COVID-19 aftermath: What things will change forever?

[OldSchoolSnapper]

 

As others have said though, everyone knows this is the current state of tests. You know you're looking, it shouldn't be hard to just not during the search.

 

This is the only thing people always say about weed that I have a hard time buying in to. If they are saying less addictive in that far fewer people seem to overdo it, I'd definitely agree. But I've known plenty of people as I've moved through life that need to pack a bowl to give a speech, go to class, go on a date, go into a baseball game, go to work, etc.

 

And others that are basically high every waking minute of the day. It completely incapacitates these people from being productive at all. I'm all for legalizing it and getting it off these job screens, but I hop off the wagon as soon as people (not you) start claiming that it has no negative qualities.

[tmwiese55]

Agree yea by no means would I say there isn't negatives to it. That's a bridge the legalization push has gone too far on. It's just that the negatives don't warrant the financial resources we're spending against it, warrant the negative effects that enforcement is causing, etc.

 

Perhaps these new medically potent ones do have some addictive things added, could be wrong there. But weed itself is proven to have no chemical addictiveness to it like say alcohol or cocaine does. As far as drug screening for work goes (such as heavy machinery/driving) as being discussed here, weed is way less risky than alcohol.

[TURBO]

Weed isn't even addictive like alcohol.

 

 

I have a couple of high school buddies who would totally disagree with that statement...

 

It may not be physically addictive, but it is 100% mentally addictive, especially to certain personality types. I had one friend who couldn't do a single thing in his life unless he was high. Pot was the only drug he did, nothing else. It got to the point of him joining the military to get off the stuff. He would have an entire different take on whether or not it was addictive, in his case, it was.

 

Saying weed is less risky to drive on than alcohol is a silly argument as well. Anything that impairs your driving ability is dangerous, simple as that. I don't want my family and friends on the road with high drivers, do you?

 

Not worth the argument though, so I won't keep hammering that nail...

[tmwiese55]

Not disagreeing with that any impairment is bad. But that's the point, we're hammering on weed but alcohol flies under the radar (specific to the drug test discussion).

 

You're 100% on anything that impairs is dangerous. But specific to the drug test stuff and riskiness it wasn't so much as to what's less risky to be on if impaired, as you say both clearly are. I'd say booze impairs you more and is worse, but as you say both are bad so it's irrelevant. For this discussion it's which is more likely to cause a dependency type problem that causes someone to be doing it while at work. Then factor in the hangover impairment and have alcohol in your system the next morning. Remember the Dante Stallworth case. Seems pretty clear alcohol is worse in that sense.

 

For addiction, well that's anecdotal. But yea I guess you can call it addictive just like anyone can get a compulsion on basically anything. But it's just chemically not addictive like alcohol, coke, heroin, etc. Again, unless some of this new aged stuff is adding stuff in, idk. Which really then if we'd legalize we could regulate that out.

[wallus]

I think insurance companies are the ones that want the drug testing right?

[nate82]

I think insurance companies are the ones that want the drug testing right?

Yes and no.

 

Depending on the business it is a legal issue also. For example if an employee is operating a forklift and runs over a customers foot while high/drunk the business would be legally liable for this. While the employee is the one who caused the accident by being high/drunk the employer still takes on the risk financially. The employee may still face a misdemeanor charge or a criminal charge depending on the severity.

 

The employer has the responsibility of insuring that their employees are of sound mind when they are working. Another example an employer can be held responsible for a drunk driving accident if the employee was participating in a company sponsored event that serves alcohol though I believe this is different in each state on what they are liable for.

 

As for marijuana I think you need testing for certain occupations. Obviously like alcohol you don't want someone operating heavy machinery, driving, or doing anything that could put someone's life in danger while being high or drunk. Though I will say one thing I would rather see someone doing marijuana over something like pain pills like Oxycontin or some of the anti psychotic drugs.

[stoutdude04]

Basically everyone I play hockey with is a functioning stoner. One guy takes it all day and works with a bag strapped to his thigh. I would consider that an addiction.

 

As far as work, most of them were smart enough to buy items to help them pass or were able to quit before job interviews. Oddly, their jobs now dont care about it unless they cause an accident at work. Which for my buddies kind of stinks because they dont smoke during the work day. /tangent

 

In my opinion, weed shouldn't be tested for, but if that's company rules...then follow those rules.

[wallus]

Basically everyone I play hockey with is a functioning stoner.

 

Ban hockey!

