drug testing

[Thanatoast]

The tentacles of the growing urine testing industry reached teenagers when the testing of athletes became de rigeur in the mid-1990s. Recently the Supreme Court ruled that student drug testing is legal for all extracurricular activities, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy is pushing the testing of all secondary school students (to the delight of the drug testing industry, and with no evidence that it actually works to deter drug use). For many American teenagers, the Fourth Amendment of our Bill of Rights has become an historical artifact. Not to mention that in America we are all supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

full article here (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17334)

So what exactly is it going to do to our country to grow up in a society where you expect to have your rights violated? Some schools already have metal detectors and random locker searches. Will students now be forced to pee in a cup before we allow them to learn? How are these students going to know the difference between freedom and abuse of authority?

The rest of the article speaks to the failed drug war. Is there anyone who can defend the tactics and abuses used by our government officials to prosecute this war? The criminalization of the population is a poor way to promote a law-abiding society.

To quote a movie, "Why not just lock everybody up, then there'd be no crime at all?"

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
full article here (http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17334)

So what exactly is it going to do to our country to grow up in a society where you expect to have your rights violated? Some schools already have metal detectors and random locker searches. Will students now be forced to pee in a cup before we allow them to learn? How are these students going to know the difference between freedom and abuse of authority?

The rest of the article speaks to the failed drug war. Is there anyone who can defend the tactics and abuses used by our government officials to prosecute this war? The criminalization of the population is a poor way to promote a law-abiding society.

To quote a movie, "Why not just lock everybody up, then there'd be no crime at all?"

Just for the sake of argruement... Metal detectors and urine tests are common place outside of schools as well. Do you object to all metal detectors and piss tests, or just those that deal w/schools? If it's just schools why? What makes a piss test for a HS athlete any different than a piss test for a college, pro, or Olympic athlete? Heck, almost any job you apply for now makes you sign waiver saying you are willing to submit to a drug test if asked. Same goes for metal dectors. Millions of people probably walk thru a metal detector every day when they go to work. Why is a trampling of rights in a school, but perfectly acceptable outside of one?

As for the locker searches, well, the lockers are school property. The school can search them if they want. Students shouldn't expect privacy in their lockers anymore than I should expect privacy on my company computer I use at work.


Lethal

EDIT: Just as a note, I'm responding to only what was in your post, I didn't read the full article you linked to.

[Thanatoast]

Well, in the case of drug testing in HS, I object because they are testing not for performance enhancing drugs, like they do with professionals or the Olympics, but for illegal drugs, which is what business of theirs? My views towards drug use are somewhere around my views for alcohol. Responsible use isn't a problem, irresponsible use is, with any mind-altering substance. And no, some drugs cannot be responsibly used. (PCP comes to mind)

And this proposal is to test all students, not just atheletes. I can't believe that being asked (demanded) to pee in a cup to earn the right to learn is good for students or society. If anything, we should be focusing on these students who (allegedly) have a problem and bring them more into the fold, rather than suspending or isolating them as troublemakers.

I don't think drug testing is appropriate for the workplace either. If I'm doing my job, what does it matter how I spend my weekends? (You may or may not believe me, but I don't do drugs)

As for metal detectors, they really speak more to the symptoms of an ill society than solve any real problems. People simply fool themselves into thinking they're safer on the other side. Another plane will go down one day, and all the metal detectors and x-ray machines won't have made a difference. There will still be a bunch of dead people.

In fact, last time I was at the airport, I refused to take off my shoes. (Why should I take them off? I'm not a criminal.) I was immediately shunted into the "I am a terrorist line" where I was wanded and swabbed. What a joke. Since when did we get rid of the principle of "innocent until proven guilty"? "I'm sorry sir, your refusal to disrobe indicates you are hiding something. Please come with me." It's this mentality that has driven me away from flying for the past two years, not the fear that I might die on a plane, which is about the same, if not worse, odds as winning the lottery.

You may have an argument there, with lockers being school property. But I still object to being treated like a criminal before I've done anything wrong.

[Sayhey]

Drug testing for employment purposes is becoming more and more common as well. Do you want a new job? Better not smoke that joint up to six months before you apply. As if what you did six months before means you are incompetent to do a job today!

It is an amazing intrusion into the private lives of Americans that has gone under the radar of public consciousness. The testing for drugs should be limited to individuals who legal authorities have probable cause to test. Otherwise it is no one else's business.

[zimv20]

i landed a job a few years ago. when i showed up to orientation, they handed me a copy of their drug policy w/ a sheet to sign.

i read it. i was to promise to not take any illegal substances, at any time, during my "employ" (i was actually employed by a subcontractor). further, i was to agree to surrender hair, nail and urine samples upon request.

i told them i was not going to sign it. they said, "then you won't work here." i said, "fine" and left.

as i walked out, i noticed everyone in the room looking at me like i was a drug-dealing scumbag (for the record, i would have passed any test).

fwiw, the job did not involve public safety.

[zimv20]

i was HR manager of a consulting company i co-founded. about twice a year, i had the same discussion w/ one of the co-owners.

him: we should implement a drug-testing policy.
me: why?
him: because people shouldn't do drugs.
me: have you noticed a problem w/ someone?
him: no.
me: what people do in their spare time is none of our business.
him: but -- they might be doing drugs.
me: is it affecting anyone's job?
him: not that i've noticed.
me: if someone develops a problem, we'll deal with it then.
him: what if we just drug-tested new hires?
me: what are you worried about?
him: about employees doing drugs.
me: it's none of our business.
him: but what if it affects them at work?
me: we'll deal with it then.

and on and on and on....

fwiw, we never had a problem w/ anyone.

