It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Fed's Wage War on Drug Users

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2004 @ 05:16 AM
link   
The Federal Government (through SAMHSA) is overhauling it's employee drug testing efforts to more foolproof systems testing hair, saliva and sweat designed to be more precise, check for less recent/patterns of abuse and beat the growing number of "cheaters" manipulating urine tests. The business world is expected to follow suit.

 

SAMHSA, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services, directly administers only about 200,000 tests to federal workers a year. But because its standards are followed by regulatory agencies who conduct testing in industries they oversee, SAMHSA is responsible for about 6.5 million of the 40 million workplace drug tests done each year by US employers. The agency's testing standards are also widely followed by thousands of other employers, public and private.
AP Story

"Weekend Warriors" finding themselves on the wrong side of the War on Drugs may soon be finding themselves in rehabilitation or the unemployment lines. The big winners in this increased vigilance are the screening industry and employers. Will you be among the losers?

Link Changed to AP
[Edited on 15-1-2004 by RANT]

[Edited on 15-1-2004 by Nerdling]




posted on Jan, 15 2004 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Ok, let me ask a question. Can't you check if someone ever did drugs by hair testing? I mean I smoked weed when I was younger but that was over 6-7 years ago and if they pulled a pc of my hair out, would that disqualify me from a job? This whole drug issue is outrageous IMO. If you smoke weed on your own time, then let it go. If you do coke and other stuff, well then you get what you deserve IMO. But I just don't understand the reasoning to keep going after the small guy instead of going after the men in charge.



posted on Jan, 15 2004 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dreamz
Ok, let me ask a question. Can't you check if someone ever did drugs by hair testing?


How far back you can be "busted" is debatable and in many cases determined by your own unique genetics and frequency and quantity of use. But by any standards hair testing will determine if you "looked sideways" at pot as recently as the past three months (according to many).

Others may/will have varying opinions and insights no doubt. This has been debated on ATS many times. But you're dead right on one thing... Privacy is gone.

The article mentions making those returning from rehab wear a continuous 'patch' that would alert an employer to relapse. Talk about 'branding' and invasion of privacy. That's absurd.

[Edited on 15-1-2004 by RANT]



posted on Jan, 15 2004 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Link changed from AOL based story to AP source. All browser friendly.


[Edited on 15-1-2004 by RANT]



posted on Jan, 15 2004 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dreamz
Ok, let me ask a question. Can't you check if someone ever did drugs by hair testing? I mean I smoked weed when I was younger but that was over 6-7 years ago and if they pulled a pc of my hair out, would that disqualify me from a job? This whole drug issue is outrageous IMO. If you smoke weed on your own time, then let it go. If you do coke and other stuff, well then you get what you deserve IMO. But I just don't understand the reasoning to keep going after the small guy instead of going after the men in charge.


I learned, when I was in the Army back in the late 80's, early 90's, that they could take a sample of your hair and test for '___'. (Not pot.) When they're giving you a piss test, they just stand over you to make sure your urine goes into the bottle - without any funny business. But at the time, they had to have your permission to test for '___'. '___' stays in your spinal column forever.



posted on Jan, 15 2004 @ 11:23 AM
link   
I can only speak from my own experience.......I had to have a hair test 4 years ago and it tested for everything under the sun. What they test is the first inch or so from the root and that is equivelent to 90 days. So the time they can test back to depends on the length of your hair. Keep in mind that the hair doesn't have to come from your head



posted on Jan, 15 2004 @ 11:27 AM
link   
So weedsmokers, to avoid this... Shave every part of your body...

Or get Pierluigi Collina's disease. (Famous bald soccer referee, best referee in the world).



posted on Jan, 15 2004 @ 11:52 AM
link   
When are people going to stand up for their rights and just deny drug testing altogether?!!! This is one of the biggest violations of our privacy ever. What's next, gene testing? You won't be able to work if you have any inherited defects?



posted on Jan, 15 2004 @ 12:08 PM
link   
These asshole lawmakers go out for multi martini lunches and then come back to work. They are a bunch of hipocrites. Every one of them should go through drug and alcohol testing before it is required of the general citizenry. After all their jobs affect far more people than any of ours do.



posted on Jan, 15 2004 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Satyr
When are people going to stand up for their rights and just deny drug testing altogether?!!! This is one of the biggest violations of our privacy ever. What's next, gene testing? You won't be able to work if you have any inherited defects?


HMMMMM....WE MEET AGAIN


Imagine....if you would......that you are a business OWNER. Your entire lifes savings is invested in your business. You have to hire some employees. You now are responsible for the safety of these employees. If someone gets hurt....it's your butt. You are paying large amounts of money for insurance for these people and your assets. Do you really not care if one of these employees spends their nights in a bar or at home smoking weed? Do you think that people who participate in these activities are at their peek every morning? Better yet, what if one of these employees has a little worse of a habit....let's say....hmmmm....METH!!! You can get your butt sued off just having someone slip and fall on a spot of coffee on the floor or the edge of your welcome matt.
Imagine the careless mistakes made by someone who is hungover or under the influence....are you willing to double the chances of an accident and losing everything you have invested just because you didn't require a drug test before you employ?



posted on Jan, 15 2004 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Venus

Originally posted by Satyr
When are people going to stand up for their rights and just deny drug testing altogether?!!! This is one of the biggest violations of our privacy ever. What's next, gene testing? You won't be able to work if you have any inherited defects?


