Like a relaxing joint? Have a job?

[rufeo]

i do think that drugs as long as your not dependent on it or causing any harm to you or others surrounding you is ok. like the others who have already mentioned i used to dabble a bit. did get addicted a one stage and i'm glad i've stopped now even though there was a time i didn't depend on it and was enjoying it.

alcohol imo is a bigger concern.... just because its legal doesnt make it safer or better, the amount of harm that comes from it is alot greater than cannabis.... but because its socially acceptable people don't see it in the same light. how many people have stumbling into work with a hangover? more i reckon than people being high.....

[Steve]

So long as management are subject to the same testing...

[RoBe]

I am a bit concerned that smoking cannabis is not a crime in the Netherlands, but someone who did so could be fired for it. I worked in Amsterdam for 2 weeks, if I had smoked a legal spliff there on my last day and been drug tested a week later I could have been fired without having committed any offence.

fyi, it's not legal in the netherlands, the police etc just dont enforce very much as they'd rather that it could be 'regulated' rather than people not knowing what they're buying off of some dodgy street corner.

Netherlands
Main article: Drug policy of the Netherlands

The possession/purchase of Cannabis is tolerated in small amounts. One can purchase cannabis in special shops (called "coffeeshops") if one is age eighteen and over. Sale and purchase of cannabis anywhere else is illegal. Cultivation and wholesale of cannabis is likewise "tolerated" in small amounts (guidelines here are no more than five plants at home or the possession of 5 grams per adult max.). The tolerance guidelines appear in appendix of the Opium Act. The Opium Act states very clearly that every part of the hemp plant is banned except for the seeds – this is in accordance with many of the international treaties which the Netherlands have signed. It is for this reason Cannabis cannot be legalised in the Netherlands. Thus, it remains illegal but it is "tolerated." A recent court decision allowed a medical cannabis user to avoid legal prosecution for possession of a small number of cannabis plants; however, the state is appealing the decision.[26]

By 2009, 27 coffee shops selling cannabis in Rotterdam, Netherlands, all within 200 meters from schools must close down. This is nearly half of the coffeeshops that currently operate within its municipality. This is due to a new policy of city mayor Ivo Opstelten and the town council as a result of increased use of soft drugs among pupils.[27][28]

Although outdoor use is prohibited this is also "tolerated" in most places. Since January 2006 certain areas in the district "De Baarsjes" in Amsterdam have been declared official cannabis-free zones because of nuisance to inhabitants of the areas. A special road sign was chosen out of 3 designs by Hans Bos to designate the areas.[4] This sign is not a recognized traffic sign however as it is not used outside of Amsterdam.

[JPreston]

I'm a contractor, and refuse to work anywhere with a drug testing policy. Or at least, I will refuse to ever take a drug test and will walk out before doing so, let them lose a skilled contractor and go through the expense of replacing me if they want. I'm in the happy position of being qualified enough to pick and choose my contracts, in fact I've given myself the year off so far, so I can afford to have principles whatever the economic climate. Mind you (to paraphrase Steven Colbert), anyone who abandons their principles when they become inconvenient didn't really have any principles to start with, they had hobbies.

It's completely irrelevant what drugs I may have taken recently, it's a line in the sand civil liberties issue for me. As Rave implies, the increase in drugs testing amounts to contructive dismissal by companies looking to lay people off cheaply and I won't have anything to do with it.

If I were a pilot I'd be among those currently refusing to have a government ID card forced on them, too. And if I were in a safety-critical position like a pilot, I might reconsider my principle re drugs testing...but I'm not, so I won't.

[Clunk]

What about surprise drugs testing at an interview?

[shaithis]

What about surprise drugs testing at an interview?

It would certainly be a surprise but I'd happily test some drugs at an interview if asked

[Clunk]

"I'm pleased to say you've got the job, but we just need to do a drugs test first."

That's the kind of thing I meant. Would that be acceptable?

