The Letter ( Sent December 10, 2000 ) Wanting some feedback from people who might be in the same position I am, I sent this letter off to the Northwest Raves mailing list (hyperreal.org/raves/nw). Subject: [NWR] drugs and employers I recently interviewed with Dell Computers for a job as a hardware engineer. In their employment application there is a form that requires me to submit to a drug test if I want to work for them. I'm a very strong supporter of my constitutional rights and I consider the contents of my body to be private property and thus protected against searches. So, should I stand up for my rights? A $70,000 a year job is on the line, but what price can I put on what I think is right and wrong? Also, I'd test clean, I haven't ever taken any drugs, but that should be irrelevant. Thanks The Responses Following are the responses, if you see yours here and would like it removed please let me know and I'll take it down. I'd like to thank everyone that has responded, all your input has been very beneficial.   I think it really depends on where you work as well. I can honestly say that I want the people I work with drug tested since we are working with materials that A) can give you the worker cancer B) give other people in the environment cancer and C) are often unstable depending on geometry. I am glad that my company tests because if some crackhead drops a container of Pu I am in trouble. I want to know I am working with people who have their heads together. I am not saying that people who use recreational drugs are unable to do a good job or are themselves unstable but when you are working in an environment where every move counts, it matters who you are working with. The same goes for an overtired fellow employee or one who is distracted -- I would be afraid of working next to them as well. When alertness counts I think drug testing is important. If you want to do drugs that's fine, I did before I entered this profession, but there are some professions where alertness counts. Would you want an ER doctor to come in after a big fatty joint and try to revive you? I know there is a difference between that ER doctor smoking a j on his time off on his own time when he has no responsibilities but what if he was a general practitioner on call at all times and you wife had a heart attack and he came to see her all high? Besides you all act like money is no big deal, but once (or if) you have a family to support you'll look at it differently. Or school loans, which are just as annoying as children. - Jennifer So does the company you work for test for alcohol? Are people checked for hangovers on Monday morning? I'd much rather have someone who smoked pot all weekend handling that sort of stuff than someone who was drinking all weekend. - Zane In most cases it is completely irrelevant whether the person is using drugs or not, legal or otherwise. The effect is the same, and if the person is unstable or whatever, it could just as easily be due to lack of sleep, or they could be wired on caffeine or nicotine, or they could be having personal problems, or they could have a medical condition. At the same time, the person could be a drug user and be just fine at work. And a drug test will not screen out any other possible problems, but it will screen out some people with absolutely no problems at all. Then again, perhaps the purpose of the drug test is not to weed out drug users at all, but to weed out those who refuse to do the test, because those same people are more likely to be rabble (read "union") rousers, are more likely to object to unethical business practices or projects, and in general are more likely to cause trouble down the road. That said, I really don't know what I'd do in this situation. Given my current financial situation, and my financial past, the concept of turning down a US$70000 a year job on the basis of a drug test that I would most likely pass (and if not, I could sue the lab for the amount I would have earned, because I've never used illegal drugs in my life) is completely foreign to me. (I currently get CAN$360 a month (welfare) plus whatever I earn from http://www.getpaid4.com/?jcfawcett (please sign up and help me get off welfare, in the spirit of the holidays... :) However, the Conservative government in Ontario is attempting to institute mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients, and in that case I would certainly refuse (and take them to court over it, if necessary), even if just long enough to make a point and attract media attention. I do agree in principle though to your point about on-call doctors ... except to say that an on-call doctor using marijuana (or alcohol for that matter) is essentially using the drug while on duty, and this is an entirely different situation than someone using the drug on their weekend off. And while I do think it's kind of unfair that some doctors never receive time off (not to mention unhealthy for the healthcare system and for doctors and patients). - Demonseed Hmmm... I've seen plenty of people that aren't on "illegal" drugs, but are on things like Prozac, pain killers, alcohol, caffeine, etc. that are so unconscious of their body that I