|
Tab8715 posted:Exactly. /anecodote
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
Cephalocidal posted:Anecdote: This has been my experience as well. One job was at a large manufacturing company and everyone except engineering and IT was tested.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 16:20
|
|
|
I've worked at Microsoft since the Golden Years of Microsoft Bob, and drug screening has only been brought up jokingly when reviewing specs and code. I'm 83% sure if they started drug screening, they'd have to fire 90% of their employees, AND THATS A SCIENTIFIC FACT!
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
I agree in a perfect world it shouldn't be tested for anymore than alcohol is, but come on, these things take time. These initiatives passed in large part because they're moderate. Would you rather live under the status quo another 25 years til a super liberal measure is socially acceptable, or start with bills like the ones that passed and make incremental steps forward?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Now, this isn't a an exception but are you guys serious? If I apply at Vmware, Cisco, Intel or whatever big name IT Consulting Company there's no drug testing at all? I worked as a software developer at one of the 3 companies you listed and never heard of anyone being drug tested, even in positions which required federal security clearance. My experience in the Midwest has been the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 17:52
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Exactly. If 3rd party vendors do tests on their contractors, it is their policy and not because of MS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 18:36
|
|
|
Lord Of Texas posted:I worked as a software developer at one of the 3 companies you listed and never heard of anyone being drug tested, even in positions which required federal security clearance. My experience in the Midwest has been the same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2012 20:03
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:I work for a fortune 100 tech company and the right to test us wasn't even mentioned in my contract. If drug usage affects your performance you'll be fired for poor performance, otherwise they don't give a drat. This is how it is at my job. They don't give a poo poo what you do on your own time. If you don't get your job done, eventually they'll get around to firing you. I had to take a piss test when I got in with Robert Half, then got placed at the job I'm at like 2 weeks later without even interviewing. Been here for 6 years now, and people pretty much openly talk about smoking here. I think people are more afraid of getting fired for checking facebook than smoking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 16:02
|
|
|
veedubfreak posted:This is how it is at my job. They don't give a poo poo what you do on your own time. If you don't get your job done, eventually they'll get around to firing you. I had to take a piss test when I got in with Robert Half, then got placed at the job I'm at like 2 weeks later without even interviewing. Been here for 6 years now, and people pretty much openly talk about smoking here. I think people are more afraid of getting fired for checking facebook than smoking. Haha, I had an interview with Robert Half where they were going to place me in an IT job. I was lukewarm on the one they found for me, but it was an upgrade from the one I had so I decided to go for it. They interviewed me and everything seemed good to go - they had me fill out tax forms, set up a meeting with my would-be boss, asked me a bunch of questions...and then didn't tell me there was a drug test until later that night over the phone. When I told them I was refusing the test and thus the job, the recruiter was really pissed off at me for wasting her time (without acknowledging that she had similarly wasted mine). Frankly, it felt good. I wouldn't have enjoyed working at a place that monitors my free time/invades my privacy like that, and ended up getting a way better job two weeks later. Their loss, honestly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 16:40
|
|
|
It's look like I'm wrong about some companies - which is awesome but it doesn't change the fact that A) A lot companies don't test but its spelled out in your contract that marijuana use is a violation and they may test. B) Many employers test I don't see how employers should be allowed to discriminate for a product that is legal, used outside of work and doesn't have an effect on job. I am a little perplexed how nicotine use may result in the non-hiring of an individual. On a second thought, maybe the addition of such a provision would have made it much more difficult to pass this law however I don't understand how'd that be the case. I'll see if I can email both proposition organizers and see what they have to say.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 16:47
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:It's look like I'm wrong about some companies - which is awesome but it doesn't change the fact that
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 16:54
|
|
|
It's been difficult enough to get non-discrimination clauses in medical marijuana laws. Lots of examples of people getting fired when medical marijuana was passed in various states, because what was previously private use became public record when they applied for their cards. It's a hot issue in MM states, and I'm not surprised there's no anti-discrimination clause for legalization. It's not widely accepted that marijuana use has no impact on performance above and beyond intoxication, for one. I don't see this changing anytime soon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:The only excuse is that these laws can be expanded upon so anti-discrimination better be one of the first things done, because I don give a hoot if some test for tobacco(har-har) the fact is most do not test for nicotine they test for cannabis use. End that poo poo now Washington. It's only my experience and I don't speak for anyone else, but I'm transgendered, and an everyday pot smoker/recreational drug user, living in a reasonably liberal part of the country. And when I compare and