top 58 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 103 points 1 month ago (27 children)

We’ve had a sign posted at work saying “We are proud to be a drug-free workplace. All new and current employees are subject to drug testing at any time.”

Not. Once. Not even when Jimmy came in to work each evening with the smell of weed wafting off of him. I could probably lay rails on my work table right in front of the security camera and hit one each hour and nothing would happen.

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 88 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (26 children)

    Sure, but that's not what the policies are for. If/when someone gets injured on the job the policy is standardly they require you to take a drug test then. If you fail you were breaking policy and the injury is deemed your fault, thus taking all responsibility of paying you workers comp off the table. Happens every day across the U.S. (that said I believe you can fight it, as you aren't always automatically eliminated if you fail the drug test, you will have an up hill battle though)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I worked at a factory in the rural south the year (2022) they quietly did away with marijuana testing, even for spot violations. Turns out the standard reasoning, "the insurance company says," doesn't really matter... they didn't care and allowed a 9-panel to be used in all testing matters.

    The unofficial reason I heard is, they go through the same workers on rotation, the good employees get hired back and forth. Drunks are chaotic, tweakers introduce drugs and are chaotic. Stoners are quiet and show up on time, and cause 0% of the fights, and tend to come with less of a rap sheet for terroristic threats and domestics.

    They almost tripped over themselves to look the other way on my stonership...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Yeah I remember when my factory hired a young woman to head HR shortly after weed was legalized where I lived and she immediately got to ensuring we wouldn't be punished for smoking. The stoners are rarely a problem, and you really don't want to lose a bunch of people just because their mild drug of choice is fat soluble instead of water soluble

    It does amuse me how I've had doctors and employers drug test me which only pushed me from weed to acid

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Meanwhile I worked at one company in Colorado that didn't test for marijuana at all when I got hired, I specifically asked. Then 6 months later hired some lady from Utah and they started testing all new employees for marijuana and threatening drug tests whenever something happened. Marijuana having been legal in the state for like 15 years at that point.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (21 children)

    For weed, get a medical card, if you can afford it. Usually even in recreational states you can get one and then they can't fire you for it.

    Edit: Citation requested, this applies to some states in the us, but, not all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 month ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago* (2 children)

    Citation? I'm confused, for what? Clearly I'm missing something because 24 people agree with you lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Can you provide any citation that a company can't fire you if you have a medical card? AFAIK that's not true. As I understand it, It's still illegal under federal law, and there is no concept of marijuana as medicine in federal law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    Citation added. To be honest I was repeating what was told to me. I looked into it more and it seems that it depends on what state in the US you are in, not all states will protect you. Appreciate you questioning me, I learned something.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 17 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    You can have a prescription for opiates too.

    Doesn't make it OK to be high at a job where that impairment puts you and others in danger.

    That being said, there's no test for THC that has a narrow enough time window to tell if someone is currently intoxicated. Blood tests are the closest at 6h, but blood levels aren't correlated with intoxication.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago

    I never said it did. I agree its better to use at home after work. Some people have a beer I have a j, shouldnt be drinking at work either. I didnt know they can precisely test for opioids like that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (14 children)

    I live in a state with recreational marijuana, but my current employer's policies specifically prohibit even medical marijuana, and I had to do a pre-employment drug test. Looking for a better job, but I've exhausted unemployment and all my savings, so it pays the bills for now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago* (12 children)

    Is that not protected under anti-disability discrimination legislation in the US?

    I'm on medical cannabis in the UK, while our system is not set up for it at all if an employer took umbrage with it for a non-operational reason (such as operating heavy machinery vs being on it at all) that'd be a fairly open and shut disability discrimination case. Same as if you fired an employee for being on tramadol or similar.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    Absolutely not protected in the US. They can and will fire you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    Christ, how does that work with your doctors being way more keen to prescribe narcotics than ours then? Is it literally a case of follow your doctor's orders or your boss's? That's fucked up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Side note update for you, thanks to the Sacklers and the hell on earth they visited on us via profiteering lying about the opiates they invented, now there's actually a gigantic back swing and it's WAY more difficult to be prescribed strong pain relief, even when badly needed. Count on us to always come up with the worst possible response to a problem, I guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago*

    It gets worse. There was nothing done for the people whose doctors told them these drugs were safe and non addicting and totally fine to take for their ankle sprain or whatever (slight exaggeration, maybe, but truly slight).

    They experienced the same sudden guillotine chop of subscription willingness with no support, mid-addiction.

    So yeah all those people the Sacklers got rich by lying to and addicting, they're just dead now or homeless and on their way there. Damn near to a rule, cuz opiate addiction often can't be beat at all, and almost never without real support.

    It's grim. But the dead and ruined, their voices don't rise to anywhere that people with decision-making power can hear. And that's how our country works, in a nutshell - if you mistreat people a bit, they complain. If you mistreat people all the way, though, they die and go otherwise silent. Forget leopards and their face buffet, we live in a full-on meat grinder.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

    I mean, that’s pretty similar to how it already operated in Australia. I’ve been prescribed oxycodone only as a post-operative painkiller (dry socket after wisdom tooth removal and sinus surgery) and was given fentanyl immediately post-surgery for my sinus surgery, but since they moved codeine from being behind-the-counter to prescription-only (2018), those are the only times I’ve ever been able to access opiates/opioids in my life, despite presenting with debilitating migraines since I was 11 years old.

