Drug Testing: Risking the Health of Citizens/Employees?

[Baggle]

Yep, another drugs thread. Deal with it ;)

In any case, a situation in my life has just made me truly consider drug testing as a possible infringement on folks' personal health. Here is my anecdote.

A family member of mine is on probation(for a non-violent, non drug-related crime). He gets drug tested about once a month or so. The only drug he has ingested is Marijuana, which isn't even relevant since other drugs burn their way out of your system within 24-48 hours or so. This family member last smoked Marijuana before his hearing, which was at the beginning of January, and he smoked pretty regularly before that. Just recently, this family member, who is very active in sports at his high school(varsity football, varsity wrestling), was preparing for a wrestling match when he came down with Bronchitis. Not sure how many of you guys have ever participated in wrestling, or ever had a friend/relative who has, but the days before a match involve pretty much starving yourself and running your ass off to make weight, and a wrestler may lose anywhere from 2lbs to 10lbs before the match. Couple this with being ill, and you burn A LOT of fat. So this family member made a trip to the Dr's office, where he had to do a urine test, as the Dr thought that Mono was a risk. It turns out that he was clean for Mono, which is good, but the Dr informed him that he tested positive for Marijuana use. Anybody who knows something about drug(Marijuana) testing can tell you that even if you stop smoking for years, when you lose weight, the stored portions of the MJ chemicals in your fat are burned, and it appears to any urinalysis that you've been smoking Marijuana, even if, in fact, you have not for any amount of time. Luckily the wrestling match was held before his probationary drug test, and he was able to realize what was going on and start eating his heart out, so as not to burn any fat, before he was due to take his court mandated drug test. This brought a question to my mind...

Are those who are on probation and want to lose weight forced not to, in fear of not passing their drug test? What about those on probation who are dangerously overweight, and their health is at risk? Do they have to make the choice between being healthy and in prison, or unhealthy and free? Are there any precedents set for this that anybody knows of? Can you simply explain your situation to the judge/P.O. and they will understand your plight? Or will they think you are looking for an excuse to smoke Marijuana while being drug tested? The same applies to those who are forced to participate in drug tests at their place of employment. Must they choose between being healthy and not having a job or being dangerously overweight and being employed? Could this be the final straw on the camel's back to invalidate drug testing of fat-soluable drugs without a better testing method in the penal system or employment system?

Thanks for taking the time to read this thread. I am genuinely curious about this. How many folks have been sent to jail or lost their jobs because they used to smoke Marijuana, and now have started to lose weight...?

-Baggle

[Baggle]

Does anybody have any answers to any of these questions? I've been dying of curiosity about this ever since it came across my sick little mind; I've been checking to see if anybody has replied to this thread every 3 seconds or since I posted it...Surely somebody here is or is friends/family with a PO, MD, lawyer, judge, drug test administrator, business owner(that uses drug testing), etc that has had some experience with this? I cannot imagine this situation being limited to my own personal experience.

Any information or opinions you have about this topic would be appreciated.

Thanks.
-Baggle

[shanek]

I'd kind of like to know the answer to this myself.

[subgenius]

Not sure if I even understand the facts or the question, but:
"Anybody who knows something about drug(Marijuana) testing can tell you that even if you stop smoking for years, when you lose weight, the stored portions of the MJ chemicals in your fat are burned, and it appears to any urinalysis that you've been smoking Marijuana, even if, in fact, you have not for any amount of time."
I don't agree with this premise. All traces should be out of anyone's system within months, at most.
Interesting: slender people do lose traces quicker, chronic (no pun intended) users get rid of it quicker than occasional users.
Here's a site with the best hard evidence on the subject.
http://my.marijuana.com/content.php3

Your relative should have clean tests by now if he's really not using.

All the "flush" type cleansers are no better than just drinking the amount of water they recommend to drink along with it.
Masking agents are tested for and detectable.
There is a device called the "Urinator" that is a heated pouch that you put clean urine in and release through a tube when you give a sample. Unless you have to go through a metal detector, a search, strip, or are closely observed its about the only way to beat the test.
The two worst drugs, alcohol and cocaine, are out of the system the quickest.
A local U.S. rep.(John Conyers) was accused of drug use and said, "I'll take a urine test if you'll hold the cup." ;)
Hope this helps.
Fight for the reform of these tragically unjust laws.