constrast how I'm treated for these things: Trans: - gender identity is protected against discrimination - when I came out to my company, they went through a lot of effort to educate my co-workers on what to expect - my privacy has been respected - I am comfortable speaking about LGBT issues Smoker/Drug User: - if found with pot/drugs I become a criminal (and lose out on my freedom, right to vote, ability to get jobs, ability to find housing, ability to apply for loans, etc etc) - companies can drug test me and not hire/fire me based on results - cops will try to use suspicion of pot use to search my car/arrest/harass me - I can't even openly discuss my drug use - despite the fact that it's greatly benefitted my life - with people because of the things above I absoltuely feel like I've faced more discrimination for drugs than for gender stuff. The only feasible reason I can come up for this is the idea that my drug use is a choice, and if I don't like it all I have to do is stop. I have trouble with that, because (a) then there's no way to combat the idea that not all drugs - especially not pot - are bad, and (b) it implies that choice is the only reason we shouldn't discriminate (ie, people could choose not to be gay, so it's ok to call people fags). Back when homosexuality was classified as a mental illness, gay psychologists/psychiatrists could be stripped of their license if they were outed, so it was incredibly difficult for the case to be made that nothing was wrong with it. Today I see a very similar parallel - if someone is outed as a drug user they lose a lot of resources that they would need to make a case that they can be productive members of society. In both cases, the only way I've been able to make a difference is to live a really good life and be a good example. I'll engage anyone in conversation about either facet of my life, and all I can do is hope that in 20 years when pot is completely normal, stuff like drug testing will go away and reasonable discussion can be had.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Yeah, I can't imagine the cops will be too happy to lose their favorite magical spell. It only works if you're a cop, but if you say the incantation, "I smelled marijuana", probable cause for a search and/or entry is conjured from the ether! Remarkable!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 18:30
|
|
|
My incredibly lovely local paper posted a surprisingly decent FAQ on Amendment 64 and some of the immediate implications. (Rehosted on Dropbox because their site is an ad-fest and often breaks)
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 19:54
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:It's only my experience and I don't speak for anyone else, but I'm transgendered, and an everyday pot smoker/recreational drug user, living in a reasonably liberal part of the country. And when I compare and constrast how I'm treated for these things: I hope you will only find positive experiences going forward in life with your attitude. I know your experiences are not the same for everybody, but it is interesting to hear your perspective come from that angle. Also I want to apologize if I may have minimized actual racial/sexual discrimination anybody faces. I know this is just weed, and this is a weed thread, but I wanted to clarify, as I wrote that post kind of in a huff. Discrimination is a real factor to take into account, but I'm glad that the state of Washington has actual plans and proposals in place to make the voter's wishes into reality (building the shops, infrastructure to allow its sale & taxation). Some real progress in one arena, and I view this as compounding, "get weed", but then move onto even more ambitious progressive goals.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
Murmur Twin posted:It's only my experience and I don't speak for anyone else, but I'm transgendered...
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 20:33
|
|
|
Edit: ^^^ I have learned something today; thanks. ^^^Murmur Twin posted:It's only my experience and I don't speak for anyone else, but I'm transgendered, and an everyday pot smoker/recreational drug user, living in a reasonably liberal part of the country. And when I compare and constrast how I'm treated for these things: Really great post, and as a straight white male who is also an everyday smoker, I must say that these sort of considerations have occupied some of my mental energy over the past several years. You drilled right down to the core of the issue vis-a-vis choice and discrimination, and it's not surprising to see that the typical bias against drug users rather neatly betrays the hypocrisy latent in that bias. Unfortunately, there isn't much to be done about that in the short term since people aren't rational actors. You're right to take the long view and act accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Edit: ^^^ I have learned something today; thanks. ^^^ I don't think there is much bias against drug users on a personal level though. It's an institutional issue. We need a place to keep our poors and keep the amount of people competeting for jobs down or we'd have huge issues. We also need a way to get rid of people who aren't wanted by the establishment or keep them out of it, the drug war does an extremely good job of it. The drug war is actually amazingly effective for what it really intends to do. Most people personally don't care about pot though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
Honestly I think there are many other problems with at-will employment/discrimination that need tackled than than recreational (legal) drug use. Unemployment discrimination and even credit checks for employment being a couple.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 21:04
|
|
|