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by zimv20
i landed a job a few years ago. when i showed up to orientation, they handed me a copy of their drug policy w/ a sheet to sign.

i read it. i was to promise to not take any illegal substances, at any time, during my "employ" (i was actually employed by a subcontractor). further, i was to agree to surrender hair, nail and urine samples upon request.

i told them i was not going to sign it. they said, "then you won't work here." i said, "fine" and left.

as i walked out, i noticed everyone in the room looking at me like i was a drug-dealing scumbag (for the record, i would have passed any test).

fwiw, the job did not involve public safety.

zim, I used to be a union rep for a job that did involve public safety. We fought tooth and nail to stop the testing without cause, but finally had to negotiate a policy because the government mandated random testing. I know a lot of folks want anyone involved in the safety of the public to take these test, but it brings about huge problems. First, these tests don't test for abuse of drugs on the job. If you are a social smoker of marijuana - just forget holding certain jobs. Doesn't matter if you are the greatest at what you do, if the job is under these laws, you are going to lose your right to ever hold such a job ever again if you test positive.

As to pre employment testing, we had no right to even negotiate these tests because the people in question didn't already hold a union card.

Believe me, I have little or no sympathy for folks who go to work stoned or drunk. They need to be in a program and not at work if they can't control such substances to that degree. However, the invasion of people's lives through the passage of drug testing laws and pre employment screening is gotten far out of hand.

[LethalWolfe]

Test all students and testing athletes for rec drugs only, not performance drugs, I disagree with.

Drug testing for employment: At least in my expereince I never have, and I don't personally know anyone, who had to take a piss test to get a job. We've all had to sign the consent form though. I think giving consent is more to cover their @ss than to actually screen everyone who is serious considered for the job (piss tests cost money ya know). This also helps avoids problems down the road if someone comes in repeatedly backed out of their mind. If the stoner is like "f' you I ain't takin' a piss test" HR just holds up the form stoner signed. For desk jockies I think the drug test consent is more of an legal @ss covering (kinda like in the employee handbook it says you are only allowed to access the net for company business, hehe). Now, for people who are drivers, work in construction, man heavy equipment, or do anything else that could get people killed or seriously injuried I think they need to be randomly tested on a regular basis. I don't care what you do after hours, but I don't want stoned dudes behind the wheel of the dumptrucks at the gravel pit I drive past everyday. Know what I mean?

Metal detectors: I was more refering to those in the work place not neccesarily<sp?> the ones at the airport to screen passengers. Not to hijack the thread, but any form of security is just a deterrent. Nothing is 100%. But just because it isn't 100% doesn't mean it's useless. I mean, if someone really wanted to they could break into your house. But, weathering permiting, I bet you don't leave all your doors and windows open 24/7. Security isn't about 100% it's about detering people. The more deterents you have in place the less likely it is that someone will by-pass all of them and the more likely it is that the criminal will say "f' it" find a less challenging looking target. If you were going to steal a car would you choose the locked car w/the club or the car w/the windows down? I'd rather make it hard for 10 guys out of 100 to break into my house than make it easy for 100 guys out of 100 to break into my house.

Hmmm... /rant. ;)


Lethal

[leet1]

Originally posted by Sayhey
As if what you did six months before means you are incompetent to do a job today!


Put yourself in the employers shoes.

Employer:

"Hmmm, this guy did drugs in the past 6 months, he might do it again while working at this job if hired. What are the chances this guy will start using drugs again or still uses them? I dont need to take that chance."

I've taken 3 drug tests. I don't dissagree on the use of them.

Some schools already have metal detectors and random locker searches. Will students now be forced to pee in a cup before we allow them to learn?

Don't think they are needed in schools though. Metal detectors and random locker searches, yes, drug test, no.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by leet1
Put yourself in the employers shoes.


i don't have to imagine it -- i *was* the employer! my belief was that i had no right to dictate what an employee could/couldn't do when they weren't at work.

as long as they showed up sober and did their job, i was happy.

and i know for a fact that some people used drugs recreationally (i.e. they told me), but they were great employees.

then there was this other guy who would come back from lunch tipsy sometimes. we had a talk w/ him, and it stopped.

so had we done drug-testing at hire, we would have not hired some productive employees, but hired the drunk. not how i wanted to, not how i ran my business.

here's a quote after a study showing that random drug testing costs companies more in the long run than dealing w/ drug-related issues as they occur:

"We have always believed drug testing unimpaired workers stands the presumption of innocence on its head and violates the most fundamental privacy rights," ACLU Executive Director Ira Glasser says in the report. "Now we know that sacrificing these rights serves no legitimate business purpose either."

[Stelliform]

....

[Dont Hurt Me]

Freedom is being taken away from all little by little, wether patriot act, drug testing ,camera's everywhere you go soon you wont be able to pick your nose unless you get the Ok from Big Brother( Govt/Business). the problem is that when these people do something stupid instead of going after them they go after everything except the person screwing up. Big Brother wants to get more and more into our lives. Freedoms and Liberties are going to be a thing of the past. when im off the clock i still have to answer to my employer?what the heck?

[Taft]

Originally posted by Stelliform
Here is an example so you can see this from the employer's side. Worker's comp insurance is required by law here. Every time there is an accident on the job, worker's comp has to pay out to the injured person.