certainly wouldn't want them to be handling hazardous materials or driving my bus. I use drugs, I don't abuse them. I've never been addicted to any white drug (though I have tried a few). I am super conscious of what I put in my body, and that is the real issue, people need to learn about their bodies, figure out how to create a healthy framework to live and work in so that you can maximize your potential and still have fun... And yes, if you are handling hazardous materials at work, that means you don't do drugs WHILE you are on the job. The main point being that the drugs tests today are really pointless. They don't catch many of the illegal drugs today (like E, GHB, Ketamine), they don't test for legal ones, and they don't address the real problem that people need to be taking care of their bodies. If you want to screen for people that have their act together, maybe it would be better just to learn how to really interview them :) - Jim The place I work at has debriefings every week where you go in and talk to a nice mental health professional about any problems you are having, and they pick up on lack of sleep, etc. etc. Someone on any of the medications you mentioned would never be allowed to do this job. One of my good friends was on seizure meds and he lost his clearance. This whole counselor thing was a big issue for me because I am gay and when I first started working there, about three years ago, I wasn't all the way out yet, so I was afraid of getting into my personal life. I did finally get more comfortable, and I never had any discrimination or anything but some people would say that these sessions are really messed up. If you think it's wrong to test for drugs- what do you think about being forced to have weekly counseling sessions? I still have trouble with this one because it seems awfully intrusive, yet it is part of having a Q clearance in a government agency - hey, I love my job and it pays very very well, it supports my little family and I have mad money left over to play with. So am I paying a price with my privacy? Maybe - but I am also helping the environment and public health and myself at the same time. Sometimes ya gotta do what ya gotta do. And I don't care what profession you're in. I don't want to pay for a product of any kind that was made by a total crack head and does not work properly. The question lies in how drugs affect the quality of the work. I think it is true that for many recreational drug users it may not effect the quality of their work whatsoever, but for some???? How is the employer going to know that you are the once in a while user with a good head on your shoulders instead of someone who is addicted and would steal to support their habit? Unless the interviewer is a great judge of character there is no way to tell. - Jennifer Weekly counseling. Yeah, a little twisted, but here's why I think so. do the head shrinkers get "weekly counseling"? How about your boss? Does the head of your comany ever have to pee in a cup, or get weekly counseling to check up on how his personal life is affecting his job? Gor all you know, the guy's sitting at his desk wanking all day behind a locked door, but nobody would ever find out 'cuz he's probably not scheduled for a weekly psychiatric evaluation. I'm opposed to mandatory drug testing and shrink sessions first because it's rather intrusive, second because it's based on a double standard. What's next, mandatory prostate exams? - Sean, head cynic I don't understand what you mean, is your problem with malfunctional products or with crack users? Would you pay for a product that was made by a total crack head and does work properly? And if you don't feel good about "supporting" crack users, think about how much you support far worse people, like those in our government who sell arms to Indonesia, bomb Iraq, etc. Well a poor judge of character is better than no judge at all, which is what drug testing is! Drug testing looks at insignificant facts with complete disregard to the "truth" of character, personality, spirit, and other values that are good in a worker. - jonah These tests: A) Don't catch most abused substances (valium, MDMA, Prozac, caffeine, etc) B) Don't catch most people that do abuse things like crack, etc, because they usually take piss cleaners beforehand. So therefore, really are a pointless invasion of privacy (like your counseling sessions). You're most likely going to catch someone who has trace amounts of THC in their system, who at least in the NW, is a *very* large percentage of the population. - Jim Are all of these substances tested for on a regular basis, like daily or a few times a week? Because some substances which people use only occasionally, and wouldn't even think about as potentially problematic, can have a significant effect on one's performance. Take ephedrine for example. It is used as a decongestant/bronchodilator, a stimulant, and a diet pill. It is a common ingredient in over-the-counter cough and allergy medications (Nyquil for instance). And yet chemically, it is an amphetamine structure, and at high doses, behaves very much the same as any amphetamine. A coupla years ago, a woman crashed into a car