[TooNice]

I find that acceptable. Certainly, the argument that drug tests are only used to lay off people cheaply does not apply here. If a person really want to walk off, it's unlikely that there is someone next in line who is similarly qualified/competent willing to take the job drug test or not.

[JPreston]

That's the kind of thing I meant. Would that be acceptable?

Me? No, I wouldn't consent to a test at any point. I'd politely explain that I refuse to take the test on ethical grounds and perhaps express regret that they didn't tell me beforehand that a test would be required, since it's not common practice. If the offer is retracted, I'll only have wasted an hour, they'll still have the position to fill.

It's a privacy thing, my blood/tissue/whatever is my property and whatever secrets they hold are not public information for whoever wants to look. I don't know how realistic your example is anyway, in my experience employers wait until after you've started before taking the piss

[Rave]

My usual style of drunken posting- hit and run, come back a couple of days later to gauge the response. FWIW I personally am not at risk from random drugs testing- I think I've smoked about twice in the last 5 years, the last time being a couple of years ago when I literally had a couple of puffs, enough to enjoy a pleasant mild buzz but not enough to be stoned. On the occasions before that when I did smoke more, I found that the pleasure from the buzz (while sometimes extremely enjoyable) was countered by quite severe paranoia which made the whole exercise, on balance, not really worth it.

While not a criminal offence, it is still against your employment contract.

Thankfully random drug tests are not written into my contract. I'm not a bus driver any more, but when I became a controller the head honcho from the driver's union branch came to talk to us and expressed his strong support for the introduction of random drug testing. I didn't bother pressing him on why it was important to sack people who like a joint on their day off, but needless to say I strongly disagreed....

how many people have stumbling into work with a hangover? more i reckon than people being high.....

For that reason. Random alcohol testing is written into my contract, for very good reasons. It's far more potentially dangerous. However in nearly three years working for my company I have never been breathalized.

That's the kind of thing I meant. Would that be acceptable?

Yes I suppose that's acceptable, and in the bus industry is standard practice. I took and passed three piss tests in my efforts to become a bus driver (as I applied to three separate companies). While I was at a recruitment day for one company another potential recruit was summoned into a side room and told that his application would progress no further as he'd failed the test. I later heard stories of other recruits (presumably before the days of same day results) who were taken on and then sacked for failing the test.

I'm a contractor, and refuse to work anywhere with a drug testing policy. Or at least, I will refuse to ever take a drug test and will walk out before doing so, let them lose a skilled contractor and go through the expense of replacing me if they want. I'm in the happy position of being qualified enough to pick and choose my contracts, in fact I've given myself the year off so far, so I can afford to have principles whatever the economic climate.

Sweet! Must be great to be in that position.

It's completely irrelevant what drugs I may have taken recently, it's a line in the sand civil liberties issue for me. As Rave implies, the increase in drugs testing amounts to contructive dismissal by companies looking to lay people off cheaply and I won't have anything to do with it.

Exactly. The main point of my original post was not really to argue with the idea that companies might have drugs testing clauses written into their employment contracts (though I disagree with them for exactly the same reason you do). It was to warn people of the apparently quite real danger that companies looking to lay people off will now use clauses in contracts that they had never needed to enforce while times were good, and their recreational drug-using employees were performing fine, to wriggle out of their obligation to offer decent redundancy settlements. In fact they'd never have dreamed of enforcing them in the good times- no sensible company is going to sack a useful employee purely because they're implacably morally opposed to drug taking- it's just a convenient means of avoiding their obligations in the lean times because of a foolhardy societal norm that drugs are bad m'kay.

Companies care only about profit. The vast majority are institutionally amoral- indeed the shareholder imperative obliges them to be so. When you need to sack people, doing it as cheaply as possible makes sound business sense.

So I've posted the warning- because I feel sure that amongst the wide readership on this forum, a significant number enjoy smoking dope recreationally. They probably don't make a point of mentioning it, but I know from my own experience that recreational dope smoking is widespread- as it happens, just not amongst my personal social circle.

If I were a pilot I'd be among those currently refusing to have a government ID card forced on them, too. And if I were in a safety-critical position like a pilot, I might reconsider my principle re drugs testing...but I'm not, so I won't.

