General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI knew how "effed" up our country was when I was required to take a drug test for a minimum wage job
Background: I grew up in the 60's and 70's. In High School, even the jocks and the young Retrumplicans smoked pot. So did I... a lot. Working night shift stocking a grocery store, my good friend and I would meet at the White Castle to smoke a joint before starting our shift. We were the best, and most productive employees the store had.
I joined the Navy, mostly to get out of town and get money for college. I found my niche. That first enlistment turned into a 30 year military career that took me from E1 to O5. I did eventually complete a Bachelor's Degree on the 22 year plan.
I had to stop smoking pot. The Navy had a zero tolerance policy, and I simply had too much to lose.
Early in my career, I had an opportunity to do recruiting duty close to my home town. With a struggling young family on an E5 salary, I had a chance to get a part time job at a major hardware chain that was opening stores in my area. It would also give me an opportunity to decide if I wanted to reenlist, or get out and pursue a civilian career.
The job was a part time, minimum wage job. In order to be "bestowed" with such a "grand" opportunity, I would be required to pee in a bottle.
I tried to imagine my WWII Uncles, or my proud Union Coal Miner Grandfather being told they would have to pee in a bottle for a minimum wage job.
I firmly believe that the entire Zero Tolerance, pee in a bottle drug testing regime was more about control, and snatching our dignity, than it was about "safety".
Look, there were days that my hungover Chief Petty Officer had ZERO business being on the Flight Deck, but he never failed a piss test. But, if I had smoked a joint on Saturday and my number came up Monday, my entire life would have been ruined.
It was so easy for the masters. I mean, who is going to defend the "druggies"?
It was a sad realization, but when I was required to take a piss test for a minimum wage job, I knew how much of our dignity and power had been taken away. You want to organize labor for collective bargaining? Hell, we've already surrendered.
Perhaps the worst realization was that they didn't really need to steal our dignity...we gladly gave it away
How many lives may have turned out differently if we hadn't destroyed them because someone smoked a joint on the weekend.
leftstreet
(36,110 posts)If a minimum wage worker shouldn't have to piss in a jar, why should any worker have to do it?
maxrandb
(15,345 posts)There are jobs where public safety may make it a requirement.
The problem with drug testing is that it requires folks to allow employers to control their private life.
You want to test if someone is under the influence on the job? I am OK with that.
I saw guys that would drink a fifth of vodka and get stinking, falling down drunk, but as long as they weren't drunk on duty, no problem.
I also saw guys that smoked a joint while on leave lose their entire careers.
PatSeg
(47,560 posts)Of course, there are a few exceptions, but overall, I find drug testing to be an invasion of one's privacy and extremely demeaning.
Srkdqltr
(6,313 posts)But everyone drinks.
maxrandb
(15,345 posts)At least the military was honest about drug testing. The stated goal was to control behavior.
Knowing that THC could be detected for weeks, or days was a way to control off duty behavior, even if the drug use would have had zero impact on ones ability to perform.
ProfessorGAC
(65,134 posts)99% of people with a hangover would not release enough volatiles through lung transfer to the exhaled air to hit a detectable level.
And, essentially zero would blow to a legal limit.
So, it would be a waste of resources & cost money.
No company is ever going to do that!
Srkdqltr
(6,313 posts)ProfessorGAC
(65,134 posts)With zero payback, they'd never even consider the thought.
A big piece of drug testing was the threat of higher liability premiums.
Now with legalization being so prevalent, insurance companies have backed off, or big premium payers have backed them down.
Testing for pot is diminishing rapidly in Fortune1000 companies.
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)they throw the book at you. Democracy/Freedom in the US, what a joke. Yeah, testing for alcohol would be really revealing.
LizBeth
(9,952 posts)some about frisking you, implying you are bad, standing at a door listening to you pee, holding pee up to light while I stand there and people walking by here and there as if there is no since of decency and respect. I was appalled in a third person type observation. I have to do a pee test for a second time in my life for this next test. What really got me on that first pee test is I was smoking or taking edible daily and damn well knew my pee came up with pot. But since it was answering damn phones and they wanted to hire me they ignored the results. All that was for nothing.
I was saying the same thing as a newbie in a job calling it for what it was. It is degrading and we casually allow.