I know that you guys seem to be focused on stuff like office jobs, food service, and other min wage stuff, etc but there are lots of industries with the real risk of physical harm built into them (public utilities, construction, law enforcement, fire fighters, warehouse operators, department of transportation, sanitation, etc). These workplaces foster a team environment of "we're all in this together" because quite frequently you're placing your physical well-being in another person's hands. I'm a big dummy I fully admit, but I seriously cannot imagine any sort of non-discrimination law coming into place for judgment-impairing recreational substances. You can and will be fired for being drunk on the job, but of course not for longterm use that doesn't coincide with work, or affect your work peformance, or judgment. Cannabis stumps me, unless I'm just being out of touch. Is there some more sensitive way to determine intoxication vs accumulation? I'm under the impression it's still just the piss test?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
I was under the impression that there have been newer tests developed that don't use pee/hair that are more sensitive, but I think it's still something that could detect use from a day or two ago. Honestly I don't really care too much about the private employer aspect of this at the moment. It's totally bullshit that you have to pass a drug test to get a lot of jobs in the US - unless you're driving a bus or operating machinery or whatever, then it makes sense but people in those professions are often alcoholics anyway so it's still sort of rear end-backwards - but this poo poo doesn't just change over night, and as weed really is not at all addictive it's pretty easy to just stop smoking until you find a job. No, the big issue here is obviously what happens with the feds, and while most of the people that I've talked to seem to be surprisingly upbeat about it, I have to feel that there is a BIG response coming from the DEA. I mean, it would make my day to see the current administration just reschedule thc and stand down but realistically I think they are probably going to go the other direction - more raids, stopping cars coming and going from these states on major traffic routes, DEA and TSA erecting checkpoints in weed-hostile areas and running dogs around every vehicle. This is the precedent they've set for themselves, and honestly they probably see this poo poo as boon for their department - reason to get more guns, hire more agents, etc, etc. I've already had the pleasure of being pulled over in states that neighbor medical states, threatened with being searched and being ordered to "turn over the weed", seen K-9 units just pulling over car after car in Nebraska and South Dakota. They will probably welcome the opportunity to increase these activities in the name of "doing their job" and "getting drugs off the streets." poo poo, I wouldn't be surprised if ICE/Border Patrol gets involved in Washington, too, given the proximity to the Canadian border and the impunity with which they already pull people over in AZ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 22:04
|
|
|
WA has a blood test for 5 ng/mL of active THC (not the metabolite). We covered this in the other thread in some detail.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
frest posted:I know that you guys seem to be focused on stuff like office jobs, food service, and other min wage stuff, etc but there are lots of industries with the real risk of physical harm built into them (public utilities, construction, law enforcement, fire fighters, warehouse operators, department of transportation, sanitation, etc). These workplaces foster a team environment of "we're all in this together" because quite frequently you're placing your physical well-being in another person's hands. There are lots of jobs you can be tipsy on, even dangerous ones. Not all intoxication is equal. You can tell when someone is hosed up. Drug testing actually has nothing to do with you being high at work. Drug testing is entirely to disenfranchise people out of forms of employment. Just because you drop acid on vacation or blow some lines over the weekend doesn't mean you can't direct traffic during the day.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2012 23:57
|
|
|
More like this please, other 48 states in the union. https://twitter.com/FearDept/status/266496147303051264/photo/1
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 00:10
|
|
|
Though you guys might enjoy what the Seattle Police Department blog has to say about this. http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2012/11/09/marijwhatnow-a-guide-to-legal-marijuana-use-in-seattle/ quote:
I think the writer is a goon. I've never seen anyone use TL;DR outside of SA. The youtube video at the end is also pure gold. silicone thrills fucked around with this message at 00:29 on Nov 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 00:16
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:I think the writer is a goon. I've never seen anyone use TL;DR outside of SA. Great article. "TL;DR" is used everywhere on the Internet. I believe it did start on SA, for what it's worth
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 00:22
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:I think the writer is a goon. I've never seen anyone use TL;DR outside of SA. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Like the youtube video at the end of that article. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 00:28
|
|
|
^^ That was a nice touch at the end, never thought I would see that on a .gov site.Tigntink posted:Though you guys might enjoy what the Seattle Police Department blog has to say about this. I got a giggle out of this question. quote:SPD seized a bunch of my marijuana before I-502 passed. Can I have it back?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 00:31
|
|
|
Of the multiple places I've worked, the only one to ever do a drug test was a machine shop. With them I can understand it completely because if you're on something while working a machine and your mind's hazy you can lose body parts or get yourself killed. Everywhere else, including one handling loan and insurance information, didn't require it. Meanwhile, at my current job we keep beer in the fridge.  I am very curious to see what PAX Prime (parties) will be like like
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 00:33
|
|
|
In other WA weed news, the King Country prosecutor dropped all pending misdemeanor possession cases today: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Satterberg-dismisses-all-misdemeanor-marijuana-4024296.php#ixzz2BlZOssQm We're already saving  .
