Your Opinion of Drug Tests

[Malotis]

So I'm just wondering, what does the ever so bright INTJ community think of employers who issue mandatory drug tests for all potential or current employees? Should employers be required by law to drug test employees for matters concerning public safety and/or work productivity? Or should everyone have full rights to their own blood, hair and urine samples regardless of who they work for or what their government says?

I think drug testing is pure shenanigans. My hair is my hair thank you. I’ve read that there’s little difference in terms of the reliability of a worker between employees who test positive versus employees who test negative, not to mention that the accuracy of the test itself is controversial at best.

In fact now that I think about it, I really wouldn't be at all surprised if the "herbal cleansing production industry" was giving good money to major employers who test.

[stasis]

So I'm just wondering, what does the ever so bright INTJ community think of employers who issue mandatory drug tests for all potential or current employees?
I think I probably wouldn't work for one unless they were compensating me heavily. Not because I do drugs, which I don't, but because I find the Drug War to be a reprehensibly abusive and futile thing. The question in my opinion can be expressed by asking how far does corporate responsibility go. Should corporations and private businesses concern themselves with policing people? That is what they are electing to do by requiring drug tests. And in the example of drug tests, given the barbaric climate of Drug War, they're electing to abuse people. So I object.

[Mozzes]

I think companies should have the option where drug abuse in the workplace would carry an increased chance of causing harm. Think police officers dropping acid or demolition crew members doped up on methodone.

That being said, I do think it'd be hilarious if Nascar drivers were fed strong psychotropics before their races.

[stasis]

I think companies should have the option where drug abuse in the workplace would carry an increased chance of causing harm.
They don't test for drug abuse though. They test for drug use.

[Mozzes]

They don't test for drug abuse though. They test for drug use.

True. Do you think there are some jobs which by their nature should require drug testing? There appears to be a tug-of-war between values here. One the one hand banishing the policy of mandatory drug testing opens the door for the possibility of innocent people being injured/killed due to failure to use whatever drug responsibly. On the other hand mandatory drug testing seems to represent an assumption of responsibility on the part of employers beyond any sensible scope and, perhaps, and abridgment of freedom.

I can't think of any compromise at the moment. I do think you've overstated the issue of employers "policing" the conduct of their employees. After all, wouldn't any personal conduct policy be an example of "policing" employees? Telling them how they should dress, how they should use company resources, etc.

Naturally this strikes to the heart of a deeper issue. I think drugs should be legalized. Alcohol is legal to adults in most countries and yet there isn't an epidemic of people showing up to work with their beer goggles on. I'm not in favor of drug testing but, like I said, I am in favor of companies being able to set and execute their own policy on the matter.

[Purple]

While I don't agree with drug testing, I also don't think it would be right to stop a company from requiring them. Freedom of choice works both ways and if you don't want people who have used drugs working for you thats your prerogative. Even if it is stupid in most cases.

[stasis]

Do you think there are some jobs which by their nature should require drug testing?
I don't know. I can't think of any off hand. In a scenario where habitforming drugs are illegal, they can be maliciously applied by a third party to control and manipulate. So maybe some jobs dealing with things like national security. But even that sounds hollywood to me, and it'd be an example of justifying the prohibition with a consequence of the prohibition.


I can't think of any compromise at the moment. I do think you've overstated the issue of employers "policing" the conduct of their employees. After all, wouldn't any personal conduct policy be an example of "policing" employees?
By policing I mean enforcing laws. Most corporations don't ask prospective employees to submit to an alcohol or sex test; not because these things are necessarily more benign than illegal drugs, but because the former isn't illegal and the latter is none of their business. I think employers are justified in requiring that employees act a certain way at work. Drug testing doesn't reveal how employees act at work.

[Mozzes]

By policing I mean enforcing laws. Most corporations don't ask prospective employees to submit to an alcohol or sex test; not because these things are necessarily more benign than illegal drugs, but because the former isn't illegal and the latter is none of their business. I think employers are justified in requiring that employees act a certain way at work. Drug testing doesn't reveal how employees act at work.

But at the same time employees who fail a drug test aren't arrested and aren't reported to law enforcement agencies. I've even known people who weren't terminated for testing positive and for that matter not all business require drug testing. It seems to be primarily a policy of large corporations since I've worked for a lot of small businesses that don't perform any drug testing. I fail to see how voluntary drug testing enforces the law.

