulic press or getting killed in a chipper or developing cancer from negligent behavior on the job because he or she was potentially intoxicated? Would you want to find out that the legal contract your employee had signed as a representative of your company left you vulnerable to millions in losses, all because that employee might have been under the influence of some substance? It's far from perfect, but it's a step that companies can take to help ensure their safety."

i ♥ dan

[Edited on November 28, 2007 at 1:12 PM. Reason : .]

11/28/2007 1:09:24 PM

Quote :

"at my company i've met quite a few people who have been very open about what substances they are using and our company has a west coast mentality anyway"

Really? Huh. I seriously doubt anyone at my workplace uses drugs.

11/28/2007 1:09:25 PM

i hope i can bump this thread in the next day or so with good news

11/28/2007 1:31:36 PM

How often do they do those surprise tests? I have worked at companies that said they could/would, and even made you sign shit stating as such, but none ever did.

11/28/2007 1:43:57 PM

My company started doing random "surprise" drug testing 2 years ago next month...


...and I've never been called. Just watch, the week after New Years it'll be my turn.

11/28/2007 1:47:42 PM

^^this was the first time in almost 2 years they did it.

11/28/2007 1:54:36 PM

I would be pretty pissed if I got passed up for a raise after watching the piss test people be hired to come bi monthly all the time.

11/28/2007 1:56:01 PM

god damnit, doesnt anyone seem to care that this guy admitted doing cocaine on friday.

i mean, if i were someones boss, i wouldnt want someone who does coke working for me.

[Edited on November 28, 2007 at 1:57 PM. Reason : x]

11/28/2007 1:57:18 PM

Cocaine gets out of your system in a matter of hours.

11/28/2007 1:57:58 PM

^^hahahaha why not?

[Edited on November 28, 2007 at 1:58 PM. Reason : and i never "admitted" shit]

11/28/2007 1:58:00 PM

coke is some serious shit....

11/28/2007 1:58:38 PM

Quote :

"god damnit, doesnt anyone seem to care that this guy admitted doing cocaine on friday. i mean, if i were someones boss, i wouldnt want someone who does coke working for me."

hahaha, what a loser

don't worry dude, you'll never be anyone's boss!

11/28/2007 1:59:22 PM

The absolute cleanest my kitchen has EVER been was the night all of my friends were over and got jacked out of their minds during a retarded party and then after the beer ran out and everyone left they cleaned my house top to bottom.

11/28/2007 1:59:25 PM

hahah do blow, stay up all night, not make it to work on time


smoke weed, be stoned away from work, get lazy eat munchies, pass out early and get up


or do both!

11/28/2007 1:59:29 PM

Quote :

"The absolute cleanest my kitchen has EVER been was the night all of my friends were over and got jacked out of their minds during a retarded party and then after the beer ran out and everyone left they cleaned my house top to bottom"

that's what happened to our place in Panama City Beach the last night of spring break

11/28/2007 2:00:34 PM

terp... I met a Nigerian girl today. She was awfully flirtatious with me.


Should I bang it out terp ?


it would be the second black girl. I told myself i would only have sex with one, but god damn man, she's awfully cute in that nigerian kind of way.

11/28/2007 2:01:34 PM

At first I felt guilty that other people were scrubbing down everything in my house, but then I realized they were thoroughly enjoying doing it.

11/28/2007 2:01:38 PM

Quote :

"realize that i'm pointing out your silly retorts, not embracing either of you...you act just as high-and-mighty and morally superior as he does, you just happen to have the agreement of more people...doesn't make you any more "right", though "

are you shitting me, I'm not the one condemning a group of people because of a recreational activity, which is a personal choice. I'm not saying the music is good, but I don't think anyone should call them or anyone else "weak minded" because they "used a drug for a non-medical purpose.

11/28/2007 2:08:31 PM

Quote :

"i mean, if i were someones boss, i wouldnt want someone who does coke working for me"

--confessions of a drug bigot

Quote :

"hahaha, what a loser don't worry dude, you'll never be anyone's boss!"

ahaahaa

11/28/2007 2:09:44 PM

Quote :

"What's more, liability is a HUGE issue for businesses of all sizes and types. Work in a manufacturing or fabrication business for long enough, and you'll see some amazingly stupid shit. Physical injury, poor judgment calls, lives in jeopardy."

Agreed. But if you are injured on the job (where I work, and I believe anywhere) you must have a drug test done. If you fail, you don't get the compensation and may get terminated. So a random test wouldn't be necessary in that situation/job, since it's going to happen if you get injured. Random testing may be done in an effort to prevent even getting to that step and having a recordable incident and it might be prove to be less of an expense in the long term. I don't really know the costs associated.

When I was hired I had to perform a drug test. All I had to do was pee in a cup, peel a label and within a few minutes it said pass or fail based on several substances. I believe these are "easier" to pass (from what I hear) as opposed to sending it to a lab. However if you do fail the cup, a sample goes to the lab to be further processed (to confirm the cup was correct).

If you do have a fast metabolism and you aren't overweight, I'd say you will be ok. THC likes to stay in fat cells and if you used anything else they will probably be in and out so long as you are not a frequent user. If you had the blunt 2 weeks ago, and you indeed have a fast metabolism and are in relatively good shape, you most likely won't test positive for THC.

11/28/2007 2:13:53 PM

Quote :

"there is absolutely nothing that a positive drug test can imply about an employee. nothing. period. that's like trying to infer something based on their gender, age, race, etc (that's right, one's decision to use drugs shouldn't be discriminated against, at all)"

I wasn't aware that the decision to do drugs was the same thing as someone's CHOICE to be a certain gender, age, race, etc.

I think I get what you're trying to say there, but lets stick to comparing apples to apples, not apples to meat products

[Edited on November 28, 2007 at 2:16 PM. Reason : .]

11/28/2007 2:16:22 PM

how hard is it for you fuckers not to do drugs?

11/28/2007 2:17:37 PM