Slashdot Mirror
Employers Struggle To Find Workers Who Can Pass A Drug Test
HughPickens.com writes: Jackie Calmes writes in the NYT that all over the country, employers say they see a disturbing downside of tighter labor markets as they try to rebuild from the worst recession since the Depression: the struggle to find workers who can pass a pre-employment drug test. The hurdle partly stems from the growing ubiquity of drug testing, at corporations with big human resources departments, in industries like trucking where testing is mandated by federal law for safety reasons, and increasingly at smaller companies. But data suggests employers' difficulties also reflect an increase in the use of drugs, especially marijuana -- employers' main gripe -- and also heroin and other opioid drugs much in the news. Data on the scope of the problem is sketchy because figures on job applicants who test positive for drugs miss the many people who simply skip tests they cannot pass. But Quest Diagnostics, which has compiled employer-testing data since 1988, documented a 10% increase in one year in the percentage of American workers who tested positive for illicit drugs -- up to 4.7 percent in 2014 from 4.3 percent in 2013.
With the software industry already plagued by a shortage of skilled workers, especially female programmers, some software companies think now would be the wrong time to institute drug testing for new employees, a move that would further limit the available talent pool. "The acceptability of at least marijuana has shifted dramatically over the last 20 years," says Carl Erickson. "If the standard limits those that have used marijuana in the last week, you're surely going to be limiting your pool of applicants." Erickson's decision not to drug test stems from a low risk of workplace injury for his workers combined with an unwillingness to pry into the personal lives of his employees. "My perspective on this is if they want to share their recreational habits with me, that's their prerogative, but I'm sure as hell not going to put them in a position to have to do it."
With the software industry already plagued by a shortage of skilled workers, especially female programmers, some software companies think now would be the wrong time to institute drug testing for new employees, a move that would further limit the available talent pool. "The acceptability of at least marijuana has shifted dramatically over the last 20 years," says Carl Erickson. "If the standard limits those that have used marijuana in the last week, you're surely going to be limiting your pool of applicants." Erickson's decision not to drug test stems from a low risk of workplace injury for his workers combined with an unwillingness to pry into the personal lives of his employees. "My perspective on this is if they want to share their recreational habits with me, that's their prerogative, but I'm sure as hell not going to put them in a position to have to do it."
I couldn't pass a drug test to save my life. That said, I make $500,000.000/year. Heheh...
Drop the test. Duh.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
... pretty much every company knows better than to try.
Hopefully, this will be a wake-up call for these business to critically re-examine _why_ they care about drug testing.
With the software industry already plagued by a shortage of skilled workers, especially female programmers
The shortage of female programmers is an illusion created by SJWs and feminists who have pulled an acceptable ratio out of their asses/vaginas.
... should see a business opportunity in this.
After thirty-six years in IT, I don't know for sure of anyone I know that has done drugs, and I live in the Seattle area! I can see a pot store on Main St, Bellevue, WA from my office window, and as far as I know, no one in our office has been in the store. We do bi-yearly drug tests, and no one has ever failed. I have a lot of friends in the industry, and I have never heard any of them mention using illegal drugs like pot. The article is complete BS.
... how can they afford drugs????
// TODO: Add comments
It probably doesn't help employers that these companies have a tendency towards disproportionately high false positives, or will even invent results go get the ratios they wish.
.....that I don't have to study for!!! I need all my brains cell I can muster to keep up with everything.
I always thought drug tests only considered chemistry, not the legal aspects.
But many are... Given a choice between hiring someone with a positive drug screens and someone with negative drug screens, it's an easy decision.
Also, if you think that crappy code written by someone high at work can't result in injury or damage, you must not have written anything important...
Unfortunately, standard drug screening doesn't distinguish between addicts and recreational users and it doesn't help when people are addicted to prescription medications when they have a prescription.
Yes.. of the 20 people I tested ONE came back positive! OH THE STRUGGLE!
Slashdot has gone to the dogs.
Sorry, I read the article, Roofers are known for chronic pain for which the treatment of is... opiates. IT, POT!
I wasn't aware skeletons had asses, let alone vaginas. You should brush up on basic physiology
I've hold a well paying professional job, show up on time, hit the gym, pay my bills on time, and have a very active social life. I smoke a few bowls every night before bed (just look at my user name). I have no hangover from this.
This past week, I went out for drinks with a colleague who was moving back to Russia. In a typical Russian fashion, he broke out the vodka shots and we all proceeded to get righteously wasted.
The next day, I was a complete mess with a throbbing head ache. Thankfully it was a Friday. Took a sick day. That malaise went well into Saturday.
I even have smoked blunts to myself driving down i95 through the Bronx during rush hour. Did this in Los Angeles too. The difference between some herb and alcohol is immense. Driving drunk is far more dangerous than driving stoned.
It's time we let this obsession with sobriety go especially when alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous.
Employers struggle to find robots who solely live to serve.
Workers Struggle to Find Employers Who Don't Require Drug Tests
Fixed that for you.
Seriously speaking, the war on drugs has made our society sick. Personally I don't use any recreational drugs, and I'm fortunate enough to already have a job, but the notion of submitting to a drug test if I want to eat based on my own honest efforts is just wrong.
There are a couple of exceptional cases where routine-and-with-no-cause-for-suspicion drug testing might be justified, but they should be extremely rare exceptions in a healthy society.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
You only need to know the employee are not under drug during work. You do not need a drug test which will almost certainly tells you that the employee took drug in the last weeks. it does not tell you if he took it when off the job.
I've hold a well paying professional job, show up on time, hit the gym, pay my bills on time, and have a very active social life.
So do people who drink heavily, snort coke, or trip balls.
I even have smoked blunts to myself driving down i95 through the Bronx during rush hour.
You're a fucking cunt who should be locked away.
Culturally some drugs are in common use like weed and alcohol and regardless of legality they are in casual weekly/daily use and you no what? nothing special happens. In fact this has been the case for a very long time and things have chugged along.
What is the reason for drug screening? -once upon a time any "drug use" was immediately associated with the severe hard drug addiction junkies often have. On that basis drug using people are thought to be dishonest, capable of violent acts, thefts etc.
I believe that the law must accept that people that use drugs like ecstasy, weed and other mild types make up society. It does not reflect upon them badly in any way.
