Passing the Psychemedics hair follicle test (I did!)

[hug46]

I am ok with someone doing drugs if they are sober at work. (Doesn't apply if you're being shot at obviously, Annie!)

I could take that statement 2 ways..... 1, it is ok to do drugs as long as you are not doing them at work, which i agree with in relation to jobs where you are responsible for the safty of others .2 it is ok to do drugs at work as long as you feel that you are sober which i dont agree with in relation to doing a job where responsibility for others is involved.
Particularly when it comes to jobs that involve a firm command of one"s motor functions.

 

[Chan]

Sober is S.O.B.E.R.

Clean, serene, and no longer at risk of manipulation by metabolites.

In the highly unlikely event I'd meant 2. I would have said "if they think they are sober" although who the fuck would ever say that?! :?:

I've always been puzzled that given fatigue causes a great many transport incidents, no tests are ever carried out for that. Did he crash cuz he'd just done a double-shift? NOOOOO! He crashed cuz he smoked a doob 6 weeks ago. :?: :?:

 

[hug46]

In the highly unlikely event I'd meant 2. I would have said "if they think they are sober" although who the fuck would ever say that?! :?:

You"d be surprised. The amount of people that get busted for DUI who are convinced that they fine and dandy and 100 per cent compos mentis.

I've always been puzzled that given fatigue causes a great many transport incidents, no tests are ever carried out for that. Did he crash cuz he'd just done a double-shift? NOOOOO! He crashed cuz he smoked a doob 6 weeks ago. Wut? Wut?

I dont know your country of origin but in the EU they do have rules that govern how many hours heavy goods vehicles can be driven in a day. They use tachographs which measure speeds and distance travelled.

 

[Spaced Out 2]

If I was paying someone the kind of money I am getting paid, then yes I would want someone who wasn't a liability in that manor (stoned out of their minds 24/7), while my job is easy, I could also be killed very easily as its not a cushy desk type job, many have been killed in this line of work while being sober, I could only imagine the numbers if we were allowed to use.

Besides I only had to do this once for the initial hiring, im not subjected to random testing, unless of course I get hurt on the job then I would have to submit a urine test, and so what, if they want to play in my pee so be it.

If you are in a situation where you don't have to do these type of things then good for you and more power to ya, but majority of us have been and will be subjected to this and it's my opinion that in some cases should be mandatory.

These appear to me to be contradictory statements. You are pro testing for dangerous jobs in order to get hired but once you get your foot in the door is it ok because there are no random tests? If this is the case it makes no sense to me.

I would be ok for drug tests for dangerous jobs if they were more accurate ie being able to tell whether someone was actually wasted on the job, rather than testing positive for having smoked a joint the day before.

Yes it sounds contradictory, but I was referring to my case. Others I work around are governed by DOT so they are subject to randoms all the time which should be the case since they work with super heavy equipment that is dangerous which is why I don't take one of these jobs. Most jobs I've come across only require initial drug tests to get hired, but just because of that doesn't mean it's OK for me (while working around same equipment/conditions) to be high on anything while on the job putting myself, my family, or others at risk, I just refuse to do that.
As stated before if I feel I can't quit a substance long enough to get a job or while being on a job then I would have to admit I have a problem and seriously re-evaluate why I am taking them to begin with and why I feel it is so important I can quit for 8 hours. This may not be the case for all peoples.

I have worked around many people under the influence of many things and let me tell you their reactions aren't what it normally would be sober regardless of what they think or feel. Especially watching from "outside"

As for drawing the line, I draw the line at constant random drug tests. That's not for me, but I will do one no problem for the initial hiring. I am all for the freedom to do what you want at home or on your own time.

 

[anne halonium]

in my case, im a door girl for a swingers resort, main clubhouse.
for insurance reasons, girls bounce girls there.
i accepted the fact that i get stoned silly and like to fight other girls.
therefore i applied. ( actually i got requested after the other girl got shot
im rather well known , and my sister has won various " bad girl of the beach" contests here on the island...so when ya need bad girls fast........)

let me be clear,
there is no insurance for me, only liability on the club.
i insure myself.

i can appreciate heavy machinery.
anyone ever had 2 semi naked enraged,
boozed up and on drugs 40 yr old yoga girls try and take you out?

