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."

Comments

I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[Opportunist]

Drop the test. Duh.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[Sique]

This is exactly one of the big mistakes people make about drugs. They hear the word "drug" and automatically think "illicit drugs". Do you test your heart surgeon for legal drugs? Did he have some glas of wine on weekend? Does he take some pain reliever or sleeping pills? How much caffeine did he imbibe in the morning, how much theobromine was in his chocolate bar? Often, the limits between legal drugs and illicit drugs is purely arbitrary or even random.

I know a physician who at the same time is an engineer (and was professor for medical engineering at an university until he retired) who as a young man was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and got extensive treatment with lithium. Lithium is not only a mind affecting drug, it is actually a mind altering drug. It got him rid of his bipolar disorder. Your imagination of purity would have him disqualified. Other people were wiser.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[Hadlock]

Clearly you've never hung around with med school students, then. Or church youth group councilors. There's lots, LOTS of upstanding citizens doing all kinds of crazy drugs behinds closed doors. You're just not privy to that information.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume you also prohibit workers who use alcohol, tobacco and coffee as these are also drugs that affect mental processes.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[Kokuyo]

Dude, affect...

See, I have this prejudice against people who can't handle their grammar just as much as you have your prejudices against people using substances.

Also, I've met enough people not on drugs whom I wouldn't want to have cleaning my house much less in charge of something important.

If someone is able to hold a job for years while using... something has already proven that he or she is capable of self-control. More so than somebody who needs abstinence in order to function.

As someone who usually drinks very little alcohol, I've started using the substance for my benefit. I seldom go into the cinema without a beer or two in my hands. That way, I can get my brain out of overdrive and much more importantly out of nag-mode. It allows me to actually enjoy the damn things instead of constantly finding flaws in them.

The wife and I also use it to unwind on particularly stressful days with the twins instead of lying in bed awake for hours on end because our brains just wont shut up.

If that makes us unreliable in your eyes, then I guess it's a good thing we don't work for you. On the other hand, if you keep that grammar up, I'd probably strangle you after half a year at the latest.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[blind biker]

I hope you screen for alcohol consumption, since it's one of the drugs that most impair mental health, impulse control, and thinking in general. It is also one of the most physically addictive drugs. It also gives a misplaced sense of self-confidence.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Smoking pot sounds better than working for you.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[JaredOfEuropa]

Only problem is: people can test positive for a few weeks after having used drugs. And while no one wants to hire an addict, many of those people are just recreational users who take something in the weekend, i.e. when it's no one's business what they get up to. I don't care what my heart surgeon drops in the weekend as long as he is sober come Monday.

I had a chat with a colleague from the US about this, when I admitted I smoke pot (a couple times a year). He asked if I wasn't afraid to test positive in a random drug test, and he was surprised to hear we have no drug testing at all; in the Netherlands, it is unheard of in an office environment. Medical tests in general may only be used to look for conditions that impair your ability to carry out your assigned duties. Testing positive once is not considered proof that you have a condition preventing you from working well, and cannot be considered proof that you are more likely to report to work under the influence. Tests in the workplace are rare, and pre-hiring drug screens are not allowed at all (you can't pose a safety risk if they haven't hired you yet). On-the-job testing is allowed, but only in the context of safety, and testing positive might result in being sent home, not in being fired straightaway. Only in a few exceptional cases like pilots or air traffic controllers are employers allowed (or even obliged) to keep to a zero-drugs policy. Alcohol tests are treated slightly different, because they are much more accurate in measuring actual influence at the time of the test (i.e. during work).

In most cases of recreational drug users, you'll never know if they took anything during the weekend if you don't test... so what is the problem? If they take too much, or use on the job, you will notice it... and you can take action in those cases. The law here does allow for disciplinary action in such cases, and allows for on-the-job drug testing of that employee if he is noticeably impaired, or during a rehabilitation course.

You could argue that in some cases it is critical to check the mental well-being of workers, for example we wouldn't want intoxicated software engineers developing code for pacemakers or heart monitors. My arguments against drug screens in such cases: 1) drug screens only tell you that someone has used drugs in the past days / weeks, but say nothing about how fucked up they are right this minute, nor how often they take them. 2) if your software quality control cannot catch errors introduced by intoxicated (tired, worried, overworked, momentarily dense, distracted, malicious) employees, then maybe you shouldn't be developing software for medical devices.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Riddle me this... do you want your heart surgeon on mind effecting drugs?

Boom.

Riddle me this... do you want your heart surgeon to enjoy themselves while on vacation or their day off, having a drink every now and then? This is perfectly legal and acceptable even the night before surgery.

And yet if that same surgeon were to fly to Colorado and enjoy themselves legally smoking grass while there, that is likely considered illegal activity by their employer and they can be still considered "under the influence" even days later when they are 100% sober, according to current law. Does that shit make sense?