So many studies have found that alcohol is far more harmful to the individual and to society (via violent crimes/drink driving) and yet we do not consider people that have had alcohol in their systems from the night before to be unemployable.
It's time to legalize certain drugs that are clinically proven or the vast majority of the evidence base supports are less harmful than alcohol in order to put things into perspective.
A person injecting heroin is not the same "drug user" as a person smoking a joint. Much like a person drinking 10 cups of coffee a day is not like an alcoholic.
While I would like people in general to prefer not to alter their perception of consciousness via drugs it's a personal decision and a preference. Why should my view infringe upon the freedom of someone else if their chosen activity is non-impacting to others?
It's as if we discovered that although some 70% of Americans are catholic most do not attend church and certainly do not live pious lives.
Most workplaces do not benefit from drug testing. There are enough people that embezzle, lie, abuse their positions, discriminate and generally break the law that have not used drugs. Time to move on.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
IF - everyone from the board down were subject to them, results were public and penalties uniform.
I mean, if I turned up at work stoned, probably a few k damage tops. One of the board members on Peruvian marching powder could take the whole company down.
Otherwise - you can stick your drug tests where the sun does not shine.
shortage of skilled workers, especially female programmers
What's the worry about drugs when sober people still fall for third wave feminism?
especially female programmers
what the fuck
The U.S. never stops amazing me with massive breaches of privacy being both allowed and (apparently) accepted by people.
"With the software industry already plagued by a shortage of skilled workers, especially female programmers, some software companies think now would be the wrong time to institute drug testing for new employees, a move that would further limit the available talent pool. "
So we're basically saying here that women can't, as a group, pass a drug test. So lets suspend the drug testing standard entirely, for everyone, because feminism.
Unbelievable.
Feminism is giving women additional rights and privileges without giving them additional duties and responsibilities. We gave women universal suffrage because teachers across the country pushed it in the late 1800's, we gave 18 year old men the same right to vote because they were going to war in WW1. Only now, in 2016, over a hundred years later, after 3 full generations of people have come and gone, are we discussing some kind of added duty like mandatory conscription for women. For a hundred years women can, and have, voted men into wars of aggression.
And it's come full circle to the kind of insane entitlement this article's author is pushing; women should be able to hold a job even if they are on illicit drugs. Their coworkers should bear the burden of their literally crack-addled behavior.
It does not matter what group you do it to, entitlement destroys people and families. Go look up the Soviet Unions cold-war strategy of Ideological subjugation for some perspective.
The title says it all. There's no reason to assume that the employer is clean and you don't want to work for someone who is sniffing cocaine instead of taking care of the company.
I work for a top 500 company and I had a fellow employee say "why can't our environment be more like google, like having free lunch, snacks , etc.... " . Kids these days are looking for perks and not long term employment. That's the biggest problem with our workforce! everyone want to work for google, but isnt smart enough to get a job there. And to be quite honest, if you can't stop doing drugs long enough to pass a drug test, then I don't want you working for me. Are people that stupid these days?
It's the hunt for the cheap complaint single use disposable worker. Someone who will get booted out before they qualify for any long term benefits like the 401K plan or longer vacation. Typically this means less then 5 years on the job. Someone gets a shot at three of these positions and then they are "too old" to be hired. It's easy when when there is an entire new generation of suckers in the pipeline.
And then there is the zero training requirement. The most job training that any company thinks they need is how to run a cash register. Anything beyond that is considered a waste of resources. Since the plan is always to flush the workers down the toilet why spend anything on training?
It's not like people over 35 use no drugs at all, but as the article makes clear the younger someone is the more likely it is that they at least smoke pot. So looking at an older demographic would help with the so called shortage, except that it would subject business to real life market forces, which they hate. Remember that businesses avoid actual competition at all costs. They would much rather be monopolistic big fish in a small pond while rigging the game for guaranteed profit and screaming about the "ebil govment herting free enterprize".
Why is Snark Required?
Been in trucking for decades. Used to be you have new hires come in and probably one in the group of maybe 20 failed the screening. Now days almost half fail the drug screening. Even some try cheating to get passed it. Yet we have places like Colorado who think making money off sales of marijuana is helping the state.
Doesn't matter that many companies require you don't be under the influence to work there. I think we have a problem in the US on what is addiction and what is recreational in terms of a drug problem. But it's no different than ignoring the alcohol dependency that's been happening for a long time.
There was an article on this a few years ago. The issue was not that more people were using drugs. It was that commercial industry was diving right into the drug-testing and using tests/standards far beyond even that of the military and the FBI.
It can be harder to pass a drug test to be a mail room clerk than an agent.
... I see what you did there...
What a joke 'Climatedot' has become. Pushing the anti-male, anti-white, genocidal Bolshevik agenda at every possible turn...
Why is there something special about "female programmers"?
I have had problems in the past where I have had a failed drug test in the past for Amphetamines, and was not told this until I kept challenging why I failed. It was only later this was a false positive for Methylphenidate, while being an illegal drug in the UK without prescription, I have one.
If I hadn't have chased down why I failed it, it would have been upheld that I failed.
I had even stated in the pre-test form that I take it, so something broke down in the chain. I did resent having to declare this however, as my ADHD management is my own business, not my employers if my management strategies mean I can perform.
It's a refusal.
Even though I never use any illegal drugs, I don't see this as any of my employer's business. If they want an employee to pee on demand, then they can get a dog.
I'll find an employer that respects my dignity.
Big corporations with nothing better to do than nose in your business. Truckers, train engineers, and a hand full of other occupations, this matters. The receptionist at my broker? I don't care what she does in the off hours. Heck, she could probably be high on the job and it wouldn't matter. It'd be a bad public image if she was obviously laughing at everything else and stuffing her face with twinkies; but that's beside the point. If you've got residual THC in your system from the weekend and you're not acting like an idiot, IT MAKES NO FUCKING DIFFERENCE TO MOST JOBS SO PISS ON CORPORATIONS THAT WANT OUR PISS.
The whole problem is going to become far worse as more states legalize marijuana.
While pretty much every study shows that marijuana does not impact a persons health, cognative abilities, nor is the cost to society in general anywhere near as high as alachol, employers where it is legal still screen and refuse to hire workers who have smoked a single time in the last month. Compare that to alachol where the health costs and cognative performance decline while under the influence is much higher yet is not tested for. It pretty much undermines the entire premise of the test.
