Job Rejection (Drugs)

[A dot Ham]

Do you think it is fair to still allow certain states to test for THC and then be allowed to exclude a person from being hired based on a positive test?

Regardless of a state's own laws regarding the consumption of marijuana, more and more state's are making marijuana legal. So since there is nothing illegal about visiting a state say Colorado and consuming what would be considered a controlled substance elsewhere, a business should not be able to legally exclude you from employment, nor should they even be allowed to test for the presence of THC.

*EDIT*
Just to clarify... I was referring to the initial hiring process.

I was not referring to showing up to work stoned and then being given a random, or not-so-random drug test and being fired. Showing up to work inebriated drugs, alcohol, or prescriptions, is grounds for dismissal or at the very least being sent home for the day.

I am not a druggy, and haven't been irresponsibly drunk or otherwise for a long time. I was more or less simply trying to spark a discussion regarding certain laws currently in place, and how those laws may have a few holes at the moment while states try and figure out where they stand on the issue.

[Acidbaron]

You make the choice to go work for a company that subjects you to such tests that pry too far into your personal life.

My previous boss had an issue with me just smoking cigarettes, i told him and if it was a major issue it was his choice to hire me or not. It had no influence on my work.

I think it's fair of them to ask whatever, just as it's fair of you to decline such jobs. Chances are you probably wouldn't have fit in.

[Dethh]

Do you think it is fair to still allow certain states to test for THC and then be allowed to exclude a person from being hired based on a negative test?

Regardless of a state's own laws regarding the consumption of marijuana, more and more state's are making marijuana legal. So since there is nothing illegal about visiting a state say Colorado and consuming what would be considered a controlled substance elsewhere, a business should not be able to legally exclude you from employment, nor should they even be allowed to test for the presence of THC.

If it's that business's policy and you know before hand you will get in trouble, why smoke?

[Jester Joe]

I think it's fair to a degree. I mean, marijuana stays in your hair for a decent time, correct? If someone doesn't want to hire a person who looks like they indulge a bit more than they should, then they should be able to do that. It's like, would you want to hire someone who literally stinks like beer?

And yes, I get there's a difference between hair and an actual scent, but the point is would the company really want someone who is prone to abuse a substance?

I mean, I'm not extremely knowledgeable about how they can tell with hair testing, but I'd imagine they can tell if you're a heavy user or if you just used it a bit in the past few months?

[Friendlyimmolation]

Yea, I wouldn't want people showing up high even if it was legal.

[Kaganfindel]

If a company doesn't think you'd be a good fit for them, they should have the right not to hire you.

[Vea Lea]

yes it is fair in fact they should report you to the police and get you imprisoned for drug use

[tj119]

Their business, their rules. If they don't want weed smokers than that is completely understandable, a good deal of people who smoke marijuana let it effect their lives negatively. I don't drug test any of my employees because I smoke myself, but if they come to work high then we have a problem. Only I can do that

Wanna smoke pot? Find a job that doesn't test.

[Itisamuh]

yes it is fair in fact they should report you to the police and get you imprisoned for drug use

I second this. Besides, even if you worked in a state where it was legal, showing up high to work is just as bad as showing up drunk.

[Dethh]

Yea, I wouldn't want people showing up high even if it was legal.

Well no one said showing up high. Liquor is legal and that doesn't mean people can show up drunk.

[Lotus Victoria]

If they are going to hire you, I think that you should listen and adapt to their rules (if they aren't outrageous, of course).

[Deleted]

Doesn't a negative test show you havent smoked pot eh?...

[Tastyfish]

Do you think it is fair to still allow certain states to test for THC and then be allowed to exclude a person from being hired based on a negative test?

Yes.
Unless you have a medical card, and you should if you want to smoke harassment free.

If you want weed to be like alch then you need to expect to be treated like you are a drunk in places you shouldn't be. Like a job.

[deadman1]

To the OP, yes, if that is there policy, then it is your fault for showing up with it in your system. They have every right to do that.

yes it is fair in fact they should report you to the police and get you imprisoned for drug use

I mean ... come on. You literally can't get arrested for having THC in your blood. Not only that, but you aren't going to prison for smoking weed.

Also, weed isn't that bad, why should someone be imprisoned for doing something to themselves.

I second this. Besides, even if you worked in a state where it was legal, showing up high to work is just as bad as showing up drunk.

Yea, I wouldn't want people showing up high even if it was legal.

He never said he was high at work, he said he had THC in his system. It stays in your system for days.

[Slaskra]

I mean, I'm not extremely knowledgeable about how they can tell with hair testing, but I'd imagine they can tell if you're a heavy user or if you just used it a bit in the past few months?

As far as urinalysis' go, lab techs only look at the concentration of THC in the sample. Can't really differentiate between heavy and light/recent users. Maybe its possible with other testing methods, but none of them are utilized to the same extent as piss testing.

Chances are you probably wouldn't have fit in.

How so?

[Tastyfish]

If they are going to hire you, I think that you should listen and adapt to their rules (if they aren't outrageous, of course).

Yea, thats the most reasonable thing to do.

[Lenonis]

Do you think it is fair to still allow certain states to test for THC and then be allowed to exclude a person from being hired based on a negative test?

Yes.

Regardless of a state's own laws regarding the consumption of marijuana, more and more state's are making marijuana legal. So since there is nothing illegal about visiting a state say Colorado and consuming what would be considered a controlled substance elsewhere, a business should not be able to legally exclude you from employment, nor should they even be allowed to test for the presence of THC.

The legality of an activity and a company allowing it are two entirely different non related things. It's not illegal to wear shorts, but many companies don't allow you to wear them at work.

As marijuana becomes legal and more and more people partake, the business rules around it will relax as they will still want the best talent. The problem is without any real way to test for immediate use (like a breathalyzer) companies are likely to err on the side of caution. Companies don't want people with a drug problem working for them, and once they are hired, it's very hard to get rid of them.

[tj119]

yes it is fair in fact they should report you to the police and get you imprisoned for drug use

This might would make sense...if you could actually be arrested for being high or having THC in your system.

[Vea Lea]

Also, weed isn't that bad, why should someone be imprisoned for doing something to themselves.

all drugs are bad if not used for medical reasons you need allowance from doctor for that

[Acidbaron]

How so?

People who generally work there would have different world views, seeing people that accept being tested for drug use for a job are more likely to not be in favor of using drugs. What can generally set you apart on a couple more issues. It's not something i would say that it would be so with certainty but it's something i would find to be more likely then not.