Home Archives March 2007 The drug dilemma

The drug dilemma

| Print |  Email
Thursday, March 01, 2007

One of the issues that has always frustrated me regarding drug testing [THE FIX, FEBRUARY] is the blatant unfairness of the idea or the program itself. I would wager that the statistical percentage of accidents and drug use in states that allow (or demand) employers to test is no more nor less than those states where employers do not feel the need to do so. But leaving the morass of statistics aside for the moment, there is an inherent social and class unfairness within Oregon’s drug testing processes.

Many employers (legal, creative, communications, engineering, etc.) have no drug-testing policies. So whether one is required to test or not is dependent upon what type of industry one works in. It is most often employees who do physical labor, and who have the least assets, education, or social status, who are required to take drug tests. I have worked in environments where the blue-collar (union) staff was randomly tested and the office staff (non-union) was not.

In this society, most of us are drug users; it’s just that some molecules have been determined legal, and some not. If you drink a beer or have a cigarette, you’re a drug user.

The drug-testing process in Oregon is heavily weighted against a specific economic and social class. If we are truly going to be serious about drug use in this state, we should test all employees in all jobs (even yours) for both illegal and legal drugs.

Joseph Blanchette
Portland


Drugs in the workplace should not be tolerated. If anybody is using drugs in the workplace, then they should be fired. You should be able to give your employer a full day’s work without being high. However, if I smoke a joint after work, then it’s my time, not the employer’s. You have to also look at what type of drug an individual chooses to use.

The death drugs — heroin, meth, crack, coke — produce effects that are pretty easy to identify as counterproductive and will show up in the employee’s performance. That is when an employer should step in and not before. The control freaks forget that Americans are a free, don’t-tread-on-me type of people. We resent being told what we can do with our free time.

Larry Clarke
Portland


I am a recovering drug addict with two years clean. I can remember working under the influence of meth and wishing my employer enforced random drug screening, because maybe then I would have seen that I had a problem. The thing is, addicts don’t care; they are selfish. I know I was. I didn’t care about my employer. All I cared about was getting loaded again, even if it was at work, during work, before work or on my lunch break.

Now that I have been clean for a short time, I am pro-drug screening, whether it is for pre-employment or if it is random. An addict may need to lose their job to realize that they have a problem, but sometimes it takes much more than that. The problem is that there is not enough funding help out there for addicts to get help.

Erin Johnson
Portland


I agree that many competent employees would be lost due to drug tests. But rather than stricter policies, which I am not necessarily opposed to, I believe that more effective tests need to be implemented. To my knowledge, most tests used will detect toxins in the system for up to a month from the initial usage. This is unfair evidence to terminate an employee. Just as John Murphy stated in the article, “I’ve empathized with workers on marijuana coming off the weekend.”

Many responsible users do not use prior to or during work hours, which is no different than an employee having a cocktail or beer after work. As long as they are sober and ready to work the next day, it’s their personal agenda and it shouldn’t put their job at risk. I realize it sounds as if I’m promoting illegal drug use, but that’s a separate issue and should be addressed by the individual and our legal system.

Jason Bailey
Portland

 

Have an opinion? E-mail This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

 

More Articles

Oversight? Or gaming the system?

News
Monday, July 14, 2014
AmazonBY VIVIAN MCINERNY | OB BLOGGER

Some people think Amazon’s winking eye logo is starting to look like a hoodwink.


Read more...

Who said we should sell in May?

Contributed Blogs
Friday, July 18, 2014
BullMarketBY JASON NORRIS | OB GUEST CONTRIBUTOR

Back in May, we shared a common Wall Street quote about investing, “Sell in May and go away.” Fast forward to July and the most common question we have been getting from clients is, “When is the market pullback going to occur?”


Read more...

Two sides of the coin

Contributed Blogs
Monday, August 25, 2014
0825 thumb moneyBY JASON NORRIS | OB GUEST BLOGGER

Ferguson Wellman’s investment views on the economy and capital markets.


Read more...

Video: The 100 Best Survey

News
Thursday, August 28, 2014

100-best-logo-2015 500pxw-1OB Research Editor Kim Moore shares some pointers about the 100 Best Companies to Work For survey.


Read more...

Launch

September 2014
Tuesday, August 26, 2014
BY JESSICA RIDGWAY

September's Launch article features Orchid Health, BuddyUp and Inter-Europe Consulting.


Read more...

College Hacker

September 2014
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
BY KLINT FINLEY

Treehouse CEO Ryan Carson builds a 21st-century trade school.


Read more...

Trends in business succession

News
Thursday, July 03, 2014
TrendsBY TED AUSTIN & MIKE BAELE | GUEST CONTRIBUTORS

The Office of Economic Analysis announced that Oregon is currently enjoying the strongest job growth since 2006. While this resurgence has been welcome, the lingering effects of the 2008 “Great Recession” continues to affect Oregon businesses, especially with regard to estate planning and business succession.


Read more...
Oregon Business magazinetitle-sponsored-links-02
SPONSORED LINKS