So if someone has a history of alcohol or drug abuse, you should then be able to log into their facebook and check everything on it?UnkleRukus wrote:
If it's a job involving a lot of driving, they will look for parking tickets. Otherwise, they look for major offenses. Assault, robbery, theft, DUIs. things like that.
I don't think employers should be allowed to breach your privacy by checking your facebook/myspace. Unless the person has a criminal history or a history of drug and alcohol abuse.
wow. you don't agree with the concept of spent convictions? you think it's the employers' place to instate ad hoc 'extra-punishments' because the legal system "isn't enough"? sounds like you're really onboard with the democratic principle, i see.Dilbert_X wrote:
These days, with people rarely serving more than 1/3rd of their sentence, and most sentences being pitifully weak already, most people wouldn't really agree that the average crim has done his time and is due a second chance. Often they'll be laughing their bums off and ready to do it again.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
yes but is it fair for people who do have previous (spent) convictions? i thought the idea of justice was that you served the punishment given to you by the court authority/state, and then you had 'balanced the books'. i think there should only be a very narrow band of crimes that should be listed as 'public interest', e.g. violence, severe mental illness/debility, and things like paedophilia or sexual offences. these are obviously crimes of a nature that an employer should know about, for their own personal safety, and to ensure that any aspect of their business that deals with the public isn't put at undue risk.Jaekus wrote:
In my previous job it was a legal requirement that I took a national police check. They paid for it so I didn't mind, seeing as I've never been arrested for anything, let alone convicted.
however when employers request a back-ground check and filter out people's resumés because they served time for a crime 20 years ago, or because they have a history of alcoholism that they're trying to put behind them, etc. then this ends up being another level of prying into individuals' personal life that is unjust, imo. people should be judged primarily on their competency/qualification to do the job. what happens nowadays, particularly in industries that are competitive, is that people use background checks or personal references as another filter-method of sorting out 'undesirable' candidates. that doesn't help anyone. for an ex-felon or someone with a stupid minor conviction (e.g. shoplifting, vandalism, public disorder offences, etc.) this is basically just the justice system coming around to bite them in the ass, even after they've served the punishment already. it is fundamentally unjust.
That and the odd, minor, conviction is often the tip of the iceberg, and typically only comes after multiple warnings and cautions.
I don't even really agree with the concept of spent convictions. A criminal record is a criminal record, bad luck.
Why should the law-abiding have to meekly hold their tongues while a convicted criminal gets ahead of them?
Prison and a blighted future used to be the disincentives to crime, take away both and that doesn't leave a lot does it?
I'd go further personally, make life less convenient for criminals. For example, people with a history of alcohol, drugs and violence can't generally own firearms, they shouldn't be allowed to own a vehicle bigger than a scooter, maybe that would remove some of the road-rage from the roads.
i don't have a problem with keeping drug addicts from owning fire-arms. it's common sense and is for their (and the public's) own good. however saying someone with a minor offence - from shoplifting to trespass to verbal assault - can never have it 'spent', and then coming up with some dumb tabloid guff about "prisons aren't hard enough now anyway, ra ra, they even get tv's..." is just inane. it's fucking stupid, man. you sound like an angry daily mail reader with too much rage and not enough places to effectively spend it. why would you want to criminalize someone for a single mistake? contrary to what you believe, it is easy for people to transgress in moments of heightened anger, or perhaps even just a simple mistake. that lady who accidentally killed someone at a traffic crossing, and got rapped with a manslaughter charge and served her 5-6 years (this has literally just happened to a family friend in the last WEEK; big news around here)... you think she should never be able to get a job again? you think even when she has sat for the better part of a decade to think about her momentary and irrevocable mistake, that employers should be able to raise their eyebrows and deny her an income... for the rest of her life?
you are nuts dude. you can normally tell a daily mail bigot from the crowd when they start wittering on about how "justice isn't hard enough". prison and criminal records not enough of a deterrent thesedays, eh? bring back capital punishment for the blighters! that's the only way to keep die swart in line!