Elessar Zappa
(14,022 posts)Drug testing is bullshit.
FakeNoose
(32,706 posts)Since the early 70's the assumption has always been ... if you smoke pot either you're a black person or you vote like a black person. Either way we don't want you. It has nothing to do with how someone would perform on the job, or even whether the person has the proper training or mindset to be a good employee.
You're correct, it's a form of control. But it's also a form of racism. I'm a white woman and I've had many different jobs in my life, some blue collar, some white collar. But I've never been given a drug test in order to be hired, nor have I been threatened with a "spot check" unannounced drug test during my employment. So there you go.
Kid Berwyn
(14,939 posts)From CNN 2016:
The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people, former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harpers writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
You understand what Im saying? We knew we couldnt make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities, Ehrlichman said. We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.
Source: https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html
PatSeg
(47,560 posts)bucolic_frolic
(43,249 posts)See how it's all about control - THEIR version?
Evolve Dammit
(16,754 posts)Christ even Lincoln enjoyed his "sweet hemp." We could have solved the national debt in the 1970's by legalizing it and regulating sales through government-run dispensaries, akin to "liquor stores." Instead, we just promoted for-profit incarceration (see Bush family investments) and extremely harsh drug laws targeting lower-class citizens.
leftieNanner
(15,137 posts)And it's been a nightmare! The legal pot grows aren't the problem, but the illegal cartel-run grows are. They lease rural land from property owners, tell them they are going to grow legal hemp (or some other crop), and then they put up greenhouses to grow weed without the permits etc. That's what makes it illegal. They also grow more than is permitted. The people who work for them are forced to live in containers and sleep on cardboard with no facilities. It's barbaric.
Our local Sheriff can't keep up. So now they are going after the property owners who lease their land to the cartels.
Plus, since pot is still illegal federally, the legal growers can't use a bank and therefore have to hold a lot of cash on the premises. This invites robberies.
Gotta stop it somehow.
If it were legal nationally and properly regulated (State run weed stores) then it might not be so bad.
jmowreader
(50,562 posts)It needs to be taxed at a reasonable rate. Hey! Lets tax the shit out of this so we can cut taxes somewhere else! The dirty hippies wont mind. is a mindset that keeps the black market alive the dirty hippies dont want to pay $50 for an eighth at the pot store when they know that guy on the corner is selling the same eighth for $35.
jmbar2
(4,902 posts)Former Florida Gov Rick Scott's wife owned one of the biggest drug testing firms when they initiated drug testing for welfare recipients.
PBS did a good segment on drug testing profits
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/urine-screens-cost-8-5-billion-a-year-more-than-the-entire-epa-budget
hoosierspud
(148 posts)On the WA/ID state line. I worked on the WA side and we were about 10 techs and clerical staff who were all really professional. Our supervisor pretty much protected us from the Tea Party moron who was the lab manager. On the ID side, there was a higher turnover rate than Wal-Mart and they were scraping the bottom of the barrel for new employees. They started instituting random drug tests for all employees because there was such a problem on the ID side of the lab. I had 5 random drug tests in 14 months. It involved driving over to the ID lab and sitting in the patient waiting room to get tested. No one on the WA side ever tested positive, so it was a waste of time and money to include us. In my exit interview, I told them how degrading it felt not to be treated as a professional.
maxrandb
(15,345 posts)Make employees piss in a bottle in front of people, they'll think twice about demanding better wages and working conditions.
Drug testing the 7/11 clerk does nothing to promote public safety.
3Hotdogs
(12,396 posts)in a lawsuit.
I know that is the case with my company drivers. The insurance company requires a clean driving record and random drug testing before they will insure them.
Example: "Plaintiff's lawyer (after a fight between employees where one was injured). "Please describe the pre-employment drug tests your employees were required to take.
Was testing for cocaine and methamphetamine part of that series of tests?"
Calculating
(2,957 posts)Why should our employer be able to fire us for things we do in our own time at home, as long as we show up to work clean and sober? It's a total invasion of our personal rights and privacy.
pecosbob
(7,542 posts)It's a wonder people don't just burn shit down.
maxrandb
(15,345 posts)Retrumplicans have fucked the country so bad that people just want to "burn it down", so some people just vote for the party that promises to "burn it down".