Companies need to pull the stick out of thier ass and hire people who legally enjoy themselves on their own time instead of adopting the corporate slave attitude where every minute of a persons life is controlled by the company. If you show up on time and are responsible that is what is important. Maybe France is onto something by considering a law to make it illegal to require workers to respond to emails and social media 24/7/365. Perhaps it's time for some legal reform in the USA to end the war on common sense since it seems companies are moving in the opposite direction.
wasn't there an article on slashdot a while back that pointed out that drug-usage is *not* addictive - it's the *circumstances* that people find themselves in which *drives* them towards attempting to "find happiness" in drugs. both that study of rats as well as the study of veterans from the vietnam war showed that the subjects were quotes totally addicted quotes to opiates when they were subjected to horrible conditions, but that the *moment* they were transported to a happier environment, then with a little bit of withdrawal symptoms they kicked the "habit".
in other words, this study is telling us - through correlation NOT causation - that the number of unhappy americans is dramatically increasing. and that we're only just finding this out because of drug-testing.
Yeah, invasive drug tests are stupid and counter-productive in many industries. I put up with it as a consequence of my career choice. Being a chronic tinkerer, I like to work in industrial automation and machine programming. I work for a global manufacturer, and we have to drug screen. Our insurance underwriters don't require it per se, but the rates for not doing so are prohibitive. Likewise .gov, where OSHA does not mandate screening, but god help you you if there's a lost-time accident involving an impaired employee. Lawyers can build whole careers on just this.
Only an idiot would show up stoned for a job in a building full of lethal machinery, but the universe is constantly refining and expanding the idiot supply. Factories can't afford the risk.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
Struggle to find them AT THAT PAY SCALE.
Dear business owners, stop being greedy fucks and start paying higher wages, you will start attracting more people to apply and have a larger pool to choose from.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
"...a shortage of skilled workers, especially female programmers..."
What's the ideal, desired, non-sexist/non-misogynist percentage now that it's 2016 - 51%? Shall no woman be left behind?
I'll just go quietly to the correction booth for re-grooving myself; no need for the taser and handcuffs...
Given a choice between hiring someone with a positive drug screens and someone with negative drug screens, it's an easy decision.
What if your guy with the positive result has a full portfolio, good references and is generally an all round nice guy, just has a couple joints on the weekend or whatever. Yet your negative result is a guy barely qualified, no experience and is one of those tee totallers that make sure everyone knows about it? Are you going to go by the arbitrary drug test that tells you very little or just get the one you genuinely think is better for the job?
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Do you test your heart surgeon for legal drugs?
I know several surgeons personally who have themselves routinely tested at an independent laboratory to protect themselves from legal claims of impairment. Then when a lawyer tries to imply that they were impaired they can present a long string of clean drug tests as evidence in their defense. Obviously they can't test for everything but it is a way to establish that they were not impaired in certain ways.
niggr
In my tech world, and I can't speak for anyone else's, everyone has their fix. For me, it's booze and mj. But I can't tell you how many of my contemporaries are popping pills, doing blow. And at the barest minimum they are chain smokers and drink 10 cups of coffee a day. Not saying they're junkies, because if you pull in 150k a year and develop some of the most widely used software, you really can't say you're dysfunctional.
The problem is illegal drugs.
If I know you take illegal drugs and you work for someone that competes with my business, maybe I will say to you "Give me that confidential project documentation you're working on or I'll tell the police (or your employer) that you smoke dope/crack/whatever." - i.e. a drug test is a gauge of risk to blackmail/extortion.
It's not the drug per se that is the problem but that the behaviour is illegal and attractive to prosecution meaning there is a potential risk to an employer about what someone will do to retain their job.
Credit reports run by employers are for a similar reason: to see how susceptible you are to their competitors offering you $100,000 in cash for confidential information that they wouldn't otherwise be able to obtain - i.e. a credit report is a gauge of risk to bribery.
You test doctors for legal drugs that effect their performance as surgeons.
Good luck with that. Do you have the foggiest idea how many tens of thousands of drugs and chemicals there are out there that can affect performance? Both in positive and negative ways. You literally cannot test for all of them. It's not possible. The cost alone would be astronomical even if it were technologically possible - which it isn't since we don't have tests for everything. Even if you could somehow test for all the possible forms of impairment, you cannot test often enough to actually ensure that the physician was not impaired at any time. Drugs leave the system after a time so unless you are going to test all physicians unrealistically often, you simply cannot hope to prevent the possibility of them ever being impaired.
Furthermore, who do you think is going to know the most about how to ensure a negative result on a drug test? That's right, physicians. They know better than anyone what the limitations of the drug tests are and how to get around them. You think Lance Armstrong figured out how to evade all those doping controls by himself? No, he had physicians telling him what to do and when to do it. Physicians are actually one of the highest risk groups for drug abuse precisely because they have access and they know better than anyone how to administer the drugs.
A doctor on a heavy dose of legally proscribed opiates should not be doing operations.
It's nice that the world is so simple for you. Those of us who live in the real world understand that sometimes life is more complicated than that. While I'd agree as a general proposition that a doctor who is receiving a treatment that is likely to significantly affect cognitive performance should ideally not be operating, it isn't always that simple. Corner cases abound. First off, drugs have different effects on different people and not all drugs that are prohibited cause impairment. You can develop standards for what dosages are acceptable, but ultimately it will be up to the physician to recuse himself if he thinks it will be a problem. Second, there are circumstances where even an impaired doctor is a better option than no doctor. Doctors routinely are needed to work under less than ideal circumstances - while sick, while injured, etc. Most of the time it's not a problem but sometimes circumstances are less than ideal. Third, you should be FAR more concerned about things like lack of sleep or inexperience - you know, like a resident that is at the tail end of a 36 hour shift or a first year resident who has just started their training. Honest mistakes by well intentioned medical staff are much more likely to kill you than the unlikely chance that a doctor is chemically impaired.
With the software industry already plagued by a shortage of skilled workers....
Bull fucking shit. There is no shortage of highly skilled programmers. There is a shortage of highly skilled programmers willing to work for the peanuts being offered by employers.
To simply mind your own business. As long as it doesn't effect on job performance it is none of your employers business what you do off the clock. You don't see employers firing people for getting caught speeding, or even shoplifting (most of the time), so why are drugs (especially one that is quickly being removed from the "illicit" list) such a dire thing?