It's not the fact that we want these individuals high on the job any more than we would accept them drunk on the job. However, our laws allow for people to get completely smashed on alcohol 24-48 hours prior to performing critical tasks, and we still arrest people for wanting to do the same thing with marijuana. It does not make sense at all. Not to mention how much more damaging the legal alternative is today in comparison. Either even out the laws, or bring back Prohibition. One or the other, because the current law is so damn confusing it's ridiculous and only ends up filling prisons.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[Karmashock]

Proscribed drugs count if they impair judgment. Same goes for anything. You want to argue the unfairness of the DEA or ATF? I am not the federal government. I don't care how many things you can make out of hemp. The entire pro pot rant is like the screeching of the same fucking retarded parrot to me. You want to get high? Get high. I won't stop you. In my opinion, you have a right to get as high as you want on ANYTHING you want. And I think you have a right to it as often as you want.

What I am saying is that I have a right to employ who I want, on the criteria I want, and work with whomever I please. And should those criteria not be met, I reserve my right to not cooperate. What is more, you cannot stop me. Bypassing the most strict labor laws that might restrict some really only restrict those too stupid and lacking in creativity to bypass them. I am neither stupid nor lacking in creativity. Those regulations are powerless. And what is more they only apply to employers. My terms extend to coworkers and employers. I won't tolerate it if having sound judgement matters. And in anything important... sound judgement matters.

You cannot force me to employ you. You cannot force me to work with you. You cannot force me to work for you.

And absent that force... you have no ability to resist any criteria I deem valid.

You have the right to do what you want to do. In my opinion at least, you can do whatever you want. I really don't care what you do to yourself. If you want to inject bleach into your eyeballs I'll sell you the needle and bleach. Do it. Whatever that is. I have the right to do what I want to do. What I want to do is not spend my time dealing with giggling assholes that fuck up everything they touch.

The pothead arguments bore me. I've heard all of them before and I hold this opinion. Surprise me. Tell me something I haven't heard before or confirm my bias.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[TheRaven64]

I don't take any illegal drugs, but if a company asked me to take a drug test then that would be my cue to leave. That level of trust implies that it's not a place that I'd want to work, or be able to work efficiently.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[bickerdyke]

What I am saying is that I have a right to employ who I want, on the criteria I want, and work with whomever I please.

Absolutely. And set your criteria as high as you want. But then don't whine about any "shortage". (Which is what this 'news item' is about)

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[stealth_finger]

Look, calm down and take a breath. Where'd you get the whole pot head thing? Because I mentioned alcohol v a joint? I never made a pro or anti drugs argument. You started by going on about mind affecting drugs and how you refuse to work with anyone on them. All I did was point out there's a whole lot of them and only a fraction, the ones deemed illegal are the ones tested for. Do you demand to know if everyone you do business with in on prescription meds or demand to see drug tests on all business partners and their staff? Is that on your application forms for jobs? I highly doubt it but even if you do and you flat out refuse to go any where near anyone who is on/has had any mind altering drug, legal or illegal I can all but guarantee you have been on a regular basis and been none the wiser.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[Karmashock]

Typically they cost about a dollar a day per employee. Chump change.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. You test doctors for legal drugs that effect their performance as surgeons. There are many legally proscribed drugs that make it illegal to drive or do all sorts of other things. A doctor on a heavy dose of legally proscribed opiates should not be doing operations.

I'm sorry, but you lose all credibility when you don't know the difference between "affect" and "effect" or "prescribe" and "proscribe". With your obvious lack of education, I seriously doubt that you are in any position to hire or fire.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[Karmashock]

Sure, from the same people that tell you that is why they need H1B visas. Only you're too stupid to realize this is another dumb trial balloon they're floating to keep business as usual going.

US workers won't do this work.
US workers aren't qualified to do this work.
US workers don't meet our diversity quotas.
US workers are too high to pass a drug test.

Pay attention, hippy.
https://youtu.be/-P7peu7Wy7w?t...

Re: I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[dunkelfalke]

Who in their sound mind would want to work for such a dick? And I say that as a teetotaler.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[dave420]

You are labouring under the assumption that someone under the influence of drugs (illicit or otherwise) is somehow functionally impaired. You are not doing yourself any favours by wading into an argument and dismissing swathes of the population because of something you assume to be true.

And has been pointed out, "effect" and "affect" are not interchangeable.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[dave420]

"From the same people" that you created in your mind. That you need to make some bizarre, unfounded generalisations to bolster your claims doesn't reflect too well on you or your argument.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[Karmashock]

Which is why the article is whining about the set threshold.

Right? Does the drug threshold only apply to burger flippers or are you wrong?

Wrong.

What is doubly sad is that you don't realize this entire thing is just a pretext for them to claim they need more H1B visas. They're not going to hire you idiots. All they're going to do is whine about how they can't find US workers and then import more Indians or whatever. You lack the awareness to be more than a pawn.

Pushing for lower standards is just going to mean lower standards.

Re: I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[serviscope_minor]

. You don't know anything about me.

We know you drug test your employees. Many people, including those who don't take drugs consider that a dick move. My drug intake is largely limited to moderate amounts of alcohol in the evening, usually Friday/weekend and caffeine.

I'd have no chance of failing a piss-taking test because I don't happen to indulge in anything that might lead me to fail. Nonetheless I would not start employment at somewhere that required one.

