Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 158

Thread: Do you guys test for substances in your employees? (talking about weed obviously)

  1. #61
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bay Area California
    Posts
    28,930
    Post Likes
    You are quite naïve.

    I've often commented to co-workers how someone seemed to be off his game, or a manager was making piss poor decisions. And you know what the usual reply was? Oh, didn't you know he's a doper?

    There's been maybe three guys in the past five years where I am now who I commented on were really annoying to work with. Always asking questions, too much talk, and trotting this way or that, always needing a tool, but productivity low for all of the activity. Come to find, they were jacked up on speed. Or this one guy, on the adderall, legal speed to help you concentrate. Or help with PTSD.

    Nope. Don't need no dopers in my life, doesn't matter whether personal or work.


    Quote Originally Posted by YOUNG FROSTY View Post
    Guys I don't even smoke weed I'm just not in support of making a harmless drug illegal and taboo. We can go in circles all day about how it affects your productivity but I will still firmly maintain that there are many people out there using substances and you'd be none the wiser. The only failures, screw ups, etc you're aware of come from confirmation bias. I had some top level managers before and later down the road I found out they were huge stoners. I would have never guessed, and found it quite impressive they were able to run a tight ship like that.
    I do a triple evac with nitro to remove non condensables.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, United States
    Posts
    1,869
    Post Likes
    I used to work for other companies who do test their employees. Of course upper management wasnt required to get tested. Probably because thier favorite thing to do during their board meetings is dip each other's balls in cocaine... .

    Employers often fail to consider the negative ramifications from testing. The last company I worked for lost several great employees because they tested positive. Their replacements were not nearly as qualified. Mandatory testing creates an atmosphere of distrust between management and employees which in turns harms moral. Ultimately if you do mandatory testing you'll likely have a company filled with workers who will only do the least amount to keep from getting fired.

  3. Likes YOUNG FROSTY liked this post.
  4. #63
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    5,891
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by BBeerme View Post
    That's not a problem any more. In any state. First let me say, I don't want to be on a site or a job with a stoner. To many things go wrong, and I don't want my name attached to those mistakes and/or problems. That being said, I was one of the biggest stoners you would have ever seen back in the 70's. Started this trade in something like 1982, smoked a little, but nothing like before I went to trade school. Then I began smoking less and less.

    I wasn't trying to quit, it's just that the job was requiring more and more brain power and memory. Then as I began smoking less and less, I realized it took a whole week to get completely sober again. So, what really happened is, I just out grew the dope. Career and other goals in life became more important. After five years in the trade, there just wasn't any more room for the dope in my life.

    Now, back to your absurd discriminatory comment. THC has no medical benefit. But the oils in the dope plant do. Those oils have some rather miraculous results, potentially anecdotal, but regardless, if they take away pain and make other things in life more tolerable, more power to those people.

    That's why your comment is so absurd. If you are a doper because you think you are receiving health or medical benefits from smoking a plant, just buy the CBD oil. No THC in the oil, it's been extracted. So you can pee clean and still receive the health benefits from the dope plant.

    Not to mention your lungs will thank you!!

    THC does have medical benefits.

    CBD vs. THC: Medical benefits

    CBD and THC have many of the same medical benefits. They can provide relief from several of the same conditions. However, CBD doesn’t cause the euphoric effects that occur with THC. Some people may prefer to use CBD because of the lack of this side effect.

    https://www.healthline.com/health/cb...dical-benefits

    I know of several people who get medical marijuana. One in particular does not want any THC but the ones with it are the only ones that help her. She has tried all the oils and lowest amounts of THC but they do not help without the higher THC content. She is just so against it that she avoids using it because of it.
    Signature removed Violated rule #15

  5. Likes YOUNG FROSTY liked this post.
  6. #64
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bay Area California
    Posts
    28,930
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by James Colver View Post
    I used to work for other companies who do test their employees. Of course upper management wasnt required to get tested. Probably because thier favorite thing to do during their board meetings is dip each other's balls in cocaine... .