A local company here implemented a drug an alcohol policy just recently. They don't do inherently dangerous work. (They do survey work.) The policy is pre-employment drug testing, random drug testing throughout the year, and a full drug and alcohol screening after any accident.

In the first year of the new drug policy they went from dozens of accidents to 1. Their worker's comp insurance price for the next year fell over $100 thousand. With the savings they were able to keep the health insurance plan for the employees.

Also take another case, I was at an attorney's office when a call came in that a truck driver for a company was high and he killed someone while on the clock. (I was at the defending attorney;s office) The accident might have happened anyway because of the conditions on the road, but the company was sued for millions for allowing one of its employees to take drugs.

So if you don't like the fact of employer drug testing, then work for a company that doesn't give benefits. From where I am sitting, allowing employees to take drugs is pretty much a benefit since it costs the company so much.

(And I am taking the ACLU study with a grain of salt. ;) Well lets say I am using the whole salt shaker. :D)

But this is much different than an office job. No one in my industry has a job in which their performance effects the safety of themselves and those around them. Drug testing doesn't make sense in that context. What is the purpose? The only thing they could determine, for certain, is that the employee had taken drugs in the past X months. The employer has no idea if that single data point means that the employee would come to work high.

In a scenario where workers have a responsibility for other people's safety, having an enforcable drug policy makes more sense. However, my problem with current methods is they don't give you very much information. Ideally, just before starting work, these workers would get a quick sobriety test. Instead, they have to submit themselves to random testing which doesn't tell their employers anything more specific than "this employee used drugs within the last X months."

I would never work for a company which required random drug testing. I'm good at my job, I don't go to work drunk or high, and I consistently perform. As far as I'm concerned, that's all an employer needs to know. If a company is so disconnected from their employees that they must use drug testing to monitor "probable performance," that company has problems.

Taft

[G5ROCKS]

I do think employers have a right to have contractually agreed to drug testing. You don't like it, you don't work there. Stelliform's example shows there may be a benefit to the company and the employees by cutting down on drug using employees. If I'm in a situation where I pay group insurance rates, I'm going to implenent that kind of testing just to knock down the rates. I may even provide incentive for my employees to quit use of tobacco, even away from work.

A friend of mine had the occasion to fire a guy in the ER when a drug test came back positive. He had been involved in an accident on the job. Construction work. He was operating a backhoe. He could have killed someone, leaving a very bad lawsuit for my friend's company, and the tragedy of a dead worker or two to boot.

Such randmon test results must never, IMO, be used in a criminal legal proceeding because there isn't probable cause.

So far as schools go, if I ran a private school and the kids were buying, selling, and using illegal drugs, I would take action to put an end to it, including locker searchers, drug sniffing dogs, counseling programs, testing programs, expulsion of "problem" students, etc. I would feel an obligation to protect the minors who were basically entrusted to me by their parents while they were under my care, and I would do it. When you get into the area of public school testing, however, you run into those various constitutional issues that make random or blanket drug testing very problematic, particularly in an environment where kids are compelled to attend school by law.

[Taft]

Originally posted by leet1
Put yourself in the employers shoes.

Employer:

"Hmmm, this guy did drugs in the past 6 months, he might do it again while working at this job if hired. What are the chances this guy will start using drugs again or still uses them? I dont need to take that chance."


"he might"--yeah, but he might not.

"what are the chances"--statistically, no higher than the chances of a non-drug user.

Sure, if an emplyee comes to work trashed on alcohol or some drug, that would be a bad thing. But potential employees have these things called references. These references can be contacted to determine if the employee was effective at his job or had past drug/behavioral problems. If the employee didn't have any problems at previous jobs and was a successful employee, does it matter that he used drugs recently?

Show me some statistics or research which shows that employees who test positive on drug tests have a higher rate of "problems" than employess who test negative. Bet you can't. There is absolutely no such trend.

Some good peices of info for y'all...

A positive drug test does not indicate whether an employee was impaired or intoxicated on the job, nor does it indicate whether an employee has a drug problem or how often the employee uses the drug. Thus most tests do not provide information relevant to job performance.
Source: Lewis Maltby, Vice President, Drexelbrook Controls, Horsham, PA, as cited in Report of the Maine Commission to Examine Chemical Testing of Employees, (December 31, 1986).In a recent study of high tech industries, researchers found that "drug testing programs do not succeed in improving productivity. Surprisingly, companies adopting drug testing programs are found to exhibit lower levels of productivity than their counterparts that do not... Both pre-employment and random testing of workers are found to be associated with lower levels of productivity."
Source: Shepard, Edward M., and Thomas J. Clifton, Drug Testing and Labor Productivity: Estimates Applying a Production Function Model, Institute of Industrial Relations, Research Paper No. 18, Le Moyne University, Syracuse, NY (1998), p. 1.According to a study funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and published by the Southern Economic Journal in 2001, "Nonchronic drug use was not statistically related to either of the labor supply measures, indicating that light or casual drug use did not lead to negative effects on the labor supply."
Source: French, Michael T., M. Christopher Roebuck, and Pierre Kebreau Alexandre, "Illicit Drug Use, Employment, and Labor Force Participation," Southern Economic Journal (Southern Economic Association: Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, 2001), 68(2), p. 366.According to a study funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and published by the Southern Economic Journal in 2001, "In conclusion, this study found that chronic drug use was significantly related to employment status for men and women. On the other hand, male chronic drug users were less likely to participate in the labor force, but no significant relationship existed between chronic drug use and labor force participation for females. Perhaps the most important finding of this study, however, was the lack of any significant relationships between nonchronic drug use, employment, and labor force participation. An implication of this finding is that employers and policy makers should focus on problematic drug users in the same way that they focus on problematic alcohol users."
Source: French, Michael T., M. Christopher Roebuck, and Pierre Kebreau Alexandre, "Illicit Drug Use, Employment, and Labor Force Participation," Southern Economic Journal (Southern Economic Association: Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, 2001), 68(2), p. 366.