The background check was primarily for convictions such as drugs, assault etc. as I was dealing with people who required extra degrees of patience, empathy and tolerance, some of which had substance issues compounding their mental illness. I did once get booked for having an open can of alcohol in public and didn't turn up to court, but that never showed up on the radar despite me receiving a fine.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
yes but is it fair for people who do have previous (spent) convictions? i thought the idea of justice was that you served the punishment given to you by the court authority/state, and then you had 'balanced the books'. i think there should only be a very narrow band of crimes that should be listed as 'public interest', e.g. violence, severe mental illness/debility, and things like paedophilia or sexual offences. these are obviously crimes of a nature that an employer should know about, for their own personal safety, and to ensure that any aspect of their business that deals with the public isn't put at undue risk.Jaekus wrote:
In my previous job it was a legal requirement that I took a national police check. They paid for it so I didn't mind, seeing as I've never been arrested for anything, let alone convicted.
however when employers request a back-ground check and filter out people's resumés because they served time for a crime 20 years ago, or because they have a history of alcoholism that they're trying to put behind them, etc. then this ends up being another level of prying into individuals' personal life that is unjust, imo. people should be judged primarily on their competency/qualification to do the job. what happens nowadays, particularly in industries that are competitive, is that people use background checks or personal references as another filter-method of sorting out 'undesirable' candidates. that doesn't help anyone. for an ex-felon or someone with a stupid minor conviction (e.g. shoplifting, vandalism, public disorder offences, etc.) this is basically just the justice system coming around to bite them in the ass, even after they've served the punishment already. it is fundamentally unjust.
In that line of work I understand the reasons for background checks, just like when I was teaching kids guitar and bass I also needed a background check, understandably so. Any other job (including my current one) such checks have never been raised nor are necessary.
Last edited by Jaekus (2013-06-06 05:14:30)
The concept of 'spent convictions' is a fairly new one, it only came in in the UK in 1974, and doesn't apply in many countries, so why the crying?Uzique The Lesser wrote:
[wow. you don't agree with the concept of spent convictions? you think it's the employers' place to instate ad hoc 'extra-punishments' because the legal system "isn't enough"? sounds like you're really onboard with the democratic principle, i see.
i don't have a problem with keeping drug addicts from owning fire-arms. it's common sense and is for their (and the public's) own good. however saying someone with a minor offence - from shoplifting to trespass to verbal assault - can never have it 'spent', and then coming up with some dumb tabloid guff about "prisons aren't hard enough now anyway, ra ra, they even get tv's..." is just inane. it's fucking stupid, man. you sound like an angry daily mail reader with too much rage and not enough places to effectively spend it. why would you want to criminalize someone for a single mistake? contrary to what you believe, it is easy for people to transgress in moments of heightened anger, or perhaps even just a simple mistake. that lady who accidentally killed someone at a traffic crossing, and got rapped with a manslaughter charge and served her 5-6 years (this has literally just happened to a family friend in the last WEEK; big news around here)... you think she should never be able to get a job again? you think even when she has sat for the better part of a decade to think about her momentary and irrevocable mistake, that employers should be able to raise their eyebrows and deny her an income... for the rest of her life?
you are nuts dude. you can normally tell a daily mail bigot from the crowd when they start wittering on about how "justice isn't hard enough". prison and criminal records not enough of a deterrent thesedays, eh? bring back capital punishment for the blighters! that's the only way to keep die swart in line!
Before people had much mobility your record stayed with you, the village/suburb knew, the local police knew, the local beak knew, it was all on the record and remained so. Its not exactly a novel concept.
In an age of mass mobility its important to have other means to know who someone is and what they've been up to.
I didn't say people should never be able to get a job again if they have a minor record, plenty of people have minor records so for the average employer its hardly going to be a big deal. If its a one-off mistake it'll be seen as such.
People aren't entitled to an income from someone else, I'm not sure where you get this idea.
I don't see why its unreasonable for it to be taken into account in things like job applications. Not doing so disadvantages the law-abiding who do go to an effort to keep their nose clean through their lives - how is that 'fair'?
Not giving in to illegal temptations, not being hot-headed, not getting drunk and out of control all takes some personal effort, maturity and self-control and its a no-brainer that an an employer is going to prefer a person with those qualities so why shouldn't they be able to get the information to assess the candidate?
As for you, you didn't exactly make a one-off 'mistake', you were well into illegal drugs for a long period and were lucky not to be caught with a class A substance and go down for a year or two. You've no right to be butthurt that there could be ongoing consequences.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-06-06 06:13:22)
Fuck Israel
Drugs are cool. Down with governments trying to take control of our drugs.
Popping MDMA all day long.
Popping MDMA all day long.
Alpha as fuck.
i wasn't "lucky not to be caught", mostly because my consumption was within a private residence. still technically illegal, yes, but it only took one exceptional incident/boiling over in a domestic situation for my 'illegal' drug use to (incidentally) come to the attention of the authorities. and what harm were me and my friends ever doing? none. does it imprecate our moral character or rectitude as human beings? no, of course not. most of my friends now work in very respectable jobs or are pursuing postgraduate education in elite pathways. hardly a bunch of incorrigible drug-taking vagabonds. i take a pretty liberal approach when it comes to drug consumption. oh, and not to mention the fact there is no way that someone from a good background/of clean standing will "go down" for first-time possession of a small quantity of anything. nil. nada. you might want to check the law.Dilbert_X wrote:
As for you, you didn't exactly make a one-off 'mistake', you were well into illegal drugs for a long period and were lucky not to be caught with a class A substance and go down for a year or two. You've no right to be butthurt that there could be ongoing consequences.
and, frankly, the tides of public opinion and policymaking are swiftly changing when it comes to legislating against what people choose to put in their bodies. drugs are being legalized; extant drug policy is coming under criticism from all sides of the political spectrum - from social lefties/progressive and from fiscal conservatives. so yeah. i don't think it's of any especial interest to an employer that i enjoy(ed) taking drugs and experimenting with my mind. me and all of my friends who were into that scene are now eminently qualified and eminently well-prepared to do 'respectable' jobs. one of my close friends who was more into the drugs-scene more than anyone, a king's school canterbury boy, went on from our clique to do a public policy ma at the LSE. is he socially destitute? think he's going to struggle to get a high-flying job? think he... deserves to suffer? i think this is stupid thinking. 1970's christian housewife style concern. nagging prigs.
the fact of the matter is that even with my drug use, i am already on the path-way to becoming higher-qualified than you, from one of the world's best universities. i will enter a career that has just as much social/cultural prestige as yours - if not more, depending on the circles you keep - and i'm liberal and open-minded enough to put all sorts of substances in my body, and to pay no mind to others' stance or choices on the matter.. there really is no simple equation between drug-use and 'criminality', or 'bad' individuals. i am going to enter society at just as esteemed/prestigious position as you, regardless of what i do with my recreational time. and it looks like the law is changing to broadly come in line with my open-minded and tolerant perspective, not yours. i envision a future in maybe a decade or two in which someone's spare-time recreational substance use has about as much relevance to an employer as if an employee likes to hunt or go fishing on weekends. "oh, you kill innocent animals?" let's tuck that to the bottom of the pile... what a character assessment.
i'm sure this changing field of play kills you. but let's face it: it's because you're boring. the only people who care what socially-harmless activities others do in their spare time are conservatives whose own interior/social lives are so intolerably boring that they want to presume on others. if you had an active social life i think you'd be a lot less bothered how others spend their time.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-06-06 10:22:56)
i think people take MDMA because it is really fun and induces a chemical feeling of empathy and joy that is pretty much better than anything else you can experience. politics don't come into it. nobody thinks "drugs are cool" and nobody takes MDMA in a club or at a festival to make a "political point". people take recreational drugs because they are fun, and people are curious. people abuse drugs because they have issues, or because they have something to escape from. in both cases, the law is almost always completely irrelevant.Nyte wrote:
Drugs are cool. Down with governments trying to take control of our drugs.
Popping MDMA all day long.
On that note I find it fairly despicable that something I choose to ingest in my own home or recreational setting such as club or music festival can potentially get me into trouble. There's much worse stuff that goes on all around us and why the government feels it has certain rights over my person more than I is taking away my freedom. Go after organised crime, sure. Common user, no.
Some class A drugs are safer than many over the counter medications. the LD50 of LSD for example makes it one of the safest substances one can take. Pure MDMA or ecstasy that is not cut or tainted with other compounds (especially PMA) is far safer than alcohol.
Some class A drugs are safer than many over the counter medications. the LD50 of LSD for example makes it one of the safest substances one can take. Pure MDMA or ecstasy that is not cut or tainted with other compounds (especially PMA) is far safer than alcohol.
don't tell the nimby parade that, they have such an unwavering respect for any rule or law that they'll immediately think you're a terrible person just trying to make excuses.
ironically it's the scientist who has a better knowledge of empirical matters and medical testing than i who is sticking up for arbitrary and obscene laws. i'm sure dilbert could understand the pharma research on this stuff much more fluently than i. but nup. it's against the law, so the engineer is going to get right behind the irrational.
ironically it's the scientist who has a better knowledge of empirical matters and medical testing than i who is sticking up for arbitrary and obscene laws. i'm sure dilbert could understand the pharma research on this stuff much more fluently than i. but nup. it's against the law, so the engineer is going to get right behind the irrational.
Thats really quite a claim, coming from you and the field you work in. I know that weed isn't as bad as the hard stuff, obviously, but have never heard that about LSD or MDMA.Jaekus wrote:
On that note I find it fairly despicable that something I choose to ingest in my own home or recreational setting such as club or music festival can potentially get me into trouble. There's much worse stuff that goes on all around us and why the government feels it has certain rights over my person more than I is taking away my freedom. Go after organised crime, sure. Common user, no.
Some class A drugs are safer than many over the counter medications. the LD50 of LSD for example makes it one of the safest substances one can take. Pure MDMA or ecstasy that is not cut or tainted with other compounds (especially PMA) is far safer than alcohol.
Doesn't MDMA fuck with your dopamine levels? Like after enough use your brain no longer produces it? From what I've read it looks potentially very dangerous, but then again I don't work in the medical/mental health field.
Also is it true that cocaine is pretty harmless? Besides the addictive properties of it.
Last edited by Spearhead (2013-06-06 16:14:07)
I had a friend who died from a MDMA overdose.
LSD and MDMA are both less neurotoxic than alcohol. both metabolize down and exit the body in 'cleaner' ways that alcohol (not to mention cigarettes). in fact, LSD and psilocybin have some of the lowest chemical impacts on the body of any substance, period. nutmeg and certain spices will affect you worse. they are almost chemically neutral, despite their strong effect.
MDMA leaves you feeling washed out for a day or two afterwards. no drug 'fucks with your levels' if you take it responsibly. you feel a little down for a few days after taking MDMA. if you take MDMA a lot, i.e. with not enough time to recover and rest in between, you will feel progressively more down. an MDMA comedown, if prepared for properly and done responsibly, is nowhere near as bad as a hangover. you don't get any of the physical sickness or lack of wellbeing. you just feel emotionally drained and a little mute. alcohol is a depressant too, consumed in large enough quantities that is (there is an immediate bloodstream uptake of alcohol that actually acts as a stimulant, hence the social buzz). and it effects people's moods just as much as MDMA if you 'abuse' it. no, MDMA is not "potentially very dangerous". people die when they mix it recklessly with other substances. some people die when they take MDMA (or other illegal drugs) whilst taking special classes of anti-depressant/anti-anxiety medication (e.g. tetracyclics or whatever they're called, the 1970's spec, they can kill people even for eating the wrong sort of food whilst on them). MDMA itself is not very toxic. the scare-stories from the rave hey-day about 'ecstasy death' are normally all related to irresponsible mixing with alcohol (nervous system problems) or dehydration/water intoxication.
how many people's lives do you know that have been ruined by taking MDMA at parties or clubs? and how many people's lives are ruined by alcohol? it is not a crazy statement. i also resent the fact you likened his previous employment at a mental home to "drug use". drug abuse is not the cause of much mental illness. a surface manifestation and symptom of an underlying condition/emotional problem, perhaps. very seldom can you trace the etiology of a mental illness to 'drug abuse'. even the infamous weed/LSD causing schizophrenia cases are generally put down to theories of a recessive gene/latent family history.
MDMA leaves you feeling washed out for a day or two afterwards. no drug 'fucks with your levels' if you take it responsibly. you feel a little down for a few days after taking MDMA. if you take MDMA a lot, i.e. with not enough time to recover and rest in between, you will feel progressively more down. an MDMA comedown, if prepared for properly and done responsibly, is nowhere near as bad as a hangover. you don't get any of the physical sickness or lack of wellbeing. you just feel emotionally drained and a little mute. alcohol is a depressant too, consumed in large enough quantities that is (there is an immediate bloodstream uptake of alcohol that actually acts as a stimulant, hence the social buzz). and it effects people's moods just as much as MDMA if you 'abuse' it. no, MDMA is not "potentially very dangerous". people die when they mix it recklessly with other substances. some people die when they take MDMA (or other illegal drugs) whilst taking special classes of anti-depressant/anti-anxiety medication (e.g. tetracyclics or whatever they're called, the 1970's spec, they can kill people even for eating the wrong sort of food whilst on them). MDMA itself is not very toxic. the scare-stories from the rave hey-day about 'ecstasy death' are normally all related to irresponsible mixing with alcohol (nervous system problems) or dehydration/water intoxication.
how many people's lives do you know that have been ruined by taking MDMA at parties or clubs? and how many people's lives are ruined by alcohol? it is not a crazy statement. i also resent the fact you likened his previous employment at a mental home to "drug use". drug abuse is not the cause of much mental illness. a surface manifestation and symptom of an underlying condition/emotional problem, perhaps. very seldom can you trace the etiology of a mental illness to 'drug abuse'. even the infamous weed/LSD causing schizophrenia cases are generally put down to theories of a recessive gene/latent family history.
seriously? most studies state the lethal-dose point of MDMA to be 5+ grams (1/16th-1/20th intoxication ratio). considering even taking 100-250mg is considered a 'night's worth' for heavy users (i.e. 1-2 heavy lines, or 1-2 pills, or whatever), your friend was either extremely unfortunate - i.e. mixed or cut with lethal stuff, or... sorry to say... one of those rare examples of a very stupid person. 5000mg of MDMA is a LOT. i've taken a lot of drugs in quantity before and built up a pretty big tolerance to a lot of things, but a gram of MDMA would always last me over a month. 5grams in one sitting is insane. people don't even get through that much cocaine at rock-star parties, and that's the most famous 'moreish' drug.Macbeth wrote:
I had a friend who died from a MDMA overdose.
you will die for abusing/over-consuming alcohol before you will die from over-consuming MDMA. it's not the drug's fault if someone doesn't know how much to take. you wouldn't pound 10 bottles of 50 proof vodka, either. that's just because there's a better average level of awareness about alcohol, from a casual drinking culture, than there is about snorting powders. doesn't make the drug more chemically 'harmful' though. means the people using it have to take responsibility for themselves.
if you prefer the state to assume this nanny-ing role of personal responsibility, then i guess that's just you. all american.
Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-06-06 16:30:32)
This thread is full of fucking stupid. I really don't understand how anyone could be AGAINST any of this stuff unless it's actually preventing YOU from getting a job, in which case it is most likely YOUR fault.
Criminal checks and drug tests are done because EMPLOYERS don't want hopped up crooks working for them. Can you blame them? The only reason anyone would be against a drug test would be because they are on fucking drugs, which in my book, automatically makes you a fucking tard and not someone I'd want to hire.
Criminal checks and drug tests are done because EMPLOYERS don't want hopped up crooks working for them. Can you blame them? The only reason anyone would be against a drug test would be because they are on fucking drugs, which in my book, automatically makes you a fucking tard and not someone I'd want to hire.
Who said I wanted the government to do anything? I just responded to Jake's comment with the fact that a friend ODed.
yeah i'm not talking to you on that part. but how did a friend OD on MDMA? that is not very common.Macbeth wrote:
Who said I wanted the government to do anything? I just responded to Jake's comment with the fact that a friend ODed.
yeah because people who smoke pot in their spare time are automatically going to be stoned when they're at work, right.Extra Medium wrote:
This thread is full of fucking stupid. I really don't understand how anyone could be AGAINST any of this stuff unless it's actually preventing YOU from getting a job, in which case it is most likely YOUR fault.
Criminal checks and drug tests are done because EMPLOYERS don't want hopped up crooks working for them. Can you blame them? The only reason anyone would be against a drug test would be because they are on fucking drugs, which in my book, automatically makes you a fucking tard and not someone I'd want to hire.
it makes as much functional/utilitarian sense as getting every employee who drinks to take a breathalyzer test every morning when they arrive at work. just cause, you know, seeing as you're an alcohol drinker and all that... need to make sure you won't be staffing today's client transactions whilst wasted!
Seeing as how alcohol is legal and marijuana is FUCKING ILLEGAL, yeah, it makes sense to test for it. If weed was legal then that statement would make sense. In it's current form, it's just childish.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
yeah because people who smoke pot in their spare time are automatically going to be stoned when they're at work, right.Extra Medium wrote:
This thread is full of fucking stupid. I really don't understand how anyone could be AGAINST any of this stuff unless it's actually preventing YOU from getting a job, in which case it is most likely YOUR fault.
Criminal checks and drug tests are done because EMPLOYERS don't want hopped up crooks working for them. Can you blame them? The only reason anyone would be against a drug test would be because they are on fucking drugs, which in my book, automatically makes you a fucking tard and not someone I'd want to hire.
it makes as much functional/utilitarian sense as getting every employee who drinks to take a breathalyzer test every morning when they arrive at work. just cause, you know, seeing as you're an alcohol drinker and all that... need to make sure you won't be staffing today's client transactions whilst wasted!
No clue. He went into seizures according to witnessesUzique The Lesser wrote:
yeah i'm not talking to you on that part. but how did a friend OD on MDMA? that is not very common.Macbeth wrote:
Who said I wanted the government to do anything? I just responded to Jake's comment with the fact that a friend ODed.
it really isn't childish. the fact someone smokes weed doesn't mean they're going to turn up to work stoned. period. it is completely fucking irrelevant. if a private citizen wishes to break the law, that is their choice. what does it have to do with their work/professional life? if someone was turning up to work stoned or taking toilet-breaks to rail a line of cocaine, i could maybe see the point. i don't see why a business or employer should be privy to information about what their workers do for recreation. whether they like to light up and watch cartoons or take their dogs for a walk. how does it impair their job? do you think your employer should know every single crime or fine you've received? even if it has nothing to do with your ability to do your job? it makes about as much sense. a person smoking weed is about as 'damning' as a person getting a parking ticket.
was he taking medication for anxiety/depression/psychosis? epilepsy? hepatitis/immuno pills? they can have very bad interactions.Macbeth wrote:
No clue. He went into seizures according to witnessesUzique The Lesser wrote:
yeah i'm not talking to you on that part. but how did a friend OD on MDMA? that is not very common.Macbeth wrote:
Who said I wanted the government to do anything? I just responded to Jake's comment with the fact that a friend ODed.
it's a tiny minority of people who just have sudden seizures or death when taking a substance. probably the same sort of freak percentage that die when they take certain antibiotics, or painkillers, or penicillin. MDMA's pharmacology has been pretty well studied, comparatively speaking. it is being considered once again here in the UK as a drug to be legislated to a controlled substance and used in psychology. they wouldn't be pressing ahead with that if it there was a serious risk of sudden death.
OK, maybe you are just to self absorbed to understand.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
it really isn't childish. the fact someone smokes weed doesn't mean they're going to turn up to work stoned. period. it is completely fucking irrelevant. if a private citizen wishes to break the law, that is their choice. what does it have to do with their work/professional life? if someone was turning up to work stoned or taking toilet-breaks to rail a line of cocaine, i could maybe see the point. i don't see why a business or employer should be privy to information about what their workers do for recreation. whether they like to light up and watch cartoons or take their dogs for a walk. how does it impair their job? do you think your employer should know every single crime or fine you've received? even if it has nothing to do with your ability to do your job? it makes about as much sense. a person smoking weed is about as 'damning' as a person getting a parking ticket.
WEED. IS. ILLEGAL.
It doesn't matter if you think it is cool, harmless, socially acceptable and/or unjustifiably denounced. It's fucking illegal. Alcohol is not. Someday when weed is legal, THEN it will be ok to use the same position employers typically have with alcohol, which is "it's not our business just don't do it at our business".
If you are willingly breaking the law to obtain and ingest weed, then you obviously don't have a problem breaking the law.
If I break a law I can be fired. I can be fired for a DUI, I can be fired for beating my wife up, I can be fired for robbing a liquor store. I've seen people fired for less. I really don't have a lot of sympathy for people fired for breaking laws either. I figure that's a carry over from my military days where you were expected to conduct yourself a certain way and anything to the contrary brings dishonor to yourself and your unit. No company wants to be the company known for having a bunch of criminals working at it.
Not rocket science.
Also, I'm licensed to give drug tests and have given over 500 since becoming licensed. I would always ask before I gave a test if there was anything that would show up I should know about. Everyone, 100% of EVERY SINGLE PERSON (excluding those who announced medication) said NO. EVERY FUCKING TIME. Motherfuckers would test hot and then look at me like I WAS THE ONE THAT FUCKED UP. Liars, every single one of them.
The point I'm getting at is this. Every one of these people applied for a job that they KNEW was going to drug test them. Furthermore they willingly showed up thinking they would be ok and could somehow pass. Every one of them that failed told me they were clean and lied. Every single one of them tried to argue or debate me after testing hot. So from this I can deduce that:
1. They are stupid. (applying knowing they would get tested)
2. They live in a fantasy world. (thinking they could get away with it)
3. They are liars. (Told me nothing to worry about)
4. They think they are pretty slick, but are actually fucking retarded. (debating the results)
Not a person I would want to hire anyways. The drug test weened out the dumbest of the dumbasses.
What sort of work was it, out of curiosity?
lol you were in the military. Another guy who wants small government but was part of the national job program.
At a mental home he would be qualified to know how to classify and administer drugs. I wasnt saying everyone there was a drug addict. ChristUzique The Lesser wrote:
how many people's lives do you know that have been ruined by taking MDMA at parties or clubs? and how many people's lives are ruined by alcohol? it is not a crazy statement. i also resent the fact you likened his previous employment at a mental home to "drug use". drug abuse is not the cause of much mental illness. a surface manifestation and symptom of an underlying condition/emotional problem, perhaps. very seldom can you trace the etiology of a mental illness to 'drug abuse'. even the infamous weed/LSD causing schizophrenia cases are generally put down to theories of a recessive gene/latent family history.