The things is what you're doing is excluding people who care about privacy and occasional weekend pot-smokers. unless you have vastly more generous sick leave than your fellow employers (I'm guessing you're American) what you're failing to do is exclude people from work who are mentally impaired due to having a stinking cold.

Those people are far, far more common than people who turn up to work high or pissed.

life by the way that people interact with me.

I don't like the phrase IRL applied to forums because this is as much real life as anything else. we are all real people talking after all. And people here, including non drug users, think it's a dick move to mandate drug tests.

Re: I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[dunkelfalke]

Have you ever heard of the duck test?

If you talk like a dick and behave like a dick then you probably are a dick. Hence my bewilderment. Seriously, if my employer insists on regular drug test, I'd give him the finger. Not because I'd fail a test - I wouldn't - just because of the blatant invasion of my privacy. And besides, all you make are petty excuses. Nobody is ever forced to be a psychopath, they just are. And yes, going by my system every psychopath is a dick. No exceptions.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[JustOK]

they don't drug test the automated machines that are replacing the human workers.

Re: I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[Anonymous Coward]

If Your Choices are not up for discussion, then why the fuck did you post them in a public forum?

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[reboot246]

For me it's not a matter of trust; it's a matter of Federal law. The industry I work in is heavily regulated by the Feds and drug tests are mandatory.

By taking your position, you've eliminated yourself from tons of high paying, secure jobs.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[dwillden]

So any company that does any contract work for the government is a place to avoid then. Many companies test because they are required to by law because they do business with the Government.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[TheRaven64]

Interestingly, these companies aren't required to drug test contractors. If you have skills that they need, then it's possible for them to avoid this requirement.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[squiggleslash]

Uh, what? What on earth makes you think the same people advocating for H1Bs are also arguing for less drugs testing?

One group is actively trying to reduce wages, the other is simply pointing out that it's ludicrous to eliminate a high talent pool of workers from software development simply because they wear faded black clothes and smell like a teacher's breakroom.

Are you trolling or do you have a serious reason to believe the two are the same group, because I'm not seeing it.

Re: I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[Bing Tsher E]

You don't seem to understand the environment under which drug testing is conducted, which you are forcing your employees to be exposed to.

On the surface it's all very 'clinical' and systematic. But what you're forcing your non-drug-using employees to do is hang out in a waiting room with people who do have drug problems, who have been convicted and/or are in treatment.

You're breaking down a wall of trust and forcing your employees into a setting where they are asked to piss in a bottle by people at a facility who assume anybody there is a confirmed drug user.

Using the terminology of modern 'Quality' methods, you're trying to 'test' problems out of your employees. That's the old obsolete method in quality systems. The new methods are to build quality into the 'product' and in human terms build trust into your relationship with your employees.

As in any quality system, you shouldn't have to test 100%. Your system is broken if you are forced to do so.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[MrKaos]

Proscribed drugs count if they impair judgment. Same goes for anything.

Just out of curiosity, if someone is suffering depression but is a high functioning individual are you saying you won't work with them because they are on prescribed medications? Are you aware that there are many people who have to take these medications do so to prevent them from commiting suicide?

Are you also aware that it is that attitude that keeps many people in a depressed state because they cannot speak openly about what is affecting them forcing them into a cycle of dishonesty that exacerbates their condition?

My terms extend to coworkers and employers. I won't tolerate it if having sound judgement matters. And in anything important... sound judgement matters.

I could extend the same reasoning to people who have very little or no emotional intelligence as it is often their lack of impulse control that causes endless conflict. They don't need to consume drugs to do millions of dollars worth of damage in lost productivity to other employees. They appear to have sound judgement, but in reality they undermine everyone around them with emotional manipulation so that they look good.

Perceptions of judgement can be manipulated and I suggest that psychometric tests to detect narrcissism or occupational psychopathy would do far more good than drug testing. I would take working with someone who smoked weed over someone suffering from narrcissism or worse, occupational psychopathy, yet I am forced to work with these people who are obviously psychologically impaired.

The best people to work with are the ones able to overcome differences and display empathy towards others because they make *everyone* more productive.

You cannot force me to employ you. You cannot force me to work with you. You cannot force me to work for you.

Do you drink coffee? I don't see why I should tolerate peoples bad mood if they haven't had their cup of coffee and that *clearly* effects their judgement. Do you smoke tobacco, same reason, third party smoke is harmful and makes my clothes smell. Why should a smoker get to have ten 6 minutes smoke breaks a day while I keep working?

Of course the big one is alcohol, not only impairment but the violence that goes along with it. These people may not be drunk at work, but they are perfect assholes when they are sober.

The boundaries defined by tolerance and a good nature are they key to whether you help them or show them the door.

What I want to do is not spend my time dealing with giggling assholes that fuck up everything they touch.

Consuming recreational drugs at work isn't appropriate however the issue with drug tests is that they (as the article pointed out) extend beyond immediacy and several days previous. People should not be impared at work, especially if there is a safety issue at hand.