Taft

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Stelliform
Here is an example so you can see this from the employer's side. Worker's comp insurance is required by law here. Every time there is an accident on the job, worker's comp has to pay out to the injured person.

A local company here implemented a drug an alcohol policy just recently. They don't do inherently dangerous work. (They do survey work.) The policy is pre-employment drug testing, random drug testing throughout the year, and a full drug and alcohol screening after any accident.

In the first year of the new drug policy they went from dozens of accidents to 1. Their worker's comp insurance price for the next year fell over $100 thousand. With the savings they were able to keep the health insurance plan for the employees.

Also take another case, I was at an attorney's office when a call came in that a truck driver for a company was high and he killed someone while on the clock. (I was at the defending attorney;s office) The accident might have happened anyway because of the conditions on the road, but the company was sued for millions for allowing one of its employees to take drugs.

So if you don't like the fact of employer drug testing, then work for a company that doesn't give benefits. From where I am sitting, allowing employees to take drugs is pretty much a benefit since it costs the company so much.

(And I am taking the ACLU study with a grain of salt. ;) Well lets say I am using the whole salt shaker. :D)

There are many things that an employer could monitor its employees for that make sense from a business prospective. If I'm an employer and my employees are out on weekends doing dangerous sports that might put them at risk for injuries should I be able to spy on them and prohibit them from doing so? If my employees like to engage in unsafe sexual practices should I be able to monitor their activities and have them take mandatory blood tests? How about pre employment AIDS tests? Pregnancy puts millions of women off the job for weeks and drains money from the job, can I tell my employees that they have to stop having babies?

I admit the some of the above is a reach, but the point is that employers, in most cases, should have no right to try and dictate off the job activities. To say, "just work someplace else" does not deal with the fact we are letting others take control over areas of life that should be left to each individual.

Lastly, let me say I recognize that this is the classic "slippery slope" argument, but in this case it is justified. There is a steady erosion of our private lives in the name of what is good for business and some hard lines must be drawn by law or businesses will draw them for you.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Sayhey
There are many things that an employer could monitor its employees for that make sense from a business prospective.

here are some real life examples of things my co-owners wanted me to screen when i was hiring people (note that i put my foot down):

- "we should only hire married people because they're more stable"

- "we shouldn't hire a woman who we think might want to have a baby"

had i not been there, this would have become policy. never mind that such discrimination is illegal.

[LethalWolfe]

Taft, about references. Business references, from what I've seen, are quickly becoming useless because companies are afriad of getting sued if they give negative feedback on a reference check. Companies will confirm employment, but thats about it. Nothing is said regarding performance and nothing is said regarding why the employee no longer works there.


Lethal

[zimv20]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Taft, about references. Business references, from what I've seen, are quickly becoming useless because companies are afriad of getting sued if they give negative feedback on a reference check. Companies will confirm employment, but thats about it. Nothing is said regarding performance and nothing is said regarding why the employee no longer works there.


really? that's not been my experience at all.

HR people talk in code to each other. and i'd hired some people that i was basically warned against. you know what? people are creatures of habit and i'd see the same behavior.

i'd also never share w/ an employee what a former employer told me. have you actually heard of such a lawsuit?

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by zimv20
really? that's not been my experience at all.

HR people talk in code to each other. and i'd hired some people that i was basically warned against. you know what? people are creatures of habit and i'd see the same behavior.

i'd also never share w/ an employee what a former employer told me. have you actually heard of such a lawsuit?


I have not heard of such a lawsuit, but this has been my experience with w/2 major corporations I've worked for and my friend had a similair experience talking w/the HR of a big hospital he recently got a job with. IIRC one of the local TV stations also had a similar<sp?> policy. Now, maybe I'm wrong and this is just an HR smoke screen to try and cover their butts? I dunno, I guess Just because it is "offical policy" doesn't mean it's actually followed.


Lethal

[pseudobrit]

Good info, Taft.

It's not hard to make the connection between random drug testing and decreased productivity.

If you treat your employees like criminals and humiliate them like prisoners, they may just resent working for you. And in my experience, resentful workers tend not to care about the company.

[pdham]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
Well, in the case of drug testing in HS, I object because they are testing not for performance enhancing drugs, like they do with professionals or the Olympics, but for illegal drugs, which is what business of theirs?

Just for the record, proffessional sports do test for and have policy against illegal drug use. (how well it is enforced is a different matter). So, that being the case why is it that you object to it in schools and not in the professional level?

Paul

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by pdham
Just for the record, proffessional sports do test for and have policy against illegal drug use. (how well it is enforced is a different matter). So, that being the case why is it that you object to it in schools and not in the professional level?

Paul

Well, THC, coke, etc. can be performance enhancing drugs. It depends on what your definition of performance is and how it needs enhanced.

With professional or Olympic athletes, where so much is at stake, it's best to make sure everyone is playing on the exact same level. Even many prescription drugs that provide little or no performance boost (I've been on some for asthma) are on the USADA's list.

With younger players, not as much is at stake and the list of tested substances should be limited to the more obvious performace-cheats (anabolics, speed, etc.) while leaving the ones that have very little potential for enhancement (alcohol, marijuana, prescription inhalers) off the tests.

