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

October surprise

News
Sunday, October 12, 2014
roundup-logo-thumb-14BY LINDA BAKER

Cylvia Hayes, tabloid vs. watchdog journalism and the looming threat of a Cascadia earthquake.


Read more...

Election Season

November/December 2014
Wednesday, October 22, 2014

We didn’t intend this issue to have an election season theme. But politics has a way of seeping into the cracks and fissures.


Read more...

Healthcare Perspective

November/December 2014
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
BY KIM MOORE

A conversation with Majd El-Azma, president and CEO of LifeWise Health Plan of Oregon, followed by the Healthcare Powerlist.


Read more...

Gone Girl

News
Monday, September 29, 2014
roundup-logo-thumb-14BY LINDA BAKER | OB EDITOR

Wehby disappears, Kitzhaber fails to disclose and Seattle gets bike share before Portland.


Read more...

The short list: 5 hot coffee shops for entrepreneurs

Contributed Blogs
Friday, November 14, 2014

CupojoeBY JESSICA RIDGWAY

Oregon entrepreneurs reveal their favorite caffeine hangouts.


Read more...

100 Best Nonprofits announced

News
Thursday, October 02, 2014

100NP14logo4WebOregon Business magazine has named the sixth annual 100 Best Nonprofits to Work for in Oregon.


Read more...

Political Clout

November/December 2014
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
BY KIM MOORE

Businesses spend billions of dollars each year trying to influence political decision makers by piling money into campaigns.


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