I'm against it. What you do in your free time is completely up to you. Now if you're high at work or it's affecting your job performance, than that's completely different (and there should be safety nets in place to weed out the poor workers anyway).
Bottom line, I wouldn't work for a company who subjected you to that level of scrutiny.
Thank god you don't live in america then. Over 50% of employees do that, and all skilled level jobs do that (that might be a very small amount that don't, but I haven't heard of any).
A) Only three drug types have actual proven neurotoxicity; alcohol, methamphetamine, and MDMA. (I suppose you could include inhalants but they are not neurotoxic in their own regard, simply in the reduction of oxygen to the brain.) I implore you to find a legitimate study indicating otherwise. Please check YOUR facts prior to making a generalized claim.
The facebook analogy is to demonstrate that an employer is seeking to find personal information regarding decisions you make in your personal life. I actually do manage a large business and I understand and deal with the legal ramifications for discriminatory termination of employment. If you had read my first post, I state explicitly that if an employee appears to be a drug user, that is absolutely NO grounds for termination... The grounds for termination can very easily be performance based. If all recreational drug users as you claim have diminished performances, then it is very simple to fire someone for inadequate performance.
Yes, for the fifth time, I understand that it is legal under U.S. law. Segregation was also legal... as was slavery... as were Jim Crow laws. The point of having such a discussion is to question the morality and/or validity of said practices, not to determine if they are constitutional.
Also, you are incorrect in your 100% of people who do not do drugs statement as well... I would not prefer that and I do not use drugs. However, somehow, your broad generalization isn't surprising to me. Please bring some facts into the argument. If you'd like to bring up statistics, try finding some from a valid study and not numbers that you have arbitrarily assigned to prove a point.
I'm not going to spend any time to prove something that is already proven. How stupid is that? Drugs are illegal because of their serious health risks, which have been proven. Cigarettes would be illegal too, but they lobbyist where smart enough to drop a shitfuck ton of money from the start. Now there are too many legal users to make it illegal. There are many many many drugs that cause brain deterioration. As long as you are arguing that drugs are safe to use, this argument is completely pointless. If drugs where safe to use, then they wouldn't be illegal, and everyone would take them and enjoy the high.
The facebook thing is 100% different. If they asked for permission to view only your illegal activity that is on facebook. Then sure, that makes sense. They are not asking only to see illegal activity and nothing else. They are asking to see EVERYTHING you have ever done on facebook. Every personal message. Every personal wall post. Every picture that is hidden. Every poke that you currently have. They are given complete and utter access to your personal life. THAT IS A BREACH.
On the other hand, all that a drug test does is check for illegal activity. It doesn't tell you anything about the person except if they do drugs. It doesn't tell if you are pregnant, it doesn't tell if you have std's, it doesn't tell if you are gay. It reveals nothing whatsoever beyond what they are asking to see. Your facebook example is a terrible fucking example, because you comparing a simple test that only checks for one single thing, that happens to be against the law, to complete and utter access to someones personal information. Thus you are providing a fallacy, which has no place in this argument. I will no longer respond to any mention at all of this facebook bs. Its nothing even close to a drug test, and should never have been mentioned.
First of all. Hiring an employee who has shit for performance and firing them a week later gives you an immediate loss of profit. Why would you deny a company a very basic test for responsibility? It looses you money to fire an employee within the first 30 days of him being hired (Given that you follow all of the tax laws and everything). So you are saying that a company shouldn't have the right to make a basic test that proves the person at least wants the job?
And the fact that you would like to be denied a job for a reason that doesn't exist, then take a simple test, makes this argument 100% meaningless. You do not take employment serious.
That's why employers should be able to randomly drug test their employees. Someone who stops using to get a job then starts using again obviously doesn't care too much for their job.
The issue that WharfRat and some others seem to bring up is that employers should only be able to drug test after an incident in the workplace occurs (at least from the way their previous posts are written this is what it seems like). That to me is the most idiotic way of doing things. The idea is to prevent incidents from occuring, not find a reason to blame someone after its already happened... In laymans terms that's like only fueling your car up after it has stopped because the tank is empty (mild incident) or only attempting to put oil in the engine after the light comes on and the motor is making strange noises.
Prevention by random screening and subsequent firing of users as they may pose a serious safety hazard is a much better solution then waiting for them to cause an accident.
With that being said, I don't really think it is necessary that all employers need to drug test their employees. Those who are in critical thinking jobs, those who are operating transport, heavy machinery, builders / manual laborers yes they should. Low level employees / sales assistants / checkout chicks etc don't pose a huge danger to anyone unless they are required to drive somewhere / operate equipment.
The act of not smoking until you get a job shows you at least want to have a job. An employee that doesn't want to have a job, will never performance an employee wants. I think its critical to at least know if the person you are hiring wants to have the job (Meaning they can resist picking up a blunt for a month).
lol i know stoners that are more hard working and less clumsy than the other workers, of course they don't do it on the job, because that would be stupid. People who assume that someone who does drugs will end up doing them at work are just stupid, i've not known of anyone being high whilst at work. At the end of the day if the job gets done fine and the performance levels are more than good then what's the problem with what they do in their spare time?
So say you have been doing drugs for 8 years. And you apply for a job at a company. You work for them six months, and then develop a mental defect because of the drugs you've been taking for years. You then go to work like that, and screw up, costing the company thousands of dollars. All of this could have been prevented because of a simple test, At what point is that fair to the employer? It doesn't matter if they are hard working, responsible, and only do it at home. The majority of illegal drugs have multiple studies that PROVE they cause serious effects on the body. Those effects can easily cost a company thousands of dollars in damages. Especially if you are driving someone somewhere and have a stroke at the age of 30 because of your drug usage.