Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (5752)	1/16/2007 6:26:18 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Even for those that don't have the slightest difficulty as a matter of principle, and who don't use drugs, have to deal with a moderate amount of inconvenience. That in itself would be a small (maybe very small) negative. If such tests where not as common they might also signify a general lack of respect for the privacy, or a willingness to intrude on or control, the employee. I can see where drug use (including legal drugs) could have an impact on job performance. But the tests don't test of intoxication. In some cases they can detect use long after the use. If someone used marijuana on a trip to the Netherlands 3 weeks ago its unlikely to effect their job performance. Another issue is false positives. Particularly for opiate tests. Eating poppy seeds can result in false positives. Other things probably can as well. The tests are too sensitive. I've heard that they can detect parts per billion in blood. If you lose your job because of such a test you could be severely impacted. If you don't get a job because of such a test, you could be hurt without knowing it. BTW I don't support making such tests illegal. I just don't think they are really justified in most jobs.