Every drug user thinks they are fine or better while under the influence. Its the nature of addiction.
You don't know any actual drug users do you? I do - mostly reformed ones anyway. I have a guy who works for me who is an alcoholic. He's been sober for many years but once upon a time he did prison time related to his addiction and he still isn't allowed to have a driver's license. He would be the first to tell you that very few people who are addicts actually believe they do better under the influence or are "fine" while using. They know better and they have no illusions. Oh there are a deluded few I'm sure but they are the exception. Most understand perfectly well that the negative impact of their use of drugs or alcohol. The reasons why they take them have nothing to do with their job performance or any delusion that they perform better while using.
I'm not condoning getting impaired by any means. We test for drugs as a condition of employment at my company. We work with dangerous equipment and impairment could get somebody hurt badly. So I'm on board with reasonable measures to ensure safety. But you seem to have a very poor understanding of the realities surrounding drug use. Honestly if someone smoked pot a month ago, they would probably test positive but wouldn't be impaired today. Do I care? Probably not as long as they aren't high while on the job. If someone has a drink (alcohol is a drug) at home, that isn't really any concern of mine as a boss. If they show up to work smelling of alcohol though, now we have a problem. Blanket statements about wanting nothing to do with anyone who has ever used a drug simply don't make any sense in the real world. You have to apply a bit of common sense and rationality.
It's almost uniformly bad and misinformed. Am I supposed to believe that "journalists" have no first hand experience with recreational drugs? Are they just lazy hypocrites? Or is it the editors fault?
It is one thing to be impaired on the job. It is a completely different thing to ingest psycho active substances in your free time. This distinction is rarely made in the news or the actual drug tests. And then there's the irony of testing employees for drugs which they require (due to employer pressure) to do their job safely (think truck drivers and speed...)
Don't even get me started on the blatantly ignorant and one sided stories about the risks of various drugs.
I suppose this goes way beyond just drug reporting and is more about generally scaring people for advertising dollars.
Thanks journalism.
It often takes 30 days for THC to get out of your system so you can pass a test.
Unless you bring a sample from a friend which also happens.
Lacking better tests,
A pre-employment test for THC is not about coming to the screening high.
It is about do you have the ability to abstain for 30 days to pass the entrance exam.
Actually, not a bad screening criteria.
Once you get in, the odds of another test are low.
For some jobs, having a safe workplace would require continuous, or at least high probability random screening.
It would require screening for Alcohol and other legal stuff as well.
Doing this in general would cause an interesting disruption in the US labor system.
An entrance exam, not so much.
Aside from the legal issues, the effects of Alcohol seem a lot worse than THC.
I've never understood why the children of the 60's who are now the old farts in Congress haven't legalized it.
But that's a whole nuther subject than having a reasonable workplace.
I suspect this isn't an issue in Portugal (whose drug decriminalization successes you NEVER hear about in US corporate-controlled MSM).
There is a crap-ton of money being made by the testing industry (and Quest is a big one), and is closely allied to the 'Law and Order' political whores owned by the Prison-Industrial complex (another massive money-making leach sucking the US dry).
Cui bono; always Cui bono.
That's funny, there's no mention of the number one driving fatality drug.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Employees Struggle To Find Workers Who Want to Take A Drug Test
There, fixed that headline for you.
Thats so cis bro. Why are not all inter sex, trans sex, attack helicopters, LGBTXQPIFNSABCG7, included? Are you some transphobic cisnormative shitlord?
This has gotten out of hand. Some people can have a snub of weed on a Saturday night then by Monday be sober enough to drive yet fail a roadside drug test.
This goes right into wtf territory.
Right now people who take small doses of weed for pain relief can have their license revoked.
At what point do we shut down random drug testing because unlike alcohol an accurate reading is not currently possible
Only neckbeards would complain about women being included into their exclusive "club". You guys can keep your smug sausage fest. In fact you most likely have behavior and etiquette issues that scare women away. Hence your anger.
""My perspective on this is if they want to share their recreational habits with me, that's their prerogative, but I'm sure as hell not going to put them in a position to have to do it.""
All it takes is one person doing something stupid on company time, the company gets sued because an employee was impaired, and loses everything.
I'm sorry - but people's personal lives are just that - personal lives. I'm fine if they dope themselves up on their own time. However, someone having pot, coke, meth, whatever, in their systems, is also a warning to be considered before hiring them where YOU then become partially responsible for anything that happens involving them on company time.
Just wondering. I don't remember taking any medical test for H1B. Something was needed for F1 visa, but that is general infectious disease test done for all people. Then there was a medical test for citizenship or green card, not sure. Lots of fingerprinting and photographing, but not really sure there was a drug test.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Lets assume that since drug testing costs money, employers would only bother testing applicants they are interested in.
And after the drug testing, the employer is rejecting 4.7% of the applicants.
Which would mean that 95.3% of the applicants pass the testing - the vast majority.
Regardless of how you feel about the usefulness of this type of testing, simple math tells us that the impact of drug testing is very small.
You know what makes a productive employee? Having a healthy dose of personal time followed by 8 hours or more of sleep. How many employers are concerned about these basic requirements for their employees? Lack of sleep is certainly more performance affecting during the week than the blunt smoked on the weekend.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
I don't care whether it is on or off of the job. I have worked around people who got drunk at night or on weekends and they very had bad attitudes and also caused discord in the workplace I don't care whether it is alcohol or pot i simply don't want workers who are getting over a high or who use these items at times. If a test can reach back for months then so be it. I would not hire or even employ such a person.
Nope. Won't happen.
They want to not hire people so they use drug tests as an excuse.
Oh, and for the rest of you lazy bums at work, you will be getting more assignments, so no vacation days or paid over time.
How many of these surgeons simply get 8 hours of sleep a night like people are supposed to?
More than you'd think unless they are on call. The majority of the practicing surgeons I know have busy but not insane schedules and they usually get reasonable amounts of sleep except for the nights they have to be on call. The ones who get screwed on sleep are the residents for the most part. A residency is tantamount to a state sponsored hazing program.
>The hurdle partly stems from the growing ubiquity of drug testing, at corporations with big human resources departments, in industries like trucking where testing is mandated by federal law for safety reasons, and increasingly at smaller companies.
>With the software industry already plagued by a shortage of skilled workers, especially female programmers, some software companies think now would be the wrong time to institute drug testing for new employees, a move that would further limit the available talent pool.