[pdham]

Originally posted by pseudobrit


With younger players, not as much is at stake

Not as much is at stake? You clearly havent been involved in High School sports recently. I went to and played for a High School that was a powerhouse in soccer and Football. I know what has to be done these days to secure div. 1 scholorships. The most fanatical athletes are often at the High School level now. We even have caoches that encourage the use of Crieatine, not illegal of course, but what if an athlete needs to play for a big game because the scout is there. He or She thinks to themslef. "you know coach tells us to take crieatine to get stronger, he wouldnt mind if I did this drug just this once (any drug performance enhancing or otherwise).

This behavior can be determental to an athletes health, especially one that isnt fully developed yet. Why not stop it where it starts.... which is more and more frequently at the High School level.

Note: I dont agree with testing for everyone, but for athletes it may be worth considering because of the pressure to succeed that is put on adolescent boys and girls.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Well, THC, coke, etc. can be performance enhancing drugs. It depends on what your definition of performance is and how it needs enhanced.

With professional or Olympic athletes, where so much is at stake, it's best to make sure everyone is playing on the exact same level. Even many prescription drugs that provide little or no performance boost (I've been on some for asthma) are on the USADA's list.

With younger players, not as much is at stake and the list of tested substances should be limited to the more obvious performace-cheats (anabolics, speed, etc.) while leaving the ones that have very little potential for enhancement (alcohol, marijuana, prescription inhalers) off the tests.

IIRC, Clevelands starting running back got suspended for 4 games for testing positive for Pot. And I wouldn't call Pot a peformance enhancing drug. ;)


Lethal

[Thanatoast]

Originally posted by pdham
{B]Just for the record, proffessional sports do test for and have policy against illegal drug use. (how well it is enforced is a different matter). So, that being the case why is it that you object to it in schools and not in the professional level?[/B]
Well in that case I oject to it at the professional level as well. Why should anyone be interested in how I spend my weekends? It seems to me, since professional players have an influence upon culture (which is a thread in and of itself) that the agencies testing for recreational drugs are doing so just to satisfy the moral majority. ie) to make sure these atheletes do not have a bad influence on our youth. While I don't like the amount of influence professional atheletes have on our youth, I don't believe that their weekend activities should be resticted because of it. What difference does it make? If a pro football player does drugs on the weekend and a young person does them because they think it's cool, then that's more a reflection upon their parents and their peers rather than the drugs. People need to start separating the men from the myth.

[pdham]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
Well in that case I oject to it at the professional level as well. Why should anyone be interested in how I spend my weekends? It seems to me, since professional players have an influence upon culture (which is a thread in and of itself) that the agencies testing for recreational drugs are doing so just to satisfy the moral majority. ie) to make sure these atheletes do not have a bad influence on our youth. While I don't like the amount of influence professional atheletes have on our youth, I don't believe that their weekend activities should be resticted because of it. What difference does it make? If a pro football player does drugs on the weekend and a young person does them because they think it's cool, then that's more a reflection upon their parents and their peers rather than the drugs. People need to start separating the men from the myth.

I completely agree with your feelings on Pro-Athletes influence. But, since professional athletics is a 60 + hour a week job, in which there bodies are there only tools. Don't the teams have the right to test for drugs seeing as they will, can, and have greatly affected the performance on and off the feild (at team meeting and such) of their employees?

Paul

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
Well in that case I oject to it at the professional level as well. Why should anyone be interested in how I spend my weekends? It seems to me, since professional players have an influence upon culture (which is a thread in and of itself) that the agencies testing for recreational drugs are doing so just to satisfy the moral majority. ie) to make sure these atheletes do not have a bad influence on our youth. While I don't like the amount of influence professional atheletes have on our youth, I don't believe that their weekend activities should be resticted because of it. What difference does it make? If a pro football player does drugs on the weekend and a young person does them because they think it's cool, then that's more a reflection upon their parents and their peers rather than the drugs. People need to start separating the men from the myth.

I don't think it's the moral majority they are trying to please. To continue my football examples, teams, and the NFL at large, do this to protect the billions of dollars that is in pro football. If you signed someone to a 7yr, 35 million dollar contract you expect to get a proper return on your investment. But if the player is a coke fiend or something he won't perform at his peak, will end up on the bench, and you just flushed millions of dollars down the drain.


Lethal

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by pdham
Not as much is at stake? You clearly havent been involved in High School sports recently. I went to and played for a High School that was a powerhouse in soccer and Football. I know what has to be done these days to secure div. 1 scholorships. The most fanatical athletes are often at the High School level now.

I agree with screening High School athletes for what are clearly performance enhancing drugs.

I don't agree that they should be as thoroughly tested as professionals, though. We should give more of the benefit of the doubt to the younger players and leave them alone with the pot & alcohol (and prescription drug) checks. Stick to making sure they're not on anabolics or amphetamines and I see nothing wrong with it.

[pdham]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
I agree with screening High School athletes for what are clearly performance enhancing drugs.

I don't agree that they should be as thoroughly tested as professionals, though. We should give more of the benefit of the doubt to the younger players and leave them alone with the pot & alcohol (and prescription drug) checks. Stick to making sure they're not on anabolics or amphetamines and I see nothing wrong with it.

fair enough

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
And I wouldn't call Pot a peformance enhancing drug

But with professionals, it shouldn't matter. They don't have the benefit of the doubt like kids should.

One man's trash is another man's treasure, and pot just might be a performance enhancing drug for some people.