[subgenius]

the urinator:
http://www.3wave.com/irt/
(I don't get a commission and I am not paid for my endorsement;) )

[Baggle]

I get this information from Dr. Drew, as I was an avid LoveLine radio show listener for 4 years before the show was no longer carried in my area. He would routinely discuss this about drug tests.

Caller: HELP! I have to take a drug test in 2 months and I just smoked pot today!
DrDrew: Calm down. Don't smoke until then and you'll be clean unless you start to lose weight/etc/etc just before you take the test.

I've got no sources ATM for this, but I'll start to look now.

BTW the fact I presented was: marijuana traces are stored in fat and trace amounts are detected when said fat is burned, just as if you'd smoked it yesterday, even if it was actually 3 years ago when that fat was indeed formed.

The question was: does this endanger overweight folks' health by the means I mentioned?

-Baggle

[subgenius]

I still don't agree with the premise that the traces would be stored in fat cells ad infinitum until they are "burned."
My limited understanding leads me to suspect that there is some process whereby those cells "flush" themselves, and that they don't act as "safety deposit boxes" so to speak.
Other than the comment you recall from Dr. Drew I have never heard or seen this theory ever mentioned except as I indicated, it taking more time to get clean the more fat cells you have.

I have not found a more authoritative link than the one I provided, and I've looked.
If there were such data it would provide a very convenient explanation for positive drug tests, and have been used I would think.

Let me know if you find something.

[Baggle]

Cites:

"Marijuana contains known toxins and cancer-causing chemicals which are stored in fat cells for as long as several months. "
http://www.satllp.com/marijuana.html

"Drugs stored in fat will persist longer in the body; water-soluble drugs are more quickly eliminated."
http://www.lutheransonline.com/servlet/lo_ProcServ/dbpage=page&GID=01158001360986064365619618&PG=01180001360989732715512118

"How to calculate whether a urine drug test will test positive for THC?

Time and THC saturation determine this. Unfortunately THC is fat soluble. What this means is that THC is stored in fat cells. Once one's system reaches terminal saturation, it takes roughly 4 to 6 weeks to dry out enough to pass a urine drug test. Fortunately there is a way to calculate how THC is stored in fat tissue. It works like this; Each time you get stoned, you saturate your blood with THC. Blood saturation reaches 100 percent fairly quickly and can't be exceeded. (keep smoking and you are wasting good pot). Assume that all 100 percent is absorbed by body fat. Body fat dissipates THC at the rate of 10 percent of total fat saturation per day. This means the day after you still have 90 percent blood saturation. The day after that you have 81 percent blood saturation left. etc... Some of the current urine tests can detect 60 percent blood saturation. So if someone has never smoked pot before smokes one time, it takes three to seven days to dry out. However if you smoke every day your fat saturation level climbs to 1000 percent! This is maximum because you lose 10 percent of 1000 percent every day (100 percent blood saturation), and can only attain 100 percent blood saturation every day."

http://www.moravek.net/ovisnosti/thc-test1.htm
According to this site, if you were to smoke every day for 2 months, it would take 30 clean days to reach the point of falling below the standard that they use to determine if you've smoked marijuana recently or not.

"Since THC is fat-soluble and is stored in fat cells, exercise will help burn the fat cells. BUT stop exercising at least a couple of days before your test because exercise increases the amount of THC in your urine.Also, you should avoid all toxins and unnecessary medications for 48-72 hours before your test."
http://www.magicvan.com/magicvan/page21.html

"..Grass, weed, pot or reefer, whatever the name, marijuana is often thought of as a recreational drug with no harmful side effects. However, marijuana contains known toxins and cancer causing chemicals which are stored in fat cells for as long as two months. Marijuana smokers experience the same health problems as tobacco smokers, such as bronchitis, emphysema and bronchial asthma..."
http://www.moxietraining.com/programs/osha/A_alcohol_and_drug.htm


In any case, my original presumption that my question(s) was based on was false. I was not aware that the substances that were testable would leave your system without you actively burning fat, although this does appear to increase the amount of testable agents in the system. The maximum detectable time is probably 1-2 months by means of fat alone, and not, in fact, any longer, like I originally thought.

The question may stand, though, in a rephrased fashion. Are marijuana drug tests discriminitory towards overweight/handicapped people? If a slender/active chronic smoker stops smoking for a week, a drug test may show negative. If an overweight/handicapped(not able to exercise) chronic smoker must stop for a MUCH longer(comparitively) amount of time for the same results....is the test discriminitory? Should the government have to test metabolism/body fat before they set standards for how long the person should have before they are required by law/employer to take a urine drug test?