and killed 2 little girls, cuz she was off her head on ephedrine diet pills, and didn't know that she was delusional (she was in a hurry to meet some hockey star who, in her delusional state, she believed was expecting her). She was in a very bad state, and didn't have a clue, because it was just diet pills she'd used. As a consumer, and as an employer, it is completely irrelevant to me whether an employee's problems are caused by drug (ab)use, or by other factors. If an employee is incapable of performing up to acceptable standards, they must either improve, or start looking for work elsewhere. If I am an employer, I am willing to assist an employee in dealing with problems, as long as they are dealt with. I don't care what the reason is. But I can't have an employee doing sub-standard work. I can make certain allowances (I myself have a learning disability, and have difficulty with certain tasks), but I have to maintain a certain level of quality and productivity in my company, and whether a person is doing shoddy work because they're a crackhead or because they're in a bad relationship, I can't keep them on if they can't improve. There IS no way to tell, aside from reviewing a candidate's employment history, references, educational history and so on. But if an employer tried to screen out all potential problem employees based on what they might potentially do, s/he would never be able to hire anyone. I'm a raver. I've been exposed to drug use. Therefore there is a potential I may use drugs some day. I know computers fairly well. I know UNIX. Therefore there is a potential I may hack some day. Should I not, then, be hired on the basis of these facts? This is a case of guilt by association, and so is a positive drug test. You make good points, but you're missing the point of what I'm saying. There are any number of factors which could cause an employee to be unsuitable for a position, including use of drugs, alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, asthma medication, a physical or mental disability, a health condition and so on. But people with any of these conditions could do a job just as adequately as one without, depending on the circumstances and the specific effects of the condition. If a person can do a job to acceptable standards, it is illegal (at least in Canada) to exclude them on the basis of the fact that they are paraplegic. So why would it be legal to exclude them because they have an addiction, if they can perform just as well as someone without an addiction? Or because of their recreational activities? - Demonseed I once worked in a chemical plant where they manufactured substances that could kill everyone in the building if a few dozen PPM got released. One of the chemists there got fired because he tested positive for cocaine. He was a friend of mine, I liked him a lot, but I didn't miss working with him after that. -Chris   I am just 16 so I don't know if my opinion would matter in this case, but I say just take the test. Would you pay a crack head 70,000 if you he hadn't ever worked for you and you don't know how well he will work? Just take the test and take your job. If you want to speak out about it do it, but I would rather have a good paying job then no job and proud that I didn't take a leak in a cup. The choice is yours and yours alone, - Grant So sad to see that a young persons freedom means so little to him. Makes me want to cry. You don't even understand how very precious the freedoms you are willing to give up for a buck are. sigh... Tim Just because you work for somebody it doesn't mean they own you. An employer can't fire somebody for being gay (legally) so why can they fire you for doing other things they consider distasteful? - peter hmmmm....70,000 a year... Wow, being that you don't do drugs, what the hell, but I understand where your coming from, but I can also tell you, any high paying bracket job, is going to require them knowing they don't have a dope fiend doing the work of someone they pay 70,000 a year for, know what I mean? Its a total catch 22.....tuff call, I guess if how you think and what you feel really matter in this issue, then its your right and decision to chose how you like.. Good Luck.. - Elektra rain It's a privacy issue. What you do on company time is their business. What you do on your time is you own concern. These tests, unlike bac test, don't test if you have used recently, i.e. on the job, but instead if you have used in the past x days. These tests are unfair and very intrusive. It's the great American way, sell out your values if the price is right. Who cares if you can look at yourself in the mirror. At least the Armani suit looks fine. - misc partykid-604 I disagree. A high salary does not necessarily indicate a blanket wavier of your rights. I work for a "high-tech" company, make a fair wage, etc. etc. When I was hired I was asked to take a wizz quiz. I refused. They realized I would walk, so they waived it for me. A month or two later they removed it from their hiring practices. I'm all for a safe workplace and if someone is coming in to work in a state that could put my well being, health, or livelihood in jeopardy - great - test 