    Employers often fail to consider the negative ramifications from testing. The last company I worked for lost several great employees because they tested positive. Their replacements were not nearly as qualified. Mandatory testing creates an atmosphere of distrust between management and employees which in turns harms moral. Ultimately if you do mandatory testing you'll likely have a company filled with workers who will only do the least amount to keep from getting fired.
    Before the Chinese bat fever came to town earlier this year, most employers that I know of had to drop the drug testing because otherwise they could never get a prospective employee to pass. And they needed bodies to get jobs done.
    I do a triple evac with nitro to remove non condensables.

  7. Likes YOUNG FROSTY liked this post.
  8. #65
    Join Date
    Sep 2020
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    141
    Post Likes
    Thread Starter
    Quote Originally Posted by BBeerme View Post
    You are quite naïve.

    I've often commented to co-workers how someone seemed to be off his game, or a manager was making piss poor decisions. And you know what the usual reply was? Oh, didn't you know he's a doper?

    There's been maybe three guys in the past five years where I am now who I commented on were really annoying to work with. Always asking questions, too much talk, and trotting this way or that, always needing a tool, but productivity low for all of the activity. Come to find, they were jacked up on speed. Or this one guy, on the adderall, legal speed to help you concentrate. Or help with PTSD.

    Nope. Don't need no dopers in my life, doesn't matter whether personal or work.
    I am not naive. It's just evident that you and i have different life experiences with different sets of people. I've known my fair share of deadbeat stoners, believe me. I've also known my fair share of deadbeat sober people as well. And as I've mentioned before, I've known several high performing individuals that were heavy weed users. Also you keep saying "dopers", but honestly dope has referred to heroin over the last 30 years. I don't support heroin use.

  9. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Beatrice, NE
    Posts
    12,680
    Post Likes
    [QUOTE=YOUNG FROSTY;25964193]Guys I don't even smoke weed I'm just not in support of making a harmless drug illegal and taboo. We can go in circles all day about how it affects your productivity but I will still firmly maintain that there are many people out there using substances and you'd be none the wiser. The only failures, screw ups, etc you're aware of come from confirmation bias. I had some top level managers before and later down the road I found out they were huge stoners. I would have never guessed, and found it quite impressive they were able to run a tight ship like that.[/QUOTE

    Here is the problem I have with this post, you can’t prove a negative. I can’t debate how well these guys did their job, I don’t know period. The other side of that coin is you can’t prove that they would not have done better had the not been doing the drugs of choice. If someone can make $250/hr revenue on average while doing drugs it is quite possible they could do $300 without for example.

  10. #67
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    5,891
    Post Likes
    [QUOTE=BNME8EZ;25964222]
    Quote Originally Posted by YOUNG FROSTY View Post
    Guys I don't even smoke weed I'm just not in support of making a harmless drug illegal and taboo. We can go in circles all day about how it affects your productivity but I will still firmly maintain that there are many people out there using substances and you'd be none the wiser. The only failures, screw ups, etc you're aware of come from confirmation bias. I had some top level managers before and later down the road I found out they were huge stoners. I would have never guessed, and found it quite impressive they were able to run a tight ship like that.[/QUOTE

    Here is the problem I have with this post, you can’t prove a negative. I can’t debate how well these guys did their job, I don’t know period. The other side of that coin is you can’t prove that they would not have done better had the not been doing the drugs of choice. If someone can make $250/hr revenue on average while doing drugs it is quite possible they could do $300 without for example.
    You are talking about a hypothetical what could they have done. Why not judge and pay them on what they did do?
    Signature removed Violated rule #15

  11. Likes YOUNG FROSTY liked this post.
  12. #68
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bay Area California
    Posts
    28,930
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by YOUNG FROSTY View Post
    I am not naive. It's just evident that you and i have different life experiences with different sets of people. I've known my fair share of deadbeat stoners, believe me. I've also known my fair share of deadbeat sober people as well. And as I've mentioned before, I've known several high performing individuals that were heavy weed users. Also you keep saying "dopers", but honestly dope has referred to heroin over the last 30 years. I don't support heroin use.
    Well it has been about 35 years since I have been a doper, so that would explain your confusion with terminology.
    I do a triple evac with nitro to remove non condensables.