However drug testing that extends beyond what happens at work is an ethical issue, because it is not ethical to test someone for illegal substances if they are not impared at that time as it can lead to criminal charges. This is tantamount to an illegal search of one's person without a warrant and people should be free to do what they will in their own homes if they aren't harming others. This is a clear breach of many countries constitutional rights and it is right to walk away from employers who do this.

If employers want drug testing then they should be arguing for the legalization of the drugs they want to test for.

The pothead arguments bore me. I've heard all of them before and I hold this opinion.

I see this more as an issue of personal freedom than an issue of drugs. It should not matter what people do at home as long as they bring their game to work. After all they aren't imposing their will on you for your foibles.

People who have a "drug problem" usually have a lot of other

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[drinkypoo]

So I presume either you're a complete nutcase (possible)

You've read his comments, right?

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[drinkypoo]

Yes, the incompetent Americans... says the guy on a US website,

I love Slashdot as much as the next guy, but don't pretend that it isn't incompetent. Unicode, anyone? Remember Beta? Etc.

probably using a US operating system,

Is that Windows, or the one with systemd?

on a CPU designed by Americans...

...with an untrustworthy computing module to permit data theft.

The pot heads are reliable in their gullibility as regards their drug.

You mean the one where it's recently been proven that levels in the blood don't show how recently it's been used, nor whether the user is impaired? That drug? The only person involved in this discussion who is gullible is you. You bought the lie that drug testing did what it said on the tin.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[drinkypoo]

Proscribed drugs count if they impair judgment. Same goes for anything. You want to argue the unfairness of the DEA or ATF?

No, we want you to stop being a liar. You're hiding behind the DEA and ATF when you are the one choosing to do drug testing.

The entire pro pot rant is like the screeching of the same fucking retarded parrot to me.

Because to you, freedom is retarded, and you're willing to work against it because TPTB say it's a good idea. Okay, sycophant.

What I am saying is that I have a right to employ who I want, on the criteria I want, and work with whomever I please.

Not only is that not true, but it's besides the point of whether blanket drug testing is a good idea or not.

And absent that force... you have no ability to resist any criteria I deem valid.

The problem is that the wealth-holders are exerting force. If you don't think you're going to get some force back, you've got another think coming. It might not be the kind you think, though.

You have the right to do what you want to do.

But we have a need to eat.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[drinkypoo]

Okay... so again, your argument is that I'm being too lenient because apparently I'm a hypocrite unless I also do your laundry list of things like regulate what food they eat or control several other drugs

Not a hypocrite, an idiot. You think that by restricting their drug intake, you're ensuring that they will operate on an even keel, but the opposite could equally easily be true, and there are numerous substances which don't appear on a test which your employees can be using without your knowledge even if you do test; thus further illustrating the point that drug tests don't do what you think they do. Therefore, you are being an overbearing asshole for no reason, and patting yourself on the back about it, which makes you a moron.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[mcgrew]

When people hear "drugs in the workplace" they mean drugs that can cause accidents, including alcohol -- but not coffee, It's a drug, but improves performance.

The problem here is they say "drugs" and mean "marijuana". If you get high once a month on a Friday night you won't be impaired at work but you won't pass a drug test. Snort coke or smoke crack first thing Friday morning and you'll be impaired, but any test given after the following Monday you'll pass.

Get drunk at work Monday morning and there will be no trace by Tuesday.

Sadly, I saw a few people become cocaine addicts because of drug testing. Their employers started testing, so they switched from pot to crack, They're all now homeless, but finctioned in society fine with pot.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[Applehu Akbar]

"As it turns out, only three kinds of people will take a postal route job. Slackers, wingnuts, and people who just need to pay their bills."

There's also a requirement that they be really, really afraid of dogs.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps if the company can provide proof that they are compelled to administer the test he would change his mind. Perhaps that employer would be good enough to administer the test on Friday mornings in that case.

That's the minority of jobs today. He's probably talking about the majority of jobs where the employer simply asks for it because they have crazy religious (or just crazy) convictions against their employees smoking a joint on the weekend.

Re: I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[laughing_badger]

Could I be wrong? My life experiences say otherwise. What could you possibly say in the face of that?

You didn't notice the behaviour of the drug users you met whose behaviour wasn't impaired. That's called an observation bias.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[LifesABeach]

Let me guess, the only people that these ass hats can hire are from India?

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[kilfarsnar]

I was actually all for legalizing drugs. However, I don't use them, and it wasn't something that I considered to be an urgent issue at all. I figgered there were slightly more important things, like wars and economic meltdowns (this was before the bursting bubbles).

The thing is, many people have been put in prison and had their lives ruined because of misguided drug policy. For them it is a quite urgent and important issue. I assume you think that wars and economic meltdowns are important because of the effects they have on people's lives. Well, drug prohibition also has an effect on people's lives, has gotten us the highest incarceration rate in the developed world and ushered in such violations as "civil forfeiture" and no-knock warrants. So yeah, it's kind of an important and serious issue.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[Whorhay]

I had to take a federally mandated drug test once when I was taking opiods occasionally for kidney stones. When I was filling out the paper work I noticed there was no area to list prescriptions. I asked the person administering the test where to note this just in case it showed up in the test, and she said they didn't collect that information. This told me one of two things, either they were only testing for a narrow subset of drugs which didn't include opiods, or they can't be bothered to try and filter out positives from prescriptions.