[stasis]

I fail to see how voluntary drug testing enforces the law.
Corporations are acting as agencies of the law by attempting to ascertain whether its employees are breaking laws that have nothing to do with the function of the corporation and then responding negatively to that information. You may know someone who tested positive for something illicit and wasn't fired, but usually, the purpose of drug testing is to ascertain whether someone should be disciplined or fired for using illegal drugs. Drug testing policy in general is an attempt to discourage people from breaking that law, evidenced by the fact that it does not extend to legal recreational drugs like alcohol. A deterrent, like any criminal penalty.

[Mozzes]

Corporations are acting as agencies of the law by attempting to ascertain whether its employees are breaking laws that have nothing to do with the function of the corporation and then responding negatively to that information. You may know someone who tested positive for something illicit and wasn't fired, but usually, the purpose of drug testing is to ascertain whether someone should be disciplined or fired for using illegal drugs. Drug testing policy in general is an attempt to discourage people from breaking that law, evidenced by the fact that it does not extend to legal recreational drugs like alcohol. A deterrent, like any criminal penalty.

I guess we disagree on the intent of drug testing. You think they're trying to enforce the law. I think that we've been so inundated with anti-drug propaganda that companies misguidedly believe that recreational drug use has a negative effect on job performance and thus undermines the bottom line. I mean, since when did corporations give a crap about enforcing the law?

Most big corporations don't have to try to hard to find a reason not to hire/fire you anyways. Think of all the places they stick their noses where they don't belong - criminal background checks, drug test, credit scores, past employers, etc.

[ScottH]

Freedom first, but what does that mean?

I say our "right to contract" should mean that an employer can bargain with a prospective employee as to the terms of their engagement.

If an employer wants to drug test, I say it's their right, as it is the employee's to accept or reject the term.

[stasis]

I guess we disagree on the intent of drug testing. You think they're trying to enforce the law. I think that we've been so inundated with anti-drug propaganda that companies misguidedly believe that recreational drug use has a negative effect on job performance and thus undermines the bottom line. I mean, since when did corporations give a crap about enforcing the law?
We may, but I wasn't attempting to speak to the underlying intent. I think you'd be correct in saying that a safe assumption would be that it has something to do with money somewhere. Maybe prompted by some idly moralizing stockholders who think keeping things as static as possible is the way to preserve an investment, or perhaps some of it has to do with political goings-on associated with lobbying and its exchange of concessions. Who knows. Whatever the impetus, though, it looks to me like the course of action they've selected to that end is to police the recreational use of specifically illegal drugs, not the recreational use of drugs, mind you, and to do so outside of the operating of business.

Whether or not they're justified in acting in this way with regard to laws in general isn't actually the gist of my opinion on the issue. It's that in doing so here, they themselves become one of the institutions directly perpetrating the Drug War. The police I can largely excuse because that necessary institution exists only to enforce laws and has no choice in the matter. Since I find the war to be both unethical and morally reprehensible, I incline to thinking poorly of businesses that actively involve themselves in its enforcement.

[Mozzes]

It does seem we've found common ground in that we view drug testing to be an extension of a misguided government policy that in many ways is leading society into an abyss.

I have to admit I'm split in half on the issue though. On the one hand I don't generally think businesses have any good reason to drug test employees. On the other hand I don't do drugs and so I'm somewhat apathetic about it all.

[Monte314]

In order to do business with some customers, companies are required to have in place programs to foster a drug-free workplace. Companies are not doing this just to be oppressive.

When you hire someone to work on your mother's car, or fix your roof, or perform surgery on your child, do you want a service provider from a drug-free workplace, or not? Do you want your attorney, tax accountant, taxi driver, and BOSS to be from a drug-free workplace, or not? Do you want the guy running the crane 30 stories above your head to be from a drug-free workplace? What about the policeman that comes to your house when someone is trying to break in? Do you want our country defended by a drug-free military? Do you want a drug-free congress, white house, judiciary?

What do you really want?

[stasis]

What do you really want?
Policies that make sense.

Drug tests don't indicate whether or not drugs are being or will tend to be used in the workplace. The statement that to use an illegal drug is to abuse a drug, and moreover to abuse it everywhere and at all times - especially at work - is a snippet of hysterical nonsense laid bare by the actuality of the recreational use of drugs like alcohol. In fact, drug testing does not "foster" anything but the campaign for the prohibition of illegal drugs in general. A campaign that by all accounts is not working (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), and seems to be responsible for far more damage than it prevents.