HMMMMM....WE MEET AGAIN


Imagine....if you would......that you are a business OWNER. Your entire lifes savings is invested in your business. You have to hire some employees. You now are responsible for the safety of these employees. If someone gets hurt....it's your butt. You are paying large amounts of money for insurance for these people and your assets. Do you really not care if one of these employees spends their nights in a bar or at home smoking weed? Do you think that people who participate in these activities are at their peek every morning? Better yet, what if one of these employees has a little worse of a habit....let's say....hmmmm....METH!!! You can get your butt sued off just having someone slip and fall on a spot of coffee on the floor or the edge of your welcome matt.
Imagine the careless mistakes made by someone who is hungover or under the influence....are you willing to double the chances of an accident and losing everything you have invested just because you didn't require a drug test before you employ?


The only time an employer should drug test is if the employees actions are obviously influenced by drugs or alchohol...a persons home habits do not affect job performance...other wise..your not a free person..I live in america..not nazi germany



posted on Jan, 15 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by McGotti
a persons home habits do not affect job performance


Ya right


Are you an employee or an EMPLOYER? That makes all the difference in the world !!



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 10:20 PM
link   
i have worked for 2 companies that started out very small and once they had a decent sized work force..they started to do pre-employment drug tests.. why is it that when a new company starts out that they do not do pre-employment drug tests?? is it because they would not be able to get a workforce started... 40 million test a year...how much $$$ is that??? and for what...does it make the workk place safer?? i worked with as many morons 8 years ago as i do today.



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by McGotti

Originally posted by Venus

Originally posted by Satyr
When are people going to stand up for their rights and just deny drug testing altogether?!!! This is one of the biggest violations of our privacy ever. What's next, gene testing? You won't be able to work if you have any inherited defects?


HMMMMM....WE MEET AGAIN


Imagine....if you would......that you are a business OWNER. Your entire lifes savings is invested in your business. You have to hire some employees. You now are responsible for the safety of these employees. If someone gets hurt....it's your butt. You are paying large amounts of money for insurance for these people and your assets. Do you really not care if one of these employees spends their nights in a bar or at home smoking weed? Do you think that people who participate in these activities are at their peek every morning? Better yet, what if one of these employees has a little worse of a habit....let's say....hmmmm....METH!!! You can get your butt sued off just having someone slip and fall on a spot of coffee on the floor or the edge of your welcome matt.
Imagine the careless mistakes made by someone who is hungover or under the influence....are you willing to double the chances of an accident and losing everything you have invested just because you didn't require a drug test before you employ?


The only time an employer should drug test is if the employees actions are obviously influenced by drugs or alchohol...a persons home habits do not affect job performance...other wise..your not a free person..I live in america..not nazi germany


Exactly!!! You don't test people for things of which symptoms don't even exist! That's stupid. If someone has an accident because they're impaired, by all means, test away. Until then, you're violating their privacy. I can't say this too many times. Drugs don't make people irresponsible. Drugs make irresponsible people more irresponsible. Irresponsible people just can't handle drugs. People who are careless, have more accidents as those who aren't. Is that my fault? Hell no!!!
If you hired an irresponsible person, that's your damn fault. You're a bad judge of character. Get rid of them as soon as you realize they're irresponsible. Take your losses and shut the # up. I'll hire anyone who can do the job, and shows that they're not careless. What they do on their own time is none of my business, unless they choose to tell me about it. Besides, I can tell when anyone is #ed up. I'm not ignorant.

Oh yeah, BTW, that whole lawsuit thing is a bunch of BS. I have a friend who flipped a forklift at work, broke his back, spent 3 years recovering to the point he could finally walk again, and got barely # for money. They paid for his doctor bills and gave him a surprisingly small settlement. That was it. You'd think you'd get 3 million for a broken back, eh? Nope! It doesn't work that way, unless you can afford one hell of a big time lawyer, and prove negligence.

[Edited on 1-17-2004 by Satyr]



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by Dreamz
Ok, let me ask a question. Can't you check if someone ever did drugs by hair testing?


How far back you can be "busted" is debatable and in many cases determined by your own unique genetics and frequency and quantity of use. But by any standards hair testing will determine if you "looked sideways" at pot as recently as the past three months (according to many).

Others may/will have varying opinions and insights no doubt. This has been debated on ATS many times. But you're dead right on one thing... Privacy is gone.

The article mentions making those returning from rehab wear a continuous 'patch' that would alert an employer to relapse. Talk about 'branding' and invasion of privacy. That's absurd.

[Edited on 15-1-2004 by RANT]


Alaska already uses the "patch" for parolees- a worker I was using had one- I asked him what it was and he told me. Seems as if every few days it was coming off and he would have to go to his parole office to have it replaced.
The patch will indicate even if he is in the presense of drugs... one does not have to consume to activate, someone smoking bud around you will cause it to indicate.
What pisses me off is the drug that is legal does all the killing....ALCOHOL.



posted on Jan, 17 2004 @ 05:22 AM
link   
won't this hurt the govt.? I mean the U.S. govt is the biggest importer of drugs in N. America, why knock off the consumer base?



posted on Jan, 19 2004 @ 03:41 PM
link   
1. Candidates that are drug-free have a lower turnover, reducing hiring and training costs.
2. A well-publicized pre-employment drug testing program will "pre-screen" unwanted job candidates.
3. Drug-free employees have fewer health problems, creating lower health costs.
4. Drug abusers create worker's compensation claims at more than twice the level of non-abusers.
5. Drug abusers are four times more likely to injure a fellow employee.
6. Employee theft is a significantly greater problem with drug abusers.

Well....I've been on both sides of this and what I learned is that when you have nothing to hide...testing doesn't bother you. If you "only smoke weed" why not just come right out and write that on your application under "hobbies"



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join