I guess the number of female truckers is A-OK.
and my job applications. Not that it matters, I don't use any recreational pharmaceuticals.
They are not willing to hire experienced people or train from within.
Fuck 'em all.
You I don't even take drugs or even drink, but if a company asked me to take a drug test to work there I would laugh in their faces and then immediately go interview at one of the other 50 opportunities I had available at a moments notice. Granted it's great to have a skill that's in demand, I do feel sorry for people that don't have that opportunity and are forced to deal with this nonsense. And of course drug testing should be required for occupations involving transport and other situations impairment could be dangerous. Thankfully this all this is a moot point for me since I'm happily self employed.
I hope the number that can't pass climbs much higher.
That will make me more in demand and raise my salary!
I have no problems submitting to a test if it means more money!
"But Quest Diagnostics, which has compiled employer-testing data since 1988, documented a 10% increase in one year in the percentage of American workers who tested positive for illicit drugs -- up to 4.7 percent in 2014 from 4.3 percent in 2013."
It's written to make it sound at first glance that it's 10%. But it's actually 0.4%.
But then again, the scare headlines proudly exclaiming "0.4% more Druggies in the US Workforce, are YOU at risk?" wouldn't be as impactful.
...Normal.
And 4.7% is just a lower bound for the real number because they did not check those who never took part in a drug test. The share of the total population is probably closer to 10%.
With these sorts of numbers, it's just ludicrous to keep up prohibition.
> especially female programmers
Why worry about gender here? Is there something female programmers have that other programmers don't, other than what gender they identify as?
slip & fall, if you worked in the shipping industry, if you or a loved one were taking the xyz drug, you could be ENTITLED to compensation lawyers are to blame for this crap. You went out the night before, had a couple drinks. You back into a car at work, they test you for alcohol and it registered .002, some idiot
lawyer will sue the company you work for.
Most of these slip & fall types aren't looking to go to court. They pretty much know the tipping point for companies. If the amount is under
what it would cost the company to defend it, they'll usually settle, which is what the slip & fall types want. They end up with 20-50% or more
and the "victim" gets very little.
In a class action, it's WORSE. Say a corporation is found liable for cancer, like the asbestos crap. Not saying asbestos is good, but 50 years
ago, no one had any idea. Companies had to dole out BILLIONS, and the law firm(s) got the lions share of the money.
Until tort reform has some teeth, look for companies to continue to drug test. Not that its right, but I don't blame em.
My area is a huge manufacturing hub, but it is also the methamphetamine capitol of the South East. The relative ease of finding secluded real estate, the tight law enforcement budgets, and proximity to jobs and money, all make for a ripe atmosphere for cooking meth.
We have a VERY hard time finding people who can pass a drug test, and when we do, we have to pay them a mint to stay. The fact that so many people are leaving the labor force to get on welfare and do drugs is driving up the cost of labor very fast, and making offshoring all that more attractive. In fact my company is outsourcing as much manufacturing as they can because our factory capacity is down 35% in the last 5 years on lack of available labor.
But instead of using alcohol, I exercise a lot (a little under an hour on working days as a rule). I have very little trouble sleeping any more, and I have energy all day and pretty much never feel tired at work. No chemical enhancement at all, not even caffeine, and no need for alcohol either.
Not to mention all the other health benefits I get from regular exercise. And yes, I have a demanding job and I'm a parent.
--PM
> especially marijuana -- employers' main gripe
Really?
You fucks allow highly addictive drugs like alcohol or nicotine, and yet ignore science and frown upon cannabis, which has proven to be tremendously beneficial to one's health and impairment is equivalent to only 1.5 to 2.5 drinks?
Are you insane?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
It is a common belief that blacks and Hispanics take drugs at a higher clip than whites. So sometime a corporation start drug testing when management wants to decrease diversity.
One big problem I can see, across the spectrum of jobs, is that an employer can instantly run any kind of report on you for a very low fee, or even do their own digging. Anyone who has had any interaction with the police has a criminal record, and that person will always be passed over for the person who doesn't. People wonder why recidivism exists, and I think the inability to get a straight legitimate job of any kind is one of the major causes.
The other thing is that this kind of thing follows you forever and anywhere you go. In the past, you were able to move across the country or to another part of the world and start your life over. If you were in real trouble and needed to disappear permanently into a completely new identity, the French Foreign Legion would even take you. Having easy access to everyone's criminal history means even people who've paid for their crimes will never get work again. Getting arrested is now equivalent to a permanent lifetime employment ban.
That said, drugs should be legal, and this is coming from someone who's never had any experience with them. Reducing the product price to nearly zero reduces the crime that users resort to. Imagine being able to walk into a pharmacy and just buy stuff like OxyContin at the generic prescription price rather than risk your life with an unknown-quality product from a drug dealer.
No pot smokers there... nope everybody smokes meth at the ford plant. Because with meth you can pass a drug test the next day.
Funny coincidence, the big factories all started drug testing in the late 70s & early 80s... right about the same time all the American car manufacturers started cranking out garbage cars.
Its almost like potheads make better factory workers than meth heads.
Randy: I can't get stoned, Ricky. Ricky: What do you mean? It's shitty work. Everybody does that, all right? Carpenters, electricians, dishwashers, floor cleaners, lawyers, doctors, fuckin' politicians, CBC employees, principals, people who paint the lines on the fuckin' roads, get stoned, it'll be fun, get to work! Oh, and this is the most important, go down to the Shit-Mart. I need a bag of chicken chips. If they don't have chicken, get me dill pickle. And I want a chocolate milk.
For the record, I am an airline pilot (previously military), subject to DOT regulations governing safety sensitive public positions. I think truck drivers, rail, public transit, etc are subject to these regulations: https://www.transportation.gov/odapc/
I can understand the policy to which I'm subject. As for other types of employers, they might be trying to "weed" out (sorry for the pun) candidates that actuarially could represent greater risk of health care or reliability issues, but I wouldn't really know. Might be justifiable for hiring, but not retention in my view.
Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?
Something overlooked is that drug testing technology has advanced; in the wrong direction, but it has advanced.
They have made the tests more accurate, which sounds like a good thing until you realize that they sacrificed precision to do so. Yea, on average, the tests get good results, but at the cost of many "outliers," i.e. false positives and negatives.