[danzig6767]

It's too bad that all the people that are unable to pass drug tests, oh I don't know, stop using drugs?

 

If weed is effecting your life to the point that you are unhireable because you can't pass a drug test, maybe that means you should stop using it?

 

People are just stupid.

Or just be smart enough to go online and purchase certain products available which are fairly reliable at passing most drug tests. I know a few people who smoke weed and used these products to pass drug tests for the jobs which they currently hold.

[nodakfan17]

I have a number of anecdotal sources that also suggest HR folks screening processes don't accurately reflect them being 'desperate'. As an example of them being too selective my son couldn't get an interview at any of these manufacturing places despite reliable jobs in college and a degree. He eventually went the temp agency route, magically a year later when he started applying he got a new job in 2 weeks. I've known other people who run into variations of the 'over qualified' nonsense. Or even looking at some of these posting these days and oddly specific requirements.

Overqualified = Flight Risk

[jerichoholicninja]

I see a lot of commercials about being "quarantined" and how whatever product is being advertised can help you through it and Comedy Central is running these PSA's with comedians telling you to stay home and stay safe or whatever buzz phrase. These seem incredibly dated and irrelevant to me already.

[owbc]

Weed ranges from an "essential service" in some states to completely illegal in others. It's crazy.

 

All you need to know about testing is that they never test at while collar jobs. If you create unreasonable barriers to entry then you can't complain when you can't find qualified candidates. If insurance requires it then complain to the insurance company.

[MrTPlush]

I know this was a point of topic in here at one point:

 

68% are making more than they did on unemployment than before

1/5 are making at least double what they were before.

 

This was according to an institute in Chicago of some sort...I tried to go back and search the internet for the article, but thus couldn’t find it right away. It’s surprising, but not at the same time. Much of the job loss was part time or low wage work...so obviously it didn’t take much to do be making more than they were before.

[LouisEly]

All you need to know about testing is that they never test at while collar jobs.

Assuming you mean "white collar", which is false. I've spent most of my career in pharma and it's been a part of every drug screen I've ever taken for employment. One company I worked for did random drug screens of the sales force (assuming because they have company cars). Drug screens have included hair follicle tests, not just urine samples.

 

Very few start-ups, if any, test, and typically (except for the one company that did random drug tests) they don't test again after you are hired, but to say they don't test for white collar jobs is patently false.

[DHonks]

Right. For weed specific though it doesn't make sense to have this big blocker up for weed when alcohol doesn't. Weed isn't even addictive like alcohol.

 

The weed not being addictive thing has pretty much been debunked....people can be addicted. Anecdotally, I know more people that NEED weed than alcohol. The difference is that it doesn't affect their lives and personal relationships as much.

 

Or, you know, businesses could move beyond the "marijuana bad" boogeyman from the 1960's and get with the times.

 

Why? So their insurance premiums can skyrocket? Can you imagine someone driving a forklift with weed in their system? Obese individuals hurt business profitability and rob from their coworkers by raising premiums. Same for smokers, since it costs 5-6 times more to insure a smoker. A huge amount of workers could put themselves and their employers at greater risk, hence why drug testing is required. As a teacher, if I'm suspected of being intoxicated or under the influence, I will be terminated on the spot and my union won't defend me. This goes for most types of jobs in the US.

[DHonks]

I see a lot of commercials about being "quarantined" and how whatever product is being advertised can help you through it and Comedy Central is running these PSA's with comedians telling you to stay home and stay safe or whatever buzz phrase. These seem incredibly dated and irrelevant to me already.

 

I love Comedy Central, but who is their audience? Even though I'm a moderate conservative, I would argue they test well among 20-45 year old males, primarily left-leaning, and heavily on the coasts or big cities. Given that these are the areas with major issues with COVID, I think their PSA's are probably appropriate

[homer]

Right. For weed specific though it doesn't make sense to have this big blocker up for weed when alcohol doesn't. Weed isn't even addictive like alcohol.

 

The weed not being addictive thing has pretty much been debunked....people can be addicted. Anecdotally, I know more people that NEED weed than alcohol. The difference is that it doesn't affect their lives and personal relationships as much.

 

I think it's like 1 in 10 get addicted (something like that).

 

And it makes sense that people need weed as many use it like a daily medication.

[CheezWizHed]

I figured Cheech and Chong debunked the "weed not addictive" thing in the 70s!

[FVBrewerFan]

Right. For weed specific though it doesn't make sense to have this big blocker up for weed when alcohol doesn't. Weed isn't even addictive like alcohol.