'em , counsel 'em, and help 'em. But a "shoot first, ask questions" later mentality just won't fly. - Brian Personally, I have made the decision to NEVER work for any corporation who values my pee-pee more than my work ethic. However, I am also not qualified for any job paying 70,000$$ a year! I think it is a very personal choice to make and you will probably have a hard time finding such a high paying position where they DON'T want to test you. - the princess The ONLY way to pass a drug test is to refuse to take one. Stand up for your rights, and let them know exactly why they are not getting a good qualified employee. You can always get more money, but once you give away your rights, their just gone. Do you REALLY want to spend half your life toiling for a company that cares so little about your rights it would search your very piss? Pee for Enjoyment not for Employment. !! - t I've never worked for a company that did drug testing and never will... To me it's just wrong to invade someone's privacy that way. What I do in my free time is my own business. It seems like if they are offering you that salary, it wouldn't be hard to find another company that would offer you a similar salary without the testing. - Kim Take the middle ground... Take the test, take the job. Once in, make a complaint. Take them to court over it if you have to, and try and get them to change their ways. If they fire you for it, sue and be well off for the rest of your life. - Ryan Then there's another point... No one is holding a gun to your head telling you that you must work for Dell. As an "at will" employer, they can ask you to submit for a UA. Think of it like "if you don't want to play by our rules, you don't have to play here." That's just one of those things that go along with private employers. Just be glad that they aren't asking you to submit to a psychiatric assessment, health physical and other intrusive tests. They could, but who'd go for that? Just people who are drug free, mentally sound and in good health that want to make 70k a year, that's who. - Seth That's not really true. It just all depends on the company. When I first moved to Seattle I needed a job. So I applied at Meridian 16 theaters and they required a drug test. A $6.00 an hour drug test. I thought I would definitely fail it, but passed anyways. Now I'm in the internet/computer industry I haven't had to take any drug tests for the last two ISPS I've worked for. And I don't think it's hard to guess that I make more then twice as much money now. I know a lot of low paying jobs that do require drug testing, a lot don't. I know a few higher end jobs that require drug testing, and a a lot that don't. It just depends on the company and there ethics. Also, it would be the choice of the applicant whether he wants to take the drug test and work with a certain company, or go to another. It's a mix of the companies values and the person applying. If a person doesn't feel comfortable working in a place that requires a drug test, then they have the right not to do it, and not to work there. There are plenty of other job opportunities out there. - heather   The viewpoint of refusing the job based on the fact that they piss test is purely and completely inane. Point #1 is that drugs in this country are illegal, and Point #2 if you don't take the job on the basis of drug testing you're not going to change their minds. What you do on your own time is nice and all but when a company drug tests you they're checking to make sure you aren't a criminal. Pure and simple. Its like background checks. I don't want an embezzlement convict handling my books any more than most companies would want the media portrayed pothead designing high-tech circuitry (read: brad pitt and his honey bear bong). Being that using the drugs they are testing for is against the law, there is nothing ideal in refusing employment over testing. By that mentality, you should be refusing American citizenship because of this countries stance on drugs. That's not very realistic. The world is not a clear cut vein of good and bad, white and black. It really is all grey, and soo........ $70,000 a year would provide you financial security, the ability to raise a beautiful family with little stress about money and being able to provide (unless you're wasteful). That amount of basic needs well being is completely and utterly worth the sacrifice of a piss test in my not so humble opinion. I used to have the same feelings about piss tests, but I know my next job will probably pay about half that a year, and I'll gladly compromise my ideal for the opportunity to not live in abject poverty. - nate. So if they wanna come snoop around your house, or strip search you and your friends, you'd be cool with that too. I mean where the fuck do you draw the line. There are LOT's of companies that have respect for your rights and respect their own investment. Drug tests are easy to fake, responsible companies have more sophisticated ways to tell if you can do the job you are hired to do. - Tim YEAH! This is AMERICA! So you better OBEY the LAW! Because it's the LAW! And the LAW is never WRONG! Don't think about it, just OBEY! Because the LAW