    At my age, with the knowledge I have now, would I want them for migraines? Hell, no. I don’t want to risk addiction for temporary pain relief. Would I willingly prevent people who experience chronic pain from opiates or opioids? Probably not, but I’m not a doctor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    As is often the case in the US, without someone chiming in with a bunch of specifics, it's hard to understand the scope of what I mean as being as dark as it is. We institutionally went from "no pain is allowed in patients, load em up!" to "patients can fucking deal with it, it probably doesn't even hurt that much", overnight, we didn't land at any semblance of a sane middle ground. Hopefully the pendulum swings will behave like a real pendulum and settle lower and lower, but woof, it's bad out there.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    Prescribed narcotics would be OK as long as related doctor or company restrictions on operating heavy equipment or such were complied with. But in the US marijuana is still federally illegal. The feds usually don't seek out prosecutions where states have legalized at the state level, but banks won't accept business accounts if marijuana is sold because of the federal illegality, and businesses involving heavy machinery generally also still feel the legal risk of explicitly allowing marijuana use is too high.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Ah fair forgot it was still illegal at a federal level. Our situation is different as we're a unitary state with limited devolution, it's still a class B drug here criminally speaking but they moved it into a lighter schedule in other legislation so it could be prescribed like morphine, tramadol, that sort of thing for medical purposes. Recreationally, there's no political courage for legalisation nor much moral authority for harsh prohibition either so the can gets kicked another generation.

    Does that mean US recreational weed businesses are still largely cash based?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago

    It depends. I've been to places I can use my card, but I also have been to ones with an ATM where you have to pay cash. The bigger issues are for stuff like payroll and business expenses as well as business loans.

    Fundamentally, I suspect cannabis will wind up in the domain of our Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms within a decade or two. I hope we can get psychadelics in there too. The process of federally changing its status is ongoing, starting under our previous president.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Weed is only legalized by states here, it’s still federally illegal

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    Yeah, federally it's classified as "no medicinal benefits with high potential for abuse", aka schedule 1. This is why I can sue (or even get the government to sue on my behalf) an employer for firing me when my prescribed amphetamines trip a drug test, but the government can mandate employers that work with it to fire anyone who fails a cannabis test regardless of prescription status.

    Biden was in the process of rescheduling cannabis, and honestly I've got issues with the whole scheduling system considering that it says cannabis and acid are worse than heroin and forces opiates and adhd meds into the same regulatory box despite abuse of them looking more like proper use of the other.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 91 points 1 month ago
    [–] 67 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    America: big on winning wars.

    …Lost the war on terror to terror.

    …Lost the war on drugs to drugs.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    To be fair, America initially lost the war on terror, then switched sides, so they’re technically winning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    We were doing terrorism long before 9/11

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)
  • [–] 59 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    How is it possible that 'companies can't find enough workers' but it takes more applications than ever to find a job? Something doesn't fucking add up

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    For us it's an issue with marketing the position in a manner thay doesn't result in 5,000 automated applications from an Indian headhunter firm that blindly clicks everything.

    I've had a job opening at my city for weeks that pays higher than any other city in the state does for the same position, and we've had a grand total of one applicant who wasn't qualified.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 month ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    It's essentially someone to man the front desk, route phone calls, process simple single-trade building permits, and manage the contractor registry for the building department. It requires either a degree (of any kind just to show minimum qualifications) or experience in administrative duties or in an office or municipal setting.

    Our one applicant has never held a job more than 4 months and it's mostly been retail or restaurant work.

    The catch with the job is the commute sucks. It's a very wealthy area. Literally every homeowner in the city is at least a multi-millionaire, with multiple billionaires, so exactly 0 staff members live in town. We actually pay a pretty large monthly gas stipend on top of every employee's salary.

    And while it shouldn't impact a permit tech, the legal fights we have with residents are wild. The average person we end up in disputes with has more financial resources than the city itself, which is weird. Every city has residents constantly threatening to sue over everything, and 99.99% of the time it's hot air, but with us they actually follow through. Which, oddly enough, makes us less likely to respond to legal threats since we're used to going to court at this point.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 1 month ago (8 children)

    War on drugs do not aim at reducing drug trasfic nor drug use. We all know it has never been effective anywhere for any drug.

    We also know that treating drug as a medical problem is the best way to reduce both use and traffic.

    War on drugs are just a way to force dealers to become more professional, and avoid “freelance” ones. War on drugs are a pure win for drugs, from their start.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 month ago (6 children)

    And to feed the prison industrial complex, of course.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    workers at the charge of public expenses, working for the benefits of private companies 😍

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I see it as a direct continuation of:

    Slavery->Sharecropping and Jim Crow->mass incarceration

    Slavery never ended. The name just changed to be more polite, with a fig leaf of freedom and free will. Additionally we realized two things:

    1. It's more economical to hold slaves in large central facilities than dispersed.

    2. The best way to fight abolitionism is to convince the populace that the slaves deserve it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 month ago

    The war on drugs is an excuse to criminalize being black, poor, or some other flavor of undesirable. Then the police round you up for drugs and put you in prison. Then the three strikes laws came and if it was the third time they got you, it was a felony and you got even more prison time. Add private prisons into the mix and you get judges being bribed to pipeline people into prison, along with prosecutors and police incentivized in other ways to put people in prison and the result is the American prison system, with a higher percentage of incarceration than any other nation in the world. Yes, including the 'repressive' states like China and Russia.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 1 month ago

    "I have to hire a great work force to compete with those cyber criminals and some of those kids want to smoke weed on the way to the interview," - James Comey as FBI director.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›