I think that testing for drugs such as Marijuana as a prerequisite to hiring someone is useless and stupid. There are plenty of legitimate uses for it, as well as times/places where the use of marijuana is legal. Amsterdam is a perfect example. I think that so long as someone is not intoxicated on the job, or using company money/property, it shouldn't even be a question asked.
Say, for example, someone walks in wearing a nice suit for a really good job, does excellent in all the tests needed, has every bit of skill needed, and has no criminal record. He is sure to be hired, because he's the best suited for the job. Now what if he likes to smoke marijuana sometimes? Even once a month is enough. They take his urine sample, it comes back positive for THC, and he doesn't get the job. Even if he smoked almost a month ago, he still doesn't get the job.

Now take the young Jamaican, who, as part of his religion and spirituality, smokes a little of the herb. This is a rare case probably, as few rastafarians like to submit themselves to the tedium of corporate work, but just give me some leeway here. Anyway, the man goes in, gets tested, does well, then does his drug test. Turns up positive of course. He is rejected for smoking weed, even though this is his religious practice. Legally, this shouldn't be allowed, but it is, as there are no questions posed as to what the marijuana is used for. It's simply assumed, no matter what, that it is for illegal purposes. I still think this is illegal, and discriminatory. Discuss.

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

1. The war on Drugs is all about keeping the price up. (Just as our current war stems from the Bush bunch wanting to get their hands on more mid-Asian oil but that's another story.)

2. Buy the book Drug Testing at Work by Beverly A. Potter, Ph.D. and J. Sebastian Orfali, M.A. It gives an even handed overview of this issue and provides some work-arounds to the tests. They explain what tests exists, what your legal rights are, what mimics you can take to make your positive look like a false positive and so on.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

Exactly.

The war on drugs can only be fought on the demand side. You've probably heard it said before, but it is a simple truth that comes from the law of economics. (ie, that as supply dwindles (what most country's anti-drug endeavors try to accomplish), demand exceeds supply, thereby raising the price people are willing to pay for the scarce drug, which in turn draws more suppliers into the market because of the increased price they can sell it for.)

If countries are wise, they should be asking themselves how they can decrease demand.

I'm one of those that think marijuana should be legal. Like anything, if used in moderation, it's perfectly fine. And even if used in immoderation, it's a lot better than using alcohol immoderately.

I'd wager that both republican and democrat administrations do this.

---
I ate a hooker half a bottle of knife.

I'd wager that both republican and democrat administrations do this.

---

Yeah, but I don't really think that's what the war is about. It's about creating the impression that something's being done to combat terrorism. But as you say, that's another story.

I'd wager that both republican and democrat administrations do this.

---

I am not dumb enough to take that bet. The Gore's only wish they were so closely tied to the action.

There is a French book out I would like to see published in English. "Ben Laden: La Vérité Interdite" or "Bin Laden: The Forbidden Truth". A US agent got fed up with being balked in his fight against terrorists by American oil interests and spilled his guts. Then, oddly enough, he died in the WTC on Sept 11.

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

The reasons for the War on Drugs are very complicated, so much so that it's fair to say that there's no such thing. It's a bundle of (mostly stupid) ideas that can be mobilized for many different purposes and programs, at the local, national, and international levels, by both states and private interests. So (for example) drug testing at Avondale Shipyards in New Orleans and crop defoliation in Colombia are both done in the name of the drug war, but the real agendas underlying these policies have absolutely nothing in common. Absolutely nothing. This drug war stuff is just a way of shutting down debate. It's like saying you're against evil.

---
What others say about boorite!

I would never say such a thing!

But I agree, such an inflammatory issue does help justify a lot of acts when the populous has the attention span of... of a... what were we talking about?

---
"Jelly-belly gigglin, dancin and a-wigglin, honey that's the way I am!" Janice the Muppet

My senior year of college, I took a class called "The Chemistry of Drugs and Drug Dependency". The professor was an intriguingly insane ex-Jesuit by the name of Dan Perrine. The text, written by Perrine himself, is probably the most lucid and engaging treatment of the subject of illicit drugs I've ever seen. Here's a quote. Of all the textbooks I've read, this is the only one I recommend to other people. Yes, it does contain sections on the actual chemistry of the drugs being discussed. He told us to skip those parts when studying.

While I'm dispensing quotes, here are two more that relate to boorite's post about smokescreen issues.

---
The what mentioned above is total fiction. Please don't take it seriously!

To me, it (the war in Afghanistan) seems like a distractionary tactic. This is probably the case for a lot of American-started wars. I mean, the American people need a lot to distr-
Ooooh, shiny!

---
Do you want ants? Because that's how you get ants.

I think everyone should have the right to make their own decisions. I fully support a person's right to do to their own body what they wish. If you want to use drugs, have long hair, pierce your nose, jump off a cliff... you go right ahead and do it.

But I also think that if a particular company doesn't want its employees to use drugs, or wishes to enforce a dress code, that is completely within their right. I don't particularly like dressing up for work, but I do it because I'm required to. I'd much prefer to wear shorts and t-shirts to work, but I suck it up because I'd rather have a job I enjoy than work at McDonalds. (Where they'd make me wear even faggier outfits.)

If you don't like the way a company runs then go start your own. Then you can wear bunny slippers to work and smoke dope to your hearts content.

---
100 pounds of shit in a 25 pound sack.

Why have I not read this thread until now?

I guess anything worth saying has already been said, I'm very pro-marijuana and take quite frequent trips to Amsterdam, more or less everyone I know (including my boss) knows I'm a stoner, but they don't really care, so long as I get the job done.

But if I were going for a new job, I'd accept that I'd have to cut down and even stop for a period of adjustment in order to better myself. Of course, once my foot was in the door....

sorry, I forgot what I was talking about!

---
Dad was flammable