My original assessment was wrong. Sorry for the misinformation guys(should've checked the info before posting...my bad), and thanks for the info, sub. I'd still like opinions on this newly phrased version of the question ;)

-Baggle

[Nasarius]

Marijuana contains known toxins and cancer-causing chemicals which are stored in fat cells for as long as several months.

Now this is very interesting. Since we're talking about drug testing, we must be focusing primarily on delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol and its metabolites. It is fat soluble, and it is what's being tested for. The interesting part is that THC is certainly not a "toxin", and as far as I know, has not been established as a carcinogen. So what are these two sources referring to, exactly?

[Baggle]

I noticed the same, Nasarius, but my carpel tunnel(I'm 19 years old...if that gives you any indication of how geeky I am..lol) was advising me not to make mention of it, as I tend to ramble and my wrists don't get along with a lot of text very well:)

The website in question no doubt gets it's information from government propoganda, among other sources. No doubt that part of the information is false, as I would believe most(all?) of the sources to be. I put it in there strictly for numbers, trying to get an average.

Want another piece of laughably inaccurate information? This time it's from the government, and the part of the government that is supposed to know about these things. To be fair, it probably does know all about it, and the information is just selected/created as they see fit. Let me find the quote/cite....
"What are some consequences of marijuana use?

May cause frequent respiratory infections, impaired memory and learning, increased heart rate, anxiety, panic attacks, tolerance, and (!!!!)physical dependence(!!!!)."emphasis mine.
http://www.dea.gov/concern/marijuana.html

This is by no means the only error on the DEA website about marijuana. Sometimes I read the sections at DEA.gov on marijuana and try to catch all of the propoganda/misinformation that I can when I'm bored.

In any case, I've started to ramble again...thanks for your response, though.

-Baggle

[corplinx]

Uhhhhh....... Losing up to 1 pound a week is the recommended weight loss amount. In the case of the wrestler, he loses several pounds in a short amount of time. This sort of weight fluxuation is not atypical of a regular dieter.

As for the original question, do drug tests endanger fat people? I think this is very hypothetical and very silly also. If anything, a person who wants to lose weight can do what everyone else does and use goldenseal before their drug test. :)

[subgenius]

Tests for marijuana are discriminatory for all people since its a violation of fundamental due process for it to be illegal in the forst place.
Your research is more accurate now, showing 1-2 months being the time it would take anyone to test negative.
Calculations are for the birds as far as anything beyond that, its hypothetical. Try explaining calculations to a judge. Its all moot.
No one would listen.
Fight the powers that be.

[Baggle]

Corp, good to hear from you.

As far as endangering health, I simply meant it in the terms of, "If a fat person mustn't lose weight in order to pass drug tests, they may be in danger." Of course, my original ASSuMEd facts were wrong, and the point is moot. Would've been one helluva argument if it panned out, though, eh?

Sub is right... Drug tests are invasions of my privacy and I cannot understand how they are rationalized by Uncle Sam. What business is it of my employer WHAT I am taking? Can he fire me because a person tests positive for anti-depressants and he doesn't want a "party pooper" around the office? If I am doing my job the way that it needs to be done, fsck off, please. I can see on-site impairment drug testing for those operating heavy machinery, etc, but ONLY for what they are currently intoxicated on. What they do on their own free time is none of their employer's business. Period. However, this logic will never be listened to(not any time soon...even though now we have a gov. party elected that respects/protects personal freedoms... *COUGH*), and I suppose I was looking for some sort of area in which to make the tests doubly unjust. I was legitimately curious about the situation and the questions were also legitimate tough, I assure you.

I think a weaker case could still be made for the weight discriminatory drug tests, however. Maybe one day a person will fail a drug test, lose his job, and sue for damages using weight discrimination in the drug testing as a legal basis. Not sure how far this lawsuit would get, or how much the guy would make, but it would sure set an unprecedented, uhhh, precedent.

I've got no idea where this thread is now. Respond with your own comments/questions or let it die. Your choice. I'll TRY not to be the one to revive it...but I do so love to ramble on about seemingly unchangable things. Rabid idealism is supposed to be a perk of youth, but I've yet to see the personal benefits in it ;)

-Baggle

[subgenius]

Youth is wasted on the young.;) ---Oscar Wilde?
Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional. ---Tiger Woods?
Die thread die. Start another one.:confused:

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Baggle
Corp, good to hear from you.
Drug tests are invasions of my privacy and I cannot understand how they are rationalized by Uncle Sam. What business is it of my employer WHAT I am taking?