Supposedly this is corrected by verification through a GC test at a lab, but more and more labs are getting caught confirming initial results without actually doing the test.
And I caught one last year: Knowing that I hadn't used anything in years, and knowing that I could pass (using home kits, afterwards), I gave a sample that tested positive and the lab confirmed. Ah, but I'm a chemist, so I asked them for the numbers, and they hung up on me.
Lost the job, anyway, but now I know: Clean or not, ALWAYS CHEAT!
I have had to take drug tests for numerous clients that I have worked with and I always wondered about this. What if you live in a state where it is legal to use pot (Washington State for example) for recreational purposes. You work in a state where that is not the case. The test comes up positive. Can you still be denied employment because of that?
I've been told the answer is yes. The whole thing is messed up. The federal government says its illegal, some states say it is legal and employers have their own independent rules.
Personally I think that alcohol is a far bigger problem that pot. From an employers standpoint, how many man hours are lost to people calling in sick because they are hungover? Or people dragging their ass into work hungover and working at half speed? Or making business decisions in that state? Not to mention drunk driving and alcohol fueled assaults.
At the end of the day employers should be free to choose the employees they want. I just wonder if they are missing some of the bad ones.
that surgeons arent usually subject to recurring drug testing. Nobody in that pay grade is. Doctors, surgeons, nurses, police, pilots, all the professions that people regularly cite as "you wouldnt want these people on drugs" are not subject to regular drug tests. Pilots & police are usually tested at hire, and then again every three years (on a scheduled routine) but these people arent subject to NEAR the scrutiny that say, a tow truck driver or an assembly-line worker is.
Theres a -very- good chance that your heart surgeon couldn't pass a drug test.
And I'm fine with that, if it helps him keep a cool head and a steady hand when the pressure is on, more power to him.
Aren't they dealing with the most urgent/critical cases when they are on call?
Not necessarily. Being on call just means you are available for cases that come in. It doesn't necessarily mean a given patient's case will be more serious than normal. Probably a higher percentage of cases are of the urgent/severe type but not all of them. Frequently on-call is just for monitoring in case an issue crops up, managing staff or to be available just in case something urgent crops up.
It's kind of like holding the off hours pager when you do IT support. Most of the stuff you'll deal with is fairly routine stuff that just as easily could have popped up during the day. Sometimes it's of the more severe variety.
That strategy worked great for Lance Armstrong
Yes it did. For a long time. It probably would have continued to work if Lance hadn't been such a dick to so many people. Lots of other people from his era got caught doping and few of them were punished anywhere near as hard. Lance got greedy and arrogant and seemed to think he could never get caught.
Anyway he was tested and he tested clean. All that means is that there was no evidence of the drug in his system at the time he was tested. It doesn't mean he wasn't using some PED that they weren't testing for or something the didn't have a test for or that had been flushed from his system prior to the test. Basically doping controls mostly catch the athletes who don't know what they are doing or who get sloppy or just unlucky.
Just means us law-abiding citizens get paid more.
That said, I have never used an illegal substance in my life, have never smoked (probably the reason for the first statement) and probably haven't been drunk and legless since I was a student,
If my employer, a hospital, thought that I had been abusing, I would let them test me only if they signed an undertaking to make a substantial charity donation on my coming up clean. If they think that I have broken the law, they should tell the police.
If I showed up under the influence(s), the police should be involved. If someone is tested and fail, HR can deal with it after the courts.
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
Should apply to employers too. If I don't have a drug conviction, I don't need a drug test, end of story. Excepting professions where drug testing is required by law (which I also disagree with, but I recognize it's not going to change overnight).
Seriously, move on.
Freedom, it's what's for dinner.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The craziest drug testing policy I ever saw was at PetSmart. A sign proclaim they were proud to have a drug free workplace. My immediate first thought was I don't care if the guy selling me dog food was high. I would rather they test my plane's piolet or my surgeon if they test anyone at all.
The original poster was saying that the same people who want more H1B workers, will also use the drug screening failures as another reason to import workers. They will say since American workers are "high" we need foreign workers to do these jobs.
One could argue if you were not so high, the reading skills on this forum would be better, too.
Western civilization is doomed. We can't find folks who can't pass drug tests - especially female programmers? It's over.
So if I understand this article correctly, companies are having trouble finding workers who can pass a drug test in a pre-hire investigation. Yet lots of people complain about how unfair it is to drug test welfare recipients, and almost none are caught. So if both these facts are correct, people who want to work are a lot more likely to smoke marijuana than those who want to go on welfare. Yessssss, makes perfect sense to me. Maybe, just maybe, the people wanting to go on welfare who know they are going to fail the drug test simply don't take the test.
What about second-hand weed smoke? Your downstairs neighbor is a huge pothead, and you live right above him, and smoke tends to rise, (I'm operating on the assumption that the smoke from marijuana is lighter than air...) and you enjoy the warm, sunny afternoons, and quietly and unknowingly absorb a bunch of THC, a tiny bit at a time, naturally, and then shockingly piss hot?
There's not really any plausible secondhand smoke scenario that would result in you testing positive for cannabis. Especially if you're suggesting small amounts over a long period; it doesn't bioaccumulate in that sense. Also, false positives aren't really an issue: any positive results are re-tested using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. That will reveal whether you've had muffins or something harder.
You might want to revisit your point.
Yes, clearly they're trying to promote dysentery among the masses.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
For (you) it's not a matter of trust; it's a matter of arbitrary stupidity imposed by legislators with no respect whatsoever for personal and consensual choice, exacerbated by the financial benefits of kowtowing to the law-enforcement cabal and the re-election benefits of frightening low-functioning voters. The industry (you) work in is heavily regulated by the Feds and drug tests are mandatory.
FTFY
To paraphrase what someone smart said above: impaired on the job or when driving, etc.? That's other-person-relevant and reasonably subject to scrutiny and so forth. Impaired outside of the job, on your own time, for instance safe at home in front of the TV? That should be entirely your business.
The drug laws as currently written are batshit, and the legislators, law enforcement, and sycophantic corporations, are acting wrongfully and harmfully. Period.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
do people not realize there's fake piss you can buy at pretty much any 'head' shop that sells pipes, tobacco, etc.? I've used these to pass several pre-employment drug tests (weed) without issue. I work for a fairly progressive employer that doesn't test again after pre-employment, but has to do it for insurance reasons or some nonsense like that. It's like $40 for fake pee and it works every single time, if you can't figure out how to pass a drug test then you're an idiot probably wouldn't get the job anyways. (if you're doubting the effectiveness of the fake piss, clearly you've never used it or seen how they test the piss.)