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
Base Emitter posted:In other WA weed news, the King Country prosecutor dropped all pending misdemeanor possession cases today: Look at the end of the URL of this Komo news story: http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Changing-times-Politicians-tears-more-common-now-178188531.html .../news/local/Changing-times-Politicians-tears-more-common-now-178188531.html I'm not really sure what that's supposed to mean but okay. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
#1, it's great to see that WA and CO passed these laws. #2, it's great that the rest of the country doesn't really give a poo poo, or is ready to pass their own legalization laws. There hasn't been an outcry at all, at least not from major sources. In higher-paid and highly competitive jobs, no company is going to require a drug test. It's a disadvantage to getting the best talent. It's in the lower, expendable ranks where it happens, which is a drat shame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
Will these laws effect those currently in prison for possession? I know these states have had low enforcement priority and/or decriminalization for some time but I am guessing there is some people in jail for this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 05:02
|
|
|
ProFootballGuy posted:#1, it's great to see that WA and CO passed these laws. #2, it's great that the rest of the country doesn't really give a poo poo, or is ready to pass their own legalization laws. There hasn't been an outcry at all, at least not from major sources. Yeah, I'm actually shocked by the level of not-giving-shits over this whole thing. I was hired only a few days before the election at a tech support company in WA. First day of training HR told us straight up, "Drug Policy: we don't care what you do on your spare time, just don't bring it to work." I think if they drug tested everybody they'd find they would have to fire like 80% of the work force. There's very few people who work there who are under 35. Hell, I went to smoke with a coworker after the very first day of work. Nobody has said anything about I-502 since it passed, other than hearing about it passingly while in the breakroom. Just sort of re-iterating that having a 'as long as you do your job' drug policy is the best policy. I always hated the thought of having to sacrifice some of my own bodily fluids before someone would give me a job. It's ridiculous. I agree that some jobs that require total sobriety for safety reasons should continue to test, but most of the time it's unnecessary. edit: ^^^ I don't think so, because the laws are not retroactive. But they are dropping active prosecutions since the initiative passing. Lacrosse fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Nov 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
frest posted:I know that you guys seem to be focused on stuff like office jobs, food service, and other min wage stuff, etc but there are lots of industries with the real risk of physical harm built into them (public utilities, construction, law enforcement, fire fighters, warehouse operators, department of transportation, sanitation, etc). These workplaces foster a team environment of "we're all in this together" because quite frequently you're placing your physical well-being in another person's hands. What does drug testing have to do with being intoxicated at work?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 07:11
|
|
|
the black husserl posted:What does drug testing have to do with being intoxicated at work? None of those examples make any sense unless they also ban off-the-job alcohol consumption. To answer the actual question part though, the piss test is crappy. Which is why in the Washington law it mandates a blood test to determine influence levels. The 5ng/ml limit is of active compounds--while you have that amount in your blood, most people are going to be fairly high. The only thing the piss test tells you is if someone has had it recently. Likewise for hair test, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 07:29
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:Though you guys might enjoy what the Seattle Police Department blog has to say about this. I'm very surprised that they're reconsidering police officer hiring requirements. Would be a very positive step, though I'm skeptical.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 07:50
|
|
|
DrPlump posted:Will these laws effect those currently in prison for possession? I know these states have had low enforcement priority and/or decriminalization for some time but I am guessing there is some people in jail for this. In Colorado, no, authorities (and the text of the amendment) have been clear that past convictions stand. There's thousands of people in prison where "smell of pot" was the probable cause that led to their arrest for some other serious crime, no one wants to wade into the shitstorm of vacating all those convictions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 08:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 15:12 |
|
|
Base Emitter posted:In other WA weed news, the King Country prosecutor dropped all pending misdemeanor possession cases today: I just did some fast research on this and it looks like it cost an average of 3000 dollars in court time etc.. to prosecute a case like that so 200 time 3,000 dollars. Their not actually saving "money" though , their saving resources. I mean the budgets not going to come in at a lower cost because of it, everyone still gets salaried, full hours of work in terms of time but time spent is relieved.On the other hand if they jailed those 200 for a year it would just to 3,000 dollars a year for each case. So then the state does save money when it's jail time. I got my numbers from just google and found a PDF on studies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2012 14:20
|
|