What business is it of the government's who an employer hires/fires and for what reasons?

Nepotism, cronysim, racism, homophobia, drug paranoia, minority preferences, racial/gender tokens, good hair, bad hair, you smell bad, hired for good looks; its none of uncle Sam's business unless a representative of Uncle Sam is doing the hiring. Then Uncle Sam should have a beef with discriminatory hiring.

If you don't want to be drug tested, tell them you don't want to work for a company who thinks that is acceptable and that you will take your talents elsewhere. If enough people do that, then maybe they will get the hint.

I'm glad I live in a right to hire/right to fire/right to quit state though. You should come here and refuse to accept jobs with companies because they don't have a tolerant attitude towards recreational drugs. In reciprocation, an employer can fire you for being under the influence of them.

[Baggle]

What state is this?

I'm a young guy....there's still plenty of time for me to roam, although what I really want to do is go into business for myself some day. Maybe when/if I do, though, I'll do so in a state like yours. Of course, I've heard Nevada's tax laws are pretty nice :)

-Baggle

[Baggle]

By the way, I can see the basis that the government uses to justify forcing corporations to be undiscriminatory. Whether people agree with it or not or whether it is justified is a whole other can of worms. What I truly cannot see is how the gov't justifies drug testing for employees(gov't or otherwise), as long as they are doing their job. I just cannot see how they rationalize it....

-Baggle

[fishbob]

Sub is right... Drug tests are invasions of my privacy and I cannot understand how they are rationalized by Uncle Sam. What business is it of my employer WHAT I am taking? Can he fire me because a person tests positive for anti-depressants and he doesn't want a "party pooper" around the office? If I am doing my job the way that it needs to be done, fsck off, please. I can see on-site impairment drug testing for those operating heavy machinery, etc, but ONLY for what they are currently intoxicated on. What they do on their own free time is none of their employer's business. Period. However, this logic will never be listened to(not any time soon...even though now we have a gov. party elected that respects/protects personal freedoms... *COUGH*), and I suppose I was looking for some sort of area in which to make the tests doubly unjust. I was legitimately curious about the situation and the questions were also legitimate tough, I assure you.
++++++++++++++++++++++

If I am an employer, I want a crew that is not impaired. I spend a bunch of money training a crew and it costs me every time somebody shows up late, screws up a task, gets hurt, hurts somebody else. Drug testing is used to weed out (ha) those who are most likely to cause financial loss to the employer. Drug users, in general, are more expensive employees.

[OdderMensch]

Drug users, in general, are more expensive employees care to defend that remark?

1.If I am an employer, I want a crew that is not impaired.
fair, but a pre-employment screening only shows that the person was 'clean' at time of hiring, not impairment on the job. If an employee of mine acted or was stoned at work, they would be fired.

2. I spend a bunch of money training a crew and it costs me every time somebody shows up late, screws up a task, gets hurt, hurts somebody else.
So should the decision to hire be based on experience, proficiency, interview by management, or urinalyses. If you hire idiots, and yes I lump 'people who get stoned at or before work' in the idiot category, expect to churn a lot till you find a good crew.

3.Drug testing is used to weed out (ha) those who are most likely to cause financial loss to the employer.
No, drug testing is used to weed out pot smokers. As has been pointed out, MJ stays testable for months, most other, far more dangerous drugs, can be passed in a matter of hours or days, MJ can take weeks or months.

The question on my mind is, can you prove that responsible tokeing cause any financial lose to an employer? Is it better for employee A to be slow for the morning due to his or her hangover? Should we do pre-work breathalyzers?

note: I concede that drug use on the job is a loss to the employer, but this is simple stupidity, not the fault of the drug.

<edited cause if the internet wanted me to spell, it wouldn't provide me with www.spellcheck.net>

[Baggle]

fishbob, as I said(and you quoted), "I can see on-site impairment drug testing for those operating heavy machinery, etc, but ONLY for what they are currently intoxicated on." This includes, of course(especially!) alcohol.

So how is urinalysis a better solution than this? If you truly mean what you say, that you don't want an impaired work force, then obviously both solutions will get similar(term used loosely) results and one will be far less instrusive into people's private lives. So if two things get the same outcome, and the method of one is much less intrusive, which would you choose? Or, better yet, which would you choose be done to you?