I would think the second to be more likely but I haven't heard anything from HR asking me to explain the results of the test. The second is looking more and more likely but it seems incredible to me that they wouldn't check for opiods seeing as how heroin has been on the rise, and opiod abuse is a real issue in the US.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[myowntrueself]

Drop the test. Duh.

What other countries in the world do this? I've never heard of it outside the stories I hear from the USA.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[TheCarp]

> the Feds and drug tests are mandatory.

And you are ok with the fact that the drug testing companies are generally the ones who push for those laws?

Lets not forget Florida where the governor pushing for drug testing people on welfare actually owned the drug testing company which made millions off the deal. That is really what its about.

Hell, going as far back as the first marijuana laws, they were pushed for; at the federal level; by the head of the FBN, the very organization that had been in charge of alcohol prohibition and was now worried they might lose their jobs with nothing to do.

Seems kind of wrong to me deny people jobs just so other people can make profits.

And that is before we even get to the Nixon administration where insiders from his own administration have admitted they pushed drug laws as a way to strike back at grass roots political movements:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/...

"We knew we couldn't 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."

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[pagedout]

Ya, and killed over an Ice-Tea and skittles.

Seriously, "people have been put in prison and had their lives ruined" because they broke the law and got caught not because of a "misguided drug policy". I have no horse in this race, I don't care if they are legal or illegal as I value my mind in it's current state and so I would not engage in any activity specifically designed to alter it without a very compelling reason. What I do care about is that everyone is held to the same standard which you obviously don't care about.

Personally the best middle ground I have been able to find is these tenants.
1. Legalize all drugs
2. Make giving someone a drug without consent a capital offense.
3. Make all actions taken while under a drug count, taken with your consent, count as premeditated.

This way everyone gets what they hate and what they want. I get accountability which is what I want but (in my opinion) an on average lower the class of people I will end up dealing with. Moralists get punishment for real crimes but are not allowed to tell people what to do with their bodies. Druggies get to \\doWhateverDruggiesDo\\ but if they break laws they get to pay for it.

Re: I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[Dread_ed]

I find it curious that the higher you go in the hierarchy, the less drug testing is done, until it disappears completely.

Managers and partners of large firms are not tested, while the rank and file are. Or some places have randoms that never touch senior employees.

Even in federal jobs, the elected officials (you know, the ones that have the most power) are never tested.

It's fucking insane.

I would like to organize a march on Washington, consisting of everyone who has ever been denied a job, fired, or lost benefits due to a drug test. Our peaceful protest would walk directly into the House of Representatives and force each and every one of those bastards to submit to a drug test on the spot.

I guarantee many of them would fail.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[Khyber]

" I will not pollute my workplace with your nonsense."

You pollute your workplace with people that use alcohol on a daily basis, a drug which is proven to kill far more than every other drug combined.

Your hypocrisy is fucking astounding.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[BigU 03C0mpin]

For me it's not a matter of trust; it's a matter of Federal law. The industry I work in is heavily regulated by the Feds and drug tests are mandatory. By taking your position, you've eliminated yourself from tons of high paying, secure jobs.

Your brush isn't as big as you think. I work for a top 3 US bank, a very heavily federal regulated industry. Over my 17 year career here I haven't been drug tested once. I hold down a senior position in a very high profile group in charge of a huge quarterly release and risk management. My manager is also a representative for NORML. Your argument is limited to your specific industry/situation, not all.

I can count on one hand the number of nights I haven't smoked weed in the past two years. I never let it affect my work judgement. My employer is right not to care since I'm a high level performer for them despite morons who feel I should be considered degenerative addict.

Stop confusing people who have poor judgement with those who are capable of recreationally using "drugs" in a responsible way.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[Anonymous Coward]

When people hear "drugs in the workplace" they mean drugs that can cause accidents, including alcohol -- but not coffee, It's a drug, but improves performance.

The problem here is they say "drugs" and mean "marijuana". If you get high once a month on a Friday night you won't be impaired at work but you won't pass a drug test. Snort coke or smoke crack first thing Friday morning and you'll be impaired, but any test given after the following Monday you'll pass.

Get drunk at work Monday morning and there will be no trace by Tuesday.

Sadly, I saw a few people become cocaine addicts because of drug testing. Their employers started testing, so they switched from pot to crack, They're all now homeless, but finctioned in society fine with pot.

And that's the real tragedy here. I have ADHD and take Vyvanse (long-acting adderall, AKA amphetamine salts) daily. It wears off after about 8-10 hours, but if taken too late in the day, it keeps me up all night. Sativa or hybrid cannabis is the only drug I have found with similar effects that doesn't keep me up all night. I would never take it while working but it helps tremendously in reducing anxiety and impulses between 5PM and bedtime.

Both of these drugs are serious drugs. Both drugs strong positive effects for people with certain mental health conditions. Both drugs have potential side effects, some of them negative, some positive, some serious, and others mild. Only a quirk of history based in racism has made one illegal and the other one a prescription medication.