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
But with professionals, it shouldn't matter. They don't have the benefit of the doubt like kids should.

One man's trash is another man's treasure, and pot just might be a performance enhancing drug for some people.

If I'm hiring someone to play football, he's not just a football player. He's also a celebrity who carries the image of my organization with him even when not on the field. Getting hauled in on drug possession charges and associating with drug dealers isn't my idea of good press. Then there's the in and out of rehab bit as well that can cut into performance.

A mild hallucinogen (sp) and depressant like pot that can serve to enhance performance of a ball player would be pretty dang close to medically impossible. Uppers, on the other hand, are a whole other ball game.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
If I'm hiring someone to play football, he's not just a football player. He's also a celebrity who carries the image of my organization with him even when not on the field. Getting hauled in on drug possession charges and associating with drug dealers isn't my idea of good press. Then there's the in and out of rehab bit as well that can cut into performance.

A mild hallucinogen (sp) and depressant like pot that can serve to enhance performance of a ball player would be pretty dang close to medically impossible. Uppers, on the other hand, are a whole other ball game.

I agree but for different reasons.

And as I said, pot could be performance enhancing for some people. As unlikely as it seems, it should be restricted because of the potential for abuse in terms of performance increase.

You never know, which is why it's on the USADA's banned substance list and should be enforced on Olympic and professional athletes. They want accounting for everything unnatural you put into your body, and at those levels of competition, they should be able to know.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
But with professionals, it shouldn't matter. They don't have the benefit of the doubt like kids should.

One man's trash is another man's treasure, and pot just might be a performance enhancing drug for some people.


I would love to see you dig something up that calls pot a performance enhancing drug in terms of athletics. I agree that drugs can effect people in different ways, but I don't think any drug list has pot under the "performance enhancing" catagory. I mean, seriousily, I've seen plenty of people on pot and "active" is a word I would use to discribe them. Unless of course they get the muchies and there are only enough Doritoes left for one person. :D


Lethal

[Stelliform]

....

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
I would love to see you dig something up that calls pot a performance enhancing drug in terms of athletics. I agree that drugs can effect people in different ways, but I don't think any drug list has pot under the "performance enhancing" catagory. I mean, seriousily, I've seen plenty of people on pot and "active" is a word I would use to discribe them. Unless of course they get the muchies and there are only enough Doritoes left for one person. :D

That could be it -- an athlete could use it to increase appetite to bulk up.

Or it could be used during the game to relax muscles in certain sports, etc, etc.

As I said, at low levels of play it's so unlikely to be used in this fashion that it should be ignored, but at Olympic levels it's more likely to be tried.

What if an archer finds their aim is better due to increased focus while on pot?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Stelliform
So the cold hard logic of the business world comes to roost. I have to weigh the risk with the expense like any business decision. The cost of ten years of drug testing is much cheaper than just one lawsuit settlement because one of my guys was high and wrecked his car into someone while on the clock.

Does that cold hard logic come home to roost on the fact that overall employee productivity drops when drug testing is employed? Is the cost of settling that lawsuit worth an across-the-board 10% lower output over 10 years?

I guess not. So it's not to do with business logic. Something else then...?

[G5ROCKS]

double post
added:
Think about it. You don't have a random sample of business when you institute a drug testing program. You already have some sense that you have a problem. It can't be said that drug testing per se causes a decline in productivity.

[Stelliform]

....

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Stelliform
Can you show me any facts that demonstrate your claimed 10% decreased output?

It's hypothetical based on the information in Taft's post on page 2.

Can you show me any facts to demonstrate your claim that not testing results in lawsuits? No? Then we're both arguing hypothetically.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
That could be it -- an athlete could use it to increase appetite to bulk up.

Or it could be used during the game to relax muscles in certain sports, etc, etc.

As I said, at low levels of play it's so unlikely to be used in this fashion that it should be ignored, but at Olympic levels it's more likely to be tried.

What if an archer finds their aim is better due to increased focus while on pot?

:rolleyes:

You can argue opinions, what if's, hypotheticals, and one-in-a-million instances until you are blue in the face but that's not going to change the fact that pot is not catorgized as a performance enhancing drug by the sports world at large.


"What are the effects of marijuana on performance?

Impairs skills requiring eye-hand coordination and a fast reaction time
Reduces motor coordination, tracking ability and perceptual accuracy
Impairs concentration, and time appears to move more slowly
Skill impairment may last up to 24 to 36 hours after usage
Reduces maximal exercise capacity resulting in increased fatiguability
Marijuana has no performance-enhancing potential"

Link (http://espn.go.com/special/s/drugsandsports/mari.html)


Lethal

[Stelliform]

....

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Stelliform

What you guys fail to appreciate is that the owners of the businesses that enforce these rules have much more to consider than your freedom of breaking the law. The owner is responsible for the company and in keeping that company healthy. They have a responsibility to the other employees to protect their jobs. And often what is best for the company pushes the limits of personal freedom.


i feel like my posts aren't getting through.

I WAS THAT BUSINESS OWNER. i ensured we had no drug testing policy (though there _was_ a policy against showing up affected). i'm interested in hearing how my insistance on no policy negatively affected the company's health, endangered other employees, and was not in the best interest of my company.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Stelliform
You are right, I have searched the net and not found any official studies or documentation that after hours drug use contributes to reduced productivity.

I know for a fact that during hours drug use does.

