Fired For Recreational Drug Use

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Calluna said:
Remember guys, we're talking about adult cigarette smoking here not heroin.

Perspective is good lol :yes:

But my position isn't about the substance it's about random testing for any substance overstepping privacy.
 
Therefore, airport screening makes sense in limited cases.

Airport security involves both examination of the person and their property.

Drug screening involves urination into a different container. In a bathroom. With no one else around.
 
AliEnvy said:


Perspective is good lol :yes:

But my position isn't about the substance it's about random testing for any substance overstepping privacy.
I understand and I support your position.
 
nbcrusader said:
Drug use does not remain a completely off-duty activity. Affects of drug use are brought into the workplace.



very interesting thread, sorry i've been away.

NBC: the above statement doesn't seem to be to be factual -- it strikes me that one has to first prove that an employee isn't performing to expectations, and then find a correlation to drug use. i think we all know that there are many people who's drug use is entirely off-duty and it never encroaches on their workplace performance.

it seems false to assume that drug use = poor performance, and it also seems false to assume that "lingering affects" which is probably little more than trace remnants of whatever drug is in the system, and which has no potential to affect performance, is tatamount to bringing drugs into the workplace.

while this is more theoretical, since we have fairly arbitrary distinctions between what is legal and what is illegal (i.e., alcohol vs. pot, oxycontin vs. pot, adderall vs. cocaine), but i think we can argue that many employees are on drugs that negatively affect their workplace performance yet they would not be fired due to their being perscribed by a doctor.

another question: what if someone were to have traces of ritalin or adderall in their system, yet could not produce a doctor's perscription for either drug. is this grounds for being fired?

i suppose what we're getting at here is that it seems awfully creepy -- as my earlier posts alluded to -- for corporations to sneak into people's back pockets, medicine cabinets, and refrigerators without any sort of probable cause, it creates a fascist state ethos of "well, if you have nothing to hide then why would you object to a drug test" -- essentially a presumption of guilt.
 
nbcrusader said:
Therefore, airport screening makes sense in limited cases.

Why are you still comparing the two?

A no-exceptions security policy in an airport exists because anyone can be a severe security risk.

How can it be established that any employee in any job can pose a severe workplace risk?

nbcrusader said:

Airport security involves both examination of the person and their property.

Drug screening involves urination into a different container. In a bathroom. With no one else around.

I guess you missed a few posts earlier about the little cups and the nurse lol.
 
It's BULLSHIT plain and simple...
A little known fact...
One of THE first things the Third Reich did when it came to power in Germany in 1933 was...guess what...unleashed one of the strictest anti-smoking laws the world had ever seen.
And no I'm not saying smoking is good for you. It's just that this is the roots of the anti-smoking forces so just be aware.
 
Canada tried a Hitler move in the early 90s by raising federal taxes on cigarettes to prohibitive price levels to get people to quit. It might as well have been prohibition. The black market became so strong, organized and efficient it created a whole marketplace in an underground economy. So the feds backed off and prices came down below pre-black market levels.
 
Last edited:
AliEnvy said:
Canada tried a Hitler move in the early 90s by raising federal taxes on cigarettes to prohibitive price levels to get people to quit. It might as well have been prohibition. The black market became so strong, organized and efficient it created a whole marketplace in an underground economy. So the feds backed off and prices came down below pre-black market levels.

Funny that you mention that since my mom's newest tactic for getting my dad to finally quit is that she's praying taxes will go up again because he can barely afford the habit as it is.
 
AliEnvy said:


Why are you still comparing the two?

A no-exceptions security policy in an airport exists because anyone can be a severe security risk.

How can it be established that any employee in any job can pose a severe workplace risk?

Because anyone pose a severe workplace risk due to drug use.

Both require an invasive investigation.

You could carry a gun on an airplane, but not be a terrorist.
 
nbcrusader said:


Because anyone pose a severe workplace risk due to drug use.



you still haven't stated how drug use, if there are no discernable effects (i.e., chronic tardiness, falling asleep, lack of concentration), is a danger to the workplace.

it seems as if someone has probable cause, then a drug test might be in order.

but a standardized drug test seems like an invasion of privacy -- there is no cause for an invasive investigation because the drug use does not necessarily pose itself as a threat to the workplace.

i'm willing to bet that there are many people who use recreational drugs where you work, and you have no idea. (or maybe you do)
 
Back
Top Bottom