says so! You've been brainwashed. I gotta say I think your briefly mentioned original stance was much better. See... I know too many potheads who make more than 70k a year, too many "candykidz" who are a helluva lot more capable than the average graduate, and too many people who work for [insert large co name here, ie public utilities, r&d labs, etc] who chill with a little coke on the weekends to agree that drug testing proves anything. If you've got some random pothead, or joe average crack addict, they're not going to make it past the interview (like they'd even be there in the first place). I'd rather see an employer that offered a way out of a potentially destructive habit than a guaranteed boot in the ass just because you went to a party and got hotboxed. well, i'm off, gotta go do my civic duty and OBEY the LAW, after I check in with my BIG BROTHER... - gryn Hmm... I've been a software engineer for 15 years and like to smoke pot. Since I've designed some of the most complicated AI, robotics, networking, vision software around, travelled around the world solo several times, kept my body in top shape with TaiChi, yoga and working out... I don't see that it has affected my performance. I have also never taken a job with a company that drug tests or does DOD (Defense) work. There are plenty of 70K jobs (and higher) out there if you have the right background, and it sounds like you do. I disagree that if you tell them you don't do drugs and that you are not taking the job because you don't believe that they should test people that it won't have some effect on them. Every action (even small ones) will have some effect on the cosmic web. I'm not giving advice, however, do what you think is right, for you, for what you believe in, and for the world you would like to create. Jim   I suggest you read the Constitution again. You obviously have no idea what your "constitutional rights" are. Coming to work high and manufacturing fucked up computers that don't work properly is not one of them. But if you do feel strongly about drug tests on principle, I suggest turning down the job. The satisfaction you feel may be worth it, and there are plenty of others out there. Assuming of course you have no mouths to feed other than your own, otherwise my advice would go the other way... In the end you need to choose between your nonconformist principles and the benefits of a conformist, well paying job. - chris But the right to privacy is. These test intrude into your private life. Your employer has no right to your private life. If you come to work high. That is different but these test don't test for if you are high on the job they just test if you get high. That is why they are wrong. It isn't about nonconformist principles, it's about civil rights. The right to privacy. If they ask you to piss in a cup you can JUST SAY NO. Thank you Nancy. - partykid-604 While I respect the Constitution of the United States for attempting to guarantee substantial and necessary rights to the citizens of this country, I also respect it's intent enough not to read it as a dogmatic outline of the only rights that matter. My loyalty is not to the government of this country or to the documents from which it derives its legitimacy. They are to myself and others as potential conscious and conscientious beings. No one is claiming that a right not to have a pre-employment drug test is equivalent to a right about "coming to work high and manufacturing fucked up computers that don't work properly." Its a right about self-governance and the self-judgment to determine for oneself under what influences one is best capable of working (or not). Part of me wants to concurrently support the right of the individuals who are employers to also decide best whether they need to drug test as an employment criterion. Because in an ideal world, the candidate could then say no, and seek employment elsewhere. As the Esteemed Mister Mars pointed out, there are plenty of fairly (and more than fairly) paying jobs available to the non-conformist. Unfortunately, many people believe the above choice is realistic, as it ignores the need to eat/support a family, etc. So the argument seems to be, is survival more important than personal ethics? Most people would say yes, but that's an easy first step to loosing your freedom. I know I still cannon resolve this question entirely for myself, but I think it's OK to leave some things as dilemmas in order to avoid dogma. As to the "drugs are illegal, just deal with it, you criminal" attitude: I would encourage anyone who feels this way to reevaluate the system of laws we live under. Both canonical law and common law are things that adjust with time. They are dynamic and constantly need to be evaluated to reflect the times. Many things which were once illegal are not any longer, and vice versa. Challenging the law does not require that one break it. However, if we can't even *discuss* the possibility of it being wrong, then something essentially meant to progress society becomes a chain which holds it back. - Jess "Welcome to America. please verify that your head is firmly planted in the ground, and be sure to suppress any independent thought