Research into psychedelic substances was the first and most promising avenue that mental health pharmacology investigated. Drugs like THC, LSD, MDMA, etc showed great results in helping severely mentally ill people to function in society. All the research was stopped, not because they were medical dead ends, but because the political landscape in the USA shifted. Most doctors aren't even taught this history in medical school. It is as if the research never happened. Of the many times we have failed the mentally ill in the US in the last 100 years, the abandonment of research into these types of drugs is the most disappointing to me personally.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[HornWumpus]

The first test is also ridiculously easy to produce a false negative on.

That's why they did the phone call thing. Until they did that, they were likely catching too many people. Have to give them time to drink the goo and a half gallon of water (study for the drug test).

There are whole industries that could not have stayed staffed (anytime in the last 40+ years) if 'drug tests' actually worked.

It took them more than 20 years before they started checking the pH of the pee. The tests don't work outside a fairly narrow range.

It took them another 20 years before they started checking for dilution by superhydration and diuretics.

They don't want the test to work.

Re:I guess there's one sensible solution to this

[Anonymous Cow Ward]

Their lives were ruined both because they broke the law and got caught and because of a misguided drug policy. Yes, it was not very wise of them to intentionally break the law like that, but the penalties set out by the misguided policy are very disproportionate. Marijuana shouldn't be on the same level as heroin, that's just stupid.

Re:SJW much?

[Opportunist]

The "shortage" is "fewer than 20 qualified applicants per position".

I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

Re:Lol...

[Chrisq]

Exactly. Why would anyone with an IQ above sea level ***submit*** to an invasive bodily fluids test?

Yes, they must be taking the piss ... oh wait!

Lance Armstrong...

[Pascal Sartoretti]

... should see a business opportunity in this.

Re:Lol...

[sjames]

If they want my piss, they can have it, but it won't be in a bottle when I give it to them.

Re:SJW much?

[righteousness]

Is there a shortage of female programmers? Shortage implies that we need more. Why do we need more female programmers? Can female programmers do something that male programmers cannot? I don't think so. So, what, exactly, is the problem here?

Re:In Seattle...

[Opportunist]

Doubtful, since the reason is rarely one based in reality.

There are a few, very few, jobs where drug screening makes sense and is an important safety issue. Anyone working with addicts sure should not be one himself, same for people working with children and youths since they not only might represent a role model, they also may introduce them to these things. I guess we can agree on these things not being very beneficial.

People who operate machinery should not be impaired at the moment of operation. Unless a drug has a lasting effect or may have unforeseeable repeat effects that may kick in at random while the person is working, I do not see a reason why he should be required not to use it. Just because I drank alcohol today doesn't mean I cannot drive safely tomorrow, even though drunk driving is a serious problem. Same goes for most other drugs.

In the end, aside of a very few cases I cannot really see why someone should not use drugs in his spare time as he sees fit. What I care about is that he is sober on my time. I pay him to be able to do his job and if he comes in drunk he's out the effin' door before he reaches his desk! Whether he's too drunk to know his own name between leaving office and coming back in the next morning I don't give a shit.

It's simply none of my business!

Re:SJW much?

[Opportunist]

There is no shortage of programmers. Whether their is something dangling between their legs is of no concern to me, I want them to write code for me, and as far as I know that's not done with the penis.

Re:Lol...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some of us prefer to eat and are not traumatized by pissing unto a cup. Sure, I'd rather not do it. But there's never been the choice of two equal offers with the only thing differing between them being a drug test.

There are lots of job postings, but postings aren't actual jobs. When you don't have a job, then finding one is difficult, no matter how many openings there are.

Wow, drug tests can detect illicit drugs!?

[Ihlosi]

There are drug tests that can tell illicit cocaine from the stuff used in ophtalmology, heroin from opioids used for medical pain management, and illicit stimulants from their medically precribed cousins?

I always thought drug tests only considered chemistry, not the legal aspects.

Re: What a load of BS

[jonwil]

In all my time working as a software developer here in Australia I have never once been asked to do anything even resembling a drug test (or asked any questions about drugs). And that includes a stint working for a big US-based software company (that had offices in Australia at the time) and a stint working for a state government department.

I personally think that unless someone is working in an industry where drug testing is required or where drug taking can harm their ability to do their job properly, there is no reason to either test people or ask them about their drug habits.

I do wonder why the HR departments in these companies insist on the drug testing... Are they worried about legal liability? Concerned about people doing things that could get the company in trouble? Concerned about people showing up to work under the influence? Some piece of legislation that the legal department has told them means they need to do the drug tests to cover their asses in case something happens?

Employers Struggle To Find Robots

[xororand]

Employers struggle to find robots who solely live to serve.

Yet another mistake in the headline

[shanen]

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.

especially female programmers

[axewolf]

especially female programmers

what the fuck

Re:especially female programmers

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Obviously, it is implied that they pass drug tests even less often than males. (I mean, why else make such a strange juxtaposition?)