[zibber]

When you hire someone to work on your mother's car, or fix your roof, or perform surgery on your child, do you want a service provider from a drug-free workplace, or not? Do you want your attorney, tax accountant, taxi driver, and BOSS to be from a drug-free workplace, or not? Do you want the guy running the crane 30 stories above your head to be from a drug-free workplace? What about the policeman that comes to your house when someone is trying to break in? Do you want our country defended by a drug-free military? Do you want a drug-free congress, white house, judiciary?

What do you really want?

I'm a relatively heavy weed user, and if I had the know-how and experience I don't know why I couldn't competently do most of those things. Are you saying I disqualified myself from being allowed to do those things? What is your point?

[stasis]

What is your point?
"Drugs are scary! People who use them are insane! Do you really want an insane person performing brain surgery on your ailing mother?! (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)"

His point is that this kind of sensationalist hyperventilating is somehow understandable and therefore acceptable en force. That those corporations having elected the way of testing for illegal drug use are only responding to reasonable concerns (reasonable like the above) in the market, while somehow managing to not actively participate in the "oppression" of the war despite expanding its enforcement and prompting the very shrieks and suspenseful gasps to which they're supposedly obliged to respond.

[AJB]

I worked for a transit company in college driving the campus buses. We were required to take an alcohol and drug test pre-employment, post-accident, and at random (during our work schedules). The point of these tests was to ensure that those of us operating these buses were in a sober and aware state.

Post-accident and random drug and alcohol tests are a good thing for a lot of service sector jobs -- especially those where the safety of others is involved. Pre-employment tests for low risk white-collar and blue collar jobs are usually a one time test. If a potential employee cannot sober up for two weeks (to pass the test) then they probably do not have the discipline I (or most employers) would want in a person working for, above or besides me.

I personally enjoyed a multitude of illicit drugs during my college years. However, I always made sure that it was more than 2 days before I was driving. I believe that these tests are beneficial. I would want to know, as Monte noted, that the people providing me services are in the best state of mind when doing so. If people want to use drugs (illegal or legal) on their own time in their own home, it's fine with me so long as they are not hurting others. However, they should not bring any lingering or residual effects of their personal activities to work -- especially if their performance and/or the safety of others is going to be put at risk.

The effects of most legal and illegal drugs are known and most of the potential side effects are not conducive to perpetuating a safe and civil work environment. I would definitely think twice if a doctor was going to deliver my first-born after clam-baking in a two hour bong session. I wouldn't want a pilot flying my international flight through a tropical storm after snorting an eight-ball of coke and dropping 5 hits of acid. Would anyone?

[mkay]

Mostly, I think companies are trying to protect their legal and financial interests. If they get sued for something you did, for instance, they don't want to be held liable because they missed that you were on drugs. Personally, I find drug testing highly invasive of my privacy. But I've had to drug test in virtually ever professional job I've had.

[Purple]

Post-accident and random drug and alcohol tests are a good thing for a lot of service sector jobs -- especially those where the safety of others is involved. Pre-employment tests for low risk white-collar and blue collar jobs are usually a one time test. If a potential employee cannot sober up for two weeks (to pass the test) then they probably do not have the discipline I (or most employers) would want in a person working for, above or besides me.


I would say that really doesn't necessarily say anything about their discipline or how reliable or how good of an employee they would be. Is the guy who went out and had some drinks the night before better than the guy that got stoned a week ago? One gets fired the other doesn't and that doesn't make much sense.

[AJB]

I would say that really doesn't necessarily say anything about their discipline or how reliable or how good of an employee they would be. Is the guy who went out and had some drinks the night before better than the guy that got stoned a week ago? One gets fired the other doesn't and that doesn't make much sense.

I'm not sure which concept you're responding to here since two were mentioned in the quoted text. However, in both instances (and for most every drug test I've ever submitted for) alcohol was tested for. Someone binging the night before (on alcohol) would fail as readily as someone who had been binging on pot for the past week.

....

Someone failing a post-accident / random test is obviously not ready to work in an environment where his / her actions affect the lives and safety of others.

Someone who fails a pre-emploment test doesn't have enough control to stay sober long enough to let the substance pass through his / her system.

[Monte314]

I'm a relatively heavy weed user, and if I had the know-how and experience I don't know why I couldn't competently do most of those things. Are you saying I disqualified myself from being allowed to do those things? What is your point?

Yes, life includes choices in which the selection of some options foreclose others. This is an instance.

Reality: Those who choose to use illegal drugs (on the job or at home) cannot work in my industry by law. Therefore, however they perceive
their qualifications, they have chosen not to work in my industry.