  13. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Beatrice, NE
    Posts
    12,680
    Post Likes
    [QUOTE=pageyjim;25964224]
    Quote Originally Posted by BNME8EZ View Post

    You are talking about a hypothetical what could they have done. Why not judge and pay them on what they did do?
    You missed the point. He was claiming that the guys did good while using if I understood correctly. This had nothing to do with the pay they received. It was about how they may have been better not using.

  14. #70
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    5,891
    Post Likes
    [QUOTE=BNME8EZ;25964235]
    Quote Originally Posted by pageyjim View Post

    You missed the point. He was claiming that the guys did good while using if I understood correctly. This had nothing to do with the pay they received. It was about how they may have been better not using.
    " He was claiming that the guys did good while using if I understood correctly."
    That goes in line with what I said about judging them and paying them on what they do. And That is the OP's position that you are trying to refute.


    "This had nothing to do with the pay they received." YOU brought up performance/hr. Doesn't that relate directly to pay?
    Signature removed Violated rule #15

  15. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    79,686
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by YOUNG FROSTY View Post
    I am not naive. It's just evident that you and i have different life experiences with different sets of people. I've known my fair share of deadbeat stoners, believe me. I've also known my fair share of deadbeat sober people as well. And as I've mentioned before, I've known several high performing individuals that were heavy weed users. Also you keep saying "dopers", but honestly dope has referred to heroin over the last 30 years. I don't support heroin use.
    As has been pointed out, you have no way to know how well they would have done if they weren't smoking weed.

    By your post, you know of far more people that weren't worth much while using. And just a few that seemed to be doing good, or not adversely affected by it in the professional lives.. Hardly points to weed not hampering most people.
    Contractor locator map

    How-to-apply-for-Professional

    How many times must one fix something before it is fixed?

  16. #72
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    5,891
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by beenthere View Post
    As has been pointed out, you have no way to know how well they would have done if they weren't smoking weed.

    By your post, you know of far more people that weren't worth much while using.

    "worth much while using"??

    Does that mean getting high on the job? If so you are probably right. How many people go home and have a couple drinks many nights? How many people only drink socially or on weekends? The Op seems to be talking largely about people or hypothetically himself getting high on the weekends. I have seen more problems with daily performance related to alcohol than pot. That is just anecdotal evidence but was so obvious it needs to be said. So in the end people who get high on the weekends get treated worse than people with a real drinking problem.

    In the end I know businesses will test and that means making a life decision for individuals. This is the biggest argument to stop getting high whether it is fair or not but not hypothetical arguments about performance from the casual smoker.
    Signature removed Violated rule #15

  17. Likes YOUNG FROSTY liked this post.
  18. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    79,686
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by pageyjim View Post
    "worth much while using"??

    Does that mean getting high on the job? If so you are probably right. How many people go home and have a couple drinks many nights? How many people only drink socially or on weekends? The Op seems to be talking largely about people or hypothetically himself getting high on the weekends. I have seen more problems with daily performance related to alcohol than pot. That is just anecdotal evidence but was so obvious it needs to be said. So in the end people who get high on the weekends get treated worse than people with a real drinking problem.

    In the end I know businesses will test and that means making a life decision for individuals. This is the biggest argument to stop getting high whether it is fair or not but not hypothetical arguments about performance from the casual smoker.
    Someone that smokes every weekend, isn't a casual smoker.
    Contractor locator map

    How-to-apply-for-Professional

    How many times must one fix something before it is fixed?

  19. #74
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bay Area California
    Posts
    28,930
    Post Likes
    Used to be I'd smoke weed every weekend. And everyday in between. At the time, I thought that was normal.


    Quote Originally Posted by beenthere View Post
    Someone that smokes every weekend, isn't a casual smoker.
    I do a triple evac with nitro to remove non condensables.