Maybe they will start hiring workers over 35

[Required Snark]

Any talk about labor shortages is bullshit. What it really means is that they want to hire someone as close to 25 as they can find who already knows how to do the job. That way they get the cheapest labor from people with so little experience that they will not understand that they are being ripped off.

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".

I doubt usage is more common...

[Cruciform]

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.

Not all drug tests are created equally...

[JamesKeane7745]

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 not an inability to pass a drugs test...

[91degrees]

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.

Corporations with big HR departments

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Lol...

[Luckyo]

What kind of options does that buy you for the funeral arrangements, when a typical heavy truck hits you and kills you in traffic because the driver was stoned?

Re:Lol...

[Opportunist]

I'm pretty sure you have to be on some sort of stuff to willingly code in Python to begin with.

Re:Lol...

[Opportunist]

Are we talking about people who are impaired ON the job or OFF the job?

You're conflating the two. I made it very simple for our guys here: If you're drunk ON the job, you're fired. If you're drunk OFF the job, I don't give a fuck.

Re:SJW much?

[Maxo-Texas]

I'd say the shortage of females is partially due to bigotry and sexual harassment and partially due to the fact that women don't see the point in working 72+ hour weeks without over time for a "chance" to make good money in a low status job.

So (from my personal experience), abandon the field in droves and go into easier degrees which none the less have higher status and don't have special laws prohibiting them from collecting overtime including for night, weekend, and holiday hours (specifically for computer programmers and engineers damnit) and even prohibiting them from setting up their own small businesses.

So besides not wanting to hang around with a bunch of creepy guys with poor social skills, there is also being smart enough to not be suckers.

War on common sense

[burtosis]

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.

Re:SJW much?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

There is no shortage of programmers.

I would argue that there is a shortage of programmers, especially really skilled ones. But admittedly, in this context, that's not the issue.

Vietnam War study and rats study

[lkcl]

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.

Re: What a load of BS

[TapeCutter]

Another Aussie dev here with 25yrs experience, worked for IBM/EDS and currently work for a Japanese multinational. Never seen anyone in IT hit with a drug test, however when I applied for a taxi driver's license in the 80's I had to pee in a bottle.

Correction of the headline....

[Lumpy]

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.

Equality Everywhere for Everybody, Everytime

[pipingguy]

"...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...

Some self test

[sjbe]

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.

Re:Some self test

[fluffernutter]

How many of these surgeons simply get 8 hours of sleep a night like people are supposed to?

Re:Some self test

[whoda]

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.

That strategy worked great for Lance Armstrong

Back to reality

[sjbe]

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.

Re:Lol...

[Buchenskjoll]

That said, I make $500,000.000/year.

$500,000 is a lot of money. Even without the three decimals...

Re:SJW much?

[Buchenskjoll]

I wriote withj myu penioisd, yuo imsensitivre clopd!!!

Re:Lol...

[TheGratefulNet]

ruby is on rails.

never do rails.

not. even. once.

Re: What a load of BS

[msauve]

"when I applied for a taxi driver's license in the 80's I had to pee in a bottle."

That wasn't a drug test, they just wanted to be sure you could sit at a taxi stand for long periods.

You should talk with some actual users

[sjbe]

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.

Re:In Seattle...

[dave420]

Just look at Karmashock's hategasm towards people who use drugs - or, rather, towards his idea of people who use drugs, which doesn't seem to be reflected in reality.

Re:SJW much?

[kosh271]

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,

Re:Lol...

[west]

And yet you feel the need to post such a rejoinder as Anonymous. Such dignity and self-respect.

Portugal

[ThatsNotPudding]

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.

Re:Lol...

[dirk]

This is one of the issues with drug testing. With alcohol, you drink it, it is in your system and impaired, and then it leaves your system. It makes it very easy to test for since if it is in your system, you have taken it recently and it is currently effecting you. With other drugs (pot being the most obvious) there is no simple way to test for it. It stays in your system so long there isn't a way to tell whether you just smoked a joint and are impaired or you smoked a joint last night and are fine now.

This is one of the things that is being skipped over in the rush to legalize pot (I'm not saying legalization is a bad thing, but not everything is being handled). There needs to be a way to tell if people are currently impaired as we don't want people driving/operating crane/whatever while they are high. Currently there isn't a good, standard, scientific way to do that (and yes, I know breathalyzers have plenty of problems as well). Until that happens, the best we have is either blood tests which show how much THC is in the blood, but not if it is actually affecting people or sobriety tests which can be highly subjective.

Re:Lol...

[blackomegax]

This attitude, right here, is why capitalism is so goddamned sociopathic. "just sell out. we'll feed you. Lower your standard. be treated like shit. HAVE FOOD.. FOOD FOOD FOOD. WORK WORK WORK."

Sleep

[sjbe]

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.

Re:Sleep

[fluffernutter]

Aren't they dealing with the most urgent/critical cases when they are on call?

Re:Missing the point of the test

[buck-yar]

I worked for the post office, who drug tested. They screened out all the potheads, and ended up with a bunch of drinkers.

Re:Lol...

[TheCarp]

We were at diner the other night, and a friend of ours just went through a drug test, we were talking about it.... someone asked for clarification what he was doing that we were talking about... my response is exactly as I see it

"He pissed in a cup for someone else's amusement"

People who take drug tests for their job are people who piss in a cup because someone dangled a dollar in front of them.

Re:Lol...

[knightghost]

Principles are overrated. But a good steak... yum!
In other news - there is no shortage of skilled talent. There is a shortage of skilled slave labor.
Also, if you break the law and fry yourself with drugs then quit whining to the rest of us. You made your bed of parasites and pointy things - go sleep in it.

Go down to the Ford plant

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Lol...

[TWX]

Aaaand, we're back to piss again.

Re:Lol...

[chihowa]

This is one of the things that is being skipped over in the rush to legalize pot

This isn't being skipped over at all. Here in Colorado there are a huge number of researchers and startups working on tests. The reason why there's just now active research into tests is that federal law effectively prohibited conducting any research prior to legalization, especially if human subjects were involved.

There's even THC metabolite detection research going on at federal labs here, though the whole process needs to be laundered through university and companies to keep the feds happy.

Re:Lol...

[funwithBSD]

Unfortunately, chronic drinkers suffer judgment impairing effects after the alcohol is gone as their body gets more desperate for the addictive substance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

        A. The development of multiple cognitive deficits manifested by both:

                Memory impairment (impaired ability to learn new information or to recall previously learned information)
                One (or more) of the following cognitive disturbances:

                        a) Aphasia (language disturbance)
                        b) Apraxia (impaired ability to carry out motor activities despite intact motor function)
                        c) Agnosia (failure to recognize or identify objects despite intact sensory function)
                        d) Disturbance in executive functioning (i.e. planning, organizing, sequencing, abstracting)

        B. The cognitive deficits in criteria A1 and A2 each cause significant impairment in social or occupational functioning and represent a significant decline from a previous level of functioning.

    C. The deficits do not occur exclusively during the course of a delirium and persist beyond the usual duration of substance intoxication or withdrawal.

Re:Lol...

[clubby]

Being drunk/high while *at work* is unacceptable, but after I got home from work last night, I drank a six pack. I was pretty buzzed by the time I went to bed. Woke up this morning with a clear head, even got to work a little early. A drug test would show that I'd recently consumed alcohol to excess (I think it would, anyway -- I don't know a lot about the chemistry involved) but it had no detrimental impact on my work. If someone in your office is staggering or slurring their speech or is otherwise clearly impaired, a drug test may be warranted, so that you can fire the person for cause, or attempt to compel treatment, or some kind of other remedy to your "impaired employee" problem. Pre-emptive testing is just an exercise in humiliation and control, though.

Re:Lol...

[neurojab]

I take it you've never had to debug something done by someone who was high. It's horrid.. The writer thinks their work was the best thing the have ever done but the reality ends up being a mess. If drunk it's a lazy unmotivated mess with everything done the easy way, if high it's a massively overcomplicated mess (everything is connected!).

It's not as if were talking about the arts here, both systems admin and programming are a logical process and require a clear head.

Maybe, but in my experience, programming while incompetent is a much, much bigger problem than programming while high. I've seen plenty of programming fails by well meaning, sober people that just made my head spin - and I've never (knowingly) seen an example of what could be labeled "high coding". That said, in the end you need both competent programmers and competent code reviewers. If they are incompetent, they need to go. Presumably competent coders will will also keep their "recreational activities" at home. If they don't do that and it shows, they are incompetent and need to go. Drug testing won't really help determine who is competent and who is not - at least for coders.

Re:Lol...

[Firethorn]

The reason why there's just now active research into tests is that federal law effectively prohibited conducting any research prior to legalization, especially if human subjects were involved.

Indeed. Research was allowed, even encouraged, but only if it fit into the Fed's party line. You were free to conduct studies into how bad marijuana use is, how to detect it's use over longer periods of time, etc... You weren't generally allowed to look into possible benefits, or things that the feds felt weren't necessary, like this.

Re:Lol...

[Richard Dick Head]

And besides which, what evidence is there that being on psychoactive drugs is a detriment to IT productivity?

Exactly! You know those unicorn rockstar productivity programmers who are 100x more productive than the average programmer? All abuse stimulants, the best of which are total meth heads. Not something I would enjoy working around, but if that's what you're looking for, hire the anorexic, jittery, spaced-out, word vomit guy, he's what you're looking for.

Re:Lol...

[HornWumpus]

Read the article.

If HR ever gives you an apparently meaningless 'follow the bouncing ball' test, sandbag or drink some beers before your baseline test. You want to be just a little over your Ballmer peak, like you would be coming back from lunch and ready to kick ass.

I've got a bad distemper

[fyngyrz]

Yeah, from outside the US this really sounds like some kind of dystonian nightmare.

Yes, clearly they're trying to promote dysentery among the masses.

Circus. See McDonald's for bread.

[fyngyrz]

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.

Re:Lol...

[sootman]

Maybe he programs gas pump displays?

Re:Lol...

[Darinbob]

Not on the rug though. It ties the whole room together.