^you can turn off a machine and step away if the buzz gets harsh,
otherwise ,cougs feel the heel or i do.

im not saying we should use deems at work in hazardous places.
but the working buzz threat is over blown.
and not all jobs require saints, some jobs require stoners.

 

[Chan]

As stated before if I feel I can't quit a substance long enough to get a job or while being on a job then I would have to admit I have a problem and seriously re-evaluate why I am taking them to begin with and why I feel it is so important I can quit for 8 hours.

It's not just 8 hours though is it, if you only smoke weed...but crack, meth, heroin and coke are gone in a 'water-cycle' (~48 hrs) but weed, up to 4-6 weeks. These tests cannot deliver fairness or safety.

 

[Spaced Out 2]

Listen, life ain't fair, we can argue all day long on how drug testing isn't fair, we all know this. All this was complied with long ago and there's no sign of it stopping in the future. Boils down to, if you don't like it, or dont like a companies terms then you have a choice, comply or just don't work for them simple as that.

We all understand how most stuff works, it sucks that thc stays in the system for so long, but if one absolutely can't or wont stop for a couple weeks or a month to clean up long enough to pass a test then in my eyes that's a problem or you just don't take it seriously. Most of us I'm sure are not CEOs, self made millionaires, etc etc, so we will find ourselves in this situation more often than not. In some cases should be mandatory, and no it may not make it safer because safety is your responsibility in the end.

Again I don't believe it's fair, but if I am trying for a really good job then I don't have a problem with stopping everything to get in the door and not doing anything while in the door, what I do at home is none of their business but if I smoke and then get hurt at work the next day and have to test, then that's the risk I take and consequences I must face, is it fair absolutely not!

As for OP, good luck on your new job, hopefully you're not subject to randoms, and that it turns out to be everything that you wanted it to be :thumb_up:

 

[Chan]

Listen, life ain't fair, we can argue all day long on how drug testing isn't fair, we all know this. All this was complied with long ago and there's no sign of it stopping in the future. Boils down to, if you don't like it, or dont like a companies terms then you have a choice, comply or just don't work for them simple as that.

Mmmm, COMPLIANCE, the rainbow-bridge to a brighter future for all! Just because your cliché-farting ass is already up in the air doesn't mean everybody else's is too...

Remind me again, how the drug-tests worked out for all the cokeheads who drove the global economy off a cliff...?

That's right, it's only the grunts in Wal-Mart that NEED to be monitored.

 

[hug46]

I get that it is ok to go to work stoned in some cases. I would go as far as saying that it is beneficial in some jobs.

you can turn off a machine and step away if the buzz gets harsh,

In a lot of cases you cant just step away from the machinery. I did a bit of seasonal work as a passenger locomotive driver. You cant just go "i"m too stoned, we"re going to stop for a while". Added to that none of the level crossings or sets of points were automatic. It is down to the driver to close and open them. I am fairly disorganised and head in the clouds at the best of times. For me, even being a bit stoned, could spell disaster, death, chaos and regret. When i was driving i didnt smoke for the whole summer (even though i managed to miss out on the 3 yearly blood and psyche test).

What about other jobs? A mechanic for instance. Maybe you dont tighten up a sump plug properly on a motorcycle because you have a wandering mind. Ten miles down the road the bike drops it"s oil all over the back tyre (this has happened to me after buying a bike off of someone). I have worked as a mechanic on and off for nearly 30 years. Never had a drug test but there is a moral obligation to your customer. Some people reckon they are more focussed when stoned. Not me, my mind wanders all over the place.

Listen, life ain't fair, we can argue all day long on how drug testing isn't fair, we all know this. All this was complied with long ago and there's no sign of it stopping in the future.

Maybe if drugs become legal the testing thereof will become more accurate (and fair). I think that a lot of the justification for the large window in which you may have partaken is that they think "hey, you do illegal drugs it doesnt matter whether it was 6 weeks ago or today."
In France the police can swab you at the roadside if they think that you are stoned. There is a far smaller window for this kind of testing. If you havent smoked for 12 - 24 hours it doesnt show up (although i have been told that it could be up to 4 days). While not perfect, its better.

 

[Chan]

Uber, the poster-boys for the deregulated free-market, do NOT currently test for drugs* and I am not aware of a sudden surge in weed-related fatalities, or people demanding that testing begin.