Sleep deprivation should be in that list. As should emotional condition, financial pressure, etc.
The whole thing is bullshit designed to enrich law enforcement and the alcohol industry, while skimming votes from the vast pool of low-functioners terrified by every bogyman the media throws in their faces.
But hey, when the majority elects the rich and allows them to be guided by money and "consideration", this is what they inevitably get.
When they keep electing them, then I know the majority is just a bunch of idiots.
Which is where we are today.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
This obsession with drug testing has concerned me for a long time.
1). Does it occur to anyone else that drug testing means that companies don't trust their managers? Once upon a time (and not in fantasy land) companies trusted their managers. If an employee was high, acting inappropriately, or in any way problematic, the manager would step in and manage that situation. It seems that companies don't trust their managers to do that anymore;
2). The drug tests create a poor workplace/hiring dynamic. It can be characterized as 'beat the test'. Is that what we want? If you can beat the test you are fit to work, and if you fail you are unfit? Regardless of any other factor?
3). Our drug tests now are sensitive to the point they can be unhelpful. There are lots of (often apocryphal) stories of people eating something containing poppy seeds and then failing a drug test for opioids. This could be managed through threshold cutoffs, but again, common sense gets trumped by fear and an unwillingness to take any chances at all.
4). Personal experience. I was informed, years ago, about a co-worker (not in my department, not my responsibility, don't want to leave that impression). Apparently they had a habit of smoking a joint over lunch! From what I heard it didn't seriously affect their performance although their co-workers weren't too impressed. It caused me to reflect on the whole subjects of: Does This Really Matter, and Shouldn't Business Limit Concerns To Workplace Issues.
I'm willing to accept that some can use illicit drugs recreationally and not suffer too much from it. After all most of us indulge in alcohol from time to time. Once it affects your work performance, then I'm willing to accept than an employer must intercede. Without that... what business is it of the employer?
Many companies test because they are required to by law because they do business with the Government.
That isn't true, but often company HR departments think it is true, citing the "Drug-Free Workplace Act". This is a quote from the Department of Labor FAQ about that:
Is drug testing required or authorized under these regulations?
The Act and these rules neither require nor authorize drug testing. The legislative history of the Drug-Free Workplace Act indicates that Congress did not intend to impose any additional requirements beyond those set forth in the Act. Specifically, the legislative history precludes the imposition of drug testing of employees as part of the implementation of the Act. At the same time, these rules in no way preclude employers from conducting drug testing programs in response to government requirements (e.g., Department of Transportation or Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules) or on their own independent legal authority.
I have found that trying to explain that no it isn't "required by law" to an HR drone is a pointless exercise.
> With the software industry already plagued by a shortage of skilled workers, especially female programmers
What is the difference between a good male and a good female programmer, except that the latter makes the diversity freaks happier?
eye rolls right out of head and keeps on rollin out the door and down to the pub
There are real problems with employee drug tests as currently practiced, problems that go way beyond identifying drug-free employees. As things stand now, when someone applies for a job - just applies, mind you, this process occurs well before anyone is actually offered a position - the prospective employee is routinely told to go get a drug test, usually at a local testing lab. Now, regardless of whether or not that person has in fact used any illegal drugs, the report that goes to the employer lists ALL the medication found in that person's system at the time of the test, pretty much every medication taken during the last few weeks. That's right, they get a full report on every prescription drug you are taking. Including, for example, antidepressants, or birth control... And they get this info BEFORE they decide to hire you. It's the equivalent of giving them full access to your medical records. Few people realize this glaring hole in our right to privacy exists, that potential employers will see this information before deciding whether or not to hire you. Just one more example of a seemingly sacred privacy right, now blown to the four winds, gone forever while no one was paying attention.
There was a story in the Denver Post a few days ago about how tech employers in the area were having trouble finding employees in an environment where unemployment is sitting around 2.9%. Then they go on to name all the companies in the area that have reputations for being the worst companies to work for. And one of them had just had a case go to the Colorado supreme court recently because they fired some guy who had spinal injury after he tested positive for marijuana use (He had a medical card.) So yeah, shitty employers have trouble finding employees. News at 11.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
If they really want to stop drug taking then they need to have people pass drug and alcohol tests before they can claim social benefits (aka. The Dole).
Why test on past use, that has little to nothing to do with intoxication (which is the problem). Some of these tests fail if the person has eaten poppy seeds, that's hardly useful to the prospective employer. And, as others have pointed out, legal drug use, such as caffeine, nicotine, prescription drugs, alcohol, etc
If they have not laid off everyone at the first chance in order to keep their share prices high. Maybe if they showed a bit of loyalty to their employees then they wouldn't have such a problem getting people once things started getting better.
Our system of constraining debate to within the bounds permissible to the authorities is working perfectly once again. There seems to be almost no discussion of the fact that:
Drug tests, besides being an invasion of privacy and likely to produce data which will be abused, do not correlate well with *impairment*.
Whereas *impairment* correlates 100% with *impairment*.
I'm supposed to believe that drug testing, when there are about 100x more substances than tests, is the only thing we can possibly think of to do in order to evaluate impairment? When there are also countless causes of impairment besides drugs?
Or do we really not give a fuck about impairment at all, but just want more reasons to probe people up the ass until the common citizen is totally conditioned to accept random blood draws, anal probes, piss tests, by their employers, the cops, etc.? Then what? Cameras in our bedrooms to be sure we sleep enough, etc.?
Why aren't we talking about how to test for actual impairment, which would raise a lot less fuss, and actually have a chance of giving much more reliable information in cases where it actually matters?
Thousands of people every year die because a bunch of fuckwits think they need to get stoned. Personally, I think prison is too good for people who get caught buying drugs. They should be flogged, caned, and then doused with salt water. If they get caught more than 3 times a year, they deserve a bullet in the head for being so fucking stupid, selfish, and an overall worthless human being. The amount of misery that these jackasses cause is immense. May they rot in Hell.
fuck off with this sexism bait, you want to program, learn to program and or get a degree in programming, be willing to move around for jobs and no one fucking cares if you are female, there is no seixsm in programing women just don't self select for it in big numbers and that is fine.
also fuck off druggies, it's objective fact you make worse employees, stop watching Seth Rogen movies, pot smoking isn't cool.
misguided drug policy
Misguided? The word is oppressive. The only thing drug prohibitionists are guiding is the money into their own pockets.
