It seems that one might not have the best negotiating position- if your employer is making the same demands of you, as a typical parole officer.

The obvious difference being you can always refuse your employer's "demand" without any fear of being incarcerated. Then there is the fact that you get to choose whether to subject yourself to a drug test by an employer, whereas you do not have any say when it comes to the parole officer.


But, other than those minor little details, spot on analogy, kiddo!

Well, I'll balance it out for you. I've never touched an illegal narcotic and never been under suspicion, but I have been tested well over 20 times in my professional life.

Well, I'll balance it out for you. I've never touched an illegal narcotic and never been under suspicion, but I have been tested well over 20 times in my professional life.

Yes - a person with a good negotiating position in life (in general) can say "no" to a drug test. A person with a good negotiating position versus a specific employer can also say "no."

Furthermore, an employer without a good negotiating position versus a specific employee, might decline to try to impose such a condition.

Lastly, I would guess that most competent people (who use drugs) can figure out a way to get around this problem.

It seems self evident to me that a person who has little negotiating power with their employer and who cannot get around this type of bureaucratic road block - is not upper middle or upper class.

The next time I am having labor issues with unruly employees I will hire JSA.

I don't care if he is high. I wouldn't hire him if I thought it would affect his work.

Also I would fear that JSA would think I was insulting him by making the request in the first place.

That said, I would absolutely request that Windywave undergo drug testing before I would hire him.

Now ..... if they offer me the position as CEO of GE or Boeing - I think I will submit to a drug test in good faith.

Best to show the little people "that I am a team player."

Of course, if the test was likely to be a problem.... I am sure I could find a guy to help

This notion that if you have a federal contract you are required to test every employee....what FAR are you basing that on? I've been an employee with 4 different federal contractors since 2007 and have not once been drug tested, nor do I know of anyone who has.

Yeah the losers are an unfortunate byproduct but hopefully with Nation wide legalization that will take care of itself, in the mean time all I can say is they are less than 1% of those who use, as I keep saying it''s already a multi multi billion dollar industry, everyone from the business man to the sweet little old lady down the street, fact is it's everywhere, you will talk to someone who uses almost daily and you won't know it .

By whose measure was she "completely straight?" We have countless examples of individuals with a higher than 0.08 BAC who are able to function without any noticeable impairment, but they are still legally determined to be "under the influence" because they are above the legal limit.

But, you do identify the issue I mentioned earlier in the thread - the lack of an impairment standard for marijuana.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread - when the BAC standards were set, they were done so based on numerous studies of thousands of people, using federal funds. Thousands of individuals were given driving and other reactionary tests after consuming increasing amounts of alcohol. Not everyone reacted the same. But, a composite was taken of all the test subjects and their levels of impairment to create a BAC standard.

There are two primary problems with marijuana testing. First, there are no funds to conduct similar tests. Marijuana is still illegal, so there will be no federal funds. States like CO have conducted small scale tests (that's where the 5 ng figure comes from), but those are questionable, given their limited size. Second, alcohol affects everyone in a similar fashion whereas marijuana's effects can be all over the board. So, it is difficult to set a standard scale that can be applicable to everyone.

All that said - for the most part, I think you and I are on the same page. If I were emperor, I would legalize marijuana at the federal level. Then I would conduct studies like those for BAC testing to create a rational, usable measure, understanding it may not be perfect, but it would be something that would make sense.

This is a tough one for me I started smoking the stuff back in the 70's and still do on occasion and while I've seen my share of burn outs with the vast majority of them there were also other issues be it either mental or other addiction issues, as with myself everyone I know who was a normal functioning person could smoke their my brains out and still function and yes that includes driving, so it's tough for me to say we need some kind of standard but I guess if we want all out legalization we have to have some kind testing and standards, but 5 nanograms is way unrealistic.

Not in windywave's world... He insists he doesn't know any high-functioning tokers, so they must not exist; all he sees are the burnouts like Jim from Taxi, so there you have it. He and Sessions clearly know Reefer = Madness.

The next time I am having labor issues with unruly employees I will hire JSA.

I don't care if he is high. I wouldn't hire him if I thought it would affect his work.
Also I would fear that JSA would think I was insulting him by making the request in the first place.

That said, I would absolutely request that Windywave undergo drug testing before I would hire him.

Now ..... if they offer me the position as CEO of GE or Boeing - I think I will submit to a drug test in good faith.
Best to show the little people "that I am a team player."
Of course, if the test was likely to be a problem.... I am sure I could find a guy to help

It would be very wise for you to do so.


Not sure how those two sentences go together ...


Why? I have plenty of urine for you to test. If I run out, I promise I will make more.


So would I. He's from Chicago and carried on a long-term relationship with Jay Cutler. Plus, windy's established probable cause with some of his bat shit crazy posts.


It wouldn't be "good faith." It would be mandated by federal law.


Adhering to federal law does not make one a "team player."



Just don't ask windywave.

Well that one is either crazy or ignorant (or both).

The New England Patriots and the Green Bay Packers hold the longest active consecutive playoff streak with 8 appearances, starting with the 2009–10 NFL playoffs.

I don't know what to say other than sad. Sorry forgot the link http://www.cnn.com/...ner-cnntv/index.html

Success .... Not a Cutler gif to be seen

It is sad that a business would waste money on drug testing all the employees without cause.

Aren't pre-employment drug screens part of the most hiring company's insurance policy requirements or at a minimum result in discounts?