I fervently hope that the recession will put paid to the hated ID card scheme- and the Conservatives, who must surely win the next election, have made their intention to scrap it a manifesto pledge IIRC. However, I'm still very worried, because manifesto commitments can be dropped just like that, and the next government is going to inherit an extremely restless and unhappy populace. I've got my chipless 48 page passport till 2017, just need some hard assets like gold that I can use to do a runner stashed away. Or maybe I'll stay and be a martyr instead? It's my bloody country after all, maybe I'll stay and fight for it. Oh, I wish it'd all just go away.

[TeePee]

While not a criminal offence, it is still against your employment contract. It's just like you IT example, while it is perfectly legal to use Facebook, you can't use it at work and could be sacked for doing so. The only difference in the two examples is that evidence of drug taking would probably be classed as Gross Misconduct, while using Facebook will get you a warning or a reprimand.

Other than that, I don't see any difference in the two when it comes to breaching your employment contract.

The difference is, it's not against company policy to use facebook, legally, in your own time, on your own internet connection at home.


EDIT: And as for the pilot thing, federal law here requires pre-employment screening and random testing for any flights involving paying passengers. Things are, as you'd imagine, rather stricter here.

[matty-hodgson]

Employers are increasingly using drug testing to get rid of staff without having to make redundancy payouts, as a way of ­cutting costs during the recession, a ­charity has said.

oh crap

[TheAnimus]

when I became a controller the head honcho from the driver's union branch came to talk to us and expressed his strong support for the introduction of random drug testing. I didn't bother pressing him on why it was important to sack people who like a joint on their day off, but needless to say I strongly disagreed....

I think that its very reasonable for a bus driver to be expected to give a random piss test any day there are at work, that way if their manager thinks they are drunk/high they should be tested, the idea of drunk people driving the buses....

As a developer writing software which was been used to trade from, i was able to be subjected if the management had any suspicsions, because they might loose money. Bus drivers might loose peoples lives so i think its fair!

[Salazaar]

EDIT: And as for the pilot thing, federal law here requires pre-employment screening and random testing for any flights involving paying passengers. Things are, as you'd imagine, rather stricter here.

It's just the same for pilots over here as well. A pilot friend of mine had to be very careful where he went when we went on a stag weekend to Amsterdam a couple of years ago.

[JPreston]

I think that its very reasonable for a bus driver to be expected to give a random piss test any day there are at work, that way if their manager thinks they are drunk/high they should be tested, the idea of drunk people driving the buses....

As a developer writing software which was been used to trade from, i was able to be subjected if the management had any suspicsions, because they might loose money. Bus drivers might loose peoples lives so i think its fair!

No, because the issue is whether the driver is under the influence while at work. An alcohol breath test tests the current level of intoxication, whereas a urine test will just show whether or not the driver has smoked cannabis at any time within the past few weeks - he might have smoked well away from any of his shifts, he might have gone on holiday to Portugal or Jamaica or Amsterdam, but he will fail the test. In this way drugs testing amounts to surveillance over an employee's whole life for an extended period of time - it's nothing like a breath test for alcohol.

There are (I think) roadside forehead-swab tests that police have trialled to check for the current influence of ecstasy, maybe cannabis, these are akin to breath tests. I agree it's reasonable for people in safety-critical jobs (and drivers, in fact) to take these kind of tests to prove they are not wasted while at work, provided that the result is available immediately and analysis is done locally, the sample is destroyed following a pass, and the sample is retained in the event of a fail only where the subject consents to this or where he refuses to sign a statement acknowledging the fail.

The main issue is still the apparent four-fold increase in testing now vs a year ago, as companies seek to misuse pre-existing clauses to sack people cheaply. It's really worth reading the entire article Rave linked to in the OP.

[TheAnimus]

When your been charged with drink driving, the police will take a urine sample, normally after they have already breathalised you. I was under the impression its because it was more accurate, and they could tell by the decomposition a rought time estimate.