Having had to piss in a bottle occasionally since the late '70s, I've never found it humiliating, disturbing, etc., as some of the posters here claim. I take comfort in knowing that the other people I work closely with have all had to do the same, and that I can trust that they're most likely not high while doing essential tasking that I and our customers rely upon. And yes, I'm aware that this doesn't catch alcoholic behavior, which I've had the unpleasant opportunity to deal with in a couple of employees.
So, if you don't mind working with peers who are high, than go have fun. Just don't expect that others wish to, or should have to in order to have a safe, and productive, work environment.
Just another day in Paradise
I'm drug free. Sponsor me for a green card and I'll come down to work, no problem.
marijuana use in the last week ?
Reality's a RUSH!
With the software industry already plagued by a shortage of skilled workers, especially female programmers,
Give the melodrama a rest will you?
Strawman! What she was pointing out was your racist-like attitude towards drug users. And it IS racist. I have read your loud mouthed posts for years now. The statement she quoted -unknowingly I'm sure- is a statement you take to heart is every aspect of your life. There is no context for this statement to be taken out of. You saw what I saw and quickly tried to take the thread elsewhere. However you aren't as smart as you think you are. The fact you made an "Indian" strawman by bitching about "furriners takin our jerbs" only makes my conclusion stronger. I've told you this for years and I don't mind posting it for 237,821st time:
You are a despicable person with little to no feelings for your fellow man outside your small "loyal" circle. I am happy, as I'm sure you are, that we don't know each other in real life. Because I am not like you, I WOULD piss on you if you were on fire, but because your type values punishment and retribution, and I am always open to compromise, I would make sure to take my time doing it, and I would make sure that you had a healthy dose of your favorite medicine- SHAME. You would walk that walk of shame as you make my kind do, and you'll like it just enough to do it because you survived. Then you'll skulk off to your cave somewhere to plan your retribution for my retribution and the circle of life and mankind will come full circle.
Since Karma likes some good ol anecdotes, it's been my experience that the conclusions you just pulled from your ass, are, in fact, true, The guilty dog barks the loudest. I cannot recall how many times I've came across those who were just throwing zealous shit fits about some subject, like homosexuality, drugs, or prostitution, have been seen on the 6 o'clock news being arrested for that very same thing they're going all nazi over. And I use nazi here in an applicable non-godwin-like usage. To be so hardcore set on the idea of the aryan nation, his hair sure was awfully brown.....
I see a lot of people advocating to drop the drugs test. Keep testing, I say! When you can't find an applicant who will pass a drug test, hire me. I have 10 years of experience in software development, including Objective-C, Java, .NET, Oracle and SQL Server, Windows, most IDEs, source control and continuous integration like Jenkins (etc), clearable, US citizen, no problem passing a background check, willing to relocate, particularly overseas. I have two apps in the app store, I maintain a medium-sized website, and I've worked on projects ranging from inventory tracking to realtime RF collection and analysis. Projects relating to high-frequency trading (with profit sharing) and/or machine learning preferred. My base salary requirement is $250k ($300k for NYC, San Francisco, or other area with comparable-cost-of-living), with medical, dental, and 1:1 401k matching with no vesting period, 40-hour workweek with overtime, flextime (not pre-scheduled), one or more telework days per work week, and at least 10 paid holidays (floating preferred). Also a company-provided Audi RS7. Interested employers can submit your job description and contact information to slashdot.job.seeker@[Google Mail].com.
Oh fuck man I know. Weed ruined my life. It ended up causing me to get married, get a better paying job with a great promotion 3 years later....shit man, I even lost my junky ass trailer and 3 broken down piece of shit cars. Luckily I managed to stop sucking dick long enough in the alley to look up and see this wonderful little house that I bought with what little bit of cocksucking money I didn't spend on weed. I even had to resort to stealing a new car for me AND my wife. At least that's what the dealer kept repeating. "What a steal! This is highway robbery!" I simply can't agree with you more. Weed is bad. It ruins lives. Take a look at me. Don't be like me.
They could try looking for someone OVER 30!
People OVER 30! Have the required 10+ years of work experience PLUS a good work ethic PLUS they've pretty much done all the drugs they're going to do until arthritis starts hitting their knees.
http://verdantdetox.squarespace.com/ best way to pass naturally
after asking me if I was on them, to which I replied "No". They didn't care, they just wanted 175% productivity no matter if it was done right or wrong. I don't work there anymore. I feel sorry for anyone getting their car fixed at that worldwide auto center. It's a tweakers paradise.
How does having a vagina make you a better software engineer?
I would argue that there is a shortage of programmers
If there is a shortage of programmers, why are salaries for programmers not climbing? If an industry is in a labor shortage, the price of labor should increase as well to attract more workers to the field. This "shortage" is only one created by employers failing to raise wages.
If programmers made on average $1M/yr, you would see the field saturated with new programmers. As far as the "skilled" programmers - that's another discussion entirely,
There would be a shitload more wantabe programmers, and among them some real programmers.
But the PHBs and HR still couldn't tell know the difference...
I've been hearing it for decades:
illicit drugs/alcohol/caffeine enhances "the process."
What I do on my own time doesn't affect what I do at work.
During my youth (I'm 60 now), I've indulged from time to time. For the most of the past 30 years or so, I've abstained from such "recreation" and found a great increase in quality and quantity of my work.
Recreational use of drugs ended over 35 years ago. Alcohol is now limited to less than a six-pack per month. Caffeine: coffee six times a YEAR, carbonated sources (soda/pop, whatever word your region uses) about the same. My present downfall is Arizona Ice Tea, but it's diluted 3:1. No more poppy seeds either. That small change eliminates opioids from a drug test. Go with sesame seed, onion or garlic.
The problem with "Augmented Reality" is that it isn't. Try to tone it down over a yeoar or two, then look back to see the results. You might be surprised. Your concentration and intellectual output will increase almost exponentially.
Been there, done that. Have the tee shirt, coffee mug, hat and that little crystal trophy. Sometimes experience trumps knowledge.