If it were possible, and it's not, to do a test to see if your prospective employee has had any alcohol to drink in the past month or two, would that be an honest assessment of whether they would cause more injuries/mistakes/etc at work? Or would it just eliminate more people, including QUALIFIED people, from the market for that job? Now if somebody comes in smelling like they took a bath in vodka and acting funny, then you might want to consider giving them the boot. How many folks really get drunk before they go to work, though? Now compare that to how many people drink alcohol period. Don't many more of them simply do it socially/privately/none of your business during non-work hours? Yes, of course.

Most probably looked the reasoning above and concluded that if there were such a test, it would be absurd to administer. Here's the funny part: not only does alcohol impair motor/judgement/thinking skills MUCH more than marijuana, but the effects/side effects last MUCH longer as well. How many people who have used marijuana are ever feeling bad Saturday because they smoked on Friday night? None. So alcohol, besides impairing all of those things listed by fishbob much further than marijuana, also affects the user much longer by means of hangovers, etc. Even with this information, undoubtedly(hopefully?) most people still think that even if such a far reaching alcohol test existed, it would STILL be absurd to administer to employees.

Now hypothetically let's say that alcohol could magically only impair you half as much as it does now. Does this make the argument for not testing for it on a long term basis weaker or stronger? Logically, the argument would be stronger. Now take away a bit more of the impairment factor/side effects and you have marijuana. Hopefully I've done an acceptable job of illustrating the double standard here.

I won't bother with anything further because Odder was right on in every point he addressed, and I doubt I could put it any better than he already has.

-Baggle

[fishbob]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug users, in general, are more expensive employees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

care to defend that remark?

1. . . a pre-employment screening only shows that the person was 'clean' at time of hiring, not impairment on the job. If an employee of mine acted or was stoned at work, they would be fired.
------------
I have seen lots of job candidates fail the pre-employment screening. I have seen guys put to work immediately, while waiting for the test results, seen them screw up expensive equipment, seen them show up late, then find out they had failed the drug screen. Shame on us for not waiting for results. Stupidity? Addiction? I don't need either on my crew. Insurance costs are a big incentive for risk reduction.
--------------------------------------------------

2. . . . should the decision to hire be based on experience, proficiency, interview by management, or urinalyses?
-------------

The decision to hire should be based on experience, proficiency, interview by management, AND urinalyses.
----------------------------------------------------

3. . . No, drug testing is used to weed out pot smokers.
--------------
Only those pot smokers that are not capable of passing the drug screen. Stupidity? Addiction?
------------------------------------------------------

The question on my mind is, can you prove that responsible tokeing cause any financial lose to an employer? . . .
--------------

Nope. How much toking is responsible? How much is excessive? This will vary from one job to another, from one person to another.
-----------------------------------------------------------

In general, people who are sober all the time are at lower risk of health problems and accidents than people that are periodically chemically impacted. Your health insurance still pays whether your accident occurs at the job or at home. Workers comp rates are lower for companies with drug screening programs. The incentive is financial.

[Baggle]

So, fishbob, your company interviews employees, looks over(complete?) resumes, etc, etc and you cannot tell that the person is hopelessly stupid from this alone? You put somebody to work immediately on expensive equipment before test results? Results usually take a day or two, don't they? So you put somebody on an expensive piece of equipment with a day or less of training on said machine? How do you expect them to be proficient on the machine without training, drugs or no? And if they are already trained on the machine, per their resume, why not check with the references and/or past employers?

Point being, there are alternative ways to screen for a decent employee, things you should probably already be doing, instead of invading his privacy. Drug tests don't catch all of the idiots. Some(....most) of the biggest idiots I know have never touched any illegal drugs. How will you catch these guys if you rely purely on drug tests?

-Baggle

[Baggle]

By the way, it is indeed stupidity if at work they cannot function, because of being intoxicated on drugs(including alcohol) or otherwise. Marijuana is very unlikely to addict anybody; it's actually physically less addictive than caffeine.

Oh ya....you addressed none of my points.

My apologies if you are in the process of writing another reply to respond to the points I made.

-Baggle

[OdderMensch]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fishbob
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drug users, in general, are more expensive employees
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

care to defend that remark?

------------
I have seen lots of job candidates fail the pre-employment screening. I have seen guys put to work immediately, while waiting for the test results, seen them screw up expensive equipment, seen them show up late, then find out they had failed the drug screen.

How many have worked out fine, then been fired when the screening came back positive? None? A handfull?
---------------

Shame on us for not waiting for results. Stupidity? Addiction? I don't need either on my crew. Insurance costs are a big incentive for risk reduction.

How much of a saveings do you get on your insureance? does it outwiegh the cost of the tests? By how much, and are either of these subsidized by tax dollars?
-------------

The decision to hire should be based on experience, proficiency, interview by management, AND urinalyses.

Breathalyzer test, blood screening, psych eval, genetic scanning, credit check? Do you realy want a vial of urine from every teacher, technition & Taco Bell employee?
--------------

Only those pot smokers that are not capable of passing the drug screen. Stupidity? Addiction?

Defience? Medical need.
--------------

Nope. How much toking is responsible? How much is excessive? This will vary from one job to another, from one person to another.

Can anyone prove this? Yes, responable use will differ from person to person, day to day, and by job. As does moderate drinking, healthy eating, and exercise.
-----------------------------------------------------------

In general, people who are sober all the time are at lower risk of health problems and accidents than people that are periodically chemically impacted.

in general i'd tend to agree with you, but in specific to MJ, people who sit on the couch watching SP reruns are at less risk then extreme mountain bikers to get injurys. Responsable alcohol use has been found to have a positive health impact.
----------------------------------------------------------

Your health insurance still pays whether your accident occurs at the job or at home. Workers comp rates are lower for companies with drug screening programs. The incentive is financial.

I wonder what that asumption, by the insurance companys, is based off of? Years of government propoganda, comparison company by company of accedent rates/drug screenings, dowseing?

[fishbob]

Scholar

Registered: Oct 2002
. . there are alternative ways to screen for a decent employee, things you should probably already be doing, instead of invading his privacy. Drug tests don't catch all of the idiots. Some(....most) of the biggest idiots I know have never touched any illegal drugs. How will you catch these guys if you rely purely on drug tests?
-----------

Hiring a good crew is very difficult, and I do not enjoy it. Mistakes happen, but you use whatever information is available. You will never catch all the idiots, but you can try to improve your chances.

------------------------------------------

How many have worked out fine, then been fired when the screening came back positive? None? A handfull?

------
Some - and it is sad to see. But they knew the rules when they applied for the job.
----------------------------------------------
How much of a saveings do you get on your insureance? does it outwiegh the cost of the tests? By how much, and are either of these subsidized by tax dollars?
---------
Tests are cheap compared to insurance. Workers comp rates here are more then $1 per labor hour per construction worker - and that is with a good safety record. Add general liability on top of that. And not 1 penny of this is subsidized by your tax dollars.

---------------------------------------------------
Do you realy want a vial of urine from every teacher, technition & Taco Bell employee?

-------------
If one more Taco Bell employee puts onions on my burrito again, I'm gonna . . . My cost of doing business decreases if I get a vial of urine from every employee (I do not 'want' it - but that is a
personel question).
-----------------------------------------------------
Defience? Medical need.
-----------
Defiance - I don't want on my crew. Medical need - bring a note from your Doc.

---------------------------------------------------------
in general i'd tend to agree with you, but in specific to MJ, people who sit on the couch watching SP reruns are at less risk then extreme mountain bikers to get injurys.
------------------
How do I know they are watching TV and not driving down the Interstate? Or re-roofing their house? Or extreme mountain biking?

-----------------------------------------------------------
Marijuana is very unlikely to addict anybody; it's actually physically less addictive than caffeine.
-----------------
I have seen this quote before, posted on these threads, but have never seen a study that demonstrates this.

-------------------------------------------------------------
I wonder what that asumption, by the insurance companys, is based off of? Years of government propoganda, comparison company by company of accedent rates/drug screenings, dowseing?

----------------
I don't know and I can't change it. I do know that the insurance companies do evaluate accident rates in setting the price of insurance coverage.

---------------

Bottom line - people like their chemicals, but people are not at their best when influenced by their chemicals, at home or on the job. If you want the job, you have to play by the rules. You get to choose between the job and your chemical use.

Did you ever see one of your co-workers hurt on a job? It is bad. I have seen smashed hands, broken ribs, burns caused by momentary lapses of alertness.

If I have to assemble a crew to go do a job, I want the most alert and safe crew I can assemble. I will use every bit of info I can get to make my decisions. I will pass up some experience and some qualifications for safety and cooperation any day.

P.S. The gummint is not mandating drug testing. Economics is.