which might upset the status quo." gah... I gotta say I agree completely. I admire organizations like DanceSafe not only because of their mission but because of the organization's ability to provide information and discussion regarding "illegal" drugs while still staying on the "legal" side of the line. Too many people would rather not hear about a socially unacceptable or illegal problem than have to deal with their own conscience or comfort zone when they admit the problem exists. - Rocket If you test positive, than the drug in question is still in your blood stream, and thus is still present in your brain in some quantity. When your liver doesn't know how to deal with a substance, it tags it with a protein that causes it to be absorbed into your fat cells for temporary storage. This allows it to be slowly released back into your blood stream, and flushed out of your body over time, instead of overwhelming your system. Without this mechanism, it would be extremely hard not to overdose, because your body wouldn't be able to moderate the amount of substance crossing your blood brain barrier. With THC the release generally happens over the course of a month. This small amount of the drug has varying levels of impact on different people, but I can say from personal experience its why I had to quit smoking pot: the half-life rendered me unable to work effectively. I think employers have a right to know if they are going to be able to trust you to trust yourself. Some people can do their work fine on a half-life, while others can't, but think they can. If they where to attempt to classify people thus, it would certainly be more invasive to privacy than to just test and be done with it. - Dan Most drug tests actually test for the presence of metabolites or other by-products of the chemicals, not the drugs themselves. So in reality, the tests DO NOT indicate that you are currently under the direct influence of the substance (different from BAC tests). - Organ Does anyone have know of any research done regarding performance of workers soon after the use of drugs? Maybe something along the lines of watching the productivity of a group of workers who haven't used drugs in the past month or two, and then watching the productivity of the same group of workers in the month (or so) after they've used some recreational drugs. I think this would shed some useful light on the topic, if anyone can help out here. I know I'd be interested. I'd also be interested in how they measure "productivity" in such an experiment. -Tim Including alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, valium, Prozac, etc., or just the naughty ones? 'cuz frankly I'd rather be standing next to a guy who'd been doing lines Saturday night than somebody all jacked up on valium, or with a bangin' hangover, or chain smoking, or all damn jittery 'cuz they needed their mid-morning coffee buzz. - Rocketscience To be correct about it, your perception is that some mental or physical effect of the marijuana had a negative impact on skills that you associate with working effectively. who knows if there is this "half-life" or what? I know that marijuana can cause psychological symptoms such as depression and low motivation, but this has nothing to do with the pot physically being released into your system. (as far as I know. again if you have evidence that states otherwise I would love to see it.) But taking the test isn't being done with it, it's a way of classifying and eliminating people who don't fit their criteria of "person who doesn't do some drugs." if they instead changed that criteria to "person who doesn't do _any_ drugs" or preferably to "person who is a good worker" then how is that "more invasive to privacy" ?? - jonah I was gonna say most people think and work up to par with (apparently) only half a brain but ya sorta beat me to it =). not that "par" in this context is any great standard of excellence, of course... "how many of you people know you're really alive?" most of 'em don't. they just get up at 7, get their drive-thru coffee buzz, commute to work by 9, pee in a cup, and buckle down in drone mode until "happy hour", where they proceed to imbibe with their "buddies" from work ("beer is liquid bread it's good for youuuuu..." funny song), go home, read the paper, jerk off and go to bed (insert appropriate gender analogues where necessary...i dunno what "status quo" females do =P), and repeat. They all drive exactly the speed limit, at X number of car lengths apart (I shit you not, I saw this in dc, it's frightening...guys getting off work at a software company). They will continue to live lives of content mediocrity, for all that they are the most important people in the country...they are the worker drones of our little hive, they don't care, and I'm not gonna be the one to spoil their fun since we all depend on their content bubbles of reality. but! if you know that's not you, don't let yourself end up that way by default. I prefer the company of people who at least are pretty darn certain they're alive and kicking, and are capable of showing it, hence "why I'm here." - sean

Site by Kallahar - kallahar@kallahar.com - Hosted by DreamHost