*Although some municipalities, eg. Chicago, are apparently imposing this as a condition of operation. Chicago obviously has an impeccable reputation to maintain :twisted:

 

[Spaced Out 2]

Listen, life ain't fair, we can argue all day long on how drug testing isn't fair, we all know this. All this was complied with long ago and there's no sign of it stopping in the future. Boils down to, if you don't like it, or dont like a companies terms then you have a choice, comply or just don't work for them simple as that.

Mmmm, COMPLIANCE, the rainbow-bridge to a brighter future for all! Just cuz your ass is already up in the air doesn't mean everybody else's is too...

Remind me again, how the drug-tests worked out for all the cokeheads who drove the global economy off a cliff...?

That's right, it's only the grunts in Wal-Mart that NEED to be monitored.

No one said complying was fun. Do you file taxes? Then you comply. Do you pay for health insurance then you comply, do you pay for car insurance then you comply. That is if you live in the states not sure where your at.

If you live in the states, mainly because I don't know how these things work elsewhere, then chances are if you work for someone else then your going to have to do it or give up the job to someone else because they don't care whether you're up in the air or not.

You just can't get everyone on the same page and that's what it will take, its probably impossible, not everyone can agree on things. But by all means if you have the solution or are doing everything in your power to change this then offer up the answers. I know I'll go in and not submit a test to an employer that I would like to work for and then watch them give my job to someone else, but ewwww that'll show them :?

 

[hug46]

Uber, the poster-boys for the deregulated free-market, do NOT currently test for drugs* and I am not aware of a sudden surge in weed-related fatalities, or people demanding that testing begin.

I do not think that a de-regulated free market and the moral obligation to others are easy bedfellows. If you have a responsibility to other people a certain amount of compliance is necessary. And what do cliche farting asses have to do with the price of fish?????

 

[Chan]

Uber are currently carrying a very large number of people around, without testing, and (largely) without incident. Derive whatever moral & economic conclusions from this you wish.

It is virtually impossible to make a convincing argument using cliches. By definition, they are over-used, stale, sclerotic formations of words – and by implication – ideas. They have no place here, IMO.

http://www.pickthebrain.com/blog/george-orwells-5-rules-for-effective-writing/

And anybody who argues blindly for compliance, has zero grasp on how history operates, and how illiberal regimes arise, and is consequently undeserving of serious attention. The standard killer-cop defence these days is: "Well, they didn't comply with my request to..."

 

[Chan]

No one said complying was fun. Do you file taxes? Then you comply. Do you pay for health insurance then you comply, do you pay for car insurance then you comply. That is if you live in the states not sure where your at.

If you live in the states, mainly because I don't know how these things work elsewhere, then chances are if you work for someone else then your going to have to do it or give up the job to someone else because they don't care whether you're up in the air or not.

You just can't get everyone on the same page and that's what it will take, its probably impossible, not everyone can agree on things. But by all means if you have the solution or are doing everything in your power to change this then offer up the answers. I know I'll go in and not submit a test to an employer that I would like to work for and then watch them give my job to someone else, but ewwww that'll show them Confused

OK, but where do you draw the line? At what point do you personally say, no, I'm not gonna do that. It's (generally) less of an issue for men, but imagine how a lot of women feel, when they get "encouraged to comply" by whatever fucking sleazeball decides to abuse his supervisor's role. Where is his "compliance" to HR etc?

Imagine also, that tomorrow morning, every single Wal-Mart employee said, fuck that. We ain't coming back to work while testing is still mandatory. You think everyone else is suddenly gonna spring to the Waltons' aid?

I may be naive, I may be overly-optimistic, but you have to start someplace, if you want to become the change you want to see in the world. There is no virtue to be had in being naive and passive. Or a frog in a pan.

And the only time I'll unquestioningly comply is when I'm tied up and butt-naked with a stiletto heel in my mouth :twisted:

 

[Spaced Out 2]

Well you didn't offer one solution, apparently you don't have any and would rather whine about how it's not fair, the man's out to get them. Good for you.

I'm not arguing for compliance, but what exactly is someone to do if they want a job at a particular place other than uber. Again I bet you pay taxes, was forced to pay for car/health insurance etc. I bet you comply whether you like it or not. It will take nothing short of a total revolution to change things completely.