  20. #75
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    5,891
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by beenthere View Post
    Someone that smokes every weekend, isn't a casual smoker.
    But it is less than a social drinker. Hmmmmm



    https://fountainhillcenter.org/relat...ps-to-alcohol/

    2: A Social User (Low Risk)
    Second, there is what I call a Social User. Social Users regularly drink in small amounts, perhaps as much as 4-5 times a week, or as little as 1-2 times a month. Either way, the key is small amounts.*

    After having 1-3 drinks, a social user usually draws a boundary and doesn’t have more. They get a little tired, feel a bit out of control, or they have a buzz and say that’s enough. This is why the abstainer and social user categories are labeled “low risk.” These types rarely have problems related to alcohol.

    An exception to this category is when a person regularly consumes 1-3 drinks on most nights to calm their anxieties in order to sleep. This would be an example of using alcohol as a way of self-medicating, which can be harmful.
    Signature removed Violated rule #15

  21. #76
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bay Area California
    Posts
    28,930
    Post Likes
    That's rather comical. One might go to sleep sooner or simply pass out, but hardly helps in [or to] sleep.


    Quote Originally Posted by pageyjim View Post
    But it is less than a social drinker. Hmmmmm



    https://fountainhillcenter.org/relat...ps-to-alcohol/

    2: A Social User (Low Risk)
    Second, there is what I call a Social User. Social Users regularly drink in small amounts, perhaps as much as 4-5 times a week, or as little as 1-2 times a month. Either way, the key is small amounts.*

    After having 1-3 drinks, a social user usually draws a boundary and doesn’t have more. They get a little tired, feel a bit out of control, or they have a buzz and say that’s enough. This is why the abstainer and social user categories are labeled “low risk.” These types rarely have problems related to alcohol.

    An exception to this category is when a person regularly consumes 1-3 drinks on most nights to calm their anxieties in order to sleep. This would be an example of using alcohol as a way of self-medicating, which can be harmful.
    I do a triple evac with nitro to remove non condensables.

  22. #77
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Garner NC
    Posts
    2,410
    Post Likes
    i actually like knowing others are on drugs......I will never be unemployed by fixing all of their mistakes! roflamo!

  23. Likes BBeerme, heatingman liked this post.
  24. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    79,686
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by pageyjim View Post
    But it is less than a social drinker. Hmmmmm



    https://fountainhillcenter.org/relat...ps-to-alcohol/

    2: A Social User (Low Risk)
    Second, there is what I call a Social User. Social Users regularly drink in small amounts, perhaps as much as 4-5 times a week, or as little as 1-2 times a month. Either way, the key is small amounts.*

    After having 1-3 drinks, a social user usually draws a boundary and doesn’t have more. They get a little tired, feel a bit out of control, or they have a buzz and say that’s enough. This is why the abstainer and social user categories are labeled “low risk.” These types rarely have problems related to alcohol.

    An exception to this category is when a person regularly consumes 1-3 drinks on most nights to calm their anxieties in order to sleep. This would be an example of using alcohol as a way of self-medicating, which can be harmful.
    Smoking every weekend, is more than once or twice a month. So no, its not less than a social drinker.
    Contractor locator map

    How-to-apply-for-Professional

    How many times must one fix something before it is fixed?

  25. #79
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Bay Area California
    Posts
    28,930
    Post Likes
    You guys are going to drive me to drink. After dressing up and mowing the yard, think I'm gonna start drinking.
    I do a triple evac with nitro to remove non condensables.

  26. Likes Red Man liked this post.
  27. #80
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    5,891
    Post Likes
    Quote Originally Posted by beenthere View Post
    Smoking every weekend, is more than once or twice a month. So no, its not less than a social drinker.
    You only used half of the sentence. Is that typical for you to only use half of a sentence? SAD! Also the term "weekends" was used as a general term, EVERY weekend wasn't stated as such but even if it was.

    A social drinker can drink up to 4-5 times a week so yes it can be less than a social drinker my half sentence cherry picking friend.
    Last edited by pageyjim; 11-21-2020 at 06:09 PM.
    Signature removed Violated rule #15

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •