Drug Testing. Vol. Why us, but not them???

11,021
11,895
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Let me preface this thread by stating that I do not and will never work in an industry that requires drug testing, so this issue does not necessarily effect me personally...




I pose this question because it has been recently brought to my attention that many important and high-profile occupations (Medical, financial, and law enforcement) do not initially drug test workers, nor must employees ever submit to random drug tests (at least in the state of California).


A proposition just failed to pass in California that would have, amongst other things, make hospitals randomly test their physicians for substance abuse... The reason why this specific proposition failed though was because of the monetary limit on malpractice lawsuits being raised, which was argued would raise health care costs and lower accessibility with the possibility of many health care services being wiped away.


The main gripe I have with not making drug testing mandatory for doctors, lawyers, financial workers, DA's, and other occupations, while drug testing people who work at somewhere as simple as best buy or whole foods, is that these people do not have literally have people's lives in their hands...

It's a scary thought that a doctor in surgery could be gone off a couple Norco's while performing an appendectomy... essentially using the same drugs we're scared kids grooming my husky at Petco using.






I'd like to know your thoughts on drug test policies for employees in the United States and should initial and random drug testing be mandatory for ALL employees, regardless of their income and status.
 
Drug testing shouldn't be necessary for every profession, only when you have people's lives in your hands.

What I say is all the people on welfare should be drug tested. I get drug tested so I can earn them their money. :smh:
 
Drug testing should only be for jobs that require a certain level of skill and should only test for drugs that severely limit motor function many hours after the drug has been taken.

Whether you operate a crane or try cases...a joint should be nothing to be bothered by. Now if they test positive for things like PCP and heroin then yea there's a problem.
 
Just because someone uses drugs doesn't make them an addict or effect their lives in a negative way... There's plenty of people who use drugs responsibly...
 
46 failed not only because of the drug testing. there were 3 very different, but all important factors in that one prop.
 
46 failed not only because of the drug testing. there were 3 very different, but all important factors in that one prop.

I agree. I stated one of the reasons in my OP

Just because someone uses drugs doesn't make them an addict or effect their lives in a negative way... There's plenty of people who use drugs responsibly...

I agree. But there has to be line drawn somewhere.
 
Drug testing shouldn't be necessary for every profession, only when you have people's lives in your hands.

What I say is all the people on welfare should be drug tested. I get drug tested so I can earn them their money. :smh:

I would agree with this as long as anyone who receives government assistance is drug tested... :wink:
 
Random drug testing doctors would not be a good thing....I know plenty that are casual drug users
 
I used a urinator everytime I need to get drug tested. No way anyone can tell can rock it with basketball shorts. Anyways long story short I never sweat a drug test
 
The same way a person trying to work at McDonald's can cheat a drug test, so can a potential doctor. Maybe no drug testing at all would be better.

Personally, if I had the choice of a drunk doctor or a doctor who smoked green, I'd choose the smoker.

It's about time to just legalize it all. I know this isn't feasible, but... Hell I wanna smoke freely
 
How does it work with states that have legalized marijuana? If you get tested and have a script then itd be ok yeh? But are you allowed to be medicated at work is what ive always wondered, I mean its legal yeh?
 
How does it work with states that have legalized marijuana? If you get tested and have a script then itd be ok yeh? But are you allowed to be medicated at work is what ive always wondered, I mean its legal yeh?

Federally, marijuana is still illegal. Therefore, if you have it in your system, you can still be fired.

It will remain that way until a company says otherwise.


There was a case of a man being paralyzed I believe and he had a prescription for mj in Cali. He worked for a cable company, and for some reason had to be drug tested. He told them about his prescription and all and was still fired.
 
Last edited:
Terrible proposition, it combined two things that had no relation to each other - drug testing of doctors and raising malpractice penalties.
 
Terrible proposition, it combined two things that had no relation to each other - drug testing of doctors and raising malpractice penalties.

But there is a relationship between doctors and malpractice suits.

If a doctor failed a drug test and happened to have a malpractice suit against him, I'd imagine that would be brought up in court
 
I've worked in Airlines, Clinical labs and now Biotech. We always send all employees for drug screening. They can be making $12 an hour as a line worker or $500k as a medical director, they all go through the same thing.

Out of all the 7-8 job offers I've had so far, contracts always state the offer is based on me passing pre employment successfully. It's a common practice across the board.
 
The average person looking at this prop will go, "well yeah, of course drug testing doctors is a good idea". But that's not the point of this prop. The point is to increase the payouts to trial lawyers.

Drug tests have no way of showing when the drug was taken, no?

I understand it does make sense to drug test doctors and stuff, no one wants their life in someone's hands that's impaired.

But will a joint smoked on February 1 impair their decisions a week later?

Now if a doctor is visibly impaired that's different.

Also more malpractice insurance = more costs for us.

In the end, it's the trial lawyers that's making the money. Look at who funded the proposition.


I disagree with drug tests period tho.
 
The same way a person trying to work at McDonald's can cheat a drug test, so can a potential doctor. Maybe no drug testing at all would be better.

Personally, if I had the choice of a drunk doctor or a doctor who smoked green, I'd choose the smoker.

It's about time to just legalize it all. I know this isn't feasible, but... Hell I wanna smoke freely
soon :pimp:
 
Terrible proposition, it combined two things that had no relation to each other - drug testing of doctors and raising malpractice penalties.

But there is a relationship between doctors and malpractice suits.

If a doctor failed a drug test and happened to have a malpractice suit against him, I'd imagine that would be brought up in court

Although these two issues can be related in a certain way, I do not believe they should have been included in the same proposition...

BTW this thread wasn't made to single out physicians... Sorry to any NT doctors :lol:
 
I am not opposed to drug testing. As an employer, you want to hire people who do not snort crack or smoke pot for recreational use. Why would a manager or supervisor be cool with someone coming into their shift high off drug(s)?
 
Back
Top Bottom