No doubt.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
It can't be said that drug testing per se causes a decline in productivity.

did you do a study? others have.

link (http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicy.cfm?ID=9218&c=79)


* Based on results from the federal government's drug testing program, a study estimated that it costs $77,000 to find one drug user
* "Lost productivity"studies claiming that drug users cost businesses up to $100 billion each year are based on vague comparisons of household drug use and income, with no analysis of actual productivity data
* "Junk science" fueled the growth of drug testing through the drug industry's promotion of unsubstantiated claims and phantom research_
* A recent survey of 63 Silicon Valley companies found that drug testing reduces, rather than enhances, worker productivity
* The moderate use of illicit drugs by workers during off-duty hours is no more likely than moderate off-duty alcohol use to compromise workplace safety

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
:rolleyes:

You can argue opinions, what if's, hypotheticals, and one-in-a-million instances until you are blue in the face but that's not going to change the fact that pot is not catorgized as a performance enhancing drug by the sports world at large.

From your link:

"Though not explicitly banned by the International Olympic Committee (IOC)", says Wadler, "a working group of the IOC has been formed to review and make recommendations about the use of marijuana in Olympic sports."

On that note, I have to say my opinion has changed.

And I just thought of this: in countries where it is legal or not criminal to use marijuana, how can you reasonably DQ an athlete for using it if it has no recognised enhancement properties?

[Stelliform]

....

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Stelliform
But can you say that your "insistence on no policy" helped you company?

yes. had i announced a drug-testing policy, there would have been a revolt.

what was important to me was to create a kind of vibe in the company; the lack of testing was part of that (indeed, a lot of the vibe involved trust). i wasn't always successful in getting the vibe i wanted, but something as radical as a testing policy would have caused a lot of damage.

btw, this was not a large company -- i knew everyone there.

[Stelliform]

....

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Stelliform

BTW, how did it work out for you? Was the "vibe" you were trying to create successful for the business?

thanks for asking.

there were some successes, imo, and plenty of room for improvement. we had a group of incredibly hard-working people, who were motivated and responsible.

where we fell short was overall quality of life. the hours were too long, vacations too short. some bold work initiatives, which required longterm management committment, often gave way to short-term revenue generation. this tended to lower morale.

but i made sure the benefits were top-notch. e.g. we paid full premiums on health insurance for employee, spouse and kids. we encouraged and paid for outside training. we made full SEP contributions (15%) for all employees, et. al. that helped :-)

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by zimv20
did you do a study? others have.
* A recent survey of 63 Silicon Valley companies found that drug testing reduces, rather than enhances, worker productivity


Since that's what you chose to bold face, let me address that.

1. Surveys do NOT show causation.
2. Even if it did, a study of 63 Silicon Valley companies is not representative of the workforce as a whole.

Drug testing is something that comes along when a company already feels like there is a problem. It isn't applied to randomly selected companies and then the results measured. That is what you would have to do to show causation.

Would I do drug testing? I would if I could be shown that it would benefit my company and my employees. If I could promise better benefits at lower rates, I would sell a drug testing policy to my employees, and I would be first in line to piss in the cup.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS

1. Surveys do NOT show causation.
2. Even if it did, a study of 63 Silicon Valley companies is not representative of the workforce as a whole.

sounds like you're arguing against the concept of studies as a whole.

sorry, i'll prefer the results of multiple surveys and studies to your "logical" argument about why the data should be ignored.

if you didn't want to believe the data, why did you ask for it?

[Taft]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
If I'm hiring someone to play football, he's not just a football player. He's also a celebrity who carries the image of my organization with him even when not on the field. Getting hauled in on drug possession charges and associating with drug dealers isn't my idea of good press. Then there's the in and out of rehab bit as well that can cut into performance.

A mild hallucinogen (sp) and depressant like pot that can serve to enhance performance of a ball player would be pretty dang close to medically impossible. Uppers, on the other hand, are a whole other ball game.

Marijuana is not a hallucinogenic drug. Even in extremely high doses. In fact, at some point, higher doses of marijuana fail to make you more high.

Marijuana is a depressant. You should really read up on its real effects and dangers.

BTW- I think that businesses have every right to do drug testing. I just won't work for them. And whoever said that image was a big part of the reason that pro-athletes get tested was dead on.

Athletes are to a large extent role models for young kids, whether they want to be or not. I think that athletic clubs are doing the right thing by making the athletes have a positive public image.

Taft

[G5ROCKS]

Originally posted by zimv20
sounds like you're arguing against the concept of studies as a whole.

sorry, i'll prefer the results of multiple surveys and studies to your "logical" argument about why the data should be ignored.



I'm not making an arugment about ignoring data, I'm giving you the mantra of social science research: correlation is not equal to causation.

Surveys simply can't show causation. Surveys do not find that one thing reduces another. Survey find statistical correlations between measures. That is just basic social science. What I suspect one would find in experimental studies is a variety of factors influencing productivity, and a varitey of factors influencing drug testing decisions. An tendency on the part of management to distrust employees and vice versa is both bad for management and likely to lead a company to institute a drug testing program. In that instance, drug testing did not cause a decline in productivity, it just happened to happen around the same time. Again, a survey cannot show causation, by definition. I am unaware of any experimental studies on the subject, and I doubt if many companies would allow such a study to be conducted.

if you didn't want to believe the data, why did you ask for it?

I didn't ask for any data.

Taft,

It seems that we pretty much agree about the right to conduct drug testing and the reasons for certain drug testing of sports figures.

You will note that I did say that marijuana is a depressant. In addition, THC is usually grouped with hallucinogens, even though there is controversy over whether it should be. Your argument is with the people who classify drugs, not with me. I don't care how its classified one way or another, because I'm not brave or stupid enough to put the carcinogens from the smoke into my lungs, have no desire to mess arond with my short term memory and perception, and have no medical conditions that would justify the potential harm.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by Taft
Marijuana is not a hallucinogenic drug. Even in extremely high doses. In fact, at some point, higher doses of marijuana fail to make you more high.

Marijuana is a depressant. You should really read up on its real effects and dangers.

Taft


The effects of marijuana vary with its strength and dosage and with the state of mind of the user. Typically, small doses result in a feeling of well-being. The intoxication lasts two to three hours, but accompanying effects on motor control last much longer. High doses can cause tachycardia, paranoia, and delusions. Although it produces some of the same effects as hallucinogens like LSD and mescaline (heightened sensitivity to colors, shapes, music, and other stimuli and distortion of the sense of time), marijuana differs chemically and pharmacologically.

Link (http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/M/marijuan-the-drug.html)


It is not classifed as hallucinogenic drug but it can cause some of the same effects of hallucinogenic drugs.


Lethal

[Taft]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
Link (http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/M/marijuan-the-drug.html)


It is not classifed as hallucinogenic drug but it can cause some of the same effects of hallucinogenic drugs.


Lethal

Pot alters the way your brian processes information. IOW you focus and process different stimuli than when you aren't on pot. This leads to the idea that music "sounds better" or things are "so cool" when you are taking pot. However, the main criteria for a hallucinogen is that it alters your perception. That is, you see, hear or smell things that in reality don't exist.

This is why pot isn't a hallucinogen: it doesn't alter your perception of reality. The link is accurate in that the side effects of pot lead to reported enhancement of stimuli, but that doesn't make the drug a hallucinogen.

G5MAN--

No it isn't considered a hallucinogen. Not even by the government. Show me proof otherwise. Check the DEA's website (www.dea.gov) There is no mention of it. I have seen no evidence that THC is "grouped with hallucinogens." I'm not even sure what that means.

I do agree with you about not encouraging drug use. I wouldn't encourage my kids to use alcohol or smoke, so why would I want to have them use marijuana? I also think that organizations which promote individuals as role models should take responsibility to maintain a positive image of those role models.

I take the stance that there are enough people out there who have a sensible view of personal vs. professional life that I can always find work. If certain organizations want to randomly test for drug use, go right ahead. Studies have shown that it has no positive effect on your business and quite possibly would have a negative effect. I'll gravitate to the businesses and organizations that take the more rational view. For me, I simply don't want me employer snooping around in my private life. Its none of their business as long as I'm doing my job. And if they test for drugs, what else are they willing to do to invade my privacy?

Taft

[G5ROCKS]

Marijuana (also called pot or grass) is derived from the hemp plant (Cannibas Sativa), from which hashish is also derived. Hashish consists of the concentrated resin produced by the flowering tops of the plants. Technically, marijuana and hashish are classified as cannibols or cannabinoids. Marijuana is reportedly the most widely used illegal drug in the United States, with 10 million users (Frohberg & Herting, 1999).

Although usually classified as a hallucinogen, its effects are different from other hallucinogens are vary greatly across users.

http://vocationalpsychology.com/biology7i.htm

Pathophysiology: Hallucinogens may be grouped by structural criteria. The main groups include lysergamides, phenylethylamines, piperidines, indolealkylamines, and cannabinols.

http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic3407.htm

One can find plenty of examples of marijuana being classified as a hallucinogen with a Google search or two. Like I said, I don't really care one way or another.

So far as employers invading someone's privacy, that would be fine if the employees' off the clock behavior had no impact on the company's ability to do business. However, when companies end up with lawsuits, dead or injured workers, higher insurance premiums, etc., the line between the employers' interest and the employees' privacy begins to blur a little, particularly when one good insurance claim can cost the entire company its coverage, or worse.

[Taft]

Originally posted by G5ROCKS
One can find plenty of examples of marijuana being classified as a hallucinogen with a Google search or two. Like I said, I don't really care one way or another.

Wow. I had no idea people could be so off in their perception of marijuana. You are right though, many sites out there do link it to hallucinogens. It couldn't be further from the truth.

So far as employers invading someone's privacy, that would be fine if the employees' off the clock behavior had no impact on the company's ability to do business. However, when companies end up with lawsuits, dead or injured workers, higher insurance premiums, etc., the line between the employers' interest and the employees' privacy begins to blur a little, particularly when one good insurance claim can cost the entire company its coverage, or worse.

When you are about safety (or dealing with insurance companies), drug testing does make sense. However, I'd still argue that the method of testing practiced by the companies is completely ineffective.

The insurance companies and employers are concerned with accidents happening on the job and the damage they might produce. Testing for drugs only tells you that sometime in the last few months someone did or didn't do drugs. Really, what they want to know is: "is this employee impaired by drugs at work."

Considering those methods of testing don't exist (or are too expensive), I guess they are left doing the current tests. I understand the value of these test for hazardous (or potentially hazardous) jobs, I just think there is a far better way.

Taft

[G5ROCKS]

Taft,
I agree that the methods of drug testing often done by companies is ineffective. However, it is possible to sell the drug testing to the employees as a benefit to them. That takes some savvy that is often missing in corporate life to do it, but it can be done.

For your group medical insurance program, you'd be concerned even with potential claims that were unrelated to workplace events. Having such group insurance (or medical insurance at all) allows companies to worm their way into what ought to be your private affairs. The root of the problem, it seems to me, lies in the insurance industry and the concept of insurance.