 

The weed not being addictive thing has pretty much been debunked....people can be addicted. Anecdotally, I know more people that NEED weed than alcohol. The difference is that it doesn't affect their lives and personal relationships as much.

 

I think it's like 1 in 10 get addicted (something like that).

 

And it makes sense that people need weed as many use it like a daily medication.

 

Nobody knows % of addiction. If it is 10%, that's a lot of stoners addicted. And it's for "medication" rigggght. Everyone I've known that's addicted from college to present were not exactly using it medicinally.

 

Anti-marijuanna is not a sexy field of study, so there's not a lot of thorough studies on addiction and for that matter harm that comes from regular use. Until there's a lot more research done, I'm going to go with my current assumption. When you ask a stone a question and it takes 5 minutes to respond, it's probably not too good for the ol' thinking machine.

[homer]

1/10:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/faqs/marijuana-addiction.html

 

Stoners are addicts. Possible you know a lot of addicts. I know a lot of people that smoke (I don't personally) and none of them are stoners.

 

In some states, Doctors can give prescriptions for weed nowadays. I think that counts as medicinal.

[CheezWizHed]

I know someone whose last name is "Stoner". He has never done marijuana either. Unfortunate name!

[LouisEly]

I figured Cheech and Chong debunked the "weed not addictive" thing in the 70s!

"Hey, I don't need no marijuana, man... and I don't need no acid, man...

 

'Cause I'm hooked on downers." (Thud)

[Baldkin]

Right. For weed specific though it doesn't make sense to have this big blocker up for weed when alcohol doesn't. Weed isn't even addictive like alcohol.

 

The weed not being addictive thing has pretty much been debunked....people can be addicted. Anecdotally, I know more people that NEED weed than alcohol. The difference is that it doesn't affect their lives and personal relationships as much.

 

Or, you know, businesses could move beyond the "marijuana bad" boogeyman from the 1960's and get with the times.

 

Why? So their insurance premiums can skyrocket? Can you imagine someone driving a forklift with weed in their system? Obese individuals hurt business profitability and rob from their coworkers by raising premiums. Same for smokers, since it costs 5-6 times more to insure a smoker. A huge amount of workers could put themselves and their employers at greater risk, hence why drug testing is required. As a teacher, if I'm suspected of being intoxicated or under the influence, I will be terminated on the spot and my union won't defend me. This goes for most types of jobs in the US.

 

Can you imagine someone being drunk on the job and driving a fork lift?

 

Oh the humanity. What happens with insurance premiums with those huge risks?

 

This idea that "If we don't test for weed, everyone can just smoke pot at work" is a ridiculous strawman.

[Baldkin]

1/10:

 

https://www.cdc.gov/marijuana/faqs/marijuana-addiction.html

 

Stoners are addicts. Possible you know a lot of addicts. I know a lot of people that smoke (I don't personally) and none of them are stoners.

 

In some states, Doctors can give prescriptions for weed nowadays. I think that counts as medicinal.

 

It's not like the Brewers very recently had a top prospect almost kicked out of baseball because he was self medicating with marijuana to prevent seizures or anything.

[DHonks]

Right. For weed specific though it doesn't make sense to have this big blocker up for weed when alcohol doesn't. Weed isn't even addictive like alcohol.

 

The weed not being addictive thing has pretty much been debunked....people can be addicted. Anecdotally, I know more people that NEED weed than alcohol. The difference is that it doesn't affect their lives and personal relationships as much.

 

Or, you know, businesses could move beyond the "marijuana bad" boogeyman from the 1960's and get with the times.

 

Why? So their insurance premiums can skyrocket? Can you imagine someone driving a forklift with weed in their system? Obese individuals hurt business profitability and rob from their coworkers by raising premiums. Same for smokers, since it costs 5-6 times more to insure a smoker. A huge amount of workers could put themselves and their employers at greater risk, hence why drug testing is required. As a teacher, if I'm suspected of being intoxicated or under the influence, I will be terminated on the spot and my union won't defend me. This goes for most types of jobs in the US.

 

Can you imagine someone being drunk on the job and driving a fork lift?

 

Oh the humanity. What happens with insurance premiums with those huge risks?

 

This idea that "If we don't test for weed, everyone can just smoke pot at work" is a ridiculous strawman.

 

Alcohol is pretty obvious to be aware or. It’s easy to test for. Why are you defending weed by comparing it to alcohol instead of saying both are major risks that a company shouldn’t tolerate