^False positives, fake urine, and Bias based on certain drugs. Solubility between water and fat based substances. An example: You can smoke a joint on may 1st, get drug tested on June 11th and still be denied employment after something you did 42 days ago, yet you can Do a bunch of coke or methamphetamine on June 8th and pass the same drug test taken on June 11th.

^Seems a little inaccurate if you are worried about a potential employee and their abstaining from drug use. With marijuana's primary ingredient, Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) being fat soluble you are way more likely to be denied employment, yet I would much rather have a recreational pot smoker working for me than a meth addict that can clean their system out in 48 hours. Its all about the metabolism.

Is it fair that Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD-25) is normally not even tested for? I sure as hell don't want someone working for me that's tripping balls on acid.

Hair follicle testing can show traces of drug uses from 90 days earlier or more, yet there is an ethical question that comes into play here. Is it fair that employers can criticize people for activities outside of work? An employee can go to a bar and get shitfaced drunk, sleep it off, and go into a drug screening the next day and be accepted for employment. Yet if the same person takes a hit off a joint and takes a drug screening test the next day, they will be denied. 1 hit from a joint, does not equal 12 shots of tequila to me.

A study from the US department of labor in 2007 shows that "75 percent of the nation’s current illegal drug users are employed—and 3.1 percent say they have actually used illegal drugs before or during work hours."

"This means 97% of drug users don’t go to work high. These numbers show that the overwhelming majority of drug users have jobs and scrupulously avoid drugs on workdays. That’s not a problem, that’s awesome."

In contrast the same study shows that, "79 percent of the nation’s heavy alcohol users are employed—and 7.1 percent say they have actually consumed alcohol during the workday."

"But nobody drug tests for that, so the workplace drug testing tyranny tinkles on, untethered by the towering absurdity of busting employees for smoking pot over the weekend, while vastly larger numbers get drunk on their lunch break with impunity." - http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle_...t_it_was_drug_


Its a huge invasion of privacy to question and criticize what a person does at home or away from work as long as it doesn't impair work performance or they don't come to work under the influence.

The 4th Amendment in the bill of rights states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." This also delves into the 5th Amendment because these drug screenings can incriminate a person by scanning for illegal use of drugs. These are records which can be shared with other companies, government agencies, and hospitals.

Now granted the is just a research paper and there are two sides to every coin, this is just some of what I am presenting.

Drug screens help to weed out real abusers, but agreed that catching the weekend tokers is absolutely useless.

Do they really? When you start to review the studies on drug screening and admitted drug abusers it really doesn't show that. In fact most of the arguments for drug screening are made by parent compnaies or subsidiaries of drug testing companies.

When the US drug Czar says that drug screening is useless except for the 1.2 billion dollars worth of revenue it creates, then I take note.

Its weird that a job that helps deny jobs from people creates a job.

When he says it's useless, does he mean useless against the war on drugs, or worthless for the companies? Because I totally agree it's useless at reducing drug use on a large scale. But as an employer, it's a practice I would look into.
Obviously I'm not as well read as you on the topic, but working as a quasi HR person, I do have some opinions I've formed from my experience. My opinion is that pre-screening is useless. The people know it's coming, and any idiot who at least has enough brainpower to drive a car can figure out a way to beat the test. In all my years, I've seen one person not pass. Now, random testing is where I have seen a lot of people getting caught. And again, while I could care less about marijuana, it wouldn't be in my best interest to have a "real" drug user on the payroll.

I thought I invented marijuana! I also thought I invented jacking off!

White House Czar Calls for End to 'War on Drugs' - WSJ.com

Hes from the Northwest. Go Seattle!

I want a volcano burrito

Agreed, the "war on drugs" is a waste of money, and should have been stopped a long time ago. I don't think I lump private companies conducting drug screens as part of that though.

On a better note than politics, did anyone watch the premier of "jesse james is a dead man?" :D

never heard of it

It's just jesse james, from west coast choppers performing stunts. This was his first one, where in a week he had to prepare himself to ride a nitro bike, which I believe he got to around 170mph. The first pass he swerved and went into the other lane, the 2nd pass the engine blew. Finally hit it the third pass.

hmmmmm...Im usually just watching sports

nitro bike racing is a sport

I agree no politics. I've heard about Jesse James new show, but I figured it was just gonna be like American Chopper. Interesting.

Was it worth that watch?