What are you doing to change it? Enquiring illuminati Rothschild minds would like to know!

 

[Chan]

What are you doing to change it?

That, is very much a work in progress, thank you for asking. So now the cliches are off-limits, is it time to go ad hom?

Taxes, theoretically at least, are a fair-ish price to pay for living in an allegedly civilised society. I am happy to pay my fair share, but if I wasn't, well I hear there are ways around them...

I'm lucky. I'm quite specialised, cuz I studied hard, and I can and have told employers to stick their piss-jar up their ass, and it has not affected my earning ability one jot. That does not mean, however, that I lack empathy for my fellow humans who are not so lucky. And I hope you can say the same, with a clear conscience.

 

[hug46]

Uber are currently carrying a very large number of people around, without testing, and (largely) without incident. Derive whatever moral & economic conclusions from this you wish.

I would imagine that Uber do not test because it would cut into their profits rather than them feeling that it is ok for people to drive strangers about while stoned out of their gourds.

It is virtually impossible to make a convincing argument using cliches. By definition, they are over-used, stale, sclerotic formations of words – and by implication – ideas. They have no place here, IMO.

Where has anyone in this thread tried to argue their case using cliches? And who made you the arbiter of what is a cliche and what isnt. If cliches dont belong here........

but you have to start someplace, if you want to become the change you want to see in the world.

^^^^^^^^That statement shouldnt be here either. The thing about cliches is that they become cliches because there is a certain amount of truth in them.

And anybody who argues blindly for compliance, has zero grasp on how history operates, and how illiberal regimes arise, and is consequently undeserving of serious attention. The standard killer-cop defence these days is: "Well, they didn't comply with my request to..."

Again, i havent seen anyone here argue blindly for compliance , unless you count wanting to look after your family or not wishing to be responsible for harm coming to others as being blind.

 

[Chan]

I repeat, ad hominem attacks, and unfounded assertions are not a good look. Far from arguing for the right to drive while stoned out of gourds, I stated precisely the opposite about 12 hours ago. A short, unambiguous statement, which you inexplicably found puzzling and ambiguous...:?

Cliches? Compliance?

Listen, life ain't fair, we can argue all day long on how drug testing isn't fair, we all know this. All this was complied with long ago and there's no sign of it stopping in the future. Boils down to, if you don't like it, or dont like a companies terms then you have a choice, comply or just don't work for them simple as that.

And that was just two sentences.

I'm sorry, but I can't find the part in the Attitude section where I'm supposed to just roll over and accept the status quo without question. Perhaps you know where it is? You seem to be sticking to it quite tenaciously.

 

[hug46]

I repeat, ad hominem attacks, and unfounded assertions are not a good look. Far from arguing for the right to drive while stoned out of gourds, I stated precisely the opposite about 12 hours ago. A short, unambiguous statement, which you inexplicably found puzzling and ambiguous...:?

Hey, dont take it personally. I was referring to uber and not you with my stoned gourd statement.
And with all due respect i did explain why i found your statement ambiguous.

Listen, life ain't fair, we can argue all day long on how drug testing isn't fair, we all know this. All this was complied with long ago and there's no sign of it stopping in the future. Boils down to, if you don't like it, or dont like a companies terms then you have a choice, comply or just don't work for them simple as that.

The above quote has nothing to do with blind compliance. It says that you have a choice of not working for a company if you dont want to comply to their rules. It"s just that some people are not in the priveleged position of having these choices. And if you think that my thoughts on responsibility for the safety of others should be included in the attitude page i suggest that you take it up with the admin or a mod.

 

[Chan]

Where have I argued for putting others in danger?

If you use "you" often enough in a post, it rapidly becomes personal.

All I am saying is, if you don't have choices, and want them: grow some cojones, and get them. Better still, organise, and get them for other people too. It's, er, what people used to do!

We are not, the last time I checked, living on a one-way street, although plenty of folks would like us to think that we are...but most of us here, ought to know that we all have a duty to manifest the reality we desire to see around us. And usually, that demands some form of action. So I'm truly puzzled by the repeated demands for inaction*

[*Not to doubt the wisdom of these terms as they are used in the Tao Te Ching, but unjust laws are amply dealt with there, too.]

I'm really sorry, but the latter part of this thread has chilled me far more than any number of malevolent entity reports ever could. :shock: