Recreational drug testing....

RinglingRingling · Post by **RinglingRingling** » August 31, 2007 10:22 am

buffettbride wrote:
Skibo wrote:
buffettbride wrote:Why are they illegal in the first place?
Haven't you ever seen this movie?

I don't know which is scarier...your sig line or that poster.

I'd put them both about the same level.

ph4ever · Post by **ph4ever** » August 31, 2007 1:20 pm

IMHO drug testing for certain professions should be mandatory. Professional drivers - truck, couriers, taxis for example as their being impaired on the road could cause injury to others. Recently in Washington a truck driver killed a couple of people - it was not his first accident ,he was on probation for meth and high on meth at the time of the accident. Same holds true for factory workers as someone who is high could cause harm/death to co-workers. Also ship/airline/train crews.

Testing for Joe Blow that sits at a desk all day? Nope - don't think it's necessary. A supervisor can judge by his job performance.

Last time I was drug tested I had been working temp at a company and offered a full time position. The day of a Buffett show my supervisor leaned over and whispered "We're doing your drug test tomorrow - thought I'd let you know before you left to go to Buffett"

Wino you know · Post by **Wino you know** » August 31, 2007 1:59 pm

buffettbride wrote:Why are they illegal in the first place?

If it pi$$es off the potheads, I'm all for it in any case.

Look-if it were up to me, EVERYBODY who works with ME gets tested.
They don't like it, look for another job.
Screw 'em in the a$$.

SharkOnLand · Post by **SharkOnLand** » August 31, 2007 2:06 pm

creeky wrote:I have a question ... I do not know what happens with your professional sportsmen/women - but here, they get drug tested not only for performance enhancing drugs - but also "recreational" (but illegal) drugs - eg marijuana, speed etc.

Now - while I do not agree with recreational drugs on any level (never touched them) ..... we have had an issue here that raises the question ...

The "hero" of our town in football - just recently retired, got arrested in London for having an ecstacy tablet in his pocket.

Since he got home - all hell has broken loose - and he has now revealed he took drugs during his whole career and the media is in a frenzy as to how he could "cheat" the drug tests (he took them mainly during the off season - that is reason he was not caught).

I DONT GET TESTED for recreational drugs to do my job - why should they? I agree on performance enhancing - but I dont believe this role model excuse ....... there are bigger role models on drugs ..... do they drug test doctors? nurses? people with other peoples lives in their hands ....

Seems the world falls apart that a footballer takes illegal drugs - that you cannot imagine would "enahnce" his performance...

I think it is unfair .....

discuss

I don't think it is unfair. Your "footballer" agreed to take the drug tests, I'm sure, when he signed his contract with the team. You don't want to agree to take drug tests, sign with an employer who doesn't require them.

Sports figures are in the public eye, and dramatically affect the bottom line of sponsors and team owners. What a player does, on and off the field, will have consequences on ticket sales and bottom lines for the "company".

If a sports star (on a recreational drug) goes out and runs over some kid in the street, he's probably done playing that sport for a while. His team will likely suffer both in ticket sales and the win column. The team is trying to protect their endorsement, their hope is that the random testing will either catch a problem before it becomes a major issue or discourage the player from using the drugs altogether.

popcornjack · Post by **popcornjack** » August 31, 2007 3:19 pm

I once applied for a job at Morton's Steakhouse as a waiter, and they wante dme to take a drug tst. I kind of hesitated, and the manager asked me if it was going to be a problem. I said "Probably not, as long as you aren't checking for alcohol." His response?

"Son, you could p*** straight booze for all we care."

buffettbride · Post by **buffettbride** » August 31, 2007 3:30 pm

popcornjack wrote:
"Son, you could p*** straight booze for all we care."

Which is my point exactly. A drunk person is just as dangerous, if not moreso, than someone who smoked a big 'ol doobie before going into the office.

Silliness. Plain silliness.

pbans · Post by **pbans** » August 31, 2007 3:39 pm

buffettbride wrote:
popcornjack wrote:
"Son, you could p*** straight booze for all we care."
Which is my point exactly. A drunk person is just as dangerous, if not moreso, than someone who smoked a big 'ol doobie before going into the office.

Silliness. Plain silliness.

any time we had to test, whether random or post-incident.....we had to do an intoxilyzer first and then a pee test......

Bubbaphan · Post by **Bubbaphan** » August 31, 2007 3:41 pm

buffettbride wrote:
popcornjack wrote:
"Son, you could p*** straight booze for all we care."
Which is my point exactly. A drunk person is just as dangerous, if not moreso, than someone who smoked a big 'ol doobie before going into the office.

Silliness. Plain silliness.

At my part-time (restaurant) job, we were just discussing this. If they instituted drug testing, they'd have to close down.
I mean, of course, I could pass the ahem test but a...

nevermind.

Bubbaphan · Post by **Bubbaphan** » August 31, 2007 4:02 pm

Which reminds me...It has come to my attention that a lot of threads
here have shown a tendency of becoming entirely too serious.
So, I think there should be more silliness.

So, let's get back to the threads...WAIT FOR IT...with more silly.
Thank you.

Indiana Jolly Mon · Post by **Indiana Jolly Mon** » August 31, 2007 4:29 pm

Well for my .02 I think recreation drug testing is bad, I mean come on, there are stoners with nothing better to do with their free time than get together and pee in a cup for fun? Has drug testing become a recreational event since Jerry died......wait, I think I misunderstood the thread header, sorry.

LaTda! · Post by **LaTda!** » August 31, 2007 4:36 pm

nutmeg wrote:I worked for a large chemical company. (in an office capacity, not with the chemicals)

We could get called by Medical at any time and had to arrive within the hour for a drug test.

We had a person who was scheduled to present at a meeting with 50 people in it. No excuses. She had to report for the test. She was able to get to Medical, do the test, and get back missing only about 15 minutes of the meeting. It was a safety meeting so people understood

I didn't disagree with the testing. Our business could be a very dangerous one...people high on drugs could make it deadly.

I wasn't aware that they could differentiate whether you took the drugs at work or after you got home from work, hmmmm

LaTda! · Post by **LaTda!** » August 31, 2007 4:39 pm

popcornjack wrote:I once applied for a job at Morton's Steakhouse as a waiter, and they wante dme to take a drug tst. I kind of hesitated, and the manager asked me if it was going to be a problem. I said "Probably not, as long as you aren't checking for alcohol." His response?

"Son, you could p*** straight booze for all we care."

in a steak house??!! I'da said the interview is over & oh BTW, I'd like a table please & hurry, I'm hungry

creeky · Post by **creeky** » August 31, 2007 4:46 pm

Great list of views!

I guess my point is that by them taking recreational drugs (sports people) they are not putting anyone in danger ... it is not enhancing their performance - so why is required for work?

I understand there are jobs that require it - and support it .... for peoples safety.

If finely tuned athletes want to put s*** in their bodies- well that is a matter between them and the law - I dont believe their employer has any legal right to do it.

popcornjack · Post by **popcornjack** » August 31, 2007 4:46 pm

LaTda! wrote:
popcornjack wrote:I once applied for a job at Morton's Steakhouse as a waiter, and they wante dme to take a drug tst. I kind of hesitated, and the manager asked me if it was going to be a problem. I said "Probably not, as long as you aren't checking for alcohol." His response?

"Son, you could p*** straight booze for all we care."
in a steak house??!! I'da said the interview is over & oh BTW, I'd like a table please & hurry, I'm hungry

I ended up not taking the job because they are rather uptight, and I knew I would get fired at my first table. They have two waiters work a section together and when a new table arrives, you wheel out a cart that has all the different items available....including a lobster!

I know me. I would get to the lobster part of the speil, and pick him up and start talking: "This is the lobster. I call him Larry. Everyone say hi to Larry. Now that you've met im, could you really have him for dinner?"

buffettbride · Post by **buffettbride** » August 31, 2007 4:50 pm

Old news: Recreational drug testing

New fad: Recreational pregnancy testing

Dezdmona · Post by **Dezdmona** » August 31, 2007 4:51 pm

Sports personalities are "supposedly" role models for kids.

Yup...here Jr. it's alright to smoke dope and snort coke as long as your not at work...your favorite sports star does it.

creeky · Post by **creeky** » August 31, 2007 4:52 pm

Dezdmona wrote:Sports personalities are "supposedly" role models for kids.

Yup...here Jr. it's alright to smoke dope and snort coke as long as your not at work...your favorite sports star does it.

So are movie stars ........ teachers ..... they dont get tested ..... I am just saying these guys are being treated differently.

ph4ever · Post by **ph4ever** » August 31, 2007 5:03 pm

creeky wrote:
Dezdmona wrote:Sports personalities are "supposedly" role models for kids.

Yup...here Jr. it's alright to smoke dope and snort coke as long as your not at work...your favorite sports star does it.
So are movie stars ........ teachers ..... they dont get tested ..... I am just saying these guys are being treated differently.

in the US the sports "stars" are more role models to the kids than teachers or movie stars.

Take steroid use for example - with more sports stars using it the increase in deaths by teens taking steroids has increased drastically

PJ · Post by PJ » August 31, 2007 5:07 pm

creeky wrote:
Dezdmona wrote:Sports personalities are "supposedly" role models for kids.

Yup...here Jr. it's alright to smoke dope and snort coke as long as your not at work...your favorite sports star does it.
So are movie stars ........ teachers ..... they dont get tested ..... I am just saying these guys are being treated differently.

Don't get tested that we know of. Certain actors - Robert Downey, Jr. I'm looking at you here - that have a history of drug and or alcohol problems may be subject to random testing whiel filming movies. A movie can get killed if it is on a tight schedule and one of the principal actors is unable to perform due to drugs and/or alcohol.

Teachers may well get random tests, I don't know for sure, but they may well in some districts.

Sports are also a different animal from acting, so there is more to it than just being a role model. The effects of a drug can carry over, one bad hit of acid, a little stronger weed, whatever. And in sports like American football, hockey, motorsports, where you can seriously injure or kill someone if your concentration or your reflexes are just a little bit off, better to be safe than sorry.

SharkOnLand · Post by **SharkOnLand** » August 31, 2007 5:08 pm

creeky wrote:
Dezdmona wrote:Sports personalities are "supposedly" role models for kids.

Yup...here Jr. it's alright to smoke dope and snort coke as long as your not at work...your favorite sports star does it.
So are movie stars ........ teachers ..... they dont get tested ..... I am just saying these guys are being treated differently.

It has more to do with the "business" owner being worried about the bottom line, than sports stars being role models, IMHO.

BuffettNews.com

Recreational drug testing....

Re: Recreational drug testing....