Reality: Many US companies will not hire those who choose to use illegal drugs (on the job or at home) because their marketplace will not tolerate the perceived cost and quality issues. "Yes, I'd prefer the surgeon who smokes high-quality crack."

Reality: Having a drug-free workplace reduces exposure to liability.
Attorney: "So, Mr. Defendent, is it true that the architect who designed the collapsed building is a dope fiend?"
Witness: "But, that had nothing to do with..."
Jury: "We find for the plaintiff!"

Changing any of these (and there are others) will require changing peoples' perceptions, then their values, then their laws. But it is so easy to argue that the intentionally self-impaired have no entitlement to enjoy *special* protection from the social, legal, and economic consequences of their vices that it is unlikely things will change any time soon.

[zibber]

Changing any of these (and there are others) will require changing peoples' perceptions, then their values, then their laws. But it is so easy to argue that the intentionally self-impaired have no entitlement to enjoy *special* protection from the social, legal, and economic consequences of their vices that it is unlikely things will change any time soon.

I really can't argue your popular stance with popularly feasible arguments, so I won't. All I'll say is that I view American soft drugs laws (ie "soft drugs equal hard drugs") as backwards and fully reject this notion of "intentional self-impairment". It seems nuance is reserved for a select few.

[Purple]

I'm not sure which concept you're responding to here since two were mentioned in the quoted text. However, in both instances (and for most every drug test I've ever submitted for) alcohol was tested for. Someone binging the night before (on alcohol) would fail as readily as someone who had been binging on pot for the past week.

....

Someone failing a post-accident / random test is obviously not ready to work in an environment where his / her actions affect the lives and safety of others.

Someone binging the night before on alcohol would not fail unless they went to work still drunk. Someone using pot the week before wouldn't still be stoned but they would still fail.

Someone who fails a pre-emploment test doesn't have enough control to stay sober long enough to let the substance pass through his / her system.

This is your opinion I guess. This supposed lack of "control" still doesn't mean they would be a bad employee nor unskilled at the work. Plus the double standard for someone who uses alcohol still remains. Do they have anymore control because alcohol leaves the bloodstream in a matter of hours whereas pot takes a couple weeks before you would pass a urine test?

[AJB]

Someone binging the night before on alcohol would not fail unless they went to work still drunk. Someone using pot the week before wouldn't still be stoned but they would still fail.

This could go either way, I've passed a test (with only water) after having smoked three to five grams of pot the night before. Someone drinking the night before could fail a urine (or breathalyzer -- not as likely) test depending on how much they consumed. Moderate use of either of these substances would not always/necessarily result in a failure. Heavy use most likely would.


This is your opinion I guess. This supposed lack of "control" still doesn't mean they would be a bad employee nor unskilled at the work. Plus the double standard for someone who uses alcohol still remains. Do they have anymore control because alcohol leaves the bloodstream in a matter of hours whereas pot takes a couple weeks before you would pass a urine test?

There are many criteria on which one could be judged a good or skilled employee. However, a person who cannot control or moderate their consumption of drugs and/or alcohol before work is going to, in most circumstances, not be helping themselves.

There is a double standard if you overlook the fact that pot is illegal and alcohol is not -- otherwise making such a comparison is not practical. Until pot is legalized it's going to be that way.

[Monte314]

All I'll say is that I view American soft drugs laws (ie "soft drugs equal hard drugs") as backwards and fully reject this notion of "intentional self-impairment". It seems nuance is reserved for a select few.

I agree that our stance is inconsistent and nonsensical.

We tried prohibiting the sale of alcohol, and that failed. The "war on drugs" seems to have gone the same route.

[Karamazov]

I agree that our stance is inconsistent and nonsensical.

We tried prohibiting the sale of alcohol, and that failed. The "war of drugs" seems to have gone the same route.

I agree. Personally, I'm for legislation but I find it amusing that many who justify drug testing and prohibition assert that our current policy is a shining success. The ones that I've talked to at least.

[Purple]

There is a double standard if you overlook the fact that pot is illegal and alcohol is not -- otherwise making such a comparison is not practical. Until pot is legalized it's going to be that way.

Because it is going to be that way doesn't make it right.

[Wufnu]

I don't mind companies requiring drug tests, for any reason. I also don't mind if they refuse to hire smokers. It's their business to run how they like. I'm not particularly for government mandated drug tests but it's not something I really care about. I can see the reasoning behind mandatory (by law) drug tests for certain professions, particularly those whose employees may do considerable work from home that my impact the safety of others.