[subgenius]

Pretty soon there won't be anyone left to hire.
When I see a sign, like at Sports Authority, "We drug test applicants", I think two things.
Oh, I'm good enough for you to take my money. Maybe I'll spend it elsewhere.
What next drug testing the customers?

All these companies are losing out on a lot of talented people. Not good in the long run.
Alcoholism, not testable for costs industry countless millions/billions. guess). Short sighted stupidity.

[OdderMensch]

Marijuana is very unlikely to addict anybody; it's actually physically less addictive than caffeine.
-----------------
I have seen this quote before, posted on these threads, but have never seen a study that demonstrates this.

haven't you?

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=198740#post198740

In the Rosenthall thread, this was posted right before one of your posts. But this site seems more complete.

Or extreme mountain biking?
you know different stoners than I do ;)

How much of a saveings do you get on your insureance? does it outwiegh the cost of the tests? By how much, and are either of these subsidized by tax dollars?
---------
Tests are cheap compared to insurance. Workers comp rates here are more then $1 per labor hour per construction worker - and that is with a good safety record. Add general liability on top of that. And not 1 penny of this is subsidized by your tax dollars.


Do you think any portion of the testing industry is subsidized?

As you say this is an economic arguement, I vote for this with my dollars and my labor, i won't work for a company that drug tests, unless I feel they have a good reason for doing so/ don't simply deny employment to people who choose to toke. Same as i'd refuse to fund a business that refused to hire blacks, or gays or Muslems. Yes there is a difference, buts thats where my ethics stand as of now.

[subgenius]

How about actually evaluating an employee's performance on the job, as opposed to what's in their urine? Drug testing is a substitute for the hardest work of all: thinking.
Exception: jobs involving danger to self or others (eg. drivers, pilots).

[fishbob]

Mensch sez:

Do you think any portion of the testing industry is subsidized?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nope - private labs under contract to companies do the testing. None of your tax dollars are involved, however the cost of doing business is eventually passed on to the customer.



Shanek sez:

Dr. Jack E. Henningfield, Ph.D. and Dr. Neal L. Benowitz, MD did a study on addiction. They stated that there were five aspects of a substance which comprised aspects of addiction: Withdrawal, Reinforcement, Tolerance, Dependence, and Intoxication. Of these, Intoxication counts towards addiction the least but does count because of the psychological nature of addiction.
-------------------------------------------------
They stated that there were 5 aspects and gave subjective values to those aspects for 6 substances. Why only 5? What about level of impairment when under the influence? What about how many hours the impairment lasts? Where is the study? What is the basis for the assigned values? Alcohol rated as more intoxicating than heroin? I would like some evidence - I could sit home in front of the TV and assign values just as well.



Sub sez:

How about actually evaluating an employee's performance on the job, as opposed to what's in their urine? Drug testing is a substitute for the hardest work of all: thinking.
Exception: jobs involving danger to self or others (eg. drivers, pilots).
----------------------------------------------------------

You evaluate performance after an employee has been around for a while and you have invested time and money in that employee. Testing gives you an indication as to whether you want to make that investment.

And many jobs you don't normally think of as dangerous do involve danger to self or others - like the kid at the Burger King in my neighborhood who burned his arm in french fry grease. And BK insurance paid for his medical treatment. Was this kid a good risk for the company? Was he in full control of his senses? I bet that BK's insurance company would like to know. And I bet the price of Whoppers goes up.

Your arguments Sub, and Baggle, and Mensch seem to be from the pespective that drug testing invades your privacy. My point is that drug use is voluntary, drug use increases the risk of accidents, drug use increases the cost of doing business.

I believe that drug use should be legalized. Legalize all drugs, tax the bejeebers out of drugs - just like alcohol and cigs are taxed, and prosecute the hell out of those who harm others when impaired. Simple - war on drugs is over, we have funds for treatment programs, drug lords go out of business.

Even if drug use is legal though, I don't want unsafe people on my crew, and the insurance rates will still be based on work place safety.

[OdderMensch]

They stated that there were 5 aspects and gave subjective values to those aspects for 6 substances. Why only 5? ? What about level of impairment when under the influence? What about how many hours the impairment lasts? Where is the study? What is the basis for the assigned values? Alcohol rated as more intoxicating than heroin? I would like some evidence - I could sit home in front of the TV and assign values just as well.


Yes, but I place some faith in experts.
http://cc.ucsf.edu/people/benowitz_neal.html

http://www.drugabuse.gov/MeetSum/Nicotine/speakers2.html

Addiction is itself a bit of a gray area as I understand it. People can become 'addicted' to shopping for example. However as an ex-barista for a company that shall remain nameless (but it rhymes with 'starbucks') I can personally and anecdotally report on the addictive nature of caffeine. I thought this was the point of contention.

[shanek]

Originally posted by fishbob
They stated that there were 5 aspects and gave subjective values to those aspects for 6 substances.

Thyey're not subjective values; they're rankings.

Why only 5? What about level of impairment when under the influence?

That was covered under "Intoxication" (and really isn't a function of addiction anyway).

Where is the study?

Sourced in the article.

What is the basis for the assigned values?

They're rankings; 1=most addictive.

I could sit home in front of the TV and assign values just as well.

Now provide evidence that this is what they did.

They're experts in pharmacology, who reviewed the facts and literature surrounding these drugs.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Baggle
Cites:
"How to calculate whether a urine drug test will test positive for THC?

Time and THC saturation determine this. Unfortunately THC is fat soluble. What this means is that THC is stored in fat cells. Once one's system reaches terminal saturation, it takes roughly 4 to 6 weeks to dry out enough to pass a urine drug test. Fortunately there is a way to calculate how THC is stored in fat tissue. It works like this; Each time you get stoned, you saturate your blood with THC. Blood saturation reaches 100 percent fairly quickly and can't be exceeded. (keep smoking and you are wasting good pot). Assume that all 100 percent is absorbed by body fat. Body fat dissipates THC at the rate of 10 percent of total fat saturation per day. This means the day after you still have 90 percent blood saturation. The day after that you have 81 percent blood saturation left. etc... Some of the current urine tests can detect 60 percent blood saturation. So if someone has never smoked pot before smokes one time, it takes three to seven days to dry out. However if you smoke every day your fat saturation level climbs to 1000 percent! This is maximum because you lose 10 percent of 1000 percent every day (100 percent blood saturation), and can only attain 100 percent blood saturation every day."

[/B]


Um. 1000 percent?

[fishbob]

To Shanek: That study has bothered me since I first saw it, and I figured out why. They have assigned ranking numbers - most to least - to the effects, then added the rankings and averaged the rankings. The totals and averages are not valid numbers for comparing effects. Even though these guys may be experts, no study results were posted. This evaluation should then not be called a study. It is opinions of experts.

Also, that study rates addictiveness. What I am concerned about is the risk of having to deal with impairment on the job.

[OdderMensch]

Also, that study rates addictiveness. What I am concerned about is the risk of having to deal with impairment on the job.

Being worried about people being 'impared' at work is a noble goal. But what you are worried about is 'will this person be under the influence of some drug while on the job.' What a preemployment drug screening tells you is 'has this person used MJ in the last few weeks.'

My problem with preemployment drug screening


As I said, its a mesure of use, not imparment. Responseable drug use is possible, and the norm for most drug users.
It is my responsablity to show up for work, as our great President did "on time and sober" If I show up impared, I am not responsable, and should lose employment. However, my employer is not my master, my king, nor my father (I have had bosses I consider father figures of course) They have no right to know who I'm sleeping with, what shows I watch, or what books I read, ditto for what chemicals I imbibe so long as it does not impar my judgement for work
The government has made a culture whare all drug usesers are dirty madmen, who rape white women and steal to support thier habit. Of course any action taken to stop these monsters is justified.
Preemployment screening is just on part of the cultre the drug war has created, I oppose it. As I oppose anti-drug propoganda, cruel or inefective treatment methods, and harsh jail time for drug users (all to help them of course)


I don't think you are wrong for testing BTW, if it saves you a buck or two by all means, do so.

i'll post more tonight, I've got to go to work now.

[fishbob]

quoted from fishbob:
I could sit home in front of the TV and assign values just as well.

Then Shanek sez:
Now provide evidence that this is what they did.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry - this has been bugging me also.

A 'study' was quoted in the forum without any data or evidence. I questioned the 'study' and then you used a woo-woo argument. I can't believe that you used a woo-woo argument in this forum. You weren't serious when you used the woo-woo argument, were you?

[sadluxation]

The actual article the NYT quoted from is from:
Establishing a nicotine threshold for addiction. The implications for tobacco regulation.
N Engl J Med. 1994 Jul 14;331(2):123-5.
Unfornunately I